I’m not sure I am one to call myself atheist, but I would go so far to say, at the least, agnostic. Couple that with a (L) following...Either way, you paint with too broad of a brush re: self centered narcissists.
IMHO, science is never the final answer, and I have not see/read anything to firmly believe in a higher being. Not does that mean that one cancels out the other. Nor does that mean I am blind the ‘benefit’ of religion, as MOST religions espouse Hope and a code of conduct. Most of it, nor does it negate the verbiage of our Constitution. If fact, I abhor those that would use religion to supersede the Constitution (IE: ‘social safety net’ = Christian-like or Blue Laws [which I grew up with when I lived in MD])
*I* see no reason the demolish Mt. Soledad. In fact, I can see no reason why any like-minded individual (atheist/agnostic) would find offense to start, as the cross would represent...nothing. Other religions are free to setup their own memorials as well. I see yet *another* lawyer/judge over-stepping their authority and oath of office by clearly ignoring the 1st Amendment.
As a (L), there should be NO ‘national’ parks/etc., but neither should the taxpayers be on the hook (don’t get me started on property taxes :D). Revert it back to the people/group that bequeathed it originally. I’m sure there are more than enough volunteers to pay for the upkeep/maintenance/etc.
Now, as for the ‘raw meat’ example: Gov’t should not be recognizing holidays, they are to provide services to We the People. Let those that wish to take PTO, take it. That solves the 2.5x pay as well; it’s just another day or a day off. Unions and gov’t? Right out. Never is the taxpayer/Citizen represented when those two ‘negotiate’.
You stated that you do not see any evidence of a higher being.
I respond by saying I see no evidence of a completed chain of morphing creatures that represent the progression from single cell to man.
So I ask you this? Why do you default to the field of science for your belief system? It would seem to me that the only sane position other than a belief in God, would be neutrality. If you are unwilling to buy into faith in God, then you should be equally unwilling to buy into faith in a field that hasn’t produced it’s smoking gun either.
We could look a the DNA of creatures and find commonality. This to some means relationship. To others it merely means that there are building blocks that would be common if a Supreme Being were to create creatures to live in the same environment. He wouldn’t have to create a new type of DNA for each creature, with no commonality whatsoever.
I appreciate your views on the destruction of a cross on a hillside. The whole thing is silly, until you realize that evidence of Christianity is be expunged from our schools, our public building, public lands... It’s quite clear where this is headed. The forced indoctrination into all things science and Liberalism to the exclusion of faith based teachings is geared to ween out Religion in a generation.
I don’t think any of us are demanding science be weened out within a generation.
I believe in evolution. It can be witnessed. Still man has not found the missing links along the trail of the ascent of man. I believe there is a reason for that. There wasn’t one.
Science is more of a religion that people give it credit for. There are things that can be proven. There are things that can be theorized. And there are things that cannot be proven. And when things can’t be proven, science becomes as much faith based as religion is.
Over and over and over again, science has had to admit that it made mistakes and it’s old beliefs were wrong.
I support scientific discovery. I am enchanted by the amazing things man uncovers by it. I do think we need to use some caution. I try to have an open mind when it comes to God too. It’s just that with the complexity of man, and the new discoveries that reveal the extent of that complexity, it becomes more and more clear to me that we didn’t just happen by accident.
Perhaps one day you’ll begin to see it that way too.