CNN special report, Atheism: Inside the World of Non-Believers

Last night I watched the CNN special report, Atheism: Inside the World of Non-Believers.

It makes me wonder, considering what some religious people think, such as the parents who see their son as dead since he turned his back on their beliefs.

Would they rather their child come out gay, or atheist?
Murderer or atheist?
Convert to an opposing religion, or atheist?

At what point does it all not make any sense any longer to them?

There were a few important things missed in the report but we should recognize however that people may have addressed some of those points, but between the editor and the producers, those points may not have made it into the final product.

"In God we trust" was only added recently to money and pledges and such. This is not news, only to theists and politicians who don't want to admit it. It's a huge point they failed to make, however. But they may have been theists who produced the show, in which case I'd say, good job overall, really. Because it could have been a travesty. Instead, it was actually not too bad, considering. 

I'm sure that it inflamed and hopefully enlightened a few hard core theists.

I don't have a problem with people having "church" format atheist gatherings or meetings without god. Some people just need that community thing and it may be good actually. It does however taste slightly like vegetarians who like faux turkey, which makes little sense to me in some ways and yet, perfect sense to those who indulge. 

Whatever it takes I guess to not eat meat, or avoid true religion.

Obversely, it's like atheists who play at religion without involving god in it. Baby steps, perhaps.

I have always had trouble with hard core atheists, the militant ones but then those who come out and deal with the backlash against them and their beliefs, perhaps, have to be that way, as original hard core feminists were in the early days of that movement. 

I see no need for it now however, as it only serves to alienate theists even more than they already are and can be counterproductive, as I've argued in the past about the FemiNazis types, including even those who might wish to ditch their theism.

It was an interesting show and pleasing to hear now about those 500 religious leaders (and growing) in religion who have a support group in actually being non-believers (baby steps again) but remaining leaders in their churches. Amazing. 

The reporter in the show says that atheists could be uncomfortable learning about religion or studying it. When in reality I've generally known more about religion than 99% of the theists I've come into contact with and I've seen and heard the same from other atheists.

On that note of calling oneself an atheist. I usually don't because as they indicate in the show, there is so much baggage associated with it. But that's not the reason I don't call myself one. As I see it, we evolved from lower forms of life as science has shown us and religion has not. In the beginning there was no god or religion, that came after we had brains the size that were able to handle the concept of magical thinking, and it explained things to us we did not understand.

Religion has been a placeholder, merely waiting for science to arrive on the scene to take over. Just as children need fairy tales to help them understand concepts before they are sophisticated enough to understand the larger concepts of good and evil. In that vein, I see religion as coming second and therefore I'm not an "atheist" as someone against something that was there first, but in reality religion came second and therefore is against "atheism" if you see what I'm saying.

So the correct term for "theist" should actually be, in our current lexicon, "a-atheist", as one who is against atheism. More accurately, the term for theists should be, "anti-atheist" since first there was no god (no belief in god if you prefer though it is somewhat disingenuous) and then only later did we develop beyond belief in demons, dangers and spirits in the dark, evolving THEM into a set of rules and therefore religion, and so you have theism. 

Hindus worshiping monkey god

So called, "atheists" came first people, so sorry to disenfranchise you of your long held belief that first there was god. First, there was not god, in reality. When we were just monkeys, sitting in a tree at night, staring fearful into the dark that we knew could reach out any second and snatch us and eat us, we evolved theism. Later it simply came from that. 

Aberration of multiple sets of nipples, why?

Generations and generations of having seen our loved ones who fell off a tree at night and were snatched away by an evil demon (a tiger, or lion or jackal or whathaveyou which we couldn't see) and therefore because evil. Why else do you think some people are born with tails, or multiple sets of nipples? We were once as a species, not as we are now, because of, evolution.

Not to mention how come so many of the stories in holy texts are also seen in previous civilizations predating Rome, or Egypt even?

Our forms of thinking and beliefs also evolved. 

So actually you see (hang on), god came second. The devil (satan, old scratch, whatever you want to call him), actually came first. The good magic came as a way to buffer our fears and counter our demons. From that we started to build rules, and from that we got various sects divided by geographical structures (mountains, bodies of water, etc.). 

The thing is, we are now grown up enough we don't need a crutch like religion. Or, we shouldn't. Though as much as religion is about in the world, obviously we need something. So having "church" without god, is a good direction to go. Though it scares the hell out of people. Because this is so deep seated within us.

It always cracks me up to hear a theist say, but if you're dying in a fox hole, etc., etc., when it just shows how clueless they really are and how much they don't get it. Atheists don't turn to god when dying in a fox hole, agnostics do. Atheists don't because they know there is nothing there. Does it make you feel good? Possibly, but you know in your heart it's a wasted thing and merely something that comes up out of your from your early childhood upbringing.

The fundamental fear of god built into us from childhood and through thousands of generations, if deeply seated, but it's not proof of anything, other than inherited mysticism and beliefs in magical thinking coming from our darker, less enlightened times.

The fact that atheists are the outliers in society (in America) means they are a temperature gauge for the maturity of our race and our nation. 

It's definitely gotten better since I was a kid, but there's still a long way to go. Religion, believe it or not, is on the way out and good riddance to it. It was helpful, but like a bad relationship lasting far beyond it's shelf life, it's exceeded the need to exist other than as an oddity or a way for us to evolve it yet again into what makes the most sense at this stage in our development as a species.

Yes, yes religion has done good, but good that can be done without it. That is always the cry of theists. "Look at all the good religion does." Yes, but how about we do it without religion? Why is that so impossible when it is regularly done all around the world and people just choose to ignore that reality.

Yes bad is also done in the name of no god, but far, far, more bad actually is done in the name of God. Remember the Crusades, ISIS? And don't get all squirmy about ISIS, no it's not Islam doing it, but yes, it is their excuse for it all. What if that didn't exist? Would there initially have been such reticence at removing them sooner?

Not god, religion, people's fears and beliefs

Again, remember all the wars, torture, and abuse done in the name of god. Where both sides thought "god" was on their side and they were on the just and right side of things. What were those things? Ideals, really. Just, ideals. Philosophy with magical beings sprinkled among them.  

When you remove all that, what is left? Bigotry? Elitism? Control? Power? Abuse? Time to let your childhood go and look forward to the scary realm of adulthood as a race of beings who are finally ready to take their place among the adults.

Again, here is a way to see this show now... CNN Special on Atheism

And I'll just drop this here... The Spread of Disbelief in the Arab World.
Who saw that one coming, right?

TUNN - The Useful News Network - News That Gets Things Done

This is an adjunct blog to today's earlier blog (USCNN).

Our news networks have been sucking, long and hard for some time now. Worst offender in the realm of Journalism? Fox News. Others? MSNBC. Worst News Network overall? Probably, CNN. Which is so sad considering what they initially achieved in their birth and creation of the twenty-four hour news cycle.

Sadder still, currently one of the best journalistic networks in the classical sense, is a foreign held news network (based in Qatar), Al Jezeera. What does that say about our home grown, bloated, biased news networks?

Some of the issues?

Instant media. The need to fill a twenty-four hour news cycle, even when there is nothing really going on in that period. Also, the belief by networks that people are only attracted to certain types of news, and the whore-mongering race to present those news pieces, regardless of what America needs to be hearing about. Advertisers. Advertisers who might pull their support if the wrong news is presented. Also, an overwhelming deluge by some networks of their corporate opinion. OpEds, over editorializing. Companies pushing agendas to make a buck at all costs with considerations of journalism taking a back seat, especially with politically partisan ones.

We need useful news.

We need a news network that isn't beholding to anyone. Who can do pure journalism. We need news that gives us what we need and not what they want, what their owners want, what a political party wants, what religious organizations want, what extremist conservatives or, liberals want.

We the American people are being held hostage by these groups, and it needs to stop. We need to start using our minds, to be intelligent, and to be a knowledgeable, even if in many cases not an educated citizenry. We need to be educated, even if only by our news networks.

This new network could be one where, between "hard news" segments, they could have alternative shows like the Jon Stewarts and The Daily Show type shows. Humor is a great way to get people to absorb news that is hard to hear, or accept. Stewart is an obvious liberal in his orientation. Perhaps a humorous liberal show followed up by a conservative show; but I'd suggest going another way.

Still, these types of shows show us the foibles in our ways, much in the way that the original Star Trek TV show, exhibited to us through science fiction, through aliens ("Those stupid aliens, who are nothing like us!"). They showed us things we needed to look at but couldn't, unless we saw it through the filter of it being others, outside of who we are.

We still need to see this kind of news, to deal with it, to ruminate on it with enough information so as to make useful, informed decisions. And we can't currently do that with the type of news we are receiving. The American people need news. Real news. News presented in a way that is useful. And news that we need to hear and not just want to hear.

In short, we need a news network that is giving us what we need to hear, and yes what we find interesting, but most of all not just editorialized and opinionated but real information with possible solutions; or at least a path to finding those solutions; ways to think about how to achieve solutions. Those are the key elements.

We need to know what to do about some of these intense issues so that when we talk to others about them, debate them, even argue about them, we have some meat, some fuel to use in order to achieve some kind of consensus.

We need news media that helps us to find the right answers and not just the answers for us, or for our group, our preferred political system. We need to put down the crazies, the extremists, the right wing fools, the left wing absurdities.

We need a news Network with programs that reports the news, even news we don't care about, until it is reported properly, and that offers the best case for fixing those issues; solutions as supported by the educated, the knowledgeable, even the public; and then updated over time in revisiting that news as better solutions and information make themselves known. Canvassing discussion groups, listening to the public, combing available information and actual journalistic endeavors.

The American people need to be informed. We need to be informed properly so that we support what our government does, so that they do what is needed, so that the American voice to our government not only supports what is done, or to be done, but can even offer solutions upward to our head of State and not only and always, downward from our head of State. It would need checks and balances but that can be figured out.

We need a new kind of news: a New News Network, a new kind of, "Triple N" that covers our nation's needs. Remember what John F Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Many people take that to mean, leave your homes, go out and volunteer, join the military, enter public service. But no, not only. It can be as simple as knowing what is happening all around you. Knowing the correct information, having an informed decision, speaking out what is true and necessary and others having if not the same understanding, at least an educated, intelligent understanding of the issues. Because in that, we can have productive debates. And in a productive debate, you can arrive at what is the best answer.

You have to have accurate information for a good debate and you have to have information on the things most important at that time in the world, as well as future considerations and their possible repercussions.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I just wrote a blog on this today titled, USCNN, that talks about this kind of thing, in part.

We need this new network to serve up to us the major and important news pieces. We need them to offer up to us perhaps the top three best solutions to the situation as it stands using (and over the next days and weeks), using all available resources, government, foreign governments, Vox Populi (the Voice of the People) via the internet and other news networks, using everything to continue to offer us the best solutions, possible solutions and not just that network's opinions, biases and hidden agendas.

Much as in the ancient Roman belief that a nation state should be run by the people, it takes an educated citizenry to properly support that best case type of a Republic.

In theory, we are a great nation.

To truly be a great nation and to continue being one will require us to pay more attention to what is going on; but first, we need to be sure that we are being supported in order for us to support our people, our government and thus, our position in the world and their perception of just what and who we really are.

USCNN

MSNBC, CNN, Fox News - what do these have in common? Capitalism, big money, kowtowing to advertisers and billionaire owners, perhaps? Even when they aren't told to alter the news to support the corporate desires, they can be slighted.

I'm sick to death of how biased the news is. When I was a kid I remember the news gave us the news. They would have editorials in the final segment where a trusted news journalist would  give us their insight on what we were dealing with on a major, important news topic and we could make up our own minds. It was a questionable thing. I thought (as a kid) that it was a great thing. Just tell us how to think, you're the one who is in the know, who does this for a living. My parents however weren't always so happy about it and sometimes disagreed.

It was heading down a slippery road they said, not just presenting the raw news and letting us decide what it meant for ourselves. But those journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and their like, strove for accurate reporting.

I remember when "Uncle Walt" gave us an editorial, trying to accurately give us an explanation of what the news meant. My parents thought it was a path that could go wrong if not careful; but, look around, it has. Now we have editorials, not news, and we need to get back to news.

News and information is as important as the military. Information is power and we need information, accurate information, in order to make decisions in our lives. An accurate news network is as important as our military, possibly even more.

But now it's like they took the Editorial and made THAT the news hour.

So how about this? We do things different than some other nations (like Russia, like Iran). We can do things that in some other countries would be horrendous (USSR, North Korea, China).

Perhaps what we need is to buy CNN and make it our own national news agency. Or we could create our own.

Hang on, give me a second here....

It would have to be set up as an independent department of the government and I do mean, INDEPENDENT. They would need a charter that guaranteed them the money they need to do a good job going into the future. So there is no way the government can dabble by any kind of direct action or even nuance, to affect their reporting.

Accurate news is a national necessity and private corporate interests are failing us.

It could be a network to offer news other agencies can't to give appropriate validity and veracity to. It could have commercials, it could have advertisers but... it would have to be set up in a way that should advertisers not like what is being reported on, they could walk off in a huff with only a good riddance from the network, so that it wouldn't be a problem; so that it couldn't affect their reporting.

It would have to be an independent agency so that even the government is somewhat afraid of them. Because we need a government who IS a little afraid of it's people, not our current government where the people are somewhat afraid of their government.

Advertisers could get to a point where they vie for a slot for advertising on USCNN (#USCNN) as the best news agency in the world. A network the entire world could trust to give unbiased, accurate information, even using CIA resources; which is after all, what they are there for. We just currently don't make as good of use of them as possible.

Why does it have to be Al Jazeera? We can do better than them!

This new agency would let the other news agencies do their whoring to their audience. They could continue to masturbate their public all they want. They could continue to spew the nonsense they are now to support the ridiculous beliefs of a ridiculous portion of our nation.

Because then if they came out with some nonsense, everyone would know that they could turn to USCNN for "Just the facts, Mam."

Eventually, it would clean up the other news agencies just by it existing. The prostituted news networks, the billionaires who buy and support this nonsense, would dry up. It would take away the reasons for big money to buy these news networks and support their rape of the American people.

Wouldn't that be nice? Accuracy in reporting? Science back in the media?

Just as we need a secular government to support people's religious beliefs so they can worship the deity of their choice, so we need a secular government to support our people's beliefs in accurate information; in order to make good choices in their daily lives, their voting lives, and even their religious lives.

Yes, this all sounds like a very scary thing. Sure we've all ready 1984, Brave New World, and so on but we are in many cases, already there. Yes, it could all go awry. But then again, yes, it can be done, and yes, it could change our nation, putting us back on a good path to the future again, and it could even, change the entire world.

Who are we to run away from a challenge? Especially when the outcome has so much potential to change so much, for so many, for the better?

See the follow on blog:
TUNN - The Useful News Network - News That Gets Things Done