A Compromise...

Over at The Evangelical Atheist, ~I AM~ has created yet another post that will easily collect near 100 comments. And rightfully so.

I, predicatably, got swept up in the commenting, and, lacking any discernable proclivity for terseness, penned a novella of sorts in response:

Both CT (Christian Theist) and Chad get right to the crux of the real issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.

But we recognize we aren't polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions - which define our existence - that it seemingly can not be ignored.

We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I'm not saying that theists don't value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.

WE, on the other hand, need that reason. At times I think we fiend for it.

So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I'm not at all saying that We're wrong in this, but We must acknowledge, and concede, that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I'd hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.

In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality's origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind - of our cognitive process through reason - our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence - beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.

Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.

When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step - to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it - is taken, the participants enter this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand: you're on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.

This brings about a conflict in the atheist's mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won't play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled - to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel if you won't, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don't bother getting involved. Just don't assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.

What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change - nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.

In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith.

Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don't push your personal belief on our public sphere.

Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…

Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent - personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.

When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.

Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.

I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.

Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personal FREE WILL your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.

We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion - remember, neither HAS to be expressed: that is a choice.

This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.

{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}

When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.

This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.

Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.

The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.

Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at and averse to the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.

I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith - or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.

This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.

If two men (or women) desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.

I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).

But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, mutually consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.

(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)

In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.

Just have faith.