Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

2 comments

Etheism Defined


2010
09.16

Posted in Religion | 2 Comments »

As was written by the Incompetent Scribe, verily:

I’m just going to say it: God exists.  And while I’m at it, Jehovah exists as well, along with Allah and Buddha.  All of these gods exist, for these are all names for the same concept – the illuminator of the unknown;  what the dead are thinking, what the right answers or what the meaning of this whole life thing is – the universal question mark of Life.  Societies have anthropomorphized their ideal men and women throughout history into father figures, guardians and idols.  During times of hardship, insight was gained by wondering what that God might advise, were he there.  Often, the answer was remarkably revealed to them, when in actual fact it was merely their own subconscious which provided the answer to the edges of awareness.  That this phenomena has been shown to yield results in scientific studies should be all the proof you need that there is a God.

Consider also, the feeling of isolation, of the loneliness that creeps into our lives from time-to-time.  When it is impossible to be truly understood, what great comfort an imaginary friend may be.  The fact that these imaginary characters are beloved by millions only adds to the reality of the delusion.  That another being could feel your unique pain and support you when no-one else did so, well isn’t that the best kind of friend to have?

Finally, when the purpose of Life seems to be a mystery and it’s hard to know who you are, let alone what place you might take in the world, what better role model to have than the perfect man?  When all your friends are losers and your father was a drunk, to know you still had a man like Jesus to look up to was like the North Star in an otherwise black sky.

Who could argue that they don’t exist?  They exist like Leprechauns exist – in our minds.

Ideas can change the world.  The spread of ideas from mind to mind controls the direction of us as a species.  That is why we care about religion so much, why it whips a crowd into a frenzy faster than you can say six Hail Marys.

Religion fulfills a human need.  It comforts us in times of need, provides solace that death is not the end and that we will survive for all Eternity, surrounded by all that is good. It even provides a mechanism whereby we may access our own subconscious to deal with the problems that we have before we get to Heaven.  This meme has been around for centuries.  It may be a virus or a naturally evolved system for dealing with consciousness.  For God knows what a burden self-determination can be sometimes.

To answer all the questions that we can only barely just ask with our current level of development, we need a God.  In a thousand years, and another million after that, we still won’t know what it was all for, just wait and see.  And even if we  have answered every question there is as a people, not every human knows all there is to know, nor can find it and therefore Gods will crop up from time-to-time to offer some mental encouragement.

…

The laws by which energy behaves defines how our world and everything in it exists.  The bouncing of the molecules, the rise and fall of the tides, the neurons firing in our brains with every thought we have, all trace their evolution back to an earlier, simpler form of energy.  Energy runs like chocolate through the mold of the universe, resulting in the Easter egg we call Life.

Popularity: 23% [?]

No Comments

Turning Point


2010
04.11

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Featured, Politics | No Comments »

The assassination of John F. Kennedy is often cited as a major turning point of American politics.  His death was tragic and left a great scar across the political face of the country, leaving it in a state of shock. Whoever was running on the Republican ticket was certain to have a tough time arguing against the policies of a dead man. Yet, Lyndon Baines Johnson’s resounding victory over Barry Goldwater in the election of 1964 was a turning point in itself, and not necessarily a good one.

“Barry Goldwater?  Ain’t he the warmongering racist who opposed the Civil Rights Act?”

Indeed he was, if you believe his detractors.  Though Kennedy’s assassination shadowed his candidacy from the start, his opposition to the Civil Rights Act would doom him to the popularity of a fringe candidate.  Coupled with his consideration of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam, he was easily painted as an extremist, out of touch with the mood of the day.

Yet, the resulting era of dirty politics and over-reaching federal powers still endures to this day.  Barry Goldwater may not have been a great alternative to LBJ, but even had he done what his critics threatened he would, he may still have been a better President than Johnson turned out to be.

Despite the claim, Goldwater didn’t actually oppose the Civil Rights Act because he was a racist.  To him, telling people who they could and couldn’t let onto their property wasn’t consistent with the principles of a free society.  The policy of segregation, of exclusion and public discrimination toward blacks was quite reprehensible, backward even for the 1950s.  Yet, like the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution before them, Federal  statutes only forced compliance, but didn’t address the underlying problem of racism, especially in the South.   ”You cannot pass a law that will make me like you — or you like me,” Goldwater told one rally. “That is something that can only happen in our hearts.”  Goldwater’s downfall was opposing an Act that traded a principle of free speech and association, hateful as it was being employed by some, to treat the symptoms of racism, but not the cure.

People just assumed he was a racist because he opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Barry Goldwater also predicted the current form of the Republican Party.  In an interview with the Washington Post in 1994, the then-retired Arizona senator said

When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

I think we all know how that turned out.

Though Goldwater had alienated many in his own party with his offhand, often reckless remarks, gone against the Civil Rights Act, which on the surface seemed like a positive step for a divided country, it was LBJ’s “Daisy” campaign which sealed the election and led to the biggest victory by a presidential candidate in the 20th century.

“Daisy” was a commercial that ran briefly, featuring a little girl counting to ten, then having that count reversed by a baritone voice down to zero, at which point a nuclear bomb exploded.  Johnson successfully depicted Goldwater as a warmonger who would resort to a nuclear attack on Vietnam.

YouTube Preview Image

It was true, Goldwater had openly said that small nuclear bombs could be used to destroy the foliage in the jungles, reducing the Vietcong’s cover, which was the cornerstone of their  military strategy.  What he had said made a little sense from a military perspective and perhaps even from a human perspective. He didn’t appear to want to direct the bombs at population centers, but rather at forests, which may have reduced human casualties.  It’s not a great argument, but I suppose an argument could be made. However, in the context of political debate and without acknowledging the gravity of using nuclear devices as weapons in war it was a careless and costly remark.  Goldwater had hereby supplied his opponents with enough fuel for him to be burned as a warmongering psychopath who would love to drop the a-bomb on Vietnam.

Yet, once Johnson was elected, he quickly reversed his rhetoric and hurriedly drew up plans to escalate the Vietnam War, fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident to drum up support for full-scale war.  Agent Orange, a chemical agent, was used on the jungles of Vietnam to defoliate them, resulting in 400,000 deaths and 500,000 children born with birth defects.  The war was undeclared by the Congress, unconstitutionally expanded the power of the Executive branch, took over ten years and resulted in the deaths of over four million Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian men, women and children.  Who was the extreme warmongering psychopath again?

At least Goldwater wanted to get in and leave quickly or get out altogether.

An interesting article in Reason discusses the Goldwater movement and how, after the political beating he got in the election, a joke about the election went:

They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we’d have a war in Southeast Asia, civil and racial unrest, and a ruined economy. I went ahead and voted for him anyway, and it turned out they were absolutely right.

At the time of the campaign, Vice-President Johnson was telling the public, “We are not going to send American boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” Meanwhile, his advisors were drawing up plans to put 200,000 troops in Vietnam within a year.  His “Daisy” commercial made Goldwater seem like the warmonger that Johnson himself actually turned out to be.

The use of military force without a declaration, in direct violation of the Constitution; the expansion of Presidential powers beyond their constitutional limits;  these were the results of Johnson’s election.  “Daisy” ushered in a new age of dirty politics, giving rise to creeps like Richard Nixon and the religious Right’s brand of morality.

Goldwater wasn’t a racist, but he came across as one because he had no idea about how his views could so easily be misconstrued or even just misinterpreted.  When you stand against something, you’d better propose a better alternative and market it well or someone else will define your stance for you.  Once Goldwater stood against the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it overstepped the bounds of a constitutional Federal government, he needed to propose a better solution for curing the social ills of racism and segregation.  Instead, he became a magnet for the KKK and a whole manner of other segregationists who assumed he just hated the darkies as much as they did.

Such is the destiny of the politician who means well, but is not aware enough of the game to play it effectively.

Showing sympathy for Goldwater and his politically incorrect opinions may not win me any friends.  It may even make me some enemies.  But I liken his stance to that famous phrase attributed to Voltaire:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

If freedom is only reserved for the prevailing attitudes of the day, and all other views are punished, then there will surely come a day when the prevailing attitudes are usurped to enforce one group’s notion of freedom at the expense of other groups or individuals.  When freedom is supported in principle, it must be supported for all.

Wars of ideology need to be fought with ideas.  Freedom is not a state which can be granted by the government.  It is the inherent state of human beings.  Governments  have trampled on more rights through over-reaching regulations and unnecessary wars than have racists who refuse service to blacks.

Goldwater lost because the public could not see the distinction between not supporting the Act and not supporting that particular cure for racism. Currently, as we continue to fight two wars in the Middle East, have our freedoms usurped through wiretapping and dismissal of the right of habeus corpus, as we relinquish more and more of our freedoms, even the freedom whether or not to buy health insurance, it seems that the public today are even less capable of making that distinction as they were in 1964.

Popularity: 20% [?]

No Comments

Crime and Education


2010
03.28

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Opinion | No Comments »

I’m going to be bold and make a suggestion: if we treated crime with education instead of punishment, we would have a far more positive effect on society.

Imagine allowing prisoners to reduce their sentences by 50% by completing a degree from a recognized university.  Not only would they have some control over their futures, but they would gain valuable skills which can help them succeed in the future, as well as self-confidence in their abilities.  It is in the interest of society that we educate and rehabilitate those who have not had success with education in the past.

In prison, I’d imagine you have a lot of time.  What prisoner wouldn’t jump at the chance to reduce their sentence by reading a few books?

The principle behind this proposal is that crime is inversely proportional to level of education.  That is, the lower the level of education, the more likely a person is to be incarcerated.  A recent study on Education and Public Safety by the Justice Policy Institute indicates the following:

  • States with higher levels of educational attainment had crime rates   lower than the national average.
  • States with higher college enrollment levels had lower rates of violent crime than those with lower college enrollment levels.
  • States which invested more money into education saw violent crime rates decrease.
  • Risk of incarceration is significantly higher  for those of color, who are more likely to have greater barriers to educational opportunities.

The full Justice Policy Institute report can be read below:

Popularity: 12% [?]

No Comments

Viva La Republique! (a poem)


2010
03.22

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Featured, Politics | No Comments »

Left and Right should not fight,
They should instead combine their might,
For nurture plays its vital role,
So society needs its Liberal,
But Liberty is a delicate flower,
Easily trampled by runaway power.
To ensure that freedom ever lives,
Society needs its Conservative.
The Founders knew these facts of course,
For they were intellectuals,
Learned men of poise and grace,
Who wanted to put government in its place,
To ensure the freedom that all desire,
While raising the standard of living higher.
They were a part of the Enlightenment,
Weary of the heavy hand of Government,
Where whim rules the fates of all,
Corruption breeds and freedoms fall.
They chose another road instead,
Leaving Kings and Queens for dead,
They founded a nation of Common Law,
With the pursuit of happiness at its core.
For happiness is not a guarantee,
Just a right to keep your property,
If some person has not enough,
You can’t just steal someone else’s stuff,
For if you did, then what would be,
The proper role of charity?
Plus how could such a thing be right,
To forcibly take through government might?
The founders knew that some need care,
That community support should always be there,
But not by chopping down the law,
And the freedom they fought the British for.

~

Adam Smith had demonstrated,
And with economic model calculated,
A notion new and elegantly grand,
That the market had an invisible hand.
As free people traded at a rapid rate,
The hand stepped in to regulate,
When businessmen lied and stole,
Their supply of wealth soon went cold,
For fickle is the buyers’ taste,
When competition rules the marketplace.
Without the use of government favor,
Business could only grow through labor,
By being better than all the rest,
Not buying favor through lobbyists.
So thus it went and all was well,
Until an idea began to dwell,
As the Founders’ time had come and gone,
Had they been right all along?
Or could the balance be tweaked a bit,
To make society give a shit,
About the poor, the sick, the needy,
“Ah ha!” they cried. “Let’s tax the greedy!”
And thus the guilt trip foiled the plan,
To have freedom rule the land,
For how can one be truly free,
When others may claim your property?
But once that principle was signed away,
The poor they grew, day-by-day,
A new currency had shown its creed:
The currency of necessity.

~

When the needy get the greater claim,
It makes more sense to do the same,
So interest groups they grew like weeds,
To propagate their list of needs.
But soon the rich ran out of dough,
And saw the way they had to go,
They used the government to promote their cause,
By adding a clause into the Laws,
That helped their business thrive and grow,
By buying people in the know.
Enter the age of Corporatist glee,
From Goldman Sacks to AIG,
They cheat and steal and bribe and curse,
To get a piece of the public purse,
All this because we deemed it wise,
To use the government to equalize,
Just like Religion’s old advice,
That good will come from sacrifice,
We kept believing through and through,
That a little bit more would finally do,
Until we looked around and saw,
There was nothing left to give anymore.
And not just that (surprise, surprise)
The claims of need had all been lies.
By helping people out of poverty,
The people had lost their liberty,
The Corporations which had grown so great,
Against whom none could regulate,
Divided up the public spoils,
Plundered the workers of their toils,
And yet the Liberals cry and moan,
“Capitalism took my home!”
Conservatives, now bought and paid,
Looked for nations to invade,
All the while the Corporation grew,
(Thanks to Haliburton and Blackwater too!)
The people marched and demanded Change!,
So it bought a candidate, trademarked the name.
The people breathed a sigh of relief,
At having a fresh Commander in Chief.
And yet, though this one had a brain,
Things somehow remained the same,
Wars continued, defecits grew,
Pundits argued ’til they were blue,
But no-one seemed to really know,
“Just where did all the money go?”
In the South, they chanted and they screamed,
“Give me back my American Dream!
They marched and Teabagged avenues,
Attracting whackos and their crazy views,
While in the North the Federalists surged,
“Protect us from this awful scourge!
Give us what the Frenchies have,
Their way of life doesn’t seem so bad!”
Yet wanting to be just like the rest,
Ain’t what made America the best,
The source of greatness plain to see-
The U.S. was the champion of Liberty!

~

But that was quite some time ago,
Now Left and Right bicker to and fro,
Trying to gain the upper hand,
To spend their way to oblivion,
Ignoring the elephant in the room:
‘Round the corner bankruptcy looms!
Though money flows in the people’s name,
The politicians treat it like a game,
“The economy is about to tank,
Let’s print more from the Central Bank!”
They call Bernanke on the phone,
And arrange to secure another loan.
Crisp green bills like cannon fodder,
With the interest zero on the dollar,
The politicians can spend again,
And act as if they’re noblemen,
Passing bills on the Senate floor,
Then heading back to ask for more,
Never pausing to reflect,
On how they might pay back the debt.
Yet History makes its lesson plain,
That lack of money leads to pain,
Empires past should make us wary,
For their downfalls were always monetary.
So Left and Right, I’m here to say,
There truly is another way,
It’s time to let people be free,
To feed the tree of Liberty,
To end the Wars to End the Fed,
Before the Republic is truly dead.

Popularity: 9% [?]

No Comments

Simple Answers


2010
03.18

Tags: , ,
Posted in Featured, Religion | No Comments »

Religion has a simple explanation for the complexity of life around us.  God did it.  Life is a complicated thing, but don’t worry because God can explain it all.

Science has a simple answer too, but one which is barricaded by a lexicon of required knowledge. From ideas about atoms and mollecules to forces and the various laws of nature, the knowledge which a scientist may take for granted is the same knowledge that daunts the layperson from pursuing a scientific answer.

The journey to a more accurate truth about life is a long one.  If religion, with its simple comforts and basic comprehensibility, works just fine for the average believer, why would they turn to a more incomprehensible theory about atoms and mutations and fossil records?  Without a lot of further study, the layperson would have to accept many of the basics of science on faith alone.  What would be the benefit?  A lack of certainty about the ultimate meaning of it all?  Exclusion from the club to which the rest of his or her society belongs?  Is it really any wonder that most choose to go with the the social club and the guilt-cleansing service religion provides?

Many Atheists assume that there is some higher purpose to human consciousness other than its own indulgence.  Why the need to slave away at absolute truths when, from an evolutionary perspective, the genetic material passed on by both the religious fanatic and the Atheist are identical. Religions have reduced a complex universe down to simple terms which even a child may understand.  What benefit does one have from a more accurate truth, and does the potential benefit outweigh the cost of learning it?  When Science is able to reduce it’s theories down to simple allegories and fables which can be readily grasped by the young generation and those who use their brains more for looks than for mental function, then it will achieve a status as cherished as religion is for billions of people now. From there, it might inspire billions to seek more and more accurate truths once they realize that anyone can learn anything with discipline and patience.

Those scientists among us who see religion as a burden or blemish on humanity, should realize that they are the enlightened few who have traversed the heights of understanding and so it is they who must bridge the gap with those unable to do so themselves.  Far better to allow people to believe generalizations and simplifications about science than to allow the continuation of the God theory with the angels, devils and other superstitious ideas associated with it.

As an example: does a cat care about the truth of whether you have hostile intentions or not?  Oftentimes no.  It won’t waste time pondering the matter, it will simply run away when you approach.  The truth may be that you are friendly and can provide the cat with a good meal, but as a general rule, the cat has preserved the status quo of it’s species in running away from larger animals, avoiding any potential threat.

What Atheists are asking of the religious is to defy the very laws of evolution that the Atheist holds dear.  Thousands of years of history have shown both safety in numbers and that conservation of effort for the same reward is favored by evolution.  Any species which can achieve the same result (passing on of genetic material to offspring which in turn reaches sexual maturity) with the least amount of effort, will ultimately prosper.

Let me make it clearer:  Religion follows the same epistemological process as science on the most basic of levels.  A phenomena is observed (Life).  A reason is given (God).  If we imagine an island-dweller with no concept of the outside world or of scientific knowledge, the model of a God moving the celestial bodies about, providing rain and sunshine as needed, elegantly fits their basic understanding of the world.  It is a theory in the scientific sense.  With our modern knowledge, it is not difficult to poke holes in this theory or any other simple theory of existence, but usually the adoption of new theories are based on their utility, not their inherent truth.

There are theories and then there are things that work.  What scientists must do better is educate an ignorant populace about the wonders of scientific knowledge.  They must do this not in an arrogant way, but in a sympathetic way.  They must be the translators of knowledge into simple terms, which reveal the real-life practicality of these theories.

The basics of evolution: A bird has three children, all of whom are slightly different to one another. Two of those birds happen to be better at flying away from predators than the other one. The poor flier is eaten and doesn’t have children. The other two have two children. Now we have two separate family tree branches: light feathered and dark feathered offspring. The light-feathered offspring are easily seen by predators and they are eaten before they can reproduce, leaving only dark-feathered birds. This is the process of natural selection, whereby small variances in the children influence their survival and hence their ability to pass on their genetic code. Over millions of years, this results in major changes in life forms, as some variations are better than others at surviving in their environment.

For the religious, knowing the workings of natural processes via science should bring them closer to God, for these are the universal processes by which He operates.  The study of science IS the study of God’s laws!  In my religion, Etheism, knowing science is being closer to knowing the true nature of God.

Popularity: 7% [?]

No Comments

Embrace the Universe


2010
03.16

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Featured, Religion | No Comments »

A while ago, I decided to consider alternatives to Atheism.  I wound up creating my own religion.  I didn’t do it for the chicks, for the fame or for the chance to be crucified.  Nor did I do it because I have grown disillusioned by science.  Science does a great job of explaining the world, our history, the laws of Nature, and even what our near future might look like.  It is essential to our survival and it must continue unhindered, with the full support of humanity.  But what of the big questions that science still cannot answer?  Are we not allowed to wonder why we are here and what our struggle through life is for?  It is for this reason I developed Etheism.

Throughout history, philosophers and preachers have searched for a meaning, some clue as to what it’s all about.  To know this is to know God.  Well, are we getting closer to knowing God yet?

Etheism holds that God is energy.  Using this simple substitution, I dare you to read the ancient biblical texts and see if they don’t make more sense.  What was always most imbecillic about mainstream religion was its view that God was some kind of father figure sitting up in the clouds, listening to what humans do, meddling in their affairs.  Unless you are a young child or a complete and utter moron, this will obviously be insulting to your intelligence.  Defining God as energy allows us to clearly define Him by the natural laws we have for how energy functions in the Universe.  There is still much to learn if we are to become fully enlightened, but at least we are on the way.  As we come to expand our view of the Universe, so too will we expand our definition of God, from petty father figure, to omniscient deity, to Universal constant.

But why define God at all?  There has been, thus far, no evidence to support any theory of a higher consciousness having created any of the phenomena we see around us.  Existence is not evidence of creation.  Even if there had been creation, it must’ve occurred billions of years ago, as our most advanced techniques for dating the age of the earth and of the living creatures who have lived on it indicate.  The absurd idea that the world is but a few thousand years old and that woman was created from man with one of his ribs is childish nonsense which ignores so many facts about the world we have come know.

If you really are religious and are still reading, consider:  God gave you a brain, so why don’t you use it?  You have been given the amazing gift of volition, of choice, of understanding and knowledge.  You are conscious, self-aware and capable of understanding the mysteries of the universe.  You can know why the sun and moon appear to move across the sky, or how people came to look different from each other, some with dark hair and black eyes, others (like me) with fair hair and a fragile relationship with the sun.  God, if He exists, surely doesn’t want you to treat your brain poorly by ignoring the voluminous amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution on the one hand, with a book authored by God-knows who, compiled by a bloodthirsty dictator about a prophet none of the authors ever met.

Let me put it another way.  I’m sure that if I put a bag over my head, I could eventually learn how to get on with my life.  But for God’s sake, why not just take off the bag?

Yet, in spite of the horrors committed in its name, religion has been the greatest cause of human population growth in the history of humanity.  The prescription religion has dispensed throughout the Ages has been to “go forth and multiply” and the multitude has obeyed.  Where poverty and religion have combined, the effects have been especially pronounced, generating generation after generation, perpetuating paternalism, all the while passing religion on.  We have assumed that religion was indoctrinated into children early enough that they weren’t able to rationally comprehend it, thereby accepting it as a part of their lives.  But what if it wasn’t just nurture that helped religion to grow and flourish?  What if there was a genetic factor involved?  If there was a genetic link between genes and suceptability to religion, then the religious may well give birth to naturally religious children.  As those who are most religious would quite possibly pass on their genetic material with a greater urgency, the numbers of the religious would be increasing compared to the non-religious.

This may sound like the rantings of a maniac.  “Genetic link to religion?  Such a thing has never been proven!”  And it hasn’t.  But there is good evidence to suggest that there is something in human psychology that gives rise to belief.  You just have to look at it from another angle than religion.

Look at a group of people.  Tasked with a job to do, the group naturally falls into a team of leaders and followers, as each member finds its political place within the group.  We call this politics, but it is actually just an effective way to manage the group dynamic and achieve the result desired.  If a group has too many leaders, it’s focus is diluted and the group can splinter into factions.  Unless some members can switch to a follower mentality, allowing themselves to “follow the leader” as it were, the group will be unfocussed.  Unless other members can lead those other members, giving direction and balance to the group, the group will be doomed.  It seems that, like bees, a person can adopt either role in order to achieve the higher purpose of the group.  Throughout history, those who have been able to follow their leader precisely, by aligning their own goals, dreams and desires with the group have had an uncanny ability to win.  Independence of mind and spirit have traditionally worked well for the leaders of the world, but have fared poorly in group dynamics.  Hell, I have a hard enough time living with this kind of mindset in these supposedly independent and free times.  I would’ve probably been burned on the stake before my 15th birthday, had I been born a couple of thousand years prior.

I think it is not a coincidence that political fervour often mimics religious fervour.  Our tendency to follow has protected us in the past, allowed our groups to function more effectively (though quite often being murderously effective).  It gave humanity strength, yet it is at the same time its weakness.  In the evolution of human thought, it is natural that we would transition from a group to an individualistic mentality.  Trouble is, it seems we are going backwards.  Back in the 4th century BC, Aristotle and Socrates were chatting philosophy, trying to derive the nature of the universe.  Artistotle himself could be said to be the founding father of Science.  Yet, it took almost two thousand years for scientific thought to actually take hold.  Had we not been afflicted with the mind-stunting ignorance of religion for centuries, where might we be now.

I’m pretty sure we’d have flying cars.  Leonardo da Vinci would have invented them for sure.

I created Etheism in the hope of creating, not another closed dogmatic system of belief, but an evolving, inclusive vision of a universe which would one day welcome us into its arms.  As our technology and our knowledge increase, as we come to learn more and more secrets of this amazing universe, we may well give birth to creations which allow us to explore the cosmos (or at the very least fly to work).  Who knows what intelligence we may find, given the means of conducting a more thorough search.  But even if we remain alone in the universe, we will advance or die together.  Our own small roles in continuing the delicate spark of life will remain, even after the circumstances of our birth, death and all that happened in between fades into eternity.

Etheism is a celebration of Life.  A unifier, not a divider.  It is a religion which is pro-science, pro-life AND pro-choice, pro-rational individual and pro-understanding.  It is inclusive.  If you’re alive, you can join.  Those who we disagree with, we feel compassion toward, never hatred.  We feel connected to the universe and relish the joys of life.  We understand that God may fill our bodies and world around us, but this universe is a self-determined one.  We live and die by our own choices.  There is no supernatural force, guiding the outcome.  We are not disappointed by this, as we understand that the natural world is so full of wonderful and amazing things that there is simply no need for the supernatural.  As for the purpose of humankind, perhaps one day it will achieve harmony.  That is our goal.  When we learn to form a synnergy with our natural world, we might discover a higher form of existence, leading to still other higher and higher forms.

The answers to all of our questions are right there in the puzzle we call life.  It’s up to us to solve it.

Popularity: 9% [?]