We are expected by others and often impelled by our own needs to locate ourselves in the social landscape, that is, to say “what I am.” Sometimes that means what we make our living doing or what citizenship we hold. In small American towns it might entail declaring where we’ll be on Sunday morning. As a half-century member of the unchurched, that latter choice presents me with a small problem. I am happy to say I’m an atheist, but not only are lots of people unclear about what that means, a fair number have the bizarre opinion that no one is really an atheist, so they don’t believe me. (Admittedly, I’m not in a good position to chastise their lack of faith.) Some would like to soften my landing in the conversation by assigning me to the agnostic category under the impression that it is, well, less atheistic. After all, I’m a pretty nice guy, kind to animals and honest with my creditors. So if I choose to tug on supergod’s cape, surely I’d do so with an earnest seeker’s smile.

See, “atheist” only means non-theist; it doesn’t declare there is no god (though it can be used that way), just that I’ve no belief that there is one. “Agnostic” is a way of approaching alleged facts, sort of a Missouri “show me” frame of mind, although you’ll normally only hear it in the context of contentions about the supernatural. That makes me both atheist and agnostic, but I usually stick with atheist to make sure no well-meaning apologist can pretend I’m on a spiritual quest, certain to come to my senses in due time.

So let me summarize that: I have no belief in God, gods, angels, heaven, hell, devils, divinity, afterlife, intercessory prayer, sacred texts, sin, souls, or salvation. Here is what I do believe: first, there is no evidence thus far for any of those things; second, we living human beings are all we’ve got so we’d better do all we can to make our existence as compassionate, honest, comfortable, nonviolent, and free as we can.

Actually, from my perspective that last point is the most important. You see, being an atheist tells you what I’m not, but not what I am; it tells you what I don’t stand for, but not what I do. What that sentence reminds me and tells you is that far more important than being an atheist, I’m a humanist (of the secular variety)—a secular humanist.

So what does secular humanism entail? For me, three things mostly. First is a strong commitment to ethics and the further development of better ethics since we humans haven’t quite got that right yet (and morality derived from religions is as apt to mess it up as to help). Second is to treat the only life we are sure about with considerable care, compassion, mutual respect, and freedom. Third, although nothing human is free from error, is to support the scientific method as the most reliable means yet devised to describe ourselves and our world and to squelch what we’d be inclined to think is so but isn’t.

So what a miserable life it is without religion, without a loving god, and without a pass to avoid the unimaginable horrors that the loving god has in store for me and, apparently, for most of humanity! Not. Don’t fall for the lie about the despair and hopelessness of atheists, even though the propaganda is repeated from thousands of pulpits every Sunday. ’Taint so. Atheists are not less happy or less ethical than their religious friends. But they are less prone to announce themselves because of the social taboo promulgated by believers against unbelievers. In other words, most atheists are “in the closet,” so much that a joke among disbelievers goes this way: Q: Where are most atheists to be found? A: In church pews on Sunday morning.

I got my start in life in those pews as a believer, but more about that in other posts. Humans have invented uncountable gods over the centuries; monotheists (like Christians and Muslims) reject all but one. Atheists, as I think Richard Dawkins said, just reject one more god than their religious friends. I’ll save until a later post how I became a disbeliever at the age of about 21 except to emphasize that I did not lose my faith. Lose is far too passive. I discarded it along with tooth fairies and Easter bunnies.

John Carver

© John Carver 2013. This essay is from a post May 18, 2013 in John Carver’s blog, “JohnJustThinking,” which can be found at johnjustthinking.com.

Introduction: What if all the true and good things of all the existing religions of today could be incorporated into one universal belief or theology, this theology will have its foundation based on Science and Humanism without any supernatural conjectures and maybe called Humantology or any other appropriate name

     Most all of today’s religions originated between the seventh century BC and the seventh century AD and the total population of the earth thru that time was only around 5 million to 300 million. Life was hard with very little comfort in everyday life and the life expectancy was around today’s middle age. Science was not a word, the world was flat and the sun went around the earth. The prophets during this time had no knowledge of the science of evolution; so, they imagined that a supreme being or God created everything and was responsible for everything they didn’t understand. People lived in tribes and the only transportation was walking or using an animal; so, communication between tribes was minimal. This brought about all the different Gods, languages, and religions of today. If there is only one God, the prophets communicating with God, during this period of time, would have received the same message and in the same language, but they didn’t. Obviously, all their conclusions were imagined and all these religions lack any scientific evidence to show that they might be true.

     What is a prophet? It is one who is regarded by a group of followers as the authoritative revealer of God’s Will, but this is very subjective. A better definition is one who foretells events; PREDICTOR. This seems to be a better qualifier. Science is what produces the best predictors. Science, also, has produced more miracles than even Jesus could have imagined. This is because scientists use the scientific method to acquire knowledge. The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. The OXFORD English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation testing and modification of hypotheses.” This procedure provides testable predictions to see if the hypotheses are true or not. This is the one and only ritual that Humantology needs.

     The scientific method to date has produced no evidence to show that any kind of super-naturalism can exist; in fact, it shows evidence that it doesn’t exist. We now know that evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact and the equation E=MC2rd is also true. These two facts make super-naturalism science fiction.  Also, this makes scientists the more authoritative revealer of God’s will, if there is a God; making them today’s prophets.

     So, what exactly is your soul? Your soul is your spirit or your total self: but, it must have a human brain with your entire DNA to exist. It can’t exist as a nonphysical “self” in any kind of after life; because, all life is a combination of mass and energy with DNA. So, where is the Holy Ghost’s mass and DNA? Energy without mass is just energy, not life, ghosts or spirits; so it follows, when one dies, your soul also dies.

Mettian-Websters dictionary defines religion as conscientiousness, a cause, principle, or system of beliefs and a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, values, and practices held to with ardor and faith.  This is exactly what this new theology could be.  It is composed of two parts: 1. The science of nature, which is knowledge that is acquired by using the Scientific Method, 2. The “code of ethics” set forth in the Manifest of the Humanist Association.  This theology can bring together all of the secular organizations creating a stronger organization that could compete with all the science fiction religions.  Also, this will give it the same tax benefits and the same protection from the first amendment that all other religions have; however, we do oppose the idea that all churches should have a property tax exemption.  But, until this change happens, we want the same benefits in order to compete.

These 7th century religions have built enormous infrastructures that aren’t going away any time soon.  They go to church in multi-million dollar buildings, with great halls, gyms, orchestras, and fantastic sound systems. They have class rooms to teach their children super-naturalism and are very family oriented. We can’t compete with this until the science community steps up and start providing some of these perks for the secular community. Now, what science offers to everyone is a better life here on earth; but science-fiction religions take credit for all these improvements; plus, they give one an even better life after death, using super-naturalism.  In time, these religions could be persuaded to give up their 7^th century ideology of super-naturalism and start teaching this new theology, if they had real competition; however, no one seems to want to change this dilemma, even thou scientists knows that super-naturalism doesn’t exist.

   Roy Speckhardt, the executive director of the American Humanist Association says, “prejudice against atheists remains very real, and our political system is among the most open arenas in which it can be applied”. Every day, the media promotes super-naturalism on religious TV networks and channels, like the 700 Club with religious services on Sunday morning. Now, there is a growing number of people that are leaving these science fiction religions, that need a place for fellowship for likeminded people.  Today, they meet at people’s homes, restaurants, bars or rented properties.  Secular people need a safe, more permanent, larger space to meet.  Today, only the science-fiction religions get promoted and talked about in the media and in politics.  It seems to us, the only solution to these dilemmas is to promote a theology like Humantology.  This is the logical evolution of all religions.  This will give secular people a reason to invest in real estate so that they can better compete.

    The buildings Humantology will use to discover the truth should be called the Labs of Reason, instead of: The Church, The Mosque, The Temple, or The Synagogue, etc. This new theology is the only way to solve the religious conflicts in the world today; so, let’s get started now to develop this institution, by allocating more money to promote the education of our children and to promote our views of the world in the media.  Let’s give the younger and future generations a choice between 7th century BC religions and a 21st century theology.

     Scientists need to step up and denounce the spread of super-naturalisms to world leaders, like they did for the threat to the planet from greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Super-naturalism is also a major cause of the political divide in the USA and it, along with run-away capitalism (capitalism that does not support the manifests of humanism) are second only to climate change as the most dangerous enemy of humanity. All people on this planet needs to know the truth, that all super-naturalisms are science fiction and that fighting and killing each other over them is foolish folly. We have our faith in science and humanism; however, humanism together with science will continue to improve life on earth, despite the science fiction of super-naturalism and will continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe, including the God concept; but, by giving up super-naturalism now and living in the truth of Humantology, we all can have a more fulfilling life sooner, here on earth, and have a brighter, more peaceful future. MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!

Jack G Egger
Phone (770) 434-0470  jackeggerblog.wordpress.com —- jackegger@att.net

Introduction: What if all the true and good things of all the existing religions of today could be incorporated into one universal theology, this theology will have its foundation base on Science and Humanism without any supernaturalisms and shall be called Humantology.

Because the membership (acting as a body) has the initial authority in AFS—that is, its authority is the beginning of any further assignment (delegation)—it has the right to make all AFS decisions. But that would be unworkable and even foolish—first, large groups are unwieldy; second, there’s not enough time; and third, specific persons have the needed expertise and can commit the time. However, the board cannot escape being the ultimate authority. The common way most boards exercise that kind of “sum it all up” authority is by approvals, like approving a budget, a program plan, a hiring, etc.  Continue reading Governance of AFS #2 →

The AFS board asked a number of months ago that I help with a long-overdue revision of AFS bylaws. To most people, bylaws are about as exciting as Luke’s genealogy of Jesus. Since my business was about boards for three decades until my recent retirement, maybe I should love bylaws. But no; I’m as bored as you are. What is stimulating, however, are our ideas about governance which, in turn, will cause bylaws to be written one way versus another. Continue reading Governance of AFS →

A 2016 CE Mini-Manifesto – by Ed Buckner

(an earlier version of this essay was posted here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nogodblog/2016/01/a-mini-maifesto-for-2016/)

I’ve had a variety of online discussions of late that make it clear to me that many, many Americans are still confused or worse about what people like me mean when we say we’re atheists or that we think they’re mistaken about Christmas, this being a “Christian nation” or other matters. Continue reading Buckner’s Basics to Get 2016 Started →