Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Guest Blogger Commentary: A Militant Atheist Speaks Out

*By April Hilburn

We are all some degree of non-theist here, but why the various degrees? I pose a question to non-believers and non-militant Atheists.  Is the reason for your disbelief solely due to the logical conflict stemming from the suggested existence of an invisible being? 

Intending no disrespect, I think we should all be militant Atheists. Assuming that your rejection of religion is derived from a combination of factors, namely no verifiable proof of a supreme being and disagreeing with the construct and application of what the religious consider to be morality based of faith. If they (the religious) simply believed in a deity, I would just agree to disagree. However, that is not the case. There are many other details to that of belief, including a faulty sense of morality to be exact. Morality is subjective; I think most of us would agree on that fact.

Most Christians, in fact all the religious from every faith, believe that their belief-driven morality isn't subjective; they define morality (solely) as exampled in biblical text. I reject Christianity for many reasons. Their definition of morality conflicts with my sense of morality, which is where my 'anti-theism' stance is derived. It isn't that I harbor hate or have contempt for Christians or the faithful from any religion; it's simply that I believe they lack a true moral compass, which is why they require their religion to provide it for them. Their religion, however, is morally ignorant and only claims to be righteous. This is where my impatience with theists stems from, the fact that they are unable to identify what I see as perfectly clear and absurdly obvious, in favor of ritual and belief which has no baring in logic or reality.

For example, Christianity tried to be (mostly) moral in its conception. Having lived in a time where there were several different prominent religions, all fighting and killing each other in the name of their god and faith, to become the dominant system of belief/ basis for law. Christianity attempted to combine each religions tenant so as to abolish the fight over power. Of course, history shows that they in turn killed and persecuted to obtain that power which they enjoy today. 
The bible states it isn't ok to kill, then gives examples of countless examples which an exception is given to bypass this law. In concept, I get it. For example, I don't think it's ok to kill, unless you’re being attacked and need to defend your life. But Killing someone in defense is against some peoples religious beliefs (certain sects of Christianity, but mostly Buddhism), but in my opinion, if you are attacked and your life is threatened, and you've done nothing to provoke such an attack, said attacker is likely to kill another once you are dead. In this reasoning, killing those who attempt to kill you is morally acceptable. 

Lets also not forget that there are numerous bible verses in every faith’s bible which state that it is ok to kill, if the provocation includes the disrespect of their faith, or for some other reason which today we call archaic and immoral.
Christianity believes that the exception to the "thou shalt not kill" law includes multiple scenarios, including spreading their belief, or increasing the influence of their belief (under the guise that doing so promotes a moral society). Only the application of this exception is enough to deem their beliefs immoral. 

For everyone on Earth to live respectful of each other, we can't have an accepted majority who believes that only they are worthy of respect. Their stance is that only those who believe or 'serve' God are worth consideration, being that everyone else is condemned. Their opinion is that those who don't believe as they do, don't simply disagree out of logic (and they definitely don't think it's out of moral conflict), they think we are unknowingly influenced by evil, therefore our ability to make decisions regarding society is not only useless, but dangerous to them.

As long as there are religious people who believe this, everyone is subject to their exclusion as well as their attempts to inject their definition of morality into our lives (via law and social slandered). Progress in society, regarding peace, will never be achieved this way. Therefore, I am anti-theism and define myself as a militant Atheist.
Paleolibrarian Guest Blogger freelance writer and activist, April Hilburn, lives and works in Nicholls, GA.  She is a free-thinker and fought her local school board to remove religious ritual from her child's secular public elementary school. She can be reached on Facebook.


  1. Your piece is well thought out & makes numerous salient points that had been unformed in my mind until your words organized them into logical thought. I agree with your perspective, when looked at from such an angle, it seems insane & ridiculous that we allow our society to be based on such beliefs, our laws & even our govt. (the $ bill does say "In God We Trust") despite the supposed separation of church and state--neither have ever really been separate.

    I've hesitated to identify myself as an atheist because many associate atheism with satanism, which to me is still another deity I don't believe exists. However, I DO believe the people who worship such a negative & destructive delusion ARE dangerous to others, just as those who worship any deity are dangerous in their self-righteousness. This all goes back to a recent blog post here on absolutes, and beliefs that are in fact NOT facts, but people believe them as if they are the truth for everyone in existence. So goes religious faith, assuming what they believe is the one correct morality or truth, willing to go to ANY lengths, even murder, to "save souls" when in fact they are destroying them in the name of some deity--especially the so-called LOVING God, an oxymoron of epic proportions.

    Thanks for clarifying your perspective so well, that your words helped solidify my own logic & understanding.

  2. Hi AWOLGina,

    Thanks again for sharing and for following the site. The articles are meant to inform and entertain, so it appears we're getting it right, at least if you use your insightful commentary as an indicator.


  3. Great piece. AWALGina--don't want to be called an atheist bc you don't want to be thought of as a satanist??? wha-what??? Look-up the definition of atheism and rethink that one. Not trying to be rude, jsut never heard that argument/statement in my life. Seems to come from someone still stuggling with idea of no God. True? For ex: some people who grow-up in Christian family first become agnostics because they believe atheism is arogant. However, once you realize that all relilgions are made-up and you understand WHY they are made-up in the first place (goes back to understanding tens of thousands of human history and evolution with religion explaining the natural world around us combined with the very powerful and EMOTIONAL human brain). Atheism is only a non-belief...it is not a religion or anything else (as Christians would have you believe. And, do not feel guilty for your nonbelief--it only shows that you are a thinking person. Much Love, Travis

  4. I greatly agree. Just 2 questions on your English: "no baring in logic or reality"? Did you mean "no bearing on logic or reality"? I like the idea of "each religions tenant" (someone who rents a religion!), but did you mean "each religion's tenets"?