What Atheism Is NOT!

1. Atheism is not a system of morality.

This means that atheists such as Stalin did not get their morality from atheism. Atheism is not nor should it ever be considered a system of morality.

2. Atheism is not a spiritual position.

An atheist doesn't need to not believe in an afterlife (there are many Buddhist-atheists for example). An atheist can maintain some spiritual beliefs, and as long as they don't believe in a god/gods, they can consider themselves to be atheist. Many atheists do not believe in a soul and/or the afterlife, but that does not mean all atheists hold such a position.

3. Atheism is not a scientific stance.

No matter what an atheist claims, atheism is not a scientific stance. What I mean by this is that an atheist does not need to believe in things like the Big Bang, biological evolution, and a round earth. Many of those that argue against the atheist position claim that all atheists believe these things, and while that may be typically true, it misses the point of what atheism is. A person can believe in the Big Bang, biological evolution, and a round earth and be a Christian (many Christians believe such things). The "you believe it all came from nothing" argument regularly comes about due to a misconception of what atheism is. If someone refers to themselves as an atheist this only means that they do not believe in a god/gods, and nothing more.

4. Atheism is not a political ideology.

Being an atheist does not mean you need to be a liberal. On many issues I find myself to be liberal, and many issues I find myself to be conservative. An atheist can be a conservative (Christopher Hitchens for example). This seems obvious, but many argue that all atheists are pro-life, anti-gun rights, pro-healthcare etc. For example -- I am pro gun-rights, pro-life, but also pro-government ran healthcare. It seems many people over simplify the political-views of the atheist community to have all atheists fit into a neat pro-choice, anti-gun rights, pro-democrat package, which is simply untrue (the atheist community is much more complex than that).

5. Atheism is not a religion.

I hear this claim made often, that atheism is a religion, and it takes faith to be an atheist. This is so obviously untrue, and this is because atheism has nothing that is descriptive of a religion. While many atheists may share many common beliefs, this does not mean those beliefs are exclusive to atheism (other than a god/gods not existing). Atheism is not a belief, it is a non-belief, and obviously it cannot be considered a religion anymore than having brown hair can be considered a religion.

I will probably add new things  about what atheism is not. Essentially atheism is nothing but a non-belief in a god/gods, and it is disturbing to see some that are trying to turn it into something more. Such as people that are trying to make atheism a political position (which is insane, and destructive, which I will get into later down the road).  

ATHEIST DOGMA DEBUNKS ITSELF?

What a compelling argument against atheism. Joking aside, this guy's argument is a joke, and it can be more effectively applied to argue against religion than atheism (to disprove atheism you must prove the existence of a god). Doesn't seem our precious "atheist dogma" has been debunked....

Justice In An Atheistic-World vs. A Religious-World (a poorly written, ranty blog post)

Many people believe that an atheistic (godless) world is void of justice, and allows for many bad people get away with their crimes; that if everyone was an atheist, there would be no morality etc. Anything and everything would be permissible (e.g. murder, rape, stealing) in an atheistic world. But it seems that this sort of world would exist regardless (as it does/has with religion).

While religion perhaps may scare some individuals into behaving morally, it doesn't seem to be enough for many. In-fact, from what I've seen, atheists are often less violent/confrontational than believers. This is, I believe, because atheists tend to be more rationally-minded, and a more rational person will be more likely to behave morally. It is when we put all our eggs in the basket of emotional-reasoning that we do things that we regret (doing things in the "heat of the moment"). A more rationally/logically based world would lead to a world with less crime and more justice. It's hard to justify things like war and inequality without religion. Look at Bush for example—after 9/11 he used a lot of religious-rhetoric to stir people up in-order to invade a people that had different a set of religious beliefs (if it were a German-born terrorist organisation we would not have invade Germany). If we were thinking with more logic/rational, we would never have invaded Iraq. It is emotional-reasoning that typically gets us into wars. This is why an atheistic-world would be better in my opinion. Emotional-reasoning comes from the primitive parts of our brain, and when people are tapping solely into that area they tend to act Neanderthals.

It seems that an atheistic world would be more inclusive of individuals vs. having the strong in-group/out-group mentality caused by religion (like it does with sports teams, but in a much larger way). Bush, for example, was a very religious person, and he did a good job at dehumanizing our "enemy". Obama is not that religious (possibly a closet-atheist) is much more sensitive to these issues, which is why he has changed up some of the labels (like "terrorist" etc.). It seems that atheists are more empathetic (empathy requires logical-thinking). Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems in all wars we had to have dehumanized our enemies in order to wage it. It is very easy to dehumanize someone using religion and religious labels (they are Muslims! etc.). An atheist-world would see the nonsense of labeling someone as being a belief (it is impossible be a belief). Using logic, it is easy to see that people are people, and should not be devalued in any big way based on their beliefs alone (unless they believe in things like pedophilia, or cannibalism). A religious person often will view someone of a different religion as being sub-human. I remember hearing a Christian (obviously doesn't represent all Christians) talking about how we should just nuke the entire middle-east, that Muslims follow a demonic-religion, and shouldn't be considered human etc. And this is why a religious-world is filled with violence and war. Dehumanizing people causes humans to treat other humans like non-humans.

Obviously not all dehumanization is caused by religion, but dehumanizing has been caused by religion, and I am arguing that for a war to be waged a people must dehumanize their enemy. It it logically impossible to dehumanize humans (for obvious reasons), and I believe it takes certain distorted, emotionally-based beliefs to cause dehumanization (which is the greatest cause of injustice in the world).

Long story short, the world is becoming more of a just place because it seems to be becoming less religious. Look at the most unjust places on earth, and those places are probably very religious, and vice-versa. Religion does not offer a sense of justice. Like I just bought a chicken-club sandwich, and it doesn't even have mayo on it, it's drier than a desert. A less religious world would be much better it seems. Obviously in an atheistic world we still have problems with teaching/continuing to define morality, but religious-morality is a bit dated. And if atheists go with concepts like moral-relativism, then we are in trouble as well. How we define morality is very important, and if any behavior can be considered permissible given the perspective, then we as a species will see a decline. Defining what behavior is moral and what is not, not only should be done, but needs to be done. It is difficult to get some people to behave morally without a fear of hellfire, sadly (but that's a topic for another blog post).

An atheist world I believe would be more empathetic, and more inclusive of all humans. Given the current trends, the world will probably have a majority atheist population in a relatively short time. I believe, if we are able to effectively teach morality without religion, the world should be a more peaceful place. God is the greatest divider of people that we have ever seen, nothing else other than religion can cause such dehumanization to occur. Will the world ever be totally atheistic? It's a mere matter of time...

Atheist Matt Dillahunty's Anti-Religious Rant

I personally do not view the world as being unjust because there is no God. An unjust system would allow humans to live forever, in death the slates are wiped clean and everything is balanced out. An atheistic-world is no more unjust than a religious-world, if anything it would be more just because we wouldn't have people justifying evil using religion. 

Christian Rages Agaisnt Atheism.

I love when Christians get upset with atheism like this. Deep in the back of this guy's mind he is afraid that atheists are right (about there being no God). It seems fairly obvious that the stories told in the Bible are not based in reality. Atheists don't have all the answers, but they are much closer to the truth than a Christian is. Atheism is nothing (as he says), and this is because atheism is the lack of belief; atheism is not nor should it ever be considered a system of morality, ethics, life-meaning, etc. Atheism is a belief in the same way that not believing in a flat earth is. I believe in a few 100 years being an atheist will be meaningless because there will be very few believers, and the label itself die off.

To believe in magic is so 1000 years ago.

Chthonios: Hopelessness of Atheism

This video was kind of a rant, so I'm going to make a ranting response...

I think for certain people, atheism is hopeless (those that put their hope in religious ideas more often than not).  Life is what you make it, I've seen many happy religious people, and many happy atheists. Meaning and purpose seem to be important for people to feel happy/content with life. Meaning is easier to find for a religious person than an atheist. Religion provides an easy source of this feeling (feeling is real, even if the beliefs are not factual). An atheist is more free to determine what their life means, whereas a Christian, for example, is stuck with the being a 'pawn of God' role. An atheist has a harder time finding hope, because hope is not based in logic, but that doesn't mean an atheist can't find hope. Logically, life doesn't have a whole lot of meaning for an individual, which is why an atheist doesn't need to find meaning logically. Finding meaning emotionally should not be considered undesirable (things like love or inspiration). Many atheists try to suppress emotional thinking, which I believe is not a good thing to do psychologically (like thinking emotionally is not always a good thing, balance is important. 

Chimps Vs. Humans (98.9% Shared Genes)

It is stuff like this that makes it easy to be an atheist. 

An Atheist's Life Has No Meaning?

The argument that an atheist's life has no meaning is often brought up. While whether or not life has meaning is meaningless in the debate for whether a god exists or not, that is not what is going to be discussed in this blog post.

Of course I cannot speak for all atheists, but from my perspective, my life has meaning. It should be no argument that meaning is created by conscious beings (even a god would be considered that). As humans, we seek to understand, it is our niche. The problem here is that there are certain mysteries that cannot truly be understood, and this is disturbing to some individuals that desire a  purely logical world. Ignorance motivates some individuals to learn, and it motivates others to make up fantasies that "feel good" and  provide a false-sense of purpose (typically to serve God). The only meaning of life a person can grasp comes from the self and those around them.

As an atheist, I believe even those atheists that claim life doesn't have meaning, are ignoring the meaning of their life for the sake of arguing religion. Many atheists even argue that things like color are not real, and this is a reflection that many atheists ignore the reality of subjective experience, and ignore their own individuality. For some atheists, all that is real must exist objectively, and unfortunately for such atheists, objectivity is only viewable through the lens of subjectivity. Not too stray too far off discussing the meaning of life, those that cannot appreciate the life they have will have a difficult time finding purpose and meaning in it. The meaning I find in life (people find other meaning, obviously), is to understand the processes that got me here, and to enjoy the ride (I'm continuing to contemplate my meaning, so that my answer can be more complete).

This is one area that many atheists fail in the debate with believers, they are often unable to give a serious answer with any emotion (great passion should always exist for an individual when contemplating the meaning of life, and I fail here to). When I see atheists give an answer for what they feel the meaning of life is, they typically do it sarcastically, or with no emotion (like they have given the meaning of their own existence little to no thought). Humans can find meaning in anything they desire, meaning itself is not a factual thing (which is another reason atheists have a hard time contemplating the meaning/purpose of life). In-fact many hard-core atheists try to avoid emotional thinking completely, and view emotion as a sign of intellectual weakness. But even those atheists that will not admit to meaning in life have some meaning that they refuse to admit (family, friends, enjoying hobbies, etc.).

One thing I want to avoid is to say that life has a definite meaning, I believe that the meaning of life should be up to the individual's interpretation. While many atheists believe that life is meaningless, this appears to be in contradiction with other beliefs; those that truly believe life has no meaning will quickly find the nearest bridge. In other words, most of those that claim that life has no meaning secretly find meaning in being melodramatic attention whores. Atheists, like in the field of morality,  need to put more of an effort into finding meaning in life. Meaning in life is one area believers are able to hold over the heads of atheists; it is not because their arguments are compelling, it is just because atheists have no good answer. If we want to make atheism more respectable and appealing of a position, morality and meaning in life need to be addressed in a more aggressive manner, instead of being ran away from with false-concepts like relativity, etc.

TheReformedapologist: "Systematically Dismantling Atheism"

This guy claims that atheists cannot have meaning in life, which is bogus. Life is only meaningless if no meaning is assigned to it.

"the brain is only the muscle used to think"

Oh, Christians, your blissful ignorance of biology is adorable.

Most atheists, when asked if life has meaning, will describe how it does (or how it does for them on an individual level). 99% of people, regardless if they are atheists or believers, have assigned some sort of meaning to their lives. I fear this is a straw-man atheists are never going to hear the end of.

atheist talks about Christianity in the African American Community (Atheist Experience)

If atheism is not as strong in the African American community it is due to socio-economic issues and different cultural factors. However, I don't believe that atheism, as far as a % is much lower (if at all) than any other group. I would bet it's around 10-20%  (closeted + uncloseted atheists). 

If a voice tells you to kill your kids, don't listen! (an atheist's take on jezuzfreek777's YouTube Drama))

"I love my family and would never hurt them physically or emotionally"

Unless a voice that you believed was God told you to (as I believe you claimed)...

For those atheists that support you, well, that does not mean that they represent the atheist community as a whole. In-fact I will go so far as to say  that any atheist that supports such a statement is a moron (I know, bold claim, right? *sarcasm*).  I don't think many atheists agree with the "if a voice in my head told me to kill my family, I hope I will obey" point-of-view. Hopefully jezuzfreek777's head stays voice-free (assuming it already is), otherwise the "all-powerful creator of the universe" may manifest himself (I didn't capitalize on purpose) in the form of a hallucination and cause the unthinkable. It's interesting to imagine a person that can believe an all-loving god would ask a father to kill his kids (like he did with Abraham). It seem the word 'love' has lost all meaning in the context of Christianity.

Not all atheists are created equal; many atheists, like people in general, aren't too bright (referring to those atheists that support the claim of his potential-murderous-faith). However, it seems that jezuzfreek777 was only addressing an argument. I don't believe he posses an actual danger to his family (from what I've seen). But at the same time, when a person makes such a claim, they should expect to face criticism. 

ItchiroCannotDie: "what is wrong with showing some emotion?" (YouTube atheist)

I've seen many argue (even atheists) that atheists should not express emotion when debating religion. We can't forget that believers are emotional-thinkers, so to debate them with a mix of emotion and logic will be much more effective than giving them a "boring" science lesson; i.e. atheists should have much more of an impact when they show emotion.

Those that typically have the most impact on the world are those that are able to reach people emotionally. Carl Sagan, for example, put a lot of emotion/passion into his work, which is why he had such a large impact on the world. Hell (pi), the more popular atheists on YouTube (AmazingAtheist, Thunderf00t, Pat Condell), get the subscriber bases that they do because they show a lot of emotion (emotion doesn't just have to anger). Most people's attention is impossible to get unless they are initially engaged on a emotional level, which can open them up to thinking logically.   

Why Atheists Don't Believe in God.

Many believers wished that everyone believed in the same beliefs that they believe are facts. Sadly, a belief in itself is not a fact, or evidence of any fact outside of the cognition responsible for the belief itself. Atheists don't believe in a god because there is no evidence for a god.

The believer will claim "the world looks perfectly made for human life, how could that be an accident?". This is one of the most ridiculous arguments. It is like wondering why humans aren't born on the surface of the sun. Obviously humans live in an environment that can support their life, if they didn't, they wouldn't be alive at all. It is like a puddle of water wondering why the hole in the ground is perfectly shaped for it.

Atheists are not mad at God, or are afraid of eternal punishment. Any atheist that is afraid of God isn't really an atheist (obviously). While it seems obvious that an atheist doesn't believe in God, many believers claim that they secretly do (believers apparently have the ability to read the minds of both God and atheists).

In short, atheists don't believe in God because there is no valid reason to believe in such a thing. Atheists believe in things that don't require blind-faith and extreme gullibility. This is why atheists don't believe in God.

I will admit, it is a good strategy on the part of the believer to debate atheism in this way. This causes a distraction in the debate, it forces the atheist to defend himself/herself, momentary halting his/her offense. A believer deep-down knows the impossibility of defeating an atheist in a debate (they literally need to prove the existence of God). Their only hope is to use circular arguments until the atheist becomes bored and moves on.

I know this was a little ranty, but it is irritating that these debating methods are still used to argue atheism. 

Dr. William Lane Craig: "Some Atheists Are Just Not Open To The Truth"

It's interesting how the religious ninja atheist arguments and turn them on us, like it is an applicable argument against the atheist pov. There is one big thing this guys is forgetting EVIDENCE! He says that no amount of evidence of a god would convince atheists that a god exists, yet there is no evidence at all. I guarantee, if there were any evidence to support the existence of a god, atheists (or at least 99% of them) would accept it. Believing that the world was intelligently designed does not count as evidence that it was designed. Dr. William Lane Craig needs to understand what evidence means. I can say that I believe a team of comic-gnome-engineers created the universe, but that doesn't qualify as evidence just because I believe it to be true.

People like this guy are frustrated by atheists. They want to prove their side right, but fail to provide any solid arguments or evidence, both of which the atheists always have in their arsenal. Until solid, empirical evidence for the existence of a sky-daddy is presented (don't hold your breath), atheists win by default. 

Craig Ferguson's question for Atheists answered

No one ever said being atheist is easy, we have no God to blame when our breaks fail :(

Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox (Is God Great Debate)

Teach the Controversy (funny video)

When it comes to medical treatment, Christians have very little faith. The bible makes many medical claims, and to use atheistic (godless) medicine shows very little faith in the word of an all-knowing God.

MrZenarath: "Why I'm An Atheist"

This is the typical atheist story. For me, atheism came about from a nagging skepticism that eventually won-out in the struggle against an illogical belief. Any rational-believer that reads the Old Testament will immediately begin to question their beliefs.

Atheist Richard Dawkins On Morality

The things people try to argue about atheism....

Atheism is not a belief system, so obviously the lack of a belief does nothing to address morality (which it shouldn't). The biggest reason questions like the one Richard Dawkins was asked come about is because we have atheists arguing moral-relativism all the time. A person should not talk about morality and describe themselves as an atheist, this is only confusing, and makes atheism appear to be a belief system. Atheism is not, nor should it ever be considered a belief system.

Proof of God's Existence (WorshipingJesus)

"I believe that we can prove with 100% accuracy the existence of an invisible god"

Emotions prove nothing, it is interesting how confused Christians are with concepts like evidence etc. Emotions cannot be used to prove anything outside of the emotion itself. This is obvious to an atheist, but for a believer it is not quite so obvious. It seems to me that an atheist's mind and a believer's mind are wired very differently; the way they process information is radically different. For an atheist to change his/her stance, empirical evidence must exist. For a believer to "prove" for themselves that a god exists, they merely need to feel a certain emotion. I suppose atheists are just more logically-minded, what a revelation!

To be honest, just by looking at this guy's body language, he doesn't believe a word he is saying; deep down, in his heart, he is an atheist.

Also, Buddha never claimed to be a god....just sayin'

allsaintsmonastery: Creationists Perpetuate Lies

Wish all Christians thought like this guy, he is both open-minded and is able to maintain his faith. This is the kind of Christianity that hopefully the religion is moving towards (instead of fundamentalism). It's a shame that this guy's message of faith with rational is unable to reach some atheists, they would be better off with some religion. 

Atheist Drama On YouTube

The central point of this video is very poor. Atheists cannot feel/express our emotions? Thesuperfly has every right to argue with emotion when it comes to defending the rights of children (no weakness in debating in such a way, it is much more compelling than mere logic alone). I would even go so far as to say that any atheist that doesn't feel emotion when the murder of children/babies is brought into discussion should seek after a psychologist. A combination of emotion and logic is the best way to argue with the religious, if an atheists argues with no emotion they will be as boring as a 60-year-old math teacher.

Also, JezuzFreek777 is a sick person for hoping he would have the strength to murder his own children if a voice told him to (just to throw that out there). Keep up the good work 

SacrilegeWithASmile: "Young YouTube Atheists Are Idiots"

A chubby 15-year-old pseudo-intellectual, how refreshing. It is kids like that I find interesting (from a sociological perspective). He seems easily angered/confrontational, narcissistic, and doesn't seem able to control his mouth (saying "fuck" that many times really diminishes any point he was trying to make). Many people believe it is kids like this that represent the majority of young-atheists, and perhaps they are right. I believe some atheists would be better off with religion, and he appears to be one of them (Mormonism would do him wonders).

If you are reading this bud, make an effort to find God, for the sake of yourself and those around you. Not everyone should be an atheist; many people need religion to keep their behavior in check. Respect  is a two-way street; if atheists are to be respected, we must be respectful.

American Women Make Bad Wives?

While this debate seems to be flying under the radar for the moment, it seems to me to be a major issue underlying many problems within our society. Now, obviously, I cannot stereotype all women as making poor girlfriends/wives (negative qualities will be elaborated later), but it seems a good majority are. For those women out there that do not fit the following generalizations that I will be laying out, congratulations!

Before I get into it, I want to first say that I feel bad for the women in our society. They have been raised at an early age to not appreciate being feminine; in fact they have been brainwashed by feminists to be as unfeminine as possible (they view being feminine as a weakness). Women in our society are told to that they must compete with the opposite gender (instead of working with). Which, I believe creates an identity crisis, leading to things like narcissism, depression, sociopathic tendencies, anxiety, aggressiveness, etc. Ever hear of the little-man syndrome? I believe a similar thing is going on here.

What I am making are generalizations based upon my experience, which is considerable. I feel—generally speaking—these generalizations apply to most of the women of this generation. As I said before, if you are a woman, and do not fit this description, speak up, and pat yourself on the back for not disowning your gender. The following is my opinion, from what I've observed. I do not hate women, I love women, which is why it saddens me to see the following things...

In our culture, women are becoming more and more sociopathic. They care only about themselves. When in a relationships, they are only "loyal" as long as no better options become available. It seems to them, all importance rests on their own needs (they only pretend to care about others when it serves to benefit themselves). In general it seems that women are moving away from being family oriented, loyal, nurturing, supportive to their spouse etc., and becoming moody, sociopathic, narcissistic, vengeful, cruel, and masculine. Readers can disagree all they want, but these things are undinable for those that look around. Women, who are suppose to be the nuturers in a society are becoming very unempathetic. Just observing their behavior, it is easy to see how barbed their personalities tend to be. It cannot be argued that women do not desire to be good wives. From what I have seen, women view men as like a pair of shoes, and if they get bored with them, they toss them in the garbage without batting an eye. Boyfriend one day, worst enemy the next. This is a reflection of a very common split-personality phenomena in which they tell people everything they want to hear in order to get what they want.

As Americans, we like to believe that our culture is superior to all others. But this cannot be argued when we have a 50% + divorce rate. The foundation of a society is the family, and when 50%(+) marriages end in divorce, this is a mere reflection of the inadequacy of our feminist-dominated-culture.

Slavery In The Bible

This is a good documentary that doesn't have nearly enough views.

The bible is filled with slavery. Even Jesus appears to have supported slavery. This just shows that the moral structure layed out in the bible is a little bit outdated (to put it gently). For those bible-thumpers, slavery is not morally wrong (if it was the bible would have condemned it, not endorsed it). Maybe people should create a new religion, with a new set of morality, for believers to latch their faith onto (perhaps with more unicorns and less rape, murder, and slavery).

When I was a Christian, I would read the bible all the time (wanted to know what I was suppose to believe in). What probably threw my faith off the most was the parts that talked about rape and the brutal murdering of babies (that God apparently endorsed), but also slavery. It was easy for me to see that the bible was not a good book to get morality from. It was primarily reading the bible that killed my faith. This is why I believe that all Christians should read the bible from cover-to-cover. Most Christians that actually read the bible are forced to step back and ask themselves a few big, obvious questions. The bible has probably created more atheists than anything else. As a culture, we have out-grown the bible (and other similar holy-books), and that is the cause behind the rise of atheism (many contradictions).

Atheist Drama Queens?

Those rascals....

Edward Current Responds To Deluded Atheists

It's like a gallery of morons. Anyone that can't see that his videos are satire are a little slow. This is evidence that not all atheists are that smart.

Thunderf00t Owns VenomFangX (creationism vs. atheism)

It's sad the things people sacrifice in order to avoid the fear of dying. Once a person accepts the fact of their own mortality, it is much easier for them to become an atheist. God gives people hope that they wont actually die, in a believers mind any hope must be grabbed onto. Most atheists that I have talked with about death seem to not fear it in the same way Christians do. It seems that Christians like VenomFangX realize that atheists are probably right, but hope that they aren't. The mind does incredible things to avoid fears.

Response to Atheism: The Problem of Morality (bardlishthemagnifico)

"You simply cannot justify morality as nothing more than cultural."

This guy is oversimplifying what atheists believe. I can't speak for all atheists, but morality is both soft-wired (learned) and hard-wired (innate) into us. As far as his claim that atheists believe that humans have no free-will, this is not true. Humans have free-will, but the forces behind that "will" as so complex that we label it as supernatural. Just because we don't understand how something works, doesn't mean that an omnipotent-being must be responsible. Many argue that atheists believe we know everything (some atheists act like to pretend they do when debating believers), when questioned, most atheists will admit that there are a lot of things we don't know. The important thing here is to admit that humans don't understand the forces behind consciousness and freewill, but that doesn't imply any supernatural intervention in the natural world. We must should assume that consciousness and freewill are a product of the natural world, until shown evidence that points to the supernatural (none exists).

Christopher Hitchens on Tucker Carlson

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Converting Muslims to Christianity

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is onto something. Some people need a religion; i.e. atheism is not right for everyone. Competition among ideas is a good thing—with competition the best ideas will win out. The problem here is that large numbers of people are not exposed to a wide variety of ideas. I think most people, if provided the right circumstances, would gravitate to atheism (appeals to human-logic). With the rise of the internet we will see the continuation of the rise of atheism (and obviously the down-fall of religion). We have already seen the rise of atheism in America because of this, once the internet starts to take off more in places like the Middle East, atheism will rise there as well, forcing the fundamentalist to take a more secular/moderate stance.

ZOMGitsCriss: Pot Not Evil

Marajuana should be legal. Some people need a method of unwinding at the end of the day; the world would be a better place if people smoked weed instead of drinking alcohol. I don't smoke marijuana, but I think marijuana legalization would be beneficial for society (pot is less harmful than alcohol). They also say that marijuana is a gate-way drug, but it is only a gate-way drug because people have to attain it illegally. Once a person begins to associate themselves with a drug dealer, it becomes much easier for them to move onto more dangerous drugs.  

"Atheists are Arrogant and Ignorant!"

This guy misses the point of the term 'atheist'. Atheism does not require a person to believe anything, only to not believe in theism. It's irritating when atheists try to make atheism something more than it is. Atheism is not a belief system! An "atheistic view" is a view of the world free of a belief in a god. Some atheists try to turn atheism into a belief system because they have ideas kicking around in their head, and label themselves as an "atheist", so they try to associate the two. In-fact, the term 'atheist' should only be used when religion is being discussed, like Sam Harris says, we don't refer to people that don't believe in astrology as non-astrologers.

In modern times, many people watch porn. The problem with out society is that we believe that if something feels good, and there are no obvious signs of physical damage, it must be healthy! While excessive masturbation can be damaging both psychologically and physiologically, that is neither here nor there. What I am most concerned about is the source of what I believe is the biggest problem that our society faces at the moment: pornography. The porn industry is huge, but what is not huge is the amount of open discussion about porn, and its effect on society.

Atheists vs. Believers (what makes them different)

There is a lot of grey area for what makes an atheist an atheist, and what makes a believer a believer. However, there appears to be certain behavioral tenancies that guide an individual to either atheism or belief.

What do I mean by this?

Let me provide an anecdote.

A few weeks ago, in philosophy class, a philosophical question was being discussed among the class. The question was whether it would be moral permissible to torture a terrorist in order to stop a nuclear explosion from occurring in New York City. It goes without saying, if a nuclear explosion happened in NYC, millions would die. Also, the terrorist would not be killed in the process. My stance was that there is a moral obligation to protect the lives of millions over the well-being of a terrorist. I would say a good majority of the class favored my position, and the other side was sharply opposed. It was quickly found out that those who opposed the torture of the terrorist were Christians. Their logic was that it would be better to let millions die than to torture. They are more worried about themselves (protecting a personal moral stance that "all torture is wrong") and the well-being of a terrorist over the millions of innocent people. The class never came together, but I feel the side that supported torture in this case won the exchange (professor seemed to agree with it). It also seemed fairly obvious that this was a debate between atheists and believers.

It seems they (the Christians) took such a stance because a few million people to them is a mere number (emotionless); but a terrorist, an individual, that is something their minds can analyze emotionally (the pain they will suffer etc). Numbers as large/larger than a million are too great comprehend using emotional-reasoning (empathy). Our capacity to empathize appears limited to only few individuals at any specific time. Like when a person thinks of a disaster that effects millions, an image of a few people probably comes to mind, and sad feelings are then associated (instead of, in reality, feeling bad for the entire group harmed).

The point of this is to show how a religiously-minded person is a person whose reasoning ability is fixated on the emotional, instead of the logical. Those that are atheists tend to look at moral issues like this from a logical/mathematical perspective (things like pain inflicted, death, etc. are weighed mathematically), and the believers look at it from an emotional-reasoning perspective (it is cognitively impossible to empathize with a million+ individuals).

Obviously there is not a perfect dichotomy here; everyone thinks with a mix of emotion and logic, but some lean one way more than the other. An atheist, in my opinion, is better able to deal with issues that come up in reality because they tend to be logical-thinkers. Typically issues have many factors, more than emotional-reasoning can handle, so factors like the death of millions, are easily ignored.

But, are all atheists totally logical? Not at all, but there does appear to be a some truth to this underlying stereotype. It also seems as if emotional-thinkers are more prone to violence (atheists are among the least likely to commit acts of terrorism, for example). Emotional-thinkers are very reactionary, and organize information in a way that attaches so much emotion that it leaves little room for logic. This is why many believers continue to believe in God, despite growing evidence that points against the creationist "theory". This doesn't matter to an emotional-thinker because evidence (logic) is not all that important to them. For an emotional-thinker, if something makes them feel good, they view it as both morally permissible and objectively correct.

Looking at the world with a solid logical base vs. a solid emotional base will lead to an individual to very different conclusions. For a logical thinker (tend to be atheist), things like science and mathematics underly reality. For an emotional thinker (tend to be religious), emotion and intuition underly reality.

Of course too much logic isn't a good thing either, it leads some atheists to beliefs like moral-relativity (does away with soft-morality), and obviously there are Christians that are moral-relativists as well. But that is a different discussion all together.

If you got this far, thanks for reading, and have a great day :)

"Atheist! - Proof God Exist" (another Christian's failed attempt on YouTube)

The bible is apparently all the proof some Christians need. Atheists on the other-hand need just a bit more evidence than that. It seems that Christians are unable to grasp the concept of evidence. Quoting the bible does not qualify as "proof". As I have said many times over, Christians believe in God because it "feels good", atheists don't because there is no evidence.

Atheists = logical thinkers
Christians (or similar 'believers') = emotional thinkers

Atheist Christopher Hitchens: "There is no Creationism debate, it's over!"

I slightly disagree with Hitchens, it seems that some morality is learned (i.e. not innate). But that doesn't mean morality can only be learned from religion, or is totally learned by religion even by those that are religious. But, there appears to be a moral void forming in the United States as religion continues to die. This generation of kids is the most nonreligious we have ever had in the United States, which I believe is one of the main causes behind things like the rise of teen-pregnancy etc.. Despite what many atheists claim, if you can get a person to believe they will go to hell for committing immoral behavior, that is a much stronger case than "you should just be moral so others are moral to you". In-fact, it seems that (perhaps I'm connecting dots that shouldn't be connected) when humans give less thought about what is moral and what isn't (humans were forced to, out of fear of doing the wrong thing and going to hell) their empathetical-intelligence seems to suffer (study that shows this decline in college students, click me!). Of course, Hitchens is right, the creationism debate is over, however the moral debate is far from over.

Many atheists do not want to admit it, but a good amount of morality is learned. For example, look at the kids that grow up in bad households/neighborhoods (they learn to behave immorally), just food for thought, but we tend to ignore the fact that much of our morality is learned.  

Is Barack Obama A Closet Atheist? (The Atheist Experience)

It seems very possible that Obama is an atheist. Given the way he has spoken about religion, he is at the very least a deist. I suppose it doesn't matter if Obama is an atheist or not, his belief in secularism is much greater than both of the Bush's. Remember when Bush senior said that atheists should not be considered citizens (look it up)? It seems as if atheists are the most hated minority in the United States (more-so than Muslims).

Keith Ward: Arguments for God's Existence (and an atheist's rebuttal)

It's great seeing a philosopher pretend to be an expert in biology and human-psychology (ego never gets in the way of pseudo-intellectualism). He assumes that God exists, then looks for God in everything. I wrote a poem a while ago that describes his way of perceiving the world perfectly.

ever look at the clouds?

stare up at them?

so many things to see

all sorts of objects

practically all of them

they work so hard

constantly creating

so many faces

so many boats

do they want credit?

it is impossible to know

The problem with many philosophers is that they get too hung up on "feelings", and are apparently unable to differentiate between feelings caused by beliefs vs. feelings caused by sensory input. In other words, they seem to rationalize that if people feel a sensation, that sensation must be caused by something "out there". And that something must be God! Creator of the universe! Why? because an old desert-book says so.

Any philosopher that believes God is a good explanation for the universe should find the nearest time machine and go back a few hundred years. All intelligent philosophers are atheist, or at the very least agnostic.

At the moment, there is no information to suggest the existence of God; therefore the idea of a God is apparently as man-made as a flat earth, and sin-causing disease. If something cannot be known to exist, then obviously there is no way to know about it. Atheism is a respectable position if the human psychology is understood and taken into account. We should be asking ourselves not whether or not there is a creator, but why we are asking the question when there is no valid reason to suppose there is one. We should understand the forces behind the way we process information (and not assume we process information correctly). If science has shown us anything, it is that we humans should not trust our intuition. 

The Placebo Presence

I think many atheists by merely reading the title of this blog post already know what it will be about. I suppose this post is more oriented towards those believers that claim to believe because of certain sensation/feelings.

Believers often claim that there is proof of a god's existence because they can feel its presence! They believe that because they feel a presence, there must be some outside force causing this to happen. This isn't exclusive to God/gods; many other examples of sensations that are perceived as being caused by an outside force are really caused by certain cognitive behavior.

This of course is perfectly understandable, given the way the mind processes reality. It is not obvious to all that the way in which the body reacts to certain external stimuli can also be generated by the imagination. It is common knowledge that the mind on a subconscious level cannot make the distinction between reality and fantasy (or imagination vs. external input). In other words, a person using their mind's eye to imagine a god existing will cause their body and subconscious mind will react as if there was actual sensory input. Here are a few examples...

There was a girl named Jessica, she was 5 years old. She was terrified of the dark, and obviously, as well as going to sleep.

Why was she afraid?
Well, because she believed..
no....
she KNEW there was a boogie-man in her closet!

Why did she believe this?

Her big brother told her all about this fictitious creature (he left out the 'fictitious' part of course). Being that she looked up to her brother, she naturally believed everything he said. Every time she would lay down in bed, the boogie-man would enter her mind, and she would feel as if this monster was in the room with her.

We all have been around people/animals that make us feel uneasy, we associate certain sensations with certain experiences. Being that the sensations and the supposed cause of the sensations are often linked subconsciously and consciously, they are often perceived as being the same. This is why some people, when they feel a presence, believe the feeling is caused by some external force (they are unaware that the imagination can cause these "feelings" as well).



Another example of this can be done very easily. Imagine in your mind's eye that you are holding an orange.
Imagine peeling the orange, and while doing this, experiencing the sweet, citrusy smell. Now imagine taking a single slice, and slowly chewing it; imagine all the texture, taste, sounds, etc. By now your mouth should be filling up with saliva.

This example should be very straight forward, and it is similar to what happens when a person imagines a god-like being is there with them (protecting, loving, and guiding).




My last example is about the clouds, and more importantly, those that look for faces in them. If a person stares hard enough into the clouds (assuming there are some in the sky), they will probably be able to find something that resembles a face fairly easily. Obviously the faces are not really there, and that is the point.

Humans are wired to look for faces in things in the same way we look for the sensations associated with being loved, protected, and under guidance. Being that people look to experience those things, it is the sensation that is important to them, not the evolutionary purpose. God is probably as intended as the invention of contraceptives from the perspective of evolution; i.e. humans cheating the reward system by going around the reason for it.

If you got this far, thanks for reading my post :)

This understanding is very important to atheists that wish to debate the whole "feeling a presence" thing that believers often bring up.

Creationism in a nutshell (as described by Kent Hovind)

While it doesn't have many views, this video is entertaining as hell (npi). If  you didn't find it funny, you are probably not an atheist. The sad thing is, this is what creationists believe, and the arguments they use against atheists. 

Hitchens: Hitler was not an atheist

Hitler obviously was not an atheist. Christians like to make up lies to divert attention away from the fact that Hitler was a Catholic. But, even if Hitler was an atheist (he wasn't), it wouldn't mean that atheism was the motivating belief (atheism is not a belief, but a lack of one). Atheists need to do a better job at putting this misinformation to rest.

Are The Greek Gods Making A Comeback?

I'm not sure if this guy is joking or not, he seems very serious...

This is his website....
http://www.templeofthegreekgods.org

Isn't it fascinating the things people will believe in? Obviously people like this are beyond help, you cannot use rational to argue with someone that believes in Greek gods :P

*unleashes horde of atheist-trolls*

hdavis75: Christain becoming an atheist-Intorduction [sic]

It's good to see a Christian moving towards atheism. Many atheists have stories like this guy, their minds are unable to stomach the compartmentalization that is required of religious belief. Utilizing logic and rational over the emotional nature of religious-faith can be much more productive.   

Atheist Assumption (rationalresponder)

Christian logic is always entertaining.

2+2=4
4 = proof God exists!

It seems many atheists enjoy debating Christians because we are fascinated by the way their mind works.

Challenge For All Atheists (littlebigronnie386)

"you are probably just laughing at me"

Yep, all atheists should laugh at people that use the bible as proof that the bible is true; what a great use of logic. Most atheists know the bible well. This is not a very good challenge, atheists know the bible better than Christians (as a whole).

"I love all people"

Bullshit.

No one loves all people, you cannot love all people unless you know all people (you cannot love someone you do not know). Serial killers, rapists, child molesters, etc. should not be loved. 

mrbuchanantoyou: Religion vs Atheism

Why does this guy want an end to "the debate"? Is it because he knows his side is losing (or really has already lost"). Atheists are not running around trying to debate believers, normally it is the other way around. Most of the time it seems that believers are confronting atheists, and then getting intellectually demolished. Albeit some atheists do run around preaching atheism, it isn't very common. No Christian has to watch an atheist video, for example, or come on an atheist website (like this one). But, at the same time, some people enjoy debating. I see debating religion as a game. I find it interesting that Christians always seem intimidated by the intellect of atheists, they always seem to bring it up. 

Mickipedia: "Atheism is not sad" (a good example of the problem with some atheists)

She actually sounds very sad and defensive.

I would first off like to point out that this girl does not have a "complete" world-view (she is avoiding the big questions by ignoring them). These kind of atheists are boastfully-shallow and unintellectual. Any atheist that gives their life any thought at all will be faced with many big questions. There are many big questions that have nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. I would be willing to bet this girl did not come to atheism on her own (doesn't appear to be a thinker). If she was raised as a Christian, surrounded by Christians, she would be a Christian (or perhaps a friend/boyfriend talked her out of her religion). While all of this doesn't make her a horrible person, it also doesn't qualify her to be representing the atheist perspective. These sort of atheists give believers so much material to build their straw-men.


Get in the closet, we don't want you out...

Thunderf00t: Newton's Christianity (response to VenomFangX)

Thunderf00t: The Hopelessness of Atheism (appreciation of life and complexity)

Death isn't a depressing concept if people use it to appreciate the life they have, instead of running to religion in hopes of living forever. An intelligent atheist can appreciate being alive much more than the most devout Christian.

VenomFangX: "Thunderf00t serves death"

"The Bible says.."

No thought required for a Christian....

Accepting death makes a person appreciate life more. If someone believes that they will live forever, they will not be able to truly appreciate how amazing life is. VenomFangX automatically assumes God is real, and that the Bible is the "word" of this being; he provides no evidence to support either of these claims. Atheists do not "serve" death, they appreciate life by being aware of death. Death is one of those things which happens to all of us. Everyone has seen the effects of brain damage on an individual; death is the ultimate form of brain damage in that it is the brain's complete destruction.

Where Did Christian Cat Come From?

Yeah, explain where kitties come from you pin-head atheists!

For those that are slow, this video is satire. The guy in the video (Edward Current) is an atheist. Check out his channel (click me!)

Atheism =/= Moral Relativity (an atheist's rant on morality)

If you are an atheist, and out-of-the-closet, chances are you have come across the argument that atheists have no source of morality. When they do this, they imply that an atheist cannot know the difference between right and wrong etc. In-fact, many atheists use the argument that all morality is relative. It seems both sides (atheists and believers) let their imagination get the better of them. For those atheists that view morality as being relative are ignoring the function of morality. Morality is (at least in my opinion) behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society (consciously or unconsciously).

For example, the statement "it is immoral to cheat on a spouse" is a true statement. However, many atheists will use their imagination to think of a scenario in which this statement wouldn't be true. This kind of moral reasoning misses the point. It cannot be denied that a society full of cheaters (especially before birth control) would leave many individuals without a fully-functioning family. A woman is hard-wired to not want their husband to run away with another woman, leaving her all of the burden of raising the kids; on the flip-side the guy doesn't want to waste energy raising some other man's child (the fruit of his energy-input is the passing on of his genes). If morality is behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society, then cheating in the general, realistic sense, is morally wrong.

The famous atheist author Sam Harris wrote a book claiming that morality is behavior that is beneficial for the well-being of conscious creatures. But I'm feel that this misses the evolutionary purpose of pain and pleasure (psychological or physiological). While it is true that there is a hardwired desire to feel good, and to avoid pain, the purpose of both are not for our enjoyment, but our survival (and exclusive to humanity, unless applying a certain morality to animals is beneficial for human-society). When we notice a certain behavior causes pain, this is the body/brain's way of telling us that we need to change course. Also, if we feel good, that is the body/mind's way of rewarding/creating incentive to continue what it perceives as good behavior. As stated before, the purpose of this is to provide behavioral guidelines.

As a social species, there are certain behaviors that are harmful to functionality of a society, and behaviors that are beneficial (but this does not imply relativity). While not all societies have the same functioning characteristics (morality), it cannot be denied that some societies function better than others. The reason morality is not completely instinctual is because human society is taking on factors that are previously unknown.

Also, I think morality should be divided up into two groups: instinctual/learned (i.e. hard-wired/soft-wired). Being that our species, from an evolutionary standpoint, is going into uncharted territory everyday, the old hard-wired behavior can be very problematic—this is where our learned-morality comes into play. Learned-morality is cognition that overrides perceived harmful-instinctual behavior.

All of this is to enunciate the point that not all behavior is created equal within a human society. There are moral truths within this society. An atheist can imagine circumstances in which a behavior that is normally beneficial to the functionality of a society (moral) would not be, but this is dodging the question. I.e. moral relativism is a pseudo-intellectual's way of dodging reality. No thoughtful atheist should argue moral relativism. If this is to become an atheist-world, we must stop dodging moral questions. Whether we atheists want to admit it or not, religion took on a big role for providing our soft-wired morality. As religion goes, so goes the soft-wiring we have relied upon as a society for many many years. As our society continues to evolves, so will evolve our hard-wired/soft-wired morality. It is not good that we have relied so heavily on religion to provide our soft-wired morality, with it gone, we are left with a void that must be filled (otherwise the functionality of society will suffer).

If you are an atheist reading this, try to think about moral questions in the context that I laid out; there are moral-truths to be found in this reality, never dodge the questions by imagining other realities (makes you and the atheism you represent appear void of morality). If you are a believer, then continue to argue against atheists that continue to believe in moral relativism by using secular-reasoning (instead of religious, which an atheist will easily brush off).

Be a thinking atheist, not one that avoids the truth.

BBC Horizon (2011) - What is Reality? (must watch documentary)

Stephen Colbert on Bill O'Reilly's scientific illiteracy

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Crisis in Egypt - Anderson Cooper & Bill O'Reilly<a>
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

O'Reilly should have payed attention better in science class. Stephen Colbert is not an atheist (as far as I know), but he is proof that not all Christians are science-ignoring morons.

atheist quote of the day

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-Benjamin Franklin

Basil Marceaux IS MY HERO! (must watch video)

Probably the most articulate politician of our generation, he would absolutely crush Obama in a debate. Imagine if we had him running with Sarah Palin? Game f*cking over!

Basil Marceaux (most awesome political candidate ever?)

Wish he would run for governor of New York, then maybe after he fixes the problems here, he can run for President and clean up Obama's mess!

Tom Leykis - Women Like Money, Power and Fame (Scientific Evidence)

I found this to be interesting. It isn't some huge surprise, but it is interesting to see some scientific evidence backing it. It seems that the majority of humans tend to follow their instinctual drives instead of moral principle (i.e. learned morality, cognition that gets in the way of harmful instinctual behavior). Are all people like this? No, but I would say a good majority are.

What do you think? Does this represent everyone? A majority?

Must Watch Video!!! Orthodox Christian Bashes Creationism

I have to agree, creationism did give rise to atheism. Creationists also have no faith; they try to create fake evidence, and faith is not evidence based. Anyone that needs evidence to believe in a god has no faith; i.e. those that try to delude themselves and others into believing their is evidence. If Christianity is to survive, it must start to embrace reality. The rise of atheism has much more to do with religion holding onto medieval world-views than anything else. 

Gun Rights: Why They Are Important!!

Many people want a reduction in gun-rights. While I agree that limits should be put into place for certain people (mentally ill, violent criminals, etc.), I don't think the majority of people understand/appreciate the importance of gun-rights.

The purpose of guns (in a constitutional sense) are for people to be able to protect themselves, it is also a deterrent for those that wish to infringe on the rights of others. A burglar for example will be much less likely to rob a house if they know the person has gun/guns (and/or dogs). A big problem is that good, law abiding people don't have guns—this makes them easy targets for the criminals who do. Guns are a means of  protection, and everyone should have such protection. It's like that saying goes: "if guns are out-lawed then only the outlaws will have guns" (or something like that). We must accept that within our society, there exist many sociopaths that will attack another person for their own material gain.

While this reality isn't nice, it isn't going anywhere. Those that are "trusting individuals" are easy victims (people without guns, dogs, and locked doors). Everyone should have a gun, know how to safely store it, and how to properly use it. Instead of individuals blindly trusting everyone, they should instead hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. It cannot be stressed enough that people need to take all the precaution then can (within reason) to protect themselves, their property, and their loved-ones.

I want to write much more on the importance of gun-rights, and why all law-abiding citizens should utilize this right. A society without guns is a society full of victims waiting to be taken advantage of.  

Closeted Atheists (and why it is not bad to be "in the closet")

Many atheists promote the idea of closeted-atheists (atheists that don't make their atheism known) to "come out". I have mixed feelings about atheists "coming out". An idea that I feel is more important to promote is that everyone else needs to get into the closet. Beliefs about whether a talking snake or virgin birth happened (or didn't) should be kept private; i.e. people need to realize that religious beliefs, or lack their of, should be kept private. Some people find great enjoyment out religion, I don't feel that us atheists need to shit on their beliefs; it's not like such people will be making any big contributions to science any time soon, just let them be.

Everyone should be in the closet, keeping their beliefs to themselves. Now, when among friends, of course things like this can be talked about. But people don't need to go out of their way to tell everyone when/how the universe came into being. In the end, a believer's world-view (and an atheist's) is dictated by certain ideas. In the context of day-to-day life, does it really matter if someone believes 4+ billions years old? Does it really matter? I believe that religion (and lack of) shouldn't be an important social issue.

Of course those that push their religion onto others can/should be challenged. I believe the ideal is not a world filled with all atheists, or believers, but a world in which people keep such ideas private. Not everyone is as interested in science as an atheist is. Science is a great thing, but it is not everything, not everyone needs or wants to be scientifically literate (and it should not be forced on them). Atheists tend to be logical thinkers, the religious tend to be emotional thinkers. Not everyone will get as much joy out of understanding science that you do (you know who you are)! The enjoyment an atheist gets from science, another may get out of religion. It seems as if the important thing is that people are enjoying their lives, and making the lives of the people around them enjoyable as well.

Some may believe that I am being hypocritical here. For having an atheist-geared website that often attacks religion; but I would argue that not looking to convert people. I am looking to educate those that are misinformed about what atheism is and what atheists believe (not all atheists have the same beliefs, which is another understanding I try to get out). Some believe that atheists are worshipers of Satan, for example. And I believe those that make public claims about atheists being Satan worshipers etc., should be challenged. But that does not mean that atheists need to be running around trying to rid the world of religious belief (will make the religious defensive, and cause more in-group/out-group friction). It also does not mean that an atheist needs to disown the culture of a religion as well. For example, Jesus had many good moral teachings, I see no problem with an atheist using Jesus (for example) for moral-education. Moral education is something that I believe our society needs. In-fact, I believe morality should be a basic class taught in schools, focusing just on morality (leaving the supernatural connections out). In morality class, figures like Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, etc. and what they taught could be learned about. Secular reasons for why morality is good could/should be thought about.

Anyways....

Let people decide what they want to believe, I came to atheism on my own, and I believe people should be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe.

Creating groups through labeling is a just bad idea, it causes too much in-group/out-group mentality which leads to people dehumanizing others because they have ideas different than their own. Judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

atheist quote of the day

Whatever we cannot easily understand we call god; this saves much wear and tear on the brain tissues.
-Edward Abbey


Some people want closure to unanswerable questions, and some people don't. Those that don't mind being aware of their ignorance are atheist, those that want to pretend they know it all are religious.

Ken Ham vs. Rev. Barry Lynn Over Tax Funded Bible Theme Park (V+D)

Fairytale themed parks? Don't we have enough of those already?

I don't personally have much of an issue with this. But I do believe that a for-profit private business should not be funded or endorsed by the government. If the government was funding a theme-park centered around Islam, people would be up in arms. Such a double-standard. We need an atheist theme park! I guess it would be kind of boring though. People should keep their religion in the church and in private. The government should not be funding non-science claiming to be science, which will only confuse the children, making it harder for them to learn real science later down the road.

Why Feminism Is BAD! (destruction of the family)

Before I go on with my rant on why feminism is incredibly destructive to the family. Men and women are simply different, to compare men and women is to compare apples and oranges. Women have attributes that make them a vital part of a functioning society, and men the same; however, the the attributes that make them vital are different. Men and women are different, and are utilized within the family in different, however, equally important roles.

What I am implying here is not that women should not have equal rights under the law. Women should realize that they fill different roles in the family (and in society). Women are great, and very very important for society, they play/played a role that is/was so very important, and so unappreciated. Sadly, women are told not to be women, but to be "equal" to men (like an apple trying to be equal to an orange).




destruction of the family


Feminism is trying to make women think and behave like men; women are not men, period. Our society is losing our real-women, the women that are vital for the family to function. There is nothing more important in the world than the family structure. The family is the foundation of a society, and when it goes, so goes the society. The family structure still exists (barely), which is why our society is still hanging on, but given enough time, society will crumble (no structure can stand when its foundation is destroyed).

What are the signs of a crumbling society? Many of which could be argued to be caused by the destruction of the family structure.

-high divorce rates (obviously)
-loss of a sense of morality (highly sexualized culture, lack of honesty/trust, high corruption in politics, crime etc.)
-unemployment
-demoralization of the population
-lost sense of nationalism
-high amount of mental disorders/dysfunctions
-high drug use (stress issues, morality issues contribute)
-high amount of sociopathic behavior within population (linked to the morality, but important within itself)
-paranoia (people feel insecure not having a proper family structure)


I can't address all of the points made in the list (will in later posts). But I'm going to start with divorce. Why are the divorce rates so incredibly high? Well, because women are trying to take on the leadership role in the family, which obviously will create conflict. Feminist do not understand the importance of a good, functioning family. Like any social organisation, it cannot thrive with conflicting leadership. Evolutionarily speaking, men are leaders, is in innate within them. But perhaps equally or more important is the role of nurturer (caring for the young, the sick, etc.); women are just better nurturers than men, period. What we have lost by the feminist movement is the ability for a family to function (conflicted leadership with little or no nurturing and/or broken families). The family needs a strong leader to provide and protect (a shell), and a nurturer that takes care of the wellbeing of everyone (especially the kids). What feminism has done is destroyed the leadership-role that men are naturally suppose to assume (this isn't opinion, this is an accepted concept of evolutionary theory).

All social organisations have a chain of command, the organisations that do the best do not have conflicting leadership. And, an organisation needs more than just good leadership; in the context of the family, the women plays a very important nurturing-role. A family without a nurturer suffers, this has turned our society into a "day-care" society filled with kids that don't know what it feels like to be loved. Many kids today have problems feeling that they belong because of this (a bold claim perhaps, but I have good reason to believe it is true).

I wanted to keep this short and sweet. I will be doing many more posts on why I feel feminism is bad. Men and women are equal as far as both are important in their own unique way within a society (we need both) But, we should end the comparing of apples and oranges, for the sake of our society (feminist seem to want everyone to fit a masculine role). Obviously not all women are interested in having families, and that's fine. But, I also believe that there is a psychological importance of having a good, strong, functioning family. Now-a-days over half the kids have broken families. Broken families cause kids to suffer, and with their suffering comes consequences in the longterm. If we are unable to come to our senses, the future of our society doesn't look very promising.

Perhaps I am wrong however, maybe the family structure isn't that important, maybe women should continue trying to be men (they need to in order to be "equal"). I suppose time will tell. Maybe men need to start a new masculinism movement (a movement concept I will blog about later down the road).

Also, another important thing for women is to get with good men. If a woman gets with a good man, they will be treated as they should. Things like domestic abuse and excessive negativity in general is caused by this. Check out my post on cheaters for example, which talks about the importance of love in a relationship (click me!)

Neanderthal Genes Found in Modern Humans

For some weird reason, this stuff makes a lot more sense than the 'Garden of Eden' theory. I wonder if I have Neanderthal DNA in me. 

More Famous Atheist Quotes

Some good ones in here, I'm going to try to add the ones I don't have to the 'Famous Atheist Quotes' page.
I'm also thinking of doing an atheist quote of the day thing as well. If you have any atheist quote suggestions, or a quote of your own, put it in the comment section, thanks. 

Atheist Comedian Keith Lowell Jensen

It would be funny if atheists went door-to-door with copies of the Origin Of Species to hand out, especially in the south or in Utah. Atheists should put signs on their door that read: "Missionaries: feel welcome to knock on the door, we need more toilet paper" or something like that...

Punxsutawney Phil predicts an early spring! (2011)

I hope the groundhog is right because I hate winter.....

Al Qaeda Populating U.S. With Peaceful 'Decoy Muslims' ?!

If you are offended by this video, you have a poor sense of humor (and sarcasm). This video is obviously satire to point out the irrational fear of all Muslims. Moderate Muslims should not be feared, and I believe the vast majority of Muslims in the United States are moderates. Hell (npi), fundamentalist Christians have been known to be dangerous/offensive, just look at the Westboro Baptist Church (they picket soldiers' funerals with signs like "thank God for dead soldiers" etc.

With that said, I do think that certain beliefs do not mix well inside a secular society, luckily we have a constitution to keep such people in check (not naming names of course). For example, Mormons are not allowed to engage in polygamy, they had to give that up to live in this country (well, unless they live on a secret compound).  

As long as everyones' rights are protected, everything will continue on like clockwork in the United States; as FDR said: "we have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Ray Comfort: Is it Wrong to Judge? (relativism)

I actually agree with some of what they say. Relativism-logic is taken way too far, and applied to way to many things (religion for example). Relativism is psuedo-intellectual word-play. All questions have an answer, regardless if we have access to that answer. I think many atheists agree (and probably many disagree), that there are moral truths (not just "opinions") within the context of a human society. Relativism just an easy way of dealing with reality, even though it provides no real answers, just false ones that satisfy the ego (like using God to explain everything).

"No love lost in cheating" (discussion on the mentality of people that cheat in relationships)

I recently had a discussion with my girlfriend about people that cheat in relationships. Apparently her friend's former boyfriend had another, more dedicated relationship (he was married), and her friend was just something on the side. It seems as if this mentality exists within many individuals. The question is: why do people cheat?

No love lost in cheating?


Regardless of what a cheater claims, when they cheat, they are doing so because they do not feel love towards the individual they are cheating on; that does not mean that they do not "like" the person, however that "like" is probably in a sensual context. No person that has a true love of another would ever cheat on them. As Jesus said in the Bible, "to lust after another person is to commit adultery in the heart", and this is true. But, as I am arguing, a person that is truly in love would never cheat (love and commitment go hand-in-hand).

Bold claim? Well, it's not, and it is also not a bold claim that people can lose an infatuation with someone, which can be mistaken for "love"; infatuation can lead to love, but love is not infatuation. A cheater does not lose love in the individual that they have cheated on; this is because there is no love to be lost.

If a person lusts (or desires) to be with another person, they do not truly love the person they are with at the moment. Those that lust after others, and stay in a relationship (without physically cheating) perhaps feel guilty about the feelings they are experience (or feel that "desire" is unattainable). If you find yourself not being faithful "in the heart", perhaps you should seriously consider breaking up with the person you are with now—for the sake of both parties. Relationships that are held together by sensuality and convenience (need a relationship, want better, but can't get it) are going to fail in the longterm.

Helpful Advice


If you notice that your partner is lusting after others, perhaps you should have a discussion with them. You should inquire if they wish they were in a different relationship, or if they wish they could do better. Chances are if you have a hunch that they do, they probably do, and if they do, then your relationship will probably fail in the longterm.

Romance without love is not romance, but a mere sexual lust that will fade in time; a relationship held together by love will last forever. Of course you cannot truly love someone after only knowing them for a short while. If you do not love the person you are with, and have been with them long enough to know whether or not you will (longer than a few weeks, no longer than a year), you should leave and look elsewhere.

Many people (men specifically) are solely interested in the sensual aspects of a relationship, the emotional aspect is something they wish to avoid (which is why many men have problems with being committed, and don't want to "talk" about emotional things). If your man doesn't want to "talk", then this should be a sign that he is not in love with you, and vice-versa. People that are in love care about their partner's feelings as much as they care about their own. Sensuality can bring you to love, but it can also prevent you from finding it, make finding love your goal. 

US Security: No Match for WikiLeaks and Lady Gaga