Image Source   Haunting Spheres Within Spheres   by Bill M. Tracer

 In this essay, we’ll examine a few of the possible answers in broad categories, and evaluate their merit.

1. Secular Materialism (There is only the material universe with no real spiritual aspect. In this view God is not necessary.) This is the primary view of Atheists.
2. Emergent Materialism (The universe began as pure energy, out of which the apparent material of the universe emerged, over time as the material universe grew increasingly complex, this combination of matter and energy eventually brought about consciousness, which may have even attained the ability to maintain energetic cohesiveness enduring death. This natural process could occur either with or without the existence of God.) This is among the ideas explored by present day Agnostics, and certain Naturalists, and even those of the Rationalists school of philosophical thought.
3. Theistic Universalism (There are both a material universe and a spiritual aspect, which includes the concept that God and the created material universe are separate. In this view God is a non-corporeal entity of pure spiritual energy, who created the material universe as a thing completely separate from the spiritual domain in which God resides.) This is the primary view of several religions both ancient and modern. Most Christian denominations, Judaism, Islam, and Zarathushtrianism embrace this basic view. Even the now extinct Manichaeism followed the primary tenets in this belief.
4. Classic Deism (The view of Classic Deism likewise sees that there is both a material universe, and a spiritual aspect, and that God and the universe are separate from one another, but that once having created the universe, God moved on, perhaps to creating other Cosmic domains, and ceased to be directly involved with this particular cosmic creation. Some have equated this concept to the idea of a clock maker, who creates the clock, designed to run on its own once created, requiring no further “intervention”. Evolution would in fact be a part of this design. Another possible analogy might be like each cosmos created by God likened to works of art. Once the artist has completed his artistic creations, he moves on to other creations.) Classic Deism as such is currently embraced by few. Most followers of Deism have evolved the idea into various forms of Pandeism, such as the next category, Cosmological Pandeism, which includes a deistic God concept that remains intimately involved with the created Universe.
5. Cosmological Pandeism (In this view there is also both a material universe and a spiritual aspect, but unlike Theistic Universalism and Classic Deism, this ideology includes the concept that God and the Material Universe are one, intimately interconnected and that essentially the spiritual domain and the material universe are not really separate from one another, at all. Some within the broad category of Cosmological Pandeism accept the Multiverse concept of M-Theory and as a consequence of God as having at least an 11 dimensional perceptional awareness of the Space/Time continuum, thus transcending time as we know it. As a result of this transcendent temporal relationship to the universe, all of time is as one single instant to such a Pandeistic God. Certain aspects of esoteric and mystic views discussed below can be found in some Cosmological Pandeistic ideologies.) Certain Liberal Christian denominations, Universal Unitarians, those of the Unity Church, Theosophists, and other so called “New Ager” types embrace many of the principal beliefs in this view.
6. Quantum Esotericism (The entire material universe is made up of virtual particles that are really nothing more than reorganized energy, creating the illusion of being of a material nature. These particles follow incredibly long term fractal-like iterative processes, which over time bring about increased complexification, from chaos into the ordered patterns of nature. The “program” that creates this complexification process appears to be directed by some form of Cosmic over mind, Universal Consciousness, Source, or Force. Some claim this “Source” can be tapped into, or accessed in order to manifest ones fondest dreams.) These are similar to some of the ideas explored by such esoteric thinkers as Dr. Frank B. Robinson of Psychiana, or advocates of the Power of Attraction, the so-called “Secret”, which doesn’t seem to be very secret anymore. Quantum Esotericism falls very much in line with the teachings of Dr. Wayne Dyer, also. Even the guru of Psychedelia, Terence McKenna, with his Timewave Zero, or Novelty Theory appears to have embraced some, if not all, of the ideas explored in Quantum Esotericism.
7. Mystic Illusion (The entire material universe is an illusion in the mind of a cosmic entity, we might generally equate to the God concept. We are all like shattered shards or small fragments of this collective God Consciousness, and thus share in the mutual illusion, being both subject to and responsible for the qualities of this illusion.) Buddhist mystics and the followers of modern sages like Michael Talbot, and the Holographic Universe concept fall into this category. In its most extreme individualistic form the philosophy of Metaphysical solipsism would also roughly fit here.
8. Brahman Dream (Brahma, {God}, dreams, and we are the characters within his dream, and are each expressions of the fullness that is the One. Indeed even the entire universe is the stage in which this dream takes place, and someday all that we know on this cosmic stage will melt away when Brahma awakens from his long slumber. When Brahma awakens, we will all awaken together as One. The many will be One, once more.) This is the basic belief of Brahman Hindus. It is also rather similar to some Shamanistic ideas, though they would not use the specific name Brahma, but might have other names for the “Great Spirit”, which dreams our reality.

 Who’s on the Right Track?

It would be difficult to say that any one of these views has a complete picture of reality. Actual reality, if such a concept can be quantified, may be more a blend of several of these ideas, though certainly not all of them, since some of them are mutually exclusive.

I personally find myself leaning toward a mixture of principles found in Cosmological Pandeism, Quantum Esotericism, and the Mystical Illusory concepts of Talbot’s Holographic Universe.

Cover of The Holographic Universe

While I find the Brahman Dream idea a fascinating metaphor, I’m much more inclined to see the Cosmic over mind or Source, as Dr. Dyer calls it, not so much as dreaming, but rather orchestrating with full temporally transcendent consciousness, using fractal iterative processes on a grand scale to “construct” out of etheric chaos ever increasing complexification, resulting in the ordered patterns we now observe in our reality. For the honest open minded seeker, understandings of this illusive reality constantly evolve, as continued experiences reveal more. We may not have the complete picture yet, but the quest continues, and I for one will not give up as long as my consciousness endures.

Current global activities show a surge in protests and coup d’états in more Islamic influenced countries as well as continued outcries by indigenous groups that have been displaced. I shall attempt to convince you as to why assimilation is a valid and perhaps the better method to deal with those that wish more power simply due to heritage; nonetheless certain changes in the world are necessary when dealing with diminished democracy.

As much as I may agree with claims of unfair displacement, is it not simply childish and petty to demand attention and power just because of something that happened generations ago?

I propose the best method to deal with such claims is to give a monetary settlement and to subjugate those people under federal rule. This would satisfy their need for attention, financial gain, and power by giving them limited power due to federal rule.

History has shown us that when there are many smaller countries there are more wars, and unity under federal rule has vastly diminished fighting between those countries as well as boosting economic prowess. From the federal unifications of Germany and China, to more federal collaborations such as the European Union; federal rule has always proven that working together rather than screaming for toys is more beneficial to all parties involved.

Federal rule can of course only work if democracy is upheld as a political system and no one bullies others to give them more power than they deserve. This is why the protests in more Islamic countries are necessary as their intolerance, which can be derived from any religion, threatens the voices of those that they hold power over. This is also why the federal rule that will hopefully emerge must not only be democratic but also secular, as secularism is not an established codified creed that firmly threatens to terrorise others, and which thrives on the pursuit of shared intellectual growth; rather than seeking to implement rule that was created many centuries ago and which has shown to be intolerant and less effective at intellectual and economic growth when compared to more modern federal secular governing systems such as the European Union.

In conclusion I have demonstrated why the method of assimilation under federal secular rule is the best way to deal with Diasporas. I have described the typical circumstances of Diasporas such as displaced indigenous people, and why their claims are to be taken serious yet why one must not give them more than they are entitled to as citizens of a nation or state. I have gone on to give you examples of prosperous federations and explained how their prosperity can only function if secular democracy is upheld. I would like to end this by saying that any citizen may be theistic but that this should not affect the power they hold over each other.

Science and Evidence

First, science is primarily is limited to the present. Until new technology is invented for time travel, science will never allow a person to analyze data from the past or from the future; therefore, science currently can only analyze present conditions to determine certain phenomena or conditions. The scientist can examine artifacts, catalogue them, and make guesses using the techniques of historiography, but he or she can never perform a controlled experiment to discern what happened during the past.

Second, the scientific method provides data independent of the scientist’s worldview. A scientist with a theistic world view will arrive at exactly the same conclusions when analyzing the same data and using the same scientific method as any militant atheist or agnostic. Science does not depend upon a particular belief system and is, therefore, not the sole domain of evolutionists, materialists, and atheists. Thus, the attempt to cast the debate between evolutionists and creationists or as science versus religion or fact versus faith is ridiculous.

Dr Denton, Dr. Berlinski, and Dr. Miller

According to atheists Dr. Michael Denton and Agnostic Dr. David Berlinski, neo-Darwinism and evolutionism stands as theories in crisis. Experiments demonstrating how life could originate from non-life in a primordial, pre-biotic soup have all failed leaving evolutionists with no explanation for life’s origins. Stanley Miller’s 1953 experiment where he produced a few amino acids is no longer considered to be a confirmation for the naturalistic evolution for life, but this mythology is still in taught by militant atheists and agnostics as proof of evolution.

Miller assumed the planet Earth’s primitive atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere that contained ammonia and methane gases but no oxygen. As a chemist, he knew that a reducing atmosphere was absolutely necessary if any molecules were to form spontaneously. The data suggests that a neutral atmosphere produced by volcanic gases was present in the early Earth. These gases form none of life’s building blocks in Miller’s apparatus. To complicate matters for evolutionists, certain artifacts suggest that oxygen was indeed present very early in the Earth’s formation. Dr. Cairns-Smith, a renowned evolutionary bio-chemist, has demonstrated that the production of naturally occurring, pure, usable chemicals to build molecules would be impossible in the waters of the primitive earth.

Life’s Building Blocks

When we ask the question: “If it was possible for building blocks of life to form, could they spontaneously assemble into a living cell?” Sir Fred Hoyle answered this question when he calculated this probability and determined that there is only one chance in 1040,000 that a cell could be assembled from organic molecules. According to many science researchers, probabilities that are greater than 1050 are simply possible. Dr. Francis Crick, the renowned biologist who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, determined that the four billion years evolutionists have determined for life’s evolution was not enough time for life to arise out of a primordial soup.

The shortcomings of the Darwinism and evolutionism continue to manifest themselves. According to Charles Darwin, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down.”

Scientific Evidence Against Darwinism

When we assess the evidence for Darwinism, we discover two scientific research areas that provide evidence against the Darwinism and evolutionism. The first line of evidence against Darwinism and evolutionism shows that genetic mutations cannot build new genes. Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé, past president of the Académie des Sciences, stated that mutations are only trivial changes resulting from the genetic alteration of genes already present, whereas genetic evolution requires the synthesis of new genes. His studies provided evidence that mutations do not take succeeding generations farther away from a starting point, but instead the succeeding generations stay within firmly fixed boundaries. Bacteria, despite their innumerable mutations, have not transgressed the structural framework within which they have always fluctuated and still do.

Dr. Lee Spetner has not only confirmed these findings but has shown that mutations result in a loss of genetic information, which is exactly the opposite of what Darwinism predicted. Spetner concluded, “The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for a theory. It is evidence against the theory.” Worse yet, a key piece of evidence long held as “proof” for evolution through mutation was the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Antibiotic resistance is caused by switching on a gene already present in the bacteria. As it turns out, there was no mutation at all.

Irreducible Complexity

The second line of scientific proof that discredits Darwinism and evolutionism is irreducible complexity. Darwin’s simple-to-complex scheme has not stood up under scientific scrutiny. The celebrated Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe declared that irreducible complexity extends not only to the cell but to the parts that make up the cell. This means that the cell could not have been built by a process of simple steps. In order for the cell to function, it had to have all its complexity from the start. Anything less would have been nonfunctional, organic rubbish. Behe’s famous mousetrap example illustrates the fallacy that part of an eye is better than no eye at all because the part of an eye works no better than having only half the parts of a mousetrap. One simply does not expect to catch fewer mice with half the parts of a mousetrap missing. Irreducible complexity down to the smallest parts demands an omniscient Creator-Designer God who by His wisdom created an amazingly complex cell to confound the wisdom of humanity.

The impossibility of life appearing spontaneously is an insurmountable problem for evolutionists but clearly fits within the truth claims of the Scripture that God, in the beginning, created life. The reason life looks as if an organizing “principle” worked itself out in a definite plan is because God, the Creator and Designer, formed life in intricate detail. God did not create the cell and set things in motion, but God created every living thing as He said in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Evolution’s Collapse

Darwinism and evolutionism is collapsing before our eyes. In the near future, science will still call this evolution, but it will not reflect any of the religious dogmas of Darwinism and evolutionism. While the mainstays of evolution crumble, creation theory remains the only realistic explanation for life’s origin and existence. Creation science theory best explains the artifact evidences seen today, such as the absence of transitional forms of life witnessed by the fossil record. Absence of transitional forms between fishes and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and reptiles and mammals in the fossil record remain missing because they did not exist. The Creator created the kinds to bring forth after their own kind. The Creator designed genetic diversity within the cell which allows for the variation observed within the kinds.

Since evolution is in such an unscientific state, then why do so many people believe the lie? As it turns out, the argument is not really between creation theory and evolution theory. The argument is on a religious and philosophical level. Evolutionary thinking rules out the supernatural and looks for other explanations within the naturalistic perspective, while creation paradigm searches for both natural and supernatural explanations for the subject of origins. The scientific creation theory will replace Darwinism and evolutionism because it seeks answers from both a naturalistic and supernatural perspective.

References:The Collapse of Evolution” by Scott M Huse; Three Views on Creation and Evolution by J.P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds; The New Answers Book 2 by Ken Ham; Creation and Time by Dr. Hugh Ross; GENESIS and the BIG BANG by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder; The Science of God by DR. Gerald Schroeder; Starlight and time by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe; Evolution Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton; Dr. David Berlinski You-tube Interview.

Theists and atheists are as similar as believers and non-believers. They have opposite paradigms such as matter and anti-matter occupy, and they faithful are going to heaven while the atheists are on the highway to hell. So we ask; why can’t they just get along?

Atheists were the ruling elite of the late Evil Empire. Theists could say rightly ‘the king is dead, long live the king!’ with regard to the demise of the evil empire and the succession of the new Communist Chinese-Global Corporatist New Evil Empire challenged only by the Terrorist led recrudescent Synthetic Evil Muslim Empire Conquering the World. Why can’t atheists and Muslims just get along, after all they didn’t in Afghanistan of the Gorbachev era-in the McChrystal era we canna only see through a glass darkly; Afghanistan must be for the Pashtun and the warriors of the Northern Alliance as well as their proxies, friends and other minority groups unaffiliated with minorities but with small print in foreign languages that generally aren’t those of atheists.

Atheist evil empires exist in some areas of the world still-such as in North Korea. If the Rev. Moon and the Unitarian Church of South Korea were allowed to evangelize the North perhaps the Nuclear war might be avoided between starving atheist goose-steppers of Kim Il and the fatter believers of the Unitarian Church that could probably assure Kim of a Michael Jackson like life style for the remainder of his life if he were to throw in the towel to the electric car mongerers of South Korea.

For intellectual or philosophical Christians atheists just aren’t interesting people, and they may be boorish louts. They may have the virtue of tolerance for dissident Christians offended by hypocritical Christian ‘authorities’ occasionally. Yet atheists are simply those without deep philosophical interest in cosmology or reality sufficiently to consider the possibility that God issued the entire perturbative vacuum and all possible Universes. Christians are tolerant of atheists that aren’t aggressive in asserting their paradigms. It is also notable that atheists for decades have attacked Christian ideas in public places. They have been foes of Christians as an abusive matter of assertive disbelief.

Did the writer of Footprints in the Sand-a poor humble Christians sharing his idea of reliance upon the Creator of the Universe ultimately for existence-deserve abuse from atheists simply because they wished to act with the confidence of neo-fascists? I think not. If he was Elisha he should have been morally justified to ask God to vaporize the offenders. Because theists, and especially Christian theists are followers of Christ they would happily allow God to correct those that toss stumbling blocks intentionally in the path of His people.

Americans have a separation of powers and a separation of households in theory. There should be private property for all ideally, and one’s beliefs should be freely held without coercive retaliation from those that disagree. Of course such a perfect world does not exist. In such a democratic environment it is the free expression of idea in public that should be the arena for protection of the right too have ideas without abuse and retaliation from others. How that can be accomplished without infringing upon free speech is challenging and requires a thoughtful and very civil libertarian response. In a human history where force and repression are the norms, it is as important to preserve old borders and boundaries with swift and solid legal enforcement as it is to expand the realm of individual liberty through equal protection of the laws and an egalitarian social esprit that curtails anisotropic enormities in the distribution of wealth followed by a mass dehumanization of values of individuals.

Image via Wikipedia

In addition to being a humanist, I have few more specific philosophies related to various areas of my life, and these do not contradict human; indeed, they go very nicely with humanism. In science, I am a skeptic. I believe in the scientific method because how successful it is, and I question claims that are not backed up by empirical evidence. In politics, I am a libertarian because I believe in the importance of economic and social freedom. In religion, I am an atheist since I don’t see any evidence supporting the existence of God, and rather, I see a lot of evidence supporting his inexistence.

Elliot Sober mentions that personal philosophies are important to how one lives his life, but are difficult to prove. True, they are difficult to prove. But, I can give a lot of reasoning and evidence as to why I hold on to one philosophy as opposed to another. Why am I a skeptic? That is because history shows us how superstitious human beings can be, and how a lot of “paranormal” phenomena can be explained using science. Science can provide perfectly natural explanations as to why people supposedly see “ghosts.” And, I have Ockham’s razor on my side.

Why am I an atheist? That is because empirical evidence shows how unlikely it is for God to exist. Honestly, the previous sentence really isn’t a matter of opinion. It is about as much of an opinion as this sentence: Empirical evidence shows how likely it is for atoms to exist. A lot of theists agree with me on this point and take God on faith.

As seen, I cannot prove that any of my personal philosophies are “right.” But, I can provide a lot of evidence and reasoning to show why they might be “right.” Honestly, I think my personal philosophies are more “right” than others, for lack of a better word; if I did not think this way, then I would not hold on to my philosophies. (One of you is probably going to say, “This isn’t a matter of right or wrong!”)

I find the last question to be somewhat vague. In any case, a lot of philosophers have their own personal philosophies, though many want to be thought of thinkers and nothing else. If they do have their own personal philosophy, it may influence the way they teach philosophy and “do” philosophy. It may very well influence their own philosophical ideas, to the point where their ideas become a part of their personal philosophy. Some philosophers though, like Nietzsche, are so varied in their philosophical ideas that it is hard to say whether or not they have a personal philosophy, or if their philosophical ideas are influenced by their personal philosophy.

As previously mentioned, God (the Judeo-Christian one) is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and he did create the universe. Some people posit that God lives in a dimension or universe separate from ours. Whether or not God has emotions is something religious believers sometimes argue over. In any case, in both the Old and New Testament, God does at times get angry and he does at times become happy. Religious people usually believe that God is knowable only to a certain extent. We can know and understand certain aspects about God, though religious folks usually don’t believe that we can know or understand him completely. And, since God is omnipotent, he should have the ability to take over the human form. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Why don’t I believe in God? Well, I am very pragmatic and skeptical to begin with. Being an ex-Christian, I am at least decently versed in the Bible and I have read it through entirely (though I may not remember everything). I have noticed that the more I read the Bible, the less I believe in it. To someone as skeptical as myself, the Bible has too many loopholes for me to believe. Certain instances are outright impossible and there are many contradictions. For example, Exodus 15:3 says God is a man of war. Romans 15:33 says God is peace. What? Not only that, but Exodus 35:2 says that if you work on Sabbath day, you will be put to death. The entire chapter of Leviticus 20 has numerous reasons why people should be put to death, including adultery and homosexuality. But, one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”. So, apparently, putting people to death for adultery and working on the Sabbath does not qualify as murder, at least according to the Bible. 

There are passages of the Bible that mention the earth being immovable, which we know today is not true. Certain passages also suggest a geocentric model of the universe. There’s the story of Noah, which seems just outright impossible from a modern perspective. And then, there’s the theory of evolution, which seems to suggest that the beginning parts of Genesis are wrong. There are certain Christian denominations that believe that evolution is perfectly compatible with the Bible and that the story of Adam and Eve may well be a metaphor for the creation of life; the most prominent of these denominations is Catholicism. But, then again, where in the Bible is it suggested that it’s a metaphor? Where does the metaphor start and where does it end? 

So, as you can see, I am very skeptical and I think that the Bible is wrong about a lot of things, so it may well be wrong about God. Although showing the inconsistencies in the text does not prove that God does not exist, it does question his existence and provide evidence for his inexistence.

But then, there are many gods out there so if the Christian God does not exist, it may be that Vishnu or Shiva or Zeus does. True, there are many religions and many gods, but no single religion seems to be making any headway against the others. All the religions that I know of seem to have its equal amount of flaws. There are many religions out there and certain religions are mutually exclusive. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong. Not only that, but I do not have the time to individually consider every single deity out there. There is one thing all deities have and that is their supernatural quality. I focus on the Judeo-Christian God because that is the one I am most familiar with and because it is probably the most well known in the Western world. In any case, this supernatural quality is completely unfounded by evidence and contradicts much of what we know about the world.

But, suppose that there is no evidence supporting or negating the existence of deities. Even so, I would not be a theist. I wouldn’t go around assuming the existence of something just because it is possible that it exists. Why would I go around believing in a tiny celestial teapot just because there isn’t evidence negating its existence? The onus is on the theist, not the atheist. 

This is not intended to be a one and only guide, nor is it intended to stray anyone from their religion. It is merely intended to provide a basic understanding so that no atheist will even have to hear the “peanut monster” argument ever again. It goes like this.

“Atheism states that heat and matter create life. So, when I open a jar of peanut butter, I should see a peanut monster. But I don”t. So atheism is wrong.’

Other versions are longer, and replace “heat” with “light”, but you get the point. I will try to explain this without bashing any religion, though I cannot guarantee. If you are an overly sensitive creationist, it would be best for you to leave. I will not be held responsible for any overly concerned parents nagging their newly atheist thirteen year old, who doesn’t really get it, but wants to rebel anyway.

First, I will get a few things out of the way. I will start with Pascal’s wager. I’m too lazy to look on Wikipedia, so it goes something like this.

‘If I say that there is no god, and I am correct, then I am not hurt. But if I say that there is no god, and I am wrong, then I will go to hell forever. Therefore, it is better to believe in god.’

Pascal was assuming a few things. One; there the Christian god is the only possible god. Two; that the god rewards saying that one believes in god, even if they don’t. Three; that the god punishes those that don’t believe in(or worship) him. Four; that if there is a god, there can only be one.

Now, he is right on one thing. If there is a single god, who awards those who worship or say they believe in him without believing in him and punishes those who don’t no matter what they were like, then it is better to worship said god. Thing is, most gods who award worship or belief require you to actually BELIEVE in them. And some of us just can’t do that. Why? Because it makes no sense to us. If you believe that, then don’t bother praying for us. Your god gave us minds that demand reason and logic. And there is nothing logical that I can see. So blame your god for our eternal damnation and torture.

Moving on. I will start with one of the more accepted theories of how life began. This is not supposed to be definitive, and is not to be taken as a certain answer.

Nucleic acids, when in close contact, react to a certain amount. When heat is added, the reaction ability increases. When you get roughly the heat of a lightning both, there is a very small chance that the nucleic acids can combine to form a strand of very primitive DNA, and very basic, very primitive life.

It is unknown exactly how many “false starts” life could have had. This is due to conditions, as well as variations in life when it began. It is also possible for new life to be created by lightning striking, though the odds are still rather small. There is no definitive answer, so that is merely intended to pad some space.

Next; Big bang. Certain creationists understand enough about the big bang, though many I know seem to be of the opinion that the universe as it is today popped out of nowhere with no reason. It would take too long for me to describe the time line or how it think it began, so try Wikipedia. Or anything else ending in “pedia”.

Lack of a creator. This is a biggie. Often, I am asked to prove that there is no god (they almost always mean the Judea-Christian god). I respond based on my mood. If I feel sarcastic, then I tell them to prove that Zeus, Hades, Ares, Apollo, and Hera don’t exist, and I will follow their example.

A few times it is pointed out too me that science does not know with exact precision what happened. I then point out that science advances its beliefs, therefore making it able to adapt, unlike scripture. This also means that what we do not know today, we may know tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the day after that. And so on.

As a word of warning; This is used to help creationists better understand atheism to prevent idiotic arguments, as several of my atheist friends actually want to argue with a creationist who knows what atheism actually is. Expect others to be more knowledgeable about this stuff. Buy a book, read up on it, THEN start arguing.

Such discrimination against non-theists (people who don’t affirm the existence of gods) is surprisingly widespread in the U.S. Many organizations such as the Boy Scouts, who call themselves private even though they benefit from public funds, have discriminatory policies that bar non-theists from membership. According to former Eagle Scout Steve Cozza, “when they want to discriminate, they act as a private organization; when they want money or the use of publicly-funded buildings, venues, or property, they act as a public organization.” Worse than this is our theistic oath of office requirement for federal officials. Congressional representatives, military officers, and other federal employees are often forced to take an oath of office ending with the phrase “so help me God,” and this can prevent well-qualified candidates from serving–just for sticking to their principles. Yet perhaps the worst example of discrimination against nonbelievers is theism as qualification for holding public office being written into numerous state constitutions. The constitutions of South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Maryland, and other states contain clauses that exclude people who do not acknowledge the existence of God or a Supreme Being (phraseology varies) from holding office. In spite of the Supreme Court’s 1961 ruling that such clauses violate the federal Constitution, they are still used to deny those who are not monotheists (which includes those with polytheistic and atheistic religions, like paganism and Buddhism, respectively) the right to serve in state governments.

A dismaying number of Americans are unaware of this problem or just don’t care enough to do something about it, although there are many simple ways to help make it clear that such discriminative policies are both inconsistent with the Constitution and unacceptable to the American public and to help bring them to an end, such as:

• Writing letters or emailing state and federal representatives about our concerns regarding such discrimination and calling on them to take legislative measures to prevent it and repeal iniquitous clauses.
• Organizing rallies or petitions in support of equal opportunities for non-theists.
• Joining organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union, or donating to such organizations, or simply taking action online by sending pre-fabricated emails to leaders and lawmakers through their websites.
• Forming new organizations that promote tolerance and equity among theists and non-theists alike.
• Sharing concerns about discriminatory policies with groups like the Boy Scouts, petitioning them to admit prospective members regardless of religion or lack thereof, or legally challenging them if rejected for beliefs or lack thereof.

If we all take decisive action, we can bring about the end of discrimination against nonbelievers and fulfillment of promises of U.S. Constitution, made in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This implies the freedom to choose any religion or no religion. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” This implies equal opportunities for all, theists and non-theists alike. Clearly, these promises have yet to be fulfilled. However, this can change–and it will, if the historical trend of human progress continues. But such progress is never achieved without effort.

Thus, I urge you all to join me and groups like the FFRF and ACLU in taking action to help end discrimination against non-theists. Hopefully, our collective actions will lead to the dawn of an era where people like my old friend, the would-be Boy Scout, will not have to fear persecution for not sharing the beliefs of the majority.

More by this author:

The Incarnation of Hope

One Beautiful Storm