my new blog site on social issues with a new post!

The site is called Social Debate (link at bottom of post). I will be talking about things like abortion, gun-rights, the media, politics, etc. The first real post on the site is about the topic of abortion, and why I view it as being murder. Check it out: abortion is murder.

http://socialdebate.blogspot.com/

I've posted many blogs on social issues (other than religion) on the atheist site, but I feel like it may be more enjoyable to follow my more focused/organised sites. Links to my other blogs are on the right side, check em' out. I'm also going to be  streamlining this website as well. 

Abortion: Why It Is Murder!

Strong enough title? I am not exaggerating when I use the word 'murder', abortion is murder. What is killed in the women is a very young, very dependent, human-life. It cannot be denied that an unborn baby, regardless of how young it is, is human-life.

When that life is destroyed out of selfish interests, the mother will try to dehumanize the life that she destroyed (so that her murderous act isn't perceived as such).  She will tell herself: "well, it had no soul, and doesn't look very human". First of all, being that we don't know what a soul/consciousness is, we cannot know when a human has it—all we know is that humans do have it, not when they don't (memory =/= consciousness). Regardless if the unborn baby has it or not, that does not remove the fact that it is irrelevant; the human-life would, in the very near future, have it regardless. Does this mean that if human-life is not consciously aware, that it is okay to do whatever you want with it?

Let's say a women is unconscious, and a guy rapes her. Would this be morally acceptable (assuming she truly wasn't conscious at the time)? All of the pro-lifers (I think) would claim that to be highly immoral and disgusting! But the woman that was raped was not consciously aware of anything at the time. Of course, later down the road, when she wakes up, she will be horrified by what has happened to her body (unborn babies never have the chance to wake up).

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is morally justifiable. During WW2 it was legal to kill Jews, does that mean that killing Jews in Germany during that time period was okay in a moral sense? Absolutely not! Now, obviously pro-lifers are not Nazis, but they seem to have a similar moral rational.

Just because a human life exist within a mother, does not give the mother the right to kill it because it is inconvenient. Actions have consequences, and sex, like all actions, has certain consequences. For the people that engage in risky sexual behavior, they know the risk, and should have to live with the result. If the mother does not want to raise the child, she can put it up for adoption, but she has no right to commit murder!

There is nothing more innocent than an unborn baby. 

First Post: Introduction

This blog will focus on social issues (abortion, gun-rights, politics, media, etc.). My main blog is: www.atheistperspective.net; I have made many politically oriented posts on that site, but I feel it may be more useful to readers if I were to make my views on social issues more organised/condensed. While religion is a big issue in society, I'm probably going to put my religion-posts on my atheist site, but I suppose time will tell. 

My views on social issues are very different from most people. While I am a secularist, I am also pro-life, pro-gun rights etc. I am socially conservative on certain issues, but liberal on many others. I am a snowflake, and I hope you enjoy following the site, whether you agree or not (funner if you don't agree), I want to see some good/productive discussion.  

Ricky Gervais Golden Globes 2011

"Thank you to God, for making me an atheist"

Gotta love Ricky Gervais.

VenomFangX: Christianity and depression

VenomFangX is not allowing mean comments on this video, unfortunately for him, he didn't disable embedding.

Emotional reasoning is a big cause of depression and anxiety. It is his pessimism and fixation on his "feelings" that are causing his problems.

He believes "if I feel bad, things must be bad". He has a confirmation-bias that his life sucks, he ignores the positive, and focuses on the negative.

Try thinking of the most depressing/anxiety provoking thing possible, if done properly, you will feel depressed/anxious.

If this kid wants to change the way he feels, he must change the way he thinks.

Also, his faith in God must not be that good, because if it was he would probably not be depressed. Believing you have the creator of the universe on your side should be an idea that would make anyone happy. Deep down I bet he has lost his faith, but doesn't want to admit it openly.

Would you kill your own child if God ordered you to? (The Atheist Experience #653)

Thank God there is no God. The good thing about atheism is that it is easier to pick out the crazies, the religious have to compartmentalize the difference between a prophet (Abraham, for example), and people with mental disorders. As an atheist, a person who quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, is a f**king nut (and not inspired by God). Atheism makes things easier to understand. Religion oftentimes confuses the divine with the deluded, with false theories with supernatural phenomena. Atheism is as clear as a logic, religion is as foggy as faith.

ForaTv -- "Celebrity Tabloids and the Evolution of Gossip "

Gossip is viewed as being immoral (typically that is) because it normally is. Gossip often has a bullying nature in the context of celebrities. I however have a hard time sympathizing with a millionaire. I guess what is annoying are the dumb women that think they are something special because they know some embarrassing fact about another individual, and spread it around for their own social gain.

religion may not always be a bad thing (from an atheist's perspective)

This is a rant on why I think the world is not quite ready to be completely god-free.  There may be some errors, just read through them if they exist.

Many atheists (I have been guilty of this myself) believe that their set of beliefs are the both the best for themselves and the best for everyone else. This is one big similarity among both believers and nonbelievers. Would the world be a better place if everyone believed in a god (I'm intentionally not be specific)? Would the world be a better place if no one believed in a god and took on a relativism view of morality?

My stance is different than most outspoken atheists. I do think that religion has its place, and that perhaps it should have more of a place in certain people's lives. To focus on atheists for a bit, I believe that atheists can be divided up into two groups (while there is a continuum, it is easier to label). You have atheists that hope that there is no God due to an awareness of their own moral short-comings—hoping they will not be punished by hoping their is no punisher. Then you have the atheists that don't believe in a god, not because they hope that there isn't one, but because they can rationalize that it is very improbable (those atheists typically refer to themselves as 'agnostic'). In other words, you have your open-minded atheists (sadly, some minds are too open), and your close-minded atheists (unable to think outside the box, will cognitively deal only with what is already known). Also, a close-minded atheists has a difficult time understanding subjectivity.

A close-minded atheist is typically a person who came to atheism because they were made aware of that alternative view of the world by someone else (I like to call them 'sheep-atheists'). All people (excluding rare minorities) can be moved towards a view of non-belief, given enough time to soak up the information destructive to their previously held world-view. What I am claiming is that being an atheist alone does not make a person "special" in any way. Some use atheism as a way to escape perceived moral obligation so that they can more easily obey impulsiveness. Such people would probably behave better if they did believe in a god (pain vs. pleasure rational is so easy to understand a mouse can do it).


Much of religion deals with moral questions, and views morality as being objective (oftentimes "created by God". Morality is a set of beliefs that battle harmful impulses for what is perceived as being good. If all humans naturally behaved well, concepts like morality and ethics would not be needed. Oftentimes our beliefs sharply contradict our impulses, and this contradiction is where the concept of morality is formed.

Many atheists claim that "morality is innate", and that may be true in some cases. For example, it is "immoral" to cannibalize (certain obvious exceptions), and that is innate within the vast majority of humans (who may get sick at the mere though of it). But, I would not say that all people that don't eat humans are behaving morally, but naturally instead. But, on the other hand, people that do eat other humans are behaving immorally (immorality = lack of needed morality to prevent harmful impulsiveness).

Religion has caused many individuals to rebel against their nasty impulsiveness (and the reverse could be said as well). Many criminals, for example, have used religion to keep their impulse to harm others in check. But, on the flip-side, there exists religious beliefs that cause people do to behavior that is harmful (to themselves and others) that they wouldn't ordinarily do. The whole point of morality is to benefit the functionality of a society ("point" as in evolutionary purpose). Many people have the impulse to murder, but it is their belief in a god (or belief in the law) that prevents them from doing it (many also use their belief in a god to rationalize murderous impulse).

All of this is to get me to my main point. Religion oftentimes seems to be a vessel that is able to provide unintelligent, thoughtless, impulsive individuals with a moral structure. What must be understood is that some people have a piss-poor ability to empathize with others. The ability of one person to put themselves in another's shoes is the bed-rock of moral reasoning. But, not all people are able to do this (like some people are bad at math).

Empathetical intelligence is a continuum—not a dichotomy of good or bad (even though labeling can be easier, and sometimes more useful); those low on this scale we refer to as sociopaths, while those high on it are viewed as being good, moral individuals. As an example, there are many horrible kids that behave like saints around Christmas because they want presents! These are the sort of people that need religion. Some people will only behave well if they believe that it will be personally beneficial.

To clarify, not all people have an impulsive nature to behave poorly, some people are naturally good; i.e. they are nice for no reason at all. Naturally "good" people are not behaving "morally" per se, they are behaving naturally. Moral behavior is behavior that contradicts a harmful impulse (as previously stated).

So what is the point here? Well, we must accept that some people have an impulsiveness that is destructive (both to themselves and/or society), these people need a moral structure like Christianity (reward/punishment) to keep their behavior in line. I want all people to give a lot of thought to the subject morality, and stop behaving based on impulse, but I also want a billion dollars and a pony. The world should not give up religion until its people are able to improve their empathetical intelligence. The world in its present state not only can't give up religion, it shouldn't, and many atheists should go back to church for the sake of everyone else. In a culture of "me me me" (thanks to the influences of things like Facebook, certain music, Jersey Shore, America's Next Top Model, etc. have on individuals cognitive behavior), empathy is a force that is weak within us.

If you have made it this far, thanks for reading my post.

YouTube and Atheism (The Thinking Atheist Radio Podcast #14)

This was interesting to listen to, thought I would throw it up here.

Karl Pilkington talks about the Amish and religion

Best unintentional comedian ever.  

The End of Aging? A New Theory of Longevity

I've read quite a few things recently about this sort of thing. Apparently it may be possible in the not so distant future for humans to be living much much longer than 100 years. Of course I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I personally do not want to live much longer than 100 years, but of course when I reach that point I may or may not have a changed mind. Is the end of aging upon us? Will humans be living 100s or even 1000s of years (or longer)? Who knows, medical science is getting up there, perhaps the stuff they have 50 years from now will be spectacular enough to do such things. 

Ricky Gervais to appear on 'The Office' (the American version)

Here's a link to the video of the interview where he admits to it.

I'm a big fan of the office and Steve Carrel and Ricky Gervais (which is why I'm posting this news up here). Not sure when the episode with him in it will air, but it should be funny. 

Ricky Gervais: Atheism Shouldn't Offend - CNN

Ricky Gervais is amazing.

ADHD: The Tonsillectomy of the 21st Century?

While I agree with this guy, there are other methods of treating ADHD, like the one in the video below..



Such a method, I believe, would be better in putting troublesome kids in line. 

What Would Happen If You Fell into a Black Hole?

This speghettification thing is starting to make a little sense, maybe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster after all....

FDA Official: "Just Eat A Goddamn Vegetable"

Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?

Dr. William Lane Craig is so close-minded. I wonder if he does it on purpose, because he seems relatively intelligent, how is he unable to see how ridiculous he looks? He provides no argument for the existence of a god other than "well, it makes logical sense to me".

I could claim that it seems logical that magical space gnomes engineered the universe. I could use all of the same arguments (the arguments he uses for God), and unfortunately for Dr. William Lane Craig, I would be just as intellectually honest with my 'gnome theory'. Atheism/agnosticism will always win in a debate, because they have logics and evidence on their side.

PETA Admits to Killing Thousands of Animals

PETA is such a joke.

I've done many posts arguing against PETA and vegetarians (yes, I know, I'm pure evil *rolls eyes*). But, I'm going to move all of those posts to a new blog-site Against Peta, check it out.

Astrology: Earth's Rotation Changes Zodiac Signs

Do people still believe in that stuff? :P

Prejudice media towards the religion of Islam.

Muslims must feel so persecuted, even though they are by far not the most hated group in America. In-fact, an out-of-the-closet atheist has a harder time getting elected in the United States than a Muslim does (according to polls people would be more willing to vote that way). Considering our history, and the events on the news, Muslims are getting along just fine in the media. Also, if someone leaves the Muslim faith, they have every right to talk about their views about it.

It is the confrontational nature of certain very "passionate" individuals that causes the friction that is being referred to. Remember when the South Park writers were given death threats for portraying Muhammad (even though they really didn't)?

Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the oil (aka: negative media attention). If Mormons were handing out death threats and blowing themselves up, we would be hearing about that on the news, and people would obviously question the belief system itself.

I've seen many bits done on Fox "News" that bash atheists (like Fox does with many, if not all groups at some point), thin skinned people need to toughen up. Respect is something you must earn, not something you are entitled to. Also, no people, nor belief should be immune to criticism.

My Thoughts on President Obama's Arizona Memorial Speech (video of speech inc.)

I think the speech went well, but I also believe that the tone of the audience was inappropriate. The people that cheered should have realized that when a memorial speech is given, it is not the time or place to be cheering like you are at a rock concert. This of course is not Obama's fault, he delivered a very great speech, but, to no surprise, some people are stupid.

WikiLeaks: Assange talks about Pentagon's Demand to "Return" Documents

If you get into trouble for illegally downloading music, just email the music back to the company.

Pro Tip: How to Make an Old Laptop Battery Work Again!

Disclaimer: This website is not responsible for the actions of its users. If trying to fix a battery causes any damage, or physical harm, this site is not responsible at all. This site claims no responsibility, zero, not even a little bit. The user assumes all liability, period.  

I read online a while ago that a laptop battery that no longer holds a charge can be fixed by freezing it. I'm not sure how this works (something about freezing it breaks up some crystals I think). But, I tried it. Yesterday I put my laptop batter in the snow (and it was below freezing, obviously), and left it out for roughly 24 hours. At first when i put it back in, it didn't appear to be taking any charge, but after it warmed up a bit, it charged to full, and appears to be working like new.

If you wish to try this, just be aware that a laptop battery may release poisonous chemicals, so obviously don't put it around food. Also, let the battery warm up to room temperature before trying to use it. I didn't, even though it works fine, I still suggest letting it warm up first. Also, I suggest before doing this, see if you can find any other sources for this method of restoring a laptop battery.

As stated above, I am not responsible if something goes wrong, if you want to do this, the consequences are on you, and you alone. But, it certainly is interesting as to how this works.

I'm pretty sure the battery is lithium-ion one. It is also the battery that comes from a Dell XPS. I'm not sure if this can be repeated over and over again, would be awesome if it could be; would save me a lot of money :)

David Sloan Wilson: Religion from an Evolutionary Perspective (ForaTV)

Religion has a huge impact on the human psychology, for good or for bad. Religion is a uniter of people, which is why atheists are not as good at organizing.

*** How People React To The Unknown! (Atheism vs. Belief) ***

It is natural for people to be afraid of the dark. In-fact, some are so afraid of the dark that they refuse to sleep without a light on. Some (especially young children) believe that the boogie-man hides in the dark. The fear of darkness is rooted within our general fear of what is unknown.

It has recently been found that the brains of social-conservatives tend to have a larger fear center (amygdala) than their liberal counterparts. It is also no mystery that conservatives tend to be religious and liberals tend to be secular and not all that religious. Also the portion of the brain that is responsible for optimism and courage (anterior cingulate) tends to be smaller in conservatives. I don't want to get too far into this study, if you are interested in reading about it, a link to the source can be found at the bottom of this blog post.

Anyways, back on point...

Naturally, the unknown is a scary thing. Virtually all people have a intense fear of the dark during their lives at some point. This shows that fear of the unknown (or of the dark in this case) is innate within most humans (at least until it is overcome). People often project their worst fears onto the darkness of uncertainty, thinking up pessimistically deluded  fantasies and believing (subconsciously or consciously) that their worst possible fears are the only possible outcome. There are two ways in which a person can react towards a perceived danger: (1) fight, or (2) flight. In other words, the unknown can either be confronted or ran away from.

It perhaps is easy to see who is doing the running here, but perhaps I should spell it out. It seems to be that atheists in general want real answers to the big questions, and accept that humans have much to learn. This is why atheists accept the truth behind biological evolution, how could anyone not? If certain information destroys the only thing protecting the ego from a deep seeded fear of the unknown, it must be avoided at all costs, no matter how intellectually dishonest. While believers look avoid the reality of human ignorance by pretending they have a "friend" that knows everything, using an unknown to explain an unknown is running away from the problem. A fear of the unknown will always exist within believers because they refuse to face it. The unknown should not be a source of fear, but a source of inspiration and excitement. I believe it is important for people to give up on running away from the unknown with gods and other superstitions—not only because I believe that understanding the universe can be a great source of inspiration—but because running away from a fear will cause that fear to chase a person to the grave.

Another typically innate fear is the fear of heights, but some people find no greater joy in life than to jump out of a plane with a parachute. Let's say, for the sake of example, I have the answers for all of the big questions (how the universe came to be, the meaning of life, what happens after death, etc.). This information is somehow guaranteed to be 100% accurate and beyond any doubt. To make it simpler, I have put the answers to these questions on sheets of paper, and put those papers inside a box.
All people knew without any doubt that these answers were correct (including both believers and nonbelievers). Let's say I was to go to a group of fundamentalist believers (Christians, Muslims, Jewish, etc.... it doesn't really matter). These believers, know, without any doubt, that the answers are 100% correct. In their minds, however, there is a possibility that the answer in the box would confirm that there is a god (and perhaps even the right god). How many of those believers would actually look inside the box? If you are a believer reading this, would you want to know the true answers to the big questions? Say what you will, but I do not think that very many believers would want anything to do with that box. On the flip-side however, virtually all nonbelievers would be curious as hell (no pun intended) as to what answers lie within the box.

Is such an example unfair? A straw-man? I don't think so. From seeing the reactions of believers when faced with the fact of evolution, I feel I am not being unfair at all.


I will admit, stereotyping all believers as being afraid of the unknown, and all atheists as being curious about the unknown may not be entirely accurate for everyone (some atheists may not want to look inside the box, and some believers may want to). I do believe that as a whole, the stereotype that I have painted is reflective of a psychological truth. That truth is that some are afraid of the unknown, and some are inspired by it. It seems to be that nonbelievers use science to explore the unknown, and believers use God as a way of avoiding it.

Here are a few quick things I want to touch on....

Both scientists and priests see opportunity in human ignorance. Priests are able to take the fear of the unknown that exists within many individuals, and turn it into power (Catholic Church for example). Scientists do a similar thing, but instead of exploiting fear, they exploit curiosity, and the result is much more productive and awe inspiring (technology, space exploration, study of our evolutionary past, and so on).

Another place that this phenomenon can be seen is in the media. For example, Fox "News" has been using fear tactics, not because they are evil, but because they are preaching to their conservative/religious choir. Fox "News" has an audience (in general) of terrified people -- clinging to guns and God -- so of course Fox is going to suck such people in because such a narrative speaks to their audiences' view of the world.


link to study here!

Pat Condell on American Islamophobia

I have to agree with Pat. You can put phobia on any word, doesn't make it a mental illness. Some fears are good, and fear of radical Islam (suicide bombers, etc.), is very rational considering the amount of violence caused by fundamentalists. This isn't to say that all believers should be thought of as being violent, or extreme. I am referring to the fundamentalist.

You see, much violence is found within certain ancient books (not to name names), anyone that takes those books 100% literal may be incited to violently lash out because of it. Fortunately most people don't, however those that do act barbarically (as they have shown). Many people have committed suicide bombings in the name of Islam, this is a cold-hard fact.

The problem here is labeling. While it is not appropriate to label all Muslims as being terrorists, it is appropriate to label fundamentalism as a problem. Another problem is that the "moderates" are not condemning the fundamentalists. To remain silent is to own it, they must disown the violence if they don't wish to be associated with it (at least in my opinion, otherwise people will have a difficulty in distinguishing the difference). I know not all Muslims support the fundamentalists, and they need to speak out so they are not wrongfully associated with the nutty fringe people.

Another problem are the PC-Nazis constantly looking for people to fit the standard for what they view as 'politically correct'. To ignore this problem is to tolerate it, tolerating fundamentalism will cause blood-shed, and that blood will be on the hands of the PC Nazis that fought for tolerance.

YouTube: Lethal Injection a Life Saver? (LiberalViewer)

The death penalty needs to happen quicker and cheaper. Why can't cyanide be used instead? What about hanging? Or even the electric chair. Considering the crimes some of these scumbags commit, they do not deserve to be alive, or even to experience a painless death.

The death penalty is a good thing. Some people should lose their right to be alive. Keeping these thugs in prison waste a ton of money, and is pointless exercise. Cheapen up the death penalty, and expand what is considered to be a capital offense (e.g. certain extreme violent offenders, people convicted of attempted murder, child molesters, rapists).

I know many liberals disagree with this stance on the death penalty, they want all people (including the person that killed 6 people in Arizona recently) that commit the most heinous crimes to be pampered with free food, entertainment, and health care for the rest of their lives. In other words, they want the worst of the worst of our society to live better than the poorest of the poor—aren't some liberals precious?

Jay-Z on why understanding context is important in hip-hop music

Ever notice that the music genres of hip-hop and rap both have had shifts in their messages over time? In my opinion—like smoking is censored from being exposed to kids—music with violence, drugs, and anything sexual should be banned by the FCC. Go on YouTube, look up some of the more popular songs, most of them are filled with whores and thugs, leaving kids with twisted world views. Sex and violence sells, but it shouldn't be sold to impressionable children through music.

MUST WATCH Documentary On Jehovah Witnesses

It's great to see people that actually follow their faith. I do however wonder if that alien-like skinny dude realizes that the liver he got probably had some blood on/in it from the donor...

Perhaps no one should tell him...

The Nightline Interview - Atheist Sam Harris on morality and spiritual experiences

The people that don't think science can determine morality are the same type of people that thought science wouldn't be able to understand disease. Moral relativists hate the concept of a set morality, an objective morality destroys their self-righteous mentality which they are probably very comfortable with. If there are right and wrong answers in morality then that would mean certain people would rather have to ignore it, or admit they were wrong in certain believes/behaviors. Atheists should embrace this concept, not push it away for selfish, self-righteous reasons.

Happy New Years!!!