Do we need an organized movement against religion?

If you’re already an atheist, you might feel as though the world around you is awash in delusion. You might also have noticed although a large number of people find comfort in the fanciful notions of religion, there are others who are entangled in guilt, pain, or violence because of it. The thought may have crossed your mind that a powerful and organized movement is required against religion to free mankind of their bondage of faith.

As I write this, an underground group called ‘Anonymous’ is waging war against Scientology, a rather recent inductee in the world of organized religion. Unlike most of their brethren, however, Scientology is aggressive and litigious against detractors, and this has spurred hackers and youthful protesters into action. They organize rallies, publish stories and videos, all in an effort to expose the morally questionable behavior of the ‘church’. So the question arises: should other similar movements be created to discredit and attack religion?

This is a tricky question, mostly because although we are loath to admit it, ideological movements, no matter how well intended, can often fall prey to the machinations of tyrants, who in turn use the momentum and frenzy to gain power. The persecution of religion has a tarnished and rather violent history, especially when these movements were subject to mob will. Ideologues, religious or not, are still dangerous, no matter how noble their original intent may be.

That is not to say we should remain silent regarding the infantilization of mankind by organized religion, who generally regard the world of the imaginary as more important, and more real, than the material world. Often, these religions become cults of death, focused almost entirely on a person’s immortal life, rather than the short time they actually do possess. We do need an organized movement, not to fight against religion, since this can only create violence, but rather fight for the right of individuals NOT to believe.

We must be as visible as possible, to show that a real alternative to religion exists. Atheism is generally mistrusted, since most individuals feel as though it is hopeless and dark. They fail to realize that by embracing the material world, our focus is not on what to do with our immortal souls, but rather how to live well during the brief time we have have on earth. We need to portray atheism not as a counter-culture movement, but as the natural progression of belief (or, more accurately, unbelief). Just as our ancestors clung to the primitive myths available to them, many of us retain this need to believe that something, or someone, larger than us is watching out for us. But the powerful desire for this to be true makes it no more true than any other intense dream. This is what we need to convey.

Many of you that have asked me countless times: where do we go from here? Although it seems unfair for us to admit, each unbeliever is a representative of atheism. The actions of one are interpreted as the whole. As such, it is important to maintain both an austere attitude and demeanor, to demonstrate that atheism is not the end of hope, but a new one: that although no god may be looking out for us, we can look out for one another instead.

Comments (33)

  • avatar

    Ben

    “rather fight for the rights of individuals NOT to believe”

    are your right being violated in a way that is uncommon to any other religion? ie, ideas laughed at, people thinking you’re weird, things of this nature? christians, and i’m assuming other religions, deal with this too (look at the reactions to my posts :) )

    I think the world is awash in delusion too. Who’s ‘delusion’ is the right delusion to believe tho? Should someone believe there is no God when their reasoning, emotion, and everything else tell them otherwise?

    But that’s what the whole arguement is about, isn’t it? A collision of worldviews that has gone on for centuries. Yet christianity steams along despite all its detractors. To me, that is a miracle in itself. Paul talks about the message of christianity saying, “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” Then, about the people preaching it, “Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth” (your readers will probably agree with that, at least towards me :) ). The fact that a foolish message being preach by unwise people became the ‘big dog’ of religions is nothing short of miraculous. If the people spreading the message are unwise (the word Paul actually uses refers to a pot that people used to go to the bathroom in) and the message is foolish, what is the cause of the incredible growth of christianity? I may be unwise, but I can only accredit it to the power of God.

    So if you want to call me unwise or foolish, or anything else, go ahead. It’s nothing christians haven’t heard before, and christianity will continue to steam ahead regardless.

  • avatar

    C.S

    “We do need an organized movement, not to fight against religion, since this can only create violence, but rather fight for the rights of individuals NOT to believe.”

    That’s an excellent point, and one atheists need to take to heart. A goal of eradicating religion is infeasible (and arguably ignoble). Our efforts would be best spent making sure that there is accurate information out there about the alternatives to religion, and also towards promoting non-theistic individuals into public office.
    I also think there needs to be more scientifically-inclined individuals who are able to promote science to the masses. We need more Carl Sagans, basically.
    (Actually, there is a show in development right now called “The Skeptologists.” It’s a scientific debunking show featuring people like Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, and Steve Novella. I really hope it’s successful.)

  • avatar

    Rapax

    What we need to convey, is the fact that religion is a disease. It’s a mental disorder, and what makes it unique is the fact that it is contageous to a certain degree. Luckily (for some), it isn’t equally effective on all people. It primarily infects young minds, and the minds of people in desperate situations. It preys on those in need of help. Once contracted, it is very rarely reversable. However, if a healthy mind manages to mature unblemished by religion, the chance of it becoming affected is quite small. No sane adult person would give the rediculous claims of most religons a second thought, unless they’re so desperately in search of help that they’re figuratively grasping at straws, in which case it’s argueable if they should be considered sane at all.
    So, if this is a mental condition, and it’s usually contracted when you’re a child, then it can’t be considered a rational choice. This means that it’s not the believers fault that he has religion, so any animosity towards him, simply for his being religious is akin to discriminating someone because they’re diabetic or have cancer. However, and this is a huge point, someone who intentionally spreads such an illness does this as a choice, and with the direct intention of harming someone, in this case usually a child or someone in a particularly vulnerable position. This constitutes abuse of the worst kind. This is where any organized movement for sanity should try and take effect. There’s no point in fighting against adult believers, but it’s worth a try to remove religion from schools, and children from churches.

  • avatar

    Norm

    What it’s about is not if my neighbour is religious or not. It is about society as whole that makes uninformed decisions based on dogma that affects all individuals. It is about releasing that dogma and replacing it with rational thinking, not expunging religion from our society.

    Yes, there are religious people who are by definition deluded, go to church regularly, yet civically they make rational decisions. Then there are those that live and evangelize their dogma, which arguable, even in the US, they are a minority; a vocal minority.

    It is up to the moderately religious, atheists and other sorts of skeptics to counter their voices lest they be thought the majority. (People – social beings that they are – tend to follow the crowd.)

  • avatar

    DJ W.

    I think that an organization of atheists / agnostics acting as “missionaries” to the religions, and specifically Christians, for starters, would be helpful.

    There are many Christian churches in America that have missionaries all around the world preaching “the gospel” where it’s an intellectual things, no physical violence or persecution involved.

    Why can’t some atheists / agnostics organized efforts in a similar fashion?

    A great start would be looking at former Christians who are now agnostics / atheists and see what we can learn about what that process of “intellectual maturation” (or “intellectual salvation” :) looks like.

    As a former literalist / fundamentalist Christian myself, I know that intellectual arguments were not enough to help me transcend my faith. This is something that Athiests / Agnostics interested in challenging the thinking of Christians need to understand.

    You notice how defensive and emotional Christians can get when their beliefs are attacked?

    We need to understand that addressing this emotional aspect is as important as the intellectual. What does this mean?

    First, avoid being “an antogonist” in the other person’s experience in an “us vs them” frame of “athiest vs christian.” Instead, come in a frame of “fellow traveler” on the intellectual journey of life (but only do this if it’s sincere.) The frame is “human and human.” And “we’re all in this together.”

    Second, meet the other person where he/she is at. And present them with ideas, questions, arguments that challenge them to expand their thinking from that point.

    If there Protestant (or Mega-Church Evangelical), as I was, challenging them from WITHIN the walls of their faith to “loosen” their dogmatic thinking is an ideal place to start.

    If you’re not already aware, look into how INSTITUTIONAL CHRISTIANITY and NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY differ (read books like Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna, So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore by Wayne Jacobsen, or Waking the Dead by John Eldredge to understand this difference.)

    You will literal learn to use the bible to help Christians think outside the confines of Organize Religion / Institutional Christianity.

    Then you go from there (I’m working on a book that retraces my own journey down this path.)

    Ultimately, and even BEFORE challenging the literal truth of a Christians faith, planting seeds that point to the possibility of their embracing a non religious world view and lifestyle that still offers them everything that their faith currently does (and this is something to look into / understand the desires and needs that religion meets: community, meaning, a sense of purpose, life-enriching story –> again a sense of larger purpose and meaning, kinship in the midst of a larger “epic” story, etc.)

    When a Christian sees that he / she does not NEED his / her religion to be truth (the bible to be the perfect word of God) for life to meet the emotional needs and desires that they have been come to associate as “only” met in it’s being true, he / she will be more ready to her challenges to her faith, without being defensive the way Christians (understandably, when you understand all that’s going on their psychologically) do with the earlier less aware understanding.

    Just some thoughts to consider for “the movement” :)

  • avatar

    susanna

    Ben wrote:

    rather fight for the rights of individuals NOT to believe

    are your right being violated in a way that is uncommon to any other religion? ie, ideas laughed at, people thinking you’re weird, things of this nature? christians, and i’m assuming other religions, deal with this too (look at the reactions to my posts )”

    …………….YES!!!Of course they are! correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Jacob was referring to the horiffic punishments some extreme religions exact upon any member who turns their back on the faith or acts inappropriately in their eyes…..example, women being stoned to death……so yes these people are having their rights violated, and it is very important that they, and all human rights are protected.

    Jacob I really liked the piece.

    In a lot of the responses though, it annoys me the way that ‘religion’ is used as such a blanket term…..if you are trying to speak out against religions which advocate violence or even just scare tactics, then fair enough, I agree…..but not every religion does this and some religions advocate tolerance of everyone elses’s world view……using the term ‘religion’ so loosely, and as if the word itself represents something which is always negative seems unwise, unless you claim to know every world religion in depth. It would be helpful to be more specific about what you are condemning. Don’t you agree that we all have the right to our own beliefs if we do not try to impose them on anyone else or to harm others because of WHAT we believe?

  • avatar

    jazzbone85

    Mr. Fortin,

    I must say that I’m disturbed by your views. First of all, let me clarify that I am not religious and I don’t think atheists are going to hell or any such nonsense.

    However, I think that you are misguided in claiming that religion is responsible for, as you put it, the “infantilization” of man-kind. As a race we have never been without some form of spirituality or religion, and in our relatively short time here on Earth we have progressed an incredible amount. How can you claim that religion is making us stupider when we continue to progress as a race despite the continuous presence of organized religion in our lives?

    I also find your belief that simply by telling people that there is no God or gods will somehow magically convince them that you are, in fact, correct. As I said above, I do not subscribe to the belief in an Abrahamic God or any other deity; however, just as many religions have little proof to support their believe you too have little proof to support yours.

    In my opinion, it is more important to accept that everyone will believe what they choose to believe – atheists are no different.

  • avatar

    Gothguy

    We dont need an Organized Movement Against Religion.
    We just need laws to make people stop raming there Religion down our necks and geting violent over suposed persona digs at there gods .

    If everyone apeared the same no one would care what Religion they were but because most of them like to make it painfully obvius it gives other people a reason to dislike/pick on them .

    Its the universal story once you lable someone as from a difrent Religion black white gay emo gothic metal head geek jock ect ect you feel a sudden earge to say or do something in responce to there difrence .

    So ban a public display of Religion and its a good start.

  • avatar

    George

    re·li·gion n. (American Heritage Dictionary)

    1.
    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
    ___________________________

    If you have an organized movement against religion, how can you logically distinguish it from religion?

    Further, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative. If you assert that God does not exist, you make an unprovable assertion. Therefore, saying that God does not exist is a statement of belief, no more, no less. So, organized atheism would not only take the form of religion, it would be putting forth an unprovable statement of belief as its core conviction.

    Why tie atheism into that knot?

    Another thing to consider is that religions tend to thrive under persecution, not wither away. Forming an organization to fight religions would probably encourage rather than deter them. The Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1959 changed the Dalai Lama from the unknown ruler of a remote kingdom to a major player in world politics and the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    So, relax. Trust people. If religion is false, it will eventually wither away. If it’s true, then there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

    Love

    George

  • avatar

    GOD

    I’M REAL MAN

  • avatar

    susanna

    good points….

    Gothguy….to me, banning public displays of religion seems like treating a symptom rather than the cause.

    If people everywhere are so quick to condemn others based on their alterity, then we should be looking at addressing THAT problem….not banning people from expressing themselves as if we agree with this abuse of our rights!

  • avatar

    Neil

    Why do we consider that aetheism is necessarily more rational and sane than recognised religion?

    There is no hard evidence for or against the existence of God or gods. That is why religion requires faith; why they are called faiths or beliefs.

    A belief in the absence of God or gods is equally unfounded in fact. Atheism is also a faith. The most rational position is agnosticism which asserts that there is not evidence to convince either way.

    Nor is conventional religion at the root of all intolerance and war. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all atheists. Rather intolerance comes from an unreasonable certainty in the correctness of one’s own opinions and an unwillingness to entertain or acknowledge doubt.

  • avatar

    Muslim

    Religion is the only reason why the world isn’t completely garbage. If your an atheist and have no one to awnser to then what morals have you? What you think is right and wrong? It’s okay to rape someone because if you want to why not? couse she don’t want to hah whos her i’m livin my short life for me. It’s okay to torture animals, lie, steal, drink, and do all other things. Why is it okay because it feels good. It makes one happy gonna die soon ne way right mines well live happy. Religion stops all this you have to awnser for things we do. So atheist why not do all this wrong stuff besides the fact that if you get caught you get locked up? atheist makes right and wrong and what morals they wana live by and they can live by anything that makes them happy. or else they are just following and using other peoples rights and wrongs

  • avatar

    Muslim

    Well said George well said Indeed.

  • avatar

    C.S

    Muslim@14:

    “Religion stops all this you have to awnser for things we do.”

    I would then wonder why there are so many examples of the religious doing terrible things to others for reasons related to their religion. And please try to not fall back on the fallacious “those terrible people aren’t true Christians/Muslims/Jews/whatever” argument. It’s been over thirty years since Antony Flew put that dead horse to rest.

    I do like how you seem to imply that religious-based morality is only effective because there are repercussions in the afterlife. So, essentially, the religious are not good and righteous because they truly believe it is right to live that way, but because they are either digging for a Heavenly reward or afraid of a Hellish punishment?

    You’re also edging on the quantification of morality, which is impossible, as it is an entirely subjective concept. Sure, most everyone will agree that murder is wrong, but some will excuse it if the situation called for taking one’s life to save another, while others will not. You’ll find moral disagreements all over the world on issues like sexuality, infidelity, diet, medicine, and innumerable other things. There is no uniform concession on absolute morality, and to argue that religion somehow has a claim to it when the various religions can’t even come to agreement on the matter seems misguided (at best).

    Regardless of where you’d like to argue morality comes from, it isn’t difficult to see that there ARE immoral religious individuals, just like there ARE moral areligious individuals. That alone seems to put the idea of religion being the only source of morality in the world into question, doesn’t it?

  • avatar

    C.S

    I should add that I don’t disagree with the idea that religion can give people a moral code. The idea I disagree with is the one that states morality and religion are inextricably linked, that one necessitates the other.

  • avatar

    Accomando

    Neil, took the words right out my mouth.

  • avatar

    C.S

    Neil: Please go to Hitler’s WikiQuote page and observe how many times this atheistic individual invokes God and religion:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hitler
    Particularly of interest might be: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” (1941)

    But can we please not start playing Go Fish with history’s best and worst? Every science/religion discussion seems to degrade to that at some point, and I’ve never found it to be anything more than a colossal waste of time.

  • avatar

    Accomando

    C.S. why do you think Hitler had to say that? Beause he was persecuting peaceful christians and people were questioning his motives.

    Furthermore, when he was trying to create his “master race” by trying to force his SS troops to have out of wedlock children to in order to produce “future soldiers”, many refused because it was againt societies religious norms at the time. He wasn’t a catholic, its called playing to the constituency. That still doesn’t account for Stalin, who was an atheist, and killed more people anyway, same with Pol Pot, who mudered 2 million, both confirmed atheists.

    C.S., what was the point of your post?

    The point of neil’s post was that there is niether proof to confirm or deny the existence of a God or gods, therefore, atheism is just as much a “faith” as any other religion.

    He used those 3 atheists or 2, to satisfy your own dissent in which you already explained you loathed (“I’ve never found it to be anything more than a colossal waste of time.
    “), but brought up anyway.

    How do you answer to the fact that atheism is just as much a faith belief system as any contemporary religion?

  • avatar

    Ben

    I’m so proud.

  • avatar

    C.S

    C.S. why do you think Hitler had to say that? Beause he was persecuting peaceful christians and people were questioning his motives.

    Well he and the DAP both got a fantastically early start on it, then. Working that kind of propaganda machine fourteen years before Hitler even became Chancellor shows a practically unbelievable amount of foresight. But I’m not going to argue. Ultimately, none of us knew Hitler personally, so the point is moot.

    That still doesn’t account for Stalin, who was an atheist, and killed more people anyway, same with Pol Pot, who mudered 2 million, both confirmed atheists.
    C.S., what was the point of your post?

    I don’t recall making a point about Stalin or Pol Pot, so I’m not sure what “accounting” there is to be had for them. Does making a point about a historical fallacy suddenly promote me to the task of playing apologist for history’s atheists?
    My point was one against the silly game of playing shuffleboard with history’s atrocities and the perpetrators therein. Theism/atheism comes up, somebody plays the Hitler card, each side tries to push the bad guys onto the other side while claiming the good guys as their own, and two hundred posts later comes the already obvious conclusion: decent people and shitty people exist on both sides of the issue. Excessive discussion for something anyone who isn’t blinded by their own personal bias (on either side, mind you) already knew.
    Hitler is one of the most worn-out and pointless canards in the entire theist/atheist discussion, right up there alongside the “Satanic atheist” and “delusional Christian” stereotypes. And that’s what I take issue with. Other than that, I agree that Neil makes some decent points.

    How do you answer to the fact that atheism is just as much a faith belief system as any contemporary religion?

    Nobody appreciates petitio principii, regardless of the issue.
    You can make a point that atheism is a belief (a belief that there are no gods), but I really don’t see how it is a believe system. Where’s the system? Atheism makes one assertion: there are no supernatural gods. There are no other beliefs or codes inherent to atheism. It does not dictate what else to believe, who to hate, what to eat, when to work, how to punish, where to live, etc. This is one reason why atheists are notoriously difficult to organize: the one point of view atheists share is often not enough to overcome the many they do not.
    If the point you’re trying to eke out is that atheism is shoulder-to-shoulder a belief in line with religion, then I would agree to the point that we all exist in varying shades of agnosticism, and that claiming to have 100% irrefutable knowledge to the non-existence of a god or gods is equally as delusional as holding that same level of incontrovertible belief in the existence of a god or gods.

  • avatar

    Accomando

    “…If the point you’re trying to eke out is that atheism is shoulder-to-shoulder a belief in line with religion, then I would agree to the point that we all exist in varying shades of agnosticism, and that claiming to have 100% irrefutable knowledge to the non-existence of a god or gods is equally as delusional as holding that same level of incontrovertible belief in the existence of a god or gods….”
    “Eke out”? Cute. I am amused at your attempt to belittle only to eventually agree. Nothing “eked out” about it, I was quite clear in my assertion which you then agreed with. I am satisfied that you were able to acknowledge that fact, even after you continued on with the “historic shuffleboard”, which I agree is pointless. The only reason why I brought it up in the first place was because I enjoyed the irony of you claiming how “pointless” it is, while you continued to go on and post old quotes and links to wikipedia. However, to finish my thought, I agree with your point that “atheism” does involve a whole lot less insanity then all other faith based beliefs, and it really isn’t a “system”, but never the less, its still a faith based belief. And anyway, then why don’t you call yourself agnostic, why take on the term “atheist” when you don’t actually agree with atheism? If you are all at different levels of agnosticism, why not call yourselves agnostics?
    “…that claiming to have 100% irrefutable knowledge to the non-existence of a god or gods is equally as delusional…”
    I mean, isn’t that what atheism implies? Am I wrong?

  • avatar

    Accomando

    “…When your beliefs lean far enough to either end of the spectrum, it just makes more sense to use an indicator that more closely mirrors your beliefs than a more neutral one…”
    That’s an explanation I can live with.
    “…Having absolute knowledge and certainty on a subject would imply that the belief in question is not open to revision, but I’d like to think that all but the most staunch atheists would be open to a reconsideration of their beliefs in light of extraordinary evidence to the contrary…”
    Fantastic, just was what I was looking for, an open mind is needed in this life on all subject matters. Hopefully, even most staunch atheists would agree with you on that. I appreciate you taking the time to define your point of view.

  • avatar

    C.S

    Eke out? Cute. I am amused at your attempt to belittle only to eventually agree.

    If it came across as belittling, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean for it to. You’ve been completely civil. I frequent other Internet communities, and sometimes frustrating experiences there have a tendency to carry over to other places (right now I’m in it pretty heavily with this terrible HIV denialist).

    The only reason why I brought it up in the first place was because I enjoyed the irony of you claiming how pointless it is, while you continued to go on and post old quotes and links to wikipedia.

    To be fair, it was one link and one quote, and I don’t find it particularly ironic to post a disagreement with an assertion and then ask that the discussion not derail in that direction. I’d be surprised if there were many people who wouldn’t respond to the accusation that they shared a lifestyle with Adolf Hitler.

    And anyway, then why don’t you call yourself agnostic, why take on the term “atheist” when you don’t actually agree with atheism? If you are all at different levels of agnosticism, why not call yourselves agnostics?

    I mean, isn’t that what atheism implies? Am I wrong?

    Well, part of it is colloquialism. Agnosticism doesn’t necessarily mean a belief existing equally in between theism and atheism, but I think that’s how it’s commonly viewed, sort of as the halfway mark between belief and non-belief. When your beliefs lean far enough to either end of the spectrum, it just makes more sense to use an indicator that more closely mirrors your beliefs than a more neutral one.

    And I don’t think atheism is equal to an irrefutable claim against the existence of gods, but rather that there is very strong evidence against it. Having absolute knowledge and certainty on a subject would imply that the belief in question is not open to revision, but I’d like to think that all but the most staunch atheists would be open to a reconsideration of their beliefs in light of extraordinary evidence to the contrary (spontaneous stigmata, firsthand witnessing of a “miracle”, any things of that sort).

  • avatar

    Norm

    Jacob, Let’s discuss presidents welcoming popes in a secular country.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    I don’t see a problem with that. I mean, it’s not as though I would tell a pope to fuck off or anything, just because my country wasn’t a religious oligarchy.

    What gets me more is the intrusion of the religious right in our secular lives. Like their crusade against birth control, or artistic materials they consider offensive.

  • avatar

    Norm

    Jacob, Don’t you think that the US head of state shouldn’t be making such a big fuss over the fairy god daddy. Okay, I know its just George Bush, but spending tax payers dollars on a birthday bash for the holy conehead just doesn’t .

    Giving legitimacy to religious leaders will open the door to their creeping creepy influence.

    Let the pope travel, but don’t make it a state visit, don’t legitimize what he stands for – like the restrictions you so disdain.

  • avatar

    Norm

    Jacob, Don’t you think that the US head of state shouldn’t be making such a big fuss over the fairy god daddy. Okay, I know its just George Bush, but spending tax payers dollars on a birthday bash for the holy conehead just doesn’t cut it .

    Giving legitimacy to religious leaders will open the door to their creeping creepy influence.

    Let the pope travel, but don’t make it a state visit, don’t legitimize what he stands for – like the restrictions you so disdain.

  • avatar

    Norm

    Also, the pope is talk routing out the paedophiles from the clergy. Shouldn’t have God known about them and tipped the pope off on who they were? As God representative on earth, he sure is not being well briefed.

  • avatar

    Joe Botelho

    So i guess you guys really are with me, now lets attack organize religon toghter!
    I”l take all the young hot nuns while the rest of you guys fight the heavly equiped muslim extremists.
    Lets Go G. I. JOES!!!!!!!!!!!

  • avatar

    Ben

    “Shouldn’t have God known about them and tipped the pope off on who they were? As God representative on earth, he sure is not being well briefed.”

    Maybe he’s not God’s representative after all ;)

  • avatar

    Rohit Sidhu

    I am an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST, yes it is possible to be BOTH simultaneously.

  • avatar

    James William Morgan

    Hello fighting for right for people not to belive seems to be a bit pointless as in western civilisation everyone has the right to believe in what they want. The movement should be trying to show those people that we dont need an imaginary god to believe in or to give us hope aslong as they have the strength to believe in themselves, although this is easier sed than done. Also the church has a lot of governmental influence if there is any chance of showing people that they dont have to be weak that they can truly belive in themselves and gain hope from others this would have to be targeted.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top