Warning: This work has been rated 16+ for mature content.
The era of complacence is coming to a close. The era of keeping quiet about one's lack of belief shall cease to exist, once this document has been adopted as a means to live. For too long, the inner militancy of the atheists, the agnostics, and the anti-theists has been self-repressed for the purpose of "not upsetting people". Well, I say, fuck that. I believe it is time to expose one's true disdain for the practices of organised religion, who offer no place in government or law.
Now, before I discuss the 10 Point Program, which details the means an atheist can live their lives, I will address common criticisms of the position of the atheist, and offer criticisms of religion, specifically that of Christianity. For members of this site who clicked on this work expecting an unbiased and fair portrayal of their faith, please leave.
There are several criticisms of atheism, but I have narrowed it down to three.
1) Atheism is a sin.
Says who? An outdated scripture written in the desert over a thousand years ago? What exactly constitutes as sin? Even if it was a "sin", I would still practice atheism, mainly because I find it more liberating than religion. Religion serves the purpose of another entity, which is ultimately the very definition of an authoritarian dictatorship either in a Maoist or a Stalinist society. Besides, atheists do not promote sins, and the "sins" it does are not valid as sins. Take homosexuality (which is discussed in much further depth in EmeraldEyes' fascinating essay The Roots Of Homophobia: The Bible). Why should it be a sin to express one's love not just to the opposite sex? The paradox lies in the fact that the Christian position is this: "I respect gay rights but I acknowledge it's a sin". Why support a "sin" knowing you will go to Hell for it?
2) Atheism cannot prove God doesn't exist.
Says the one who cannot prove God does exist. Atheism is the rejection of religions which haven't met their burden of proof, which is...well, EVERY religion ever invented. Until sufficient evidence is given that there is a God, either in the Christian sense, the Muslim sense, the Hindu sense, the Sikh sense, or even in the Buddhist sense, then I shall remain a free thinking atheist "Heathen" homosexual "dog" or "sodomite". The existence of God was asserted with no evidence, so why would anyone believe it?
3) Atheism spawned communism, responsible for the deaths of 100 million people, with regimes such as Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, etc.
Ok, ok. No. This is incredibly wrong. Communism was not invented as a result of Karl Marx's atheism, although the two seem to go hand in hand. The communism one is referring to is not communism, but a perversion and a mutation of it, which has now been attached to the original ideas of Marx. Also, the deaths of a 100 million people? Allow me to address a common misconception: people kill people. Capitalism itself hasn't killed people, communism itself hasn't killed people, religion, atheism, etc. People kill people for their ideas. Also, I would love to see evidence of a modern government not rooted in the histories of bloodshed. So called "communist" states may not have even been atheist, but abolished the churches to consolidate absolute power. Joseph Stalin received a church education, and although rejected the religion he was raised in, you can liken his regime as one very similar to God; if you look at propaganda posters of Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, they are portrayed as Gods and saviours. Hmm. Sounds familiar. Besides, by that logic, you can apply this ridiculous argument to religion: Hitler is on record in Mein Kampf for saying the following:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.' "
So this argument is one of ignorance, in the refusal of the recognition of evil on its own side.
Now, I believe I have already critiqued religion, but I shall go into more depth. I refuse to use sources, as the refutation of religion requires no evidence but common sense.
Religion, to quote Marx, is the "opium of the people". Religion is the satisfaction with not knowing everything and leaving it up to God to fill in the gaps, and even when contradictory evidence is too large to ignore, it stills ignore the position, instead opting to justify the way of the Lord works as "mysterious". What is so mysterious about wreaking havoc on ordinary people for what they do in the privacy of their own homes, committing acts of thought crime, advocating execution, torture, murder, martyrdom etc.? Religion has now become a means to keep monarchies and the socially elite in power because they were handpicked by God, allegedly. This statement is typical of the bourgeois as an excuse to oppress the other classes.
Jesus may have died for our sins, but certainly not mine.
This is what I propose the atheist, the agnostic, and the anti-theist considers to ensure a healthy life free of religion and its invisible shackles.
1) Complete and utter segregation from local churches and anything remotely spiritual.
2) Education on atheism to address the misconceptions discussed earlier.
3) Do not be nice to those who threaten your intellect. Be blunt, curt, cold, frank, etc.
4) Constant readings of religious texts to exploit the contradictions and false love of religious people.
5) Not compulsory, but an understanding of the alternative theories of our existence, as well as extensive reading of philosophies, e.g. absurdism, nihilism, etc.
6) A very ambitious and unlikely prospect, but for those attempting a career in politics, try and target the religious influence in politics in your local area.
7) Remember: you don't need religion to be a good member of a community. Do your best to prove that the atheist is only cold and "an asshole" as a defence mechanism, not out of pleasure.
8) Campaigning for LGBT rights, however, IS compulsory. You cannot be a homophobe and atheist. That doesn't make sense.
9) Once an atheist, always an atheist. One cannot convert to a religion, for the simple reason that the religion lacks reason and a better argument than atheism.
10) Be aware of the benefits of atheism over religion, i.e. a life of freedom and intelligence.
There is no time to waste, my fellow atheists. Militancy won't win in a day, so the struggle must begin.
Atheists of the world, assemble!
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
141,381 Literary Works • 674,386 Reviews
All Heil Baselisk!
I didn't see the username until now, but I thought it might be you, Herr Führer 
I found this argument to be despicable. It was so thin that the smallest breath of TRUTH could shatter it. All that you have done with this 'manifesto' is MAKE IT a religion. I for one HATE religion and I AM a Christian. Religion is nothing but a set of rules to follow, whereas Christianity it much, much more than that. Being a Christian is about having a relationship with Jesus.
But Atheism is about logic (or so you say), so let’s try it this way. The wind, you can’t see it but you know it is there because you can feel it and see the affect it has on the things around you. But what if you couldn’t feel as well as not see it. What would you think wind was then? A breeze through the trees would just seem like they were just stretching or something. You might come up with a theory about what it was but in the end it would still be the wind that made the trees move.
I hope you get my point (that is if you bothered to read all this without stomping off). And just so you know there are a lot of theories out there but all of them have holes unless you include God.
I am an atheist as well, but only because I don't believe in worship and how controlling of personal life many religions seem to be. However you are not much better. Your atheist mainfesto (#1-10) was just as restricting as any religion. You encourage being "blunt, curt, cold, frank, etc.," instead of encouraging people to stop being disrespectful to each other simply based on religion. When you wrote, "One cannot convert to a religion," that is not any different from the Ten Commandments of Christianity and Catholicism's, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." What you wrote is seeming less of a defense of atheism, but an attack of religion and a restriction of atheists to follow what you believe. How is that any different than forced religion? I don't want to sound angry at you, but people get the wrong idea about atheists when religions are being bashed like you are doing. As an atheist, I still want people to have the freedom to practice religion if they wish to or not if they don't, as long as you are not being rude to people of opposing beliefs.
Hello,
Way to perpetuate stereotypes that the ethist is emotionally aggressive. Why pin Christians against the wall and say it is me vrs. you? Why not support your claim with facts and offer open arms and tell everyone, it is okay what you believe but I have some evidence that needs to be heard. Have you not learned that hateful and angry messages always hurt the cause. Do you remember WW2 when Hitler set about his manifesto, you have about the same credibility. Almost no one read that thing before the election, had they read it Hitler would not have been elected.The much more responsive messages are honest, kind, and exemplifies the problems that set about why the change needs to exist. You wonder why Martin Luther Kings non protest civil rights activities where so hard hitting? It is because they exemplified why change needs to exists very very well. The same thing goes for Gandhi, please, if your going to write a manifesto learn from history. It is the single most critical thing to learn when writing messages that are responsive. Moving on--
Where are the facts, the case studies, the statistics? To be susceptible to both communities you need to present your case in a scientific way where the logic is so concrete that Christians become atheist and atheist can respect everything you say. You imply in your message that atheist cannot prove god exists but why? There are many atheist who believe that the big bang and evolution does prove that God exists, so why would you leave section 2 as the smallest part of your essay. What did you give to the atheist or christian community by saying "you can not prove god exist either." I was just like well duh. The whole religion things preaches 'believing without evidence' i.e. faith. It is a feeling and you are only supporting the most obvious assumptions, not the most critical.
and just because I stopped here doesn't mean that there isn't so much... so much more to comment on.
Please, if you want this to be heard and to be convincing you need to try harder.
I admire your honesty, comrade. Your comments are much appreciated as I will revise this work.
Similar to the situation in my response to "The Root of Homophobia: The Bible," what follows here is not a review.
I am stunned. I sit, working my jaw, wondering idly at what things I should be doing. But here I am; I find myself face-to-face with a modest but terrifying "manifesto" that, to bear with silence, I would be sustaining by omission. I cannot artificially elevate myself above its arguments, and simply state "they do not apply." If I believe that this is real, I cannot ignore it. Furthermore, I cannot invalidate it by falling victim to the comfortable knowledge that there are others who agree with me... No, that would be quite bad.
I am ashamed to see this written. To support your fellow man, regardless of sin, regardless of color, or affiliation, or even crimes or perversions... that is the core of true human compassion, religion aside. I assure you that Christianity puts no condemnation on those who "love sinners;" though it is correct to hate their sins. It is correct to hate alcoholism, but embrace the alcoholic.
Homosexuality, in particular, has caused many schisms in the Christian community. There are many who see it not as a sin at all. It does no particular harm. It is not universally hated. But that is its own topic.
Even though you preface this piece by proudly stating you will give biased and unfair portrayals of others' faiths, you have neglected to warn that your own convenience forms the basis for those portrayals. I don't know what I expected. You have every right to make that choice.
So it would seem.
Sense: the interpretation of external stimulation, the processing of something exterior to oneself and the subsequent internalization and incorporation of that rote analysis into the simple crevices evolution or design has conveniently arranged in the human mind for the purpose of storing information about the world. Sense, in its common form, as shared equally by all human beings, is not uniform. There is no common sense. Where I liken a scent to my grandmother's kitchen, you may liken it to the muddy streets of London. Different synaptic series. Different schemas. Different interpretations. Different sensations. A different sense of smell.
One may refer only to one's own sense as "common," for one cannot sense through the experiences and sensory organs of another.
Or do you mean common sense in its abstract form? As in the set of basic human rules my grandfather among others expects will naturally arise in a child who has been brought up "correctly," where said child has been nurtured to have exposure to various situations and to have developed specific, "sensible," responses? It is an argument of nurture and a question of whom you ask whether sense of this sort is, indeed, common.
Logic, then. You should try logic. It has always before justified militancy, sheer violent opposition... Sequestration. Isolationism.
It is peaceful to be alone, adrift in the pleasant self-righteous waters of the mind.
Those who care for this world, and its inhabitants, do not merit themselves that selfish repose.
Sense is only subjective if you allow others to feel. Logic is only subjective if you allow others to think.
I know that, similar to how Christians are often casually summed up by the opinions and viewpoints of a single antagonist, there are many atheists who don't feel compelled to militancy and embrace the politics of coexistence. That makes it no less terrifying to discover pockets of ignorant, frightened, and violent atheists, waiting to spring up around a rhetoric of isolation and superiority.
This is not a compelling response. It's not a review. It's not well-structured, or meant to inspire or please anyone. I don't necessarily expect anyone to read it. It is just what I felt compelled to say, for my own benefit as much as anything, and I won't apologize for it, nor do I expect the author of this piece or anyone who agrees with him/her to apologize for their views.
I would like to respond to the rather demanding 10 point program you outline, a la Marx, but without his flair or compassion, but time does not permit, and my thoughts are scattered anyway.
I would just like to say that the above arguments are held, but not by all. You cannot argue about a belief because it spawns evil, or because it cannot be proven, or any other similar characteristic. Not even if it is morally "right" or "wrong", as these are traits of particular beliefs. The only thing you can truly say about a belief is whether it is correct or incorrect, and you have to take into account the particular belief's method of arguing. We (Christians) are Christians because we personally believe that God exists. To us this is fact. You (Atheists etc.) do not believe in God because by logic and by reason, God does not exist. As you say, "religion lacks reason and a better argument than atheism." And, although I think you are wrong, I cannot beat you in such an argument. However I could beat you in a personal argument, by which I mean "I have met my God, you cannot say that, because you haven't met him, he does not exist." These are two different methods of argument, based on our religions, and we could only truly solve this ever-going debate if we were to argue on the same terms.* To argue on the same terms we would need to be of the same religion. And then we couldn't argue our own side. Thus, resolution is impossible without total conversion.
I do not object to this poem at all, it details your argument in the same way my poem detailed mine. (by the way I expect this to rage as much controversy as my own did.) However to argue your case on your grounds to disprove my point is idiotic.
*Both our beliefs has argued on each others terms before, but this is pointless as it won't convert either of us as each still believes due to their differing arguments. These are the ones who argue that Christianity can be proven, and I think @WindSailor wrote an essay on it. Also there are a few Christians who have converted on your terms, that is, that there is a logical argument for Christianity. But that is, I believe, largely beside the point.
Yours in conflict,
Take That You Fiend!
P.S. I did "like" the work by the way, not through agreement, but for you putting forward your defense.
P.P.S. If this makes little sense in any way tell me and I will do my best to clarify.
Hello, wildwildcat here for your review!
For the sake of this review, I shall assume that the work is in no way an exaggeration or a parody, and that you wholeheartedly believe what you wrote.
Your beginning is wonderfully evocative of documents and creeds of the past. Your reference of yourself and the usage of slang, however, detract slightly from the feel. I would recommend perhaps placing that portion in the paragraph after, as to preserve your "antiquity Victorian" feel, but not to detract from it in any way.
Grammar edit:
" I believe it is time to expose one's true disdain for the practices of organised religion, who [shouldn't this be "which"?] offer no place in government or law."
"Now, I believe I have already critiqued religion, but I shall go into more depth. I refuse to use sources, as the refutation of religion requires no evidence but common sense." This makes you sound slightly pompous and ignorant. Perhaps cut out the "I refuse to use sources" part?
Your critiques are well-composed, and your varied flow of language made this a treat to read. Many instances, however, I felt that the word Christianity could be substituted for religion. I did enjoy your zealous attitude that you attacked the work with, and though I do not agree entirely with your views, I do respect them.
Your conveyance of your message came out strong, and your resolution seems quite solid. Anyhow, this was a fun read.
Cheers,
wildwildcat