Why people believe what they do.

 I often wonder why (how?) people believe in theism as an atheist. Essentially it all comes down to a person's world-view. A world-view is a collection of believable (believable to the individual) ideas organized as being objective; i.e. exists "out there". For something to be added to a person's world-view it must be believable to them. It is believable ideas that compose our world-view. For example, I believe Christians have inaccurate world-views, which is a world-view in itself (it is believable to me).

Atheists have a world-view that does not include a god, and view those that do have a god as being wrong (obviously). God is the foundation of a Christian's world-view. They take all the information they view as believable, and rationalize it as coming from God, and doing this further confirms that God exists. For example, when a Christian looks at life, they see "proof of God" in that life. When an atheist sees life, they see proof of evolution in it. This is all obvious, but it is exactly why Christians are not typically convinced by atheistic arguments. They are unable to organize their world-views in a way that is godless (so much of their world-view is dependent on it). On the other hand, as atheists, our world-view is very dependent on science. If we were to somehow find reasons to believe science was invalid, then this would certainly cause problems for our world-view. Basing an entire world-view on one thing it is required for a solid world-view. That said, it also makes it impossible see any other possibility that contradicts the assumed accuracy of the base (for Christians, that there is a God and there can't possibly not be one).

This isn't to say that all world-views are equally valid. Even though many atheists are relativists when it comes to world-views, I do not believe all people's world-views match up equally with objective reality; in other words, some people's world-views are more accurate than others.  An atheist bases his/her world-view on science (what is observable, testable, etc.). A Christian has a world-view that is based in trusting certain types authority (an authority that makes claims, but provides no observable evidence) - which, like all world-views, is a structure of patterned ideas.

Many Christians do not understand how an atheist is "unable to see the light".

"How can atheists believe there is no God?"


In the end, all of our differences are found within our contradictory world-views. A world-view is just a world-view in the same way that a thought is just a thought. What makes one world-view better than another is if that world-view is shown to be reliable in the context of what we value as being true. Objective reality is what individuals and groups agree to be true, which typically comes through a synergy between trust and observation. In the end, actually observing something makes it much more believable, and observation is the bread and butter of the scientific method. In other words, Christians rely more on trust, atheists rely more on valuing observable reliability.

In short, people believe what they do because it is believable to them. I know, mind-numbingly obvious, but it is an interesting area to put thought into. 

Is Justin Bieber an atheist?

I've noticed on the internet that a lot of his fans wonder about his religious beliefs. From what I have gathered, it appears he is a Catholic (it's taking everything in me to not make a molestation joke). Which shouldn't surprise anyone, being that he is a talentless tool that didn't even know Germany was a country. If Justin Bieber was an atheist, his music would be much more depressing, and definitely not as corny...

Valueing coldness

problem with supressing emotions like crying....gets replaced with emotoins like anger to deal with emotional problems to cope....which is a poorer strategy

The greatest blog ever?

The blog is called Babbling Joe, and it's hilarious (if you have a weird/twisted sense of humor). Here is an example of one of the posts.

hai guyz and galz. todai i wana tauk aboot abortoin. Aburrchun iz a grate thang becuz woman shuld hav teh rite to kil offf ny lief thet livez in themm. Actualy womban that get sadd shuld hav the rite to comit suicidee az wel, IT IS THERE BODEES! it iz moore impoted too let woman hav az mooch sex az ttehy wana ...regrardless of how mainy poeople died fromm thems bein whorz. sexx is pwer for womben...if tehy can kiled teh babyz tehn theye can hav al teh pwer tehy wana....unles tehy r ugley then tehy must make sandmiches and claen after men. don tak teh only pwer woman hav taht is beter than men....if u mak it soo woman cannt kil there babys thane wut pwer wil tehy hav lefte? ifa womban gott preggers afta bonnin there first gai then non wud goo to colege to git there ejubacation. tinkn aboot it!

Make sure to check it out!

http://babblinggjoe.blogspot.com/

The top 25 atheist blogs

I just wanted to quickly throw this link up on here. If you enjoy reading atheist blogs, there is a good list of the top ones on this site. Check it out :)
The Top 25 Atheist Blogs You Must Read

Disturbing process of becoming an atheist?

Scary title right?

In this blog post, I want to discuss the downsides of leaving a religious faith by becoming an atheist. While many atheists talk about how great becoming an atheist is (mind-expanding, liberating, etc.), the difficulties are often not discussed (or the general process). For me, becoming an atheist took a few years. The source of my atheism was the nagging skepticism; I would often think the following things..

 "Is all of this real?"
"How can I know my religion is the right religion?"
"What if there is no God?"
"If God can read my mind when I pray, doesn't He already know what I want?"
"There can't be a God, otherwise my life would be better"
"How can God allow that to happen?" (whenever I would hear something horrible on the news, etc.)
"Am I wasting my time praying?"
"Why is believing important?"
"Why aren't we judged only by our actions?"
"What if I'm wrong?"


As far as I can remember back, I was always skeptical about my Christian faith. I always wondered if it was real (especially in the repressed part of the back of my mind). I suppose what really brought my skepticism out was the internet. I would surf around, looking for information about religion and atheism. This may sound all well and good, but at the time, it was terrifying. This was because during this moment, my world-view was being flipped on its head - source of existence, meaning of life, sense of purpose, security, source of morality - all of which were severely disrupted.

For me, becoming an atheist was a scary process...but, it was needed due to my paranoia of believing false information. I'm the sort of person that finds it very difficult to trust people, and I believe part of that is due to the awareness of having been fed false information for the greater part of my life (up until the age of 16-17, I considered myself to be a Christian...more specifically, Methodist).

Becoming an atheist for me made a lot of sense, due to my skeptical nature...but at the same time, it was far from an easy process. The way an atheist views the world is much different than a believer does. If a person becomes a full-blown atheist relatively rapidly (over a few days/months), it can be very disturbing psychologically. I suppose one of the biggest issues I faced was the fear of death - I was led to believe that I would live forever, it was very depressing thinking about the permanence of death (no more heaven). The concept of mortality wasn't thought about much for me because I always would fall back on heaven. In other words, someone going from Christianity to atheism can be susceptible (or at least I was) to things like depression, stress, and anxiety.

Am I glad that I became an atheist? I suppose I have to be, there is no going back at this point. However, I do recognize the consoling aspects of Christianity. The nice thing about becoming an atheist is that it makes a person scramble (or it did for me) to understand the universe (believing God did it all took the mystery out of life). I believe becoming an atheist should be done very slowly, and a person should legitimately think about the issue (some people blindly go to atheism merely because they view it as the intellectually superior position and/or peer pressure). Newly converted atheists should immediately try to replace their shattered world-views with ones that don't conflict with atheism (with meaning of life, morality, purpose, etc.) - doing so helps rebalance a person to emotional equilibrium much faster.

I hope you enjoyed reading this blog post (for the sake of irony). Thanks very much for stopping by :)

Donald Trump for president?

"You're fired!"

Apparently he is thinking about running in 2012. The 2012 presidential election is going to be colorful.

Trump/Palin 2012?

If it happens, the Apocalypse definitely might probably could happen (let's hope it doesn't).

What is up with Republican candidates not "coming out" (not the gay closet...I think)? Not one has officially declared their candidacy. Am I the only one that finds this strange? They wouldn't admit it, but I think they are afraid of the political attacks from the media (digging up dirt, etc.). Don't be scared!

I'm curious (too lazy to look it up) what Donald Trump's religious views are. I assume he is some sort of protestant... or maybe a secret atheist! Despite what people think of the guy (I think he is a scumbag), he is fairly intelligent. I'm curious to see how he would fair in politics, I mean, way to jump in the deep end head first (he should have ran for treasurer in some hick town as a warm-up)....

celebrating easter as an atheist

Like many atheists, I am a cultural Christian...so I celebrate religious holidays (well, the fun ones). Today I'm going to be heading up to my grandparents house, and will have a nice dinner, and so forth. The point of this post (is there a point?) is that atheists need to stop being wet-blankets around the holidays. Most Christians probably don't think about God (unless they say grace at the table), and it seems as if most religious holidays have lost their religious observance anyways. Atheists should enjoy Easter. 

Afraid of atheism? (dehumanizing labels for self-preservation)

I have noticed that there is a fear of atheism, and perhaps there are many reasons for believers to fear atheism. The biggest religion in our society, Christianity, is a prime example (and will be the religion I refer to here on out).

In the bible, there are many verses that demonize atheists. The writers recognized that atheists are one of the biggest threats (to their religion) because of the skeptical nature they possess (writers may have been atheists themselves). Most atheists need something more than the words of an authority figure. This is why atheists are a threat, because Christians recognize that atheists see holes in their religion, and are afraid that they will become aware of those holes (like a horrible traffic accident, they don't want to see it). Christians (or most) believe that they shouldn't be skeptical of their faith, and that "crises of faith" should be dealt with immediately through prayer, etc. The atheist's mere existence (or the awareness of) in itself creates a crises of faith because of the nagging "what if they are right?" thought enters their mind (it does, even though most would refuse to admit it); the same could be said about those that belong to a different religion (but to a lesser extent because there is a mutual weakness that cancels out skepticism among all believers).

There really is a competition among ideas in the world, and Christians, I believe, view atheism as the biggest threat to their ideas. Other religions don't pose so much of a threat because they all possess the same weaknesses that Christianity has. Due to Christianity's struggle against science (especially biology and physics), and atheists natural embrace of science (nonreligious method of understanding the universe, and useful for arguing against theism), this has caused Christians to fear atheists because they can see that the evidence is on the side of the atheist. And talk about a crisis of faith - considering how much of our reality has been made possible by science (things like computers, electricity, cars, and consumerism in general). I believe Christians consciously or subconsciously recognize the threat atheism posses, and this causes them to reflexively demonize and/or dehumanize atheists. Atheists like Sam Harris recognize that the label 'atheist' can be a tool used by believers to demonize and dehumanize. The word 'atheist' has actually harmed atheists. If atheists described themselves as being "rationalists" or "skeptics"... and viewed the term 'atheist' as being insulting - believers would have had a much more difficult time dehumanizing such people. Labels can unite people, but they can also be used to dehumanize people (i.e. outcast them from society, as George Bush Sr. attempted when he claimed atheists should not be considered citizens).

The point here is that there is a fear of atheism, and that fear is rooted in the believers perceived need to protect their world-views (which includes themselves and all they value). Being that it is too late to stop using the term 'atheist', we are forced to redefine it. Atheists have been redefining the term, but obviously that has had limited success. Atheists pushing for social changes, and redefinition of the term 'atheist' has caused many Christians to cling to their world-views even harder (as all people do when they feel threatened). Should Christians fear atheism? Depends on how much a believer desires to push their beliefs onto others. A Christian that practices their religion, and keeps it out of the public sphere, not pushing it on others, etc. should have no problem with atheists. The problem is that Christians are pushing their beliefs onto atheists, and atheists are simply pushing back. I believe that most people believe that their world-view is the best for everyone. I however think that atheism is not right for some people, and that theism is not right for some people...but also, such people can live side-by-side if they stop trying to compete against one another. This perhaps makes me appear to be a hypocrite (having an atheist blog), but the purpose of this blog, more than anything, is to promote my atheist perspective (hence the name). 

Happy Easter!

Today was the day Jesus laid an egg. 

Christian inspired by an atheist

Atheists are as irrational as theists? Says who?

Shirley Phelps Roper disagrees....

There is importance in what is said, not so much how it is said. Typically the only time an atheist will refer to themselves as an atheist, is when the topic of religion is brought up.  Atheists on YouTube are going to talk about why they believe religion is false, that is the point (otherwise they wouldn't go under the 'atheist' label). Religion is a very big thing in the world (for good or bad), and on the internet, people are going to debate it with a lot of passion. Religion plays a big part in an atheist's life (it's everywhere). Personally, if I was a believer, I would want to stay as far away from atheists (or more so,  their ideas) as possible - being that their ideas are corrosive to mine. Leave atheists alone! Or at least if they bother you don't get involved with debates, or expect emotion and ignorance (nearly everyone has varying degrees of both).

Edward Current: "I Was Molested By A Priest"

This comment pretty much sums it up...

Maybe if you look harder ThePsycheoutFanClub (that's a mouthful), you will find the right molestation video to suit your sinful needs.

Biased study on atheism.

If only truth was a democracy.

"popular Christian YouTube channel, shockofgod"

Describing someone on YouTube who's videos typically get under 500 views as "popular" is missing the forest full of trees. There are many many atheists on YouTube that get 20 times the view count that shockofgod gets. This study seems to be connecting dots with confirmation biases such as - atheism is false, truth is a democracy, etc. It's sad that they felt it necessary to construct a pseudo-study that merely encompasses a biased perception of reality and seeks after no objective understanding.

The church's records in my case are not aware of my atheism (very difficult to study the amount of atheists in society because of inaccurate records). There is no doubt that as a society, we are becoming less religious (even the majority of Christians are not that devoted to the faith). Atheism isn't going anywhere. Like many, Shockofgod wishes there were no atheists. If there were no atheists, it would make it easier for believers to believe in their comforting (albeit fictitious) beliefs. Atheism is the disbelief in the gods of others, even shockofgod is an atheist outside of his belief in the Christian god.

Atheism exists in all humans by default (well all humans confronted with contradictory gods), some people are aware of this fact, and are able to withdraw themselves from the belief in gods all together, making them a total-atheist.

What's funny about Christians is that they worship ideas, and this makes them guilty of idolatry (even though they aren't aware if it, like they aren't aware of many things).

"my imaginary friend is better than yours"


Our society going through another Dark Age (what fundamentalists seemed to be striving for) does not disprove atheism, but proves human fallacy. 

Worshiping the actions of imaginary beings.

Many people worship ideas - particularly those that worship a god. Christians, for example, have no choice in the matter. They don't know what God is, so they must worship the being's perceived actions. Is the idea of God's (or Allah's, Yahweh's, etc.) actions based on an actual, existing being's behavior? How can it be? The idea of God is known to have originated from scripture (within the context of our modern society), and scripture has been shown to be very inaccurate:

-bird blood curing STDs,
-world being 6,000 years old
-sin causing disease
-world-wide floods
-a flat earth  .
-an earth with edges
-biological creationism

None of us were around at the time God supposedly "created" it all, and there is no evidence which leads us to believe that the universe was created (unless we have underlying motives to connect dots that shouldn't be connected). Ignorance does not infer anything other than ignorance. Creation, like all things, should be proven before being accepted as fact. This is why being an atheist is the most respectable stance to take. Atheists demand evidence, or at least follow those that demand evidence (scientists, etc.) The idea of blindly following someone out of fear of hellfire is a common theme in many religions. An atheist has the ability to be skeptical of all ideas - obviously not all atheists choose to utilize it. And obviously atheists do not trust in science out of fear, but out of its observed usefulness. Christians can't be skeptical of certain ideas, it is frowned upon (to put it mildly).

Objectivity is limited to our imagination. Regardless if a god exists or not, that doesn't remove the fact that believers worship an idea - which is idolatry. To make it worse, any being that cannot be sensed (taste, touch, sight, sound, and smell) cannot be worshiped (even as an idea). How can the being itself be worshiped if it is not known to even exist? Believers in a god worship the perceived actions of a being that is void of sensory output - at least for humans - which is merely an idea in itself. Idolatry cannot be escaped for a believer. An idea =/= the being itself. Believers worship ideas that they read about in books, or are told about by other humans. At the end of the day - Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other similar believers - worship ideas that come from books. This is pure idolatry in a philosophical sense.

Believers will argue that atheists worship themselves or science. This however isn't true because there is a difference between trust and worship. Atheists trust in science, and themselves (as most people do). Unlike a Christian, an atheist is able to trust and fully embrace science. Science for a Christian is viewed as a threat to certain ideas that they hold to be valuable - valuable merely for the sake of self-preservation (i.e. fear of hell). But, even if atheists did worship themselves (atheists are no more egomaniacal than believers) or science, that doesn't make us hypocrites. Idolatry is not a sin for atheists, it's just typically viewed as being stupid in most cases (like with worshiping celebrities, sports teams, etc.). The point here is that worshiping ideas blinds a person to the reality that an idea is just an idea. Our ideas can cause us to miss the forest full of trees.

Weird atheist-kid supports and sympathizes with pedophiles

I agree 100% with the guy in the beginning. Now, for the dirty little (using the term 'little' for the sake of irony) kid...

SacrilegeWithASmile - "I think that having a sexual thought about a child is the equivalent of having a sexual thought about a woman" ..."I have sympathy for pedophiles". 


No, it's not. Sexual thoughts about children is not "normal" (what the moral-relativist was seemingly implying); people that have such thoughts should be viewed as a threat to children. If you have sexual thoughts about children, you really should seek professional help. Not for your sake, but for the sake of those around you. It takes a very twisted mind to view children as sexual objects - a mind that cannot be compared to the norm (as SacrilegeWithASmile attempts). Typically when we think of a pedophile, we are thinking about those that do act on their impulses (otherwise, how would we know?). I am a strong believer that pedophiles should be castrated and/or have their sex drive chemically destroyed (yes, even if it is child pornography that is found). Pedophilia is not curable (again, castration wouldn't hurt, and would be a hell of a deterrent), and there should be no sympathy for such people. Those that view children as sexual objects should not be tolerated in our society, period. I can't even imagine the psychological damage a child would sustain from being molested - to sympathize with those that desire to do that is disgusting.

I want to stress that SacrilegeWithASmile does not represent the atheist community at all, and I believe he speaks volume for the failings of moral-relativism.

Book Review: Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

The God Delusion is a great book all in all. It's a fairly easy read, and is especially useful for those that are on the fence with religion. The book has good educational aspects, coupled with wit and humor - making it an interesting read. I first read the book four years ago, and while I was already an atheist, it caused me to view being an atheist in a new way. It lead me to be more outspoken as an atheist (which eventually led to me doing things on YouTube and Blogger). Even if you're not an atheist, I highly suggest this book. I strongly believe that Christians, Muslims, etc. should make an effort to understand the atheist perspective - even if it is merely to debate it.

So, in short, if you haven't read this book, pick up a copy and read it!

Pro-Life Demonstration

Today while going to class, there was this huge pro-life demonstration in front of the main building. They had approximately 3,700 balloons to represent the number of babies killed each day (I say 'babies' to avoid the dehumanizing labels pro-abortionists use). There was this "fact" on a sign that claimed that after 40 days there is brain activity. Also there was a sign that claimed 60% of the black babies in NYC are victims of abortion. It's good to see that sort of thing at a college campus - it's a great way to get people to visualize the numbers. The number of abortions per year is 1,370,000.

It's insane to think that abortion is still legal in the United States. Abortion is a genocide caused by heartlessness, and waged on the most vulnerable of our species. Yes, abortion is a genocide by definition. The only way to avoid it being labeled as a genocide is to dehumanize human-life (which can't be done with any intellectual honesty - or soul). 

Atheist Perspective Chat Today

The Atheist Perspective weekly chat is today at 8:00 PM EST. To get to the chat room click me.

bloodvile: "TheAmazingAtheist is wrong"

The thought of others suffering brings certain people joy. If hell truly existed, it probably wouldn't exist as a fear tactic. Those that are only good out of fear of hell are not truly good at all. The reality is such people are disingenuous sociopaths. Underneath her self-righteous front, is a scared, ignorant person. As she imagines TheAmazingAtheist suffering, you can see her eyes light up with joy. If there is such a thing as evil in this world, that is what it looks like (albeit subtle). Those that get pleasure out of viewing/imagining the suffering of others have psychological "issues" (to put it nicely). Atheists are not good for the sake of reward or fear of punishment. Acting good out of fear is not truly being good, but afraid. A person cannot be good out of fear of hell (they are afraid, they are merely acting good). 

Disturbing video of a live abortion.

 I think it's very important that people see videos like this. Pro-choicers down-play the humanity abortion victims by dehumanizing them with terms like 'fetus'. The woman should not have the "choice" to murder her own offspring; as this video displays perfectly, that baby is not part of her body, but is a completely separate organism (one that is very reliant on the loveless mother's sustenance). 

video demonstration of a suction abortion

This is a great demonstration for showing how disgustingly immoral abortion really is. It's a shame a video like this will turn off many atheists—wearing religiously associated clothing (background as well) causes many atheists to automatically buildup a structure thoughts to avoid the information he is providing. 

Peter Hitchens owns an atheist on abortion

Our imagination's ability to dehumanize others is the biggest cause of murder. It would be interesting if it were true that sex education causes more unwanted pregnancys and abortions. Our moral system needs some reworking, it seems very chaotic at the moment. Our society has based our moral-system on religion and became to reliant on it. Without "God" many do not know why we should behave morally. 

Christopher Hitchens is pro-life

Many atheists believe abortion is morally permissible. It's a case of atheists believing that if Christians have a moral stance, it must be wrong. I have found that most atheists that are pro-choice haven't given the issue much thought. To kill an 'unborn child' is murder (like the killing of any innocent human-life). Many pro-choice atheists believe that all intelligent atheists are pro-choice as well—as this video shows—that is far from the case. The people that support abortion believe that inconvenience is a good enough excuse for murder. 

The Bill Hicks Story (trailer)

Thought I would throw this up here, being a big fan of Bill Hicks and knowing many atheists are (or should be). Looks like it will be a great movie. 

Sweden is an Atheist nation

Atheist Daniel Dennett - Humans naturally look for who instead of what.

This also reminds me of the way people name their cars, and then get mad at them when they break-down. We personify many things, computers, ignorance (i.e. God), cars, boats, etc. Hell (npi), when a person accidentally walks into a pole, they typically get mad at it, like it was out to get them. It's easier to personify things (using emotional labels) than to understand them. 

Joe Rogan on religion/morality

It's not a good thing to teach kids a religious-morality with the expectation that they will become atheist/agnostic later. If the only reason we behave morally is that "God is watching", then this will cause problems if the person becomes an atheist/agnostic (will become moral-relativists once they lose religion). A better morality is one that is based in empathy, and understanding the consequences of immoral behavior (on the self and society). Religion creates a pseudo-morality which is dangerous if people stop believing in the religion. A secular-based morality works with rationality.

Moral-behavior is behavior that is beneficial to the functionality of society, immoral-behavior is behavior that is harmful to the functionality of society.

The only down-side of this is that it requires more thought than the "I better not do it because God will be mad" morality of religions like Christianity, Islam, etc. 

Are atheists immoral?

"Not possessing a religious basis for morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality." -www.conservapedia.com (source link at bottom of post)

The site also continues to claim that atheists are more likely to view the following behaviors as being "morally acceptable"..

-illegal drug use
-excessive drinking
-sexual relationships outside of marriage
-abortion
-cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage
-obscene language
-gambling
-pornography and obscene sexual behavior


While it pains me to admit it, conservapedia is right. Atheists are more likely to view the above behaviors as morally acceptable. The problem is not so much that atheists lack a religiously-based morality, but that our society is/has been too reliant on religious systems of morality. In other words, without God, we don't know why we should act morally (there are other reasons).

Yes, atheists are more likely to believe the listed behaviors as being morally acceptable. The problem is that, as a society, we have not accepted reasons for believing that such behaviors are morally wrong besides "God is watching". There are sociologically-based reasons for seeing that many of the listed behaviors are harmful (i.e. immoral). I address each point below...

Illegal drug use - If a drug is immoral to use only because it is illegal, this reflects a flaw in moral-reasoning, being that it is moral-relativism (which isn't true-morality at all). It can't be denied that certain illegal drug-use can be harmful to society, as well as some legal drugs. To determine if a drug is good for a society vs. harmful what must be looked at is its effects on society as a whole, along with the diversity of the ways people use it (which isn't always an easy task). For example, taking Tylenol can be good, but taking an entire bottle isn't. Many factors exist in this area, and require more than just 'black and white' thinking.

Excessive drinking - Excessive drinking obviously has harmful effects on a society's ability to function, causing it to be immoral.

Sexual relationships outside of marriage - While many atheists will strongly disagree (as should be expected), it is true that such behavior perhaps is immoral (i.e. causes societal harm). The family unit is the foundation of a society, and we can easily observe the high divorce rates as being linked to sexual relationships outside of marriage (at least in part). The problem is that the instant pleasure given by sex outside of marriage (or a relationship in general) blinds people to the long-term harm caused by such behavior (i.e. when someone cheats in a relationship). Marriage equates to committal, and this is a weak force in our society, and perhaps such a moral stance has societal advantages (which would make it a moral stance).

Abortion - I've written many blog posts about this subject. The practice of abortion can be shown to be destructive to society in multiple ways. One issue with abortion that I haven't blogged about is that it eliminates the fear of pregnancy while in a uncommitted relationship (see above point). Fear of pregnancy used to be a good way of pushing people into the right direction (finding long-term/committed relationships, and forming families). If you are curious what my other arguments are against abortion (I have many), just use the search bar at the top, or the 'labels' on the lower right-side.

Cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage - It is important for a person to be committed to a relationship before cohabitation. The best way to show committal is through marriage/engagement. Many people end up in bad situations from being stuck with someone that they are not committed to, but have nowhere else to go. This moral issue has a lot of grey area, and I do not believe it is all that clear. Cohabitation is a great way to get to know a person better, but it is also a good way of getting stuck in a bad relationship, and not feeling free to leave (out of fear, etc.).

Obscene language - Certain "language" can cause harm to the functionality of a society (i.e. can be immoral). Words have meaning, and words can/do influence society in a positive or negative way. Speaking vulgarly is not "edgy", and it can be harmful in ways that can be subtle. Hearing obscene language can cause people to think in ways that they ordinarily wouldn't, and can ultimately lead them down immoral paths (i.e. destructive paths). Many atheists will disagree out of personal bias, but things such as musical lyrics do have a big impact on an individual's world-view (many atheists love their vulgar music). Most people are guilty of using offensive language (myself included), but it certainty can be problematic. If anything there is a time and place, and certain things should never be said (like much of the crap in contemporary music).

Gambling - Gambling addiction is very harmful to the functionality of a society (making it immoral). The word 'gamble' is much too broad however—we gamble virtually every day when we get out of bed (not to get hit by a car while crossing the street, etc.)

Pornography and obscene sexual behavior - The difference between pornography and prostitution is if the buyer is in the business of selling the footage. Pornography is prostitution, and prostitution is harmful to the functionality of a society in ways so obvious that I don't feel I need to elaborate. 

Yes, many atheists behave immorally. Not many people are able to claim that all of their behavior is beneficial to themselves and/or society. That said, atheists (and obviously others) need to do a better job, and be more thoughtful when it comes to the subject of morality. Just because religiously-based morality is based in fiction, doesn't mean morality itself is. Morality can be just as logically-based as anything else. Immorality exists on both sides (Christians make up a good majority in the United States), and as Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Here is a link to the page on conservapedia (click me). Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Their pseudo-morality needs to be challenged by atheists with secular, well thought-out morality. 

Why do believers hate atheists?

I often wonder why there is such resentment directed towards atheists by the religious (typically Christians or Muslims). And while they wont admit it, the answer is much more personal. Atheists are hated as they are, not just because we are viewed as evil or because we are hell-bound, and the religious fear for our safety. It is because the religious see atheists as a threat to their world-view.

We all have our own world-view, and we ('we' as in people in general) see those with a different world-view as being a threat to our own. While we will not live forever, our world-view can survive very long periods of time; for example, most people want loved ones to remember them so that their legacy will continue to exist beyond the grave. In a way, many of our beliefs have a life of their own (Richard Dawkins refers to it as a 'meme'). It seems all world-views have certain mechanisms to maintain their existence.

• Religious world-view has faith, hope, love, comfort, etc.
• Scientific world-view has logical thinking, rationality, open mindedness, legitimate truth, useful knowledge, etc.

The point here is that the atheist world-view is essentially a virus to the religious world-view (it attacks it from within)—also, when the scientific world-view (i.e. atheistic) is dominate, the religious world-view can attack it from within (the religious world-view is the dominate one at the moment, barely). In the struggle between religion and science there is often a mixture within an individual's world-view as well as society's (many atheists are spiritual, including myself).  While atheists do not want to admit it, religions like Christianity are a threat to atheism under the right societal conditions (e.g. high levels of fear, poverty, suffering, and general paranoia). At the moment, the societal conditions are just right for atheism to thrive, and it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. It is hard for me to imagine what it is like to believe in a god—even though I did at one point—my world-view is radically different than a religious person's in this way (obviously). It is also hard for me to imagine the kind of world-view that is responsible for the Dark Ages. There is a lot of grey area when it comes to the struggle between the religious world-view and the scientific; but, keep in mind, there are light and dark shades of grey. Also, the religious world-view can work with the scientific world-view (and vice versa) when it is convenient.

Religion is not much of a threat to atheism at the moment because of the direction our society is moving. But as our history has shown, religion can shift the tides with the right societal conditions.  For example, the Romans were making great advances in knowledge, then BAM! Everyone becomes more religious and intellectual progress back-steps and stagnates for several centuries. The atheist world-view and the religious world-view have much struggling ahead of them, and ultimately I believe that society is too unstable to ever see a clear winner (hopefully I'm wrong). It is more possible than we would like to admit that society could fall apart in the next few centuries, and religion could make a comeback in a huge way—doesn't that sound like fun.

What a Neanderthal's speech sounds like.

I think it's pretty obvious why we killed them all. That would have been the most annoying thing ever (excluding Justin Bieber's voice of course).

Can atheism cause evil?

Many believe that atheism can cause evil. They create a list of infamous atheists (like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), and assume that it must have been atheism that motivated their actions. In other words, many people believe that lack of a belief in God causes evil. But is this true? Does atheism cause evil? I am going to argue that it doesn't, and that atheism logically cannot cause anything in and of itself. Below is a video called Atheists killed 150 million people in the name of Atheism. While I will deny that it was atheism that caused certain evils, it cannot be denied that many believe that it does.



It is very common for believers to argue atheism by pointing to infamous historical figures that happen to be atheists and claiming - "see, look at what atheism causes!". Correlation however does not equal causation; can it be proven that atheism can and/or does cause violence? No. In-fact the opposite can be shown to be true. It has been shown that statistically, atheist nations are more peaceful  (as shown in the video below)

With any intellectual honesty at all, it cannot be argued that atheism causes anything—even outside of statistics—atheism can't actually cause anything (it is a lack of a belief, not a belief in itself). But it has been shown that lack of religion correlates with lower rates of violence within a society. Why would those that believe in an imaginary big-brother have a tendency to behave more violently? I believe it comes down to two main things which cause paranoia that leads to violent behavior.

1). Feeling of being watched 24/7 (fear of punishment for not being  perfect in Jesus/Yahweh/God/Allah's eyes).


2). Higher promotion of in-group/out-group mentality (along with the demonization/dehumanization of the 'out-group').

A religious world-view (referring world-views caused primarily by Abrahamic religions) can be altered to be more secular (i.e. non-religious) and still keep some of its core-beliefs (Jesus, heaven, etc.). That said, it still appears that societies that are dominated with individuals with an atheist world-view is less violent than the alternative. So it seems that atheism in a society is ultimately a good thing, but there are obviously other belief systems that are nonreligious ('religious' in the context of Abrahamic and other similar belief systems) that can cause a person to act violently (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). The point here is that it is belief systems that cause evil, not atheism. Atheism is not a belief system but a lack of one. It takes a belief system to make a sane person act crazy.

New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

I've seen people with much more than 1% Neanderthal in them. Would be neat if they were able to bring them back (I believe they are working on it) so that we could use them as workers. Being that they aren't human, it wouldn't be considered slavery =D

It is stuff like this that should make Christians rethink the Adam and Eve story. Being an atheist is easy in a world with science. 

Ted Haggard Apologizes to Gay people

At least he is being honest about it. It is true that homophobes often have their own internal struggles with fighting back homosexual urges—which is why their minds are so engaged in the topic. I believe that a lot of the hatred towards gay people in the past was caused by those in positions of power—preaching hatred due to their own internal struggles. This is the reason for why the church (Protestant and Catholic) have been preaching against it so ferociously in the past. And more specifically for the Catholics—what kind of man would give up having a family to serve God? I'm not saying all Catholic priests are gay, but it seems to be a good career path to get into when in a society has an extreme paranoia against homosexuality. On top of that, being paranoid that the devil causes homosexuality would worry certain individuals enough to the point of wanting to practice as much religion as possible out of fear. I believe that priesthood is on the decline because being gay is becoming more acceptable in society (they don't need to hide in the church). I also believe that suppressing sexual urges over a long period of time can warp a person's mind, causing them to be sexually deviant—to put it mildly—which is why priests typically victimize boys instead of girls (they are attracted to males). Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just food for thought. 

Richard Dawkins' Speech at "Protest the Pope March"

Catholics try to associate Hitler with being an atheist because they don't want to admit he was one of them. The hatred Hitler had towards the Jewish people was not caused by non-belief (he wasn't even an atheist), but by irrational fear/hatred caused by a religious world-view. People want to disassociate themselves from Hitler, but the reality is that his actions are a product of belief, not a lack of belief.

Atheists are "retarded"?

"There are a lot of fucked up people out there.."

Isn't irony ironic?

No Sonicsoul0, not all atheists are "retarded". 

Pennsylvania Diocese Facing Financial Drain (from abuse lawsuits)

Isn't molesting children (and protecting child molesters) a sin? I don't think a lot of catholic priests believe in the whole "hell thing". One would think if they actually worried about obeying their religion, they would be the first to cry out against child abuse. Hypocrites...

How To Disprove Atheism

In order to disprove atheism, a god/s must be proven to exist; this is the only way to disprove atheism. There exist two problems in disproving atheism.

-no evidence of a god/s
-no evidence that the universe was intelligently designed (even this wouldn't disprove atheism per se)

Even if evidence came about that the universe was intelligently designed, this still wouldn't disprove atheism. To disprove atheism, it must be proven that god/s exist, being able to prove what they are responsible for is the icing on the cake. You cannot say that X created Y when you do not know what X is. What if X (the intelligent creator) is not a single being but millions or even billions of beings working together? At the moment there is no evidence to even suggest that the universe was intelligently created. We observe that it takes intelligence to "create" things, and we falsely apply this pattern where we shouldn't so that we feel our world-view is complete (I say 'we' as in humans in general). Creationists are afraid of their own ignorance, and they try to ignore that ignorance by masking it with the idea of God.

The point here is that atheism can only be disproven if God (or any god/s) is proven to exist. The debate is won every time on the side of the atheist when the creationist fails to provide evidence of their claim. Creationists can tell themselves over and over again that they are winning (like Charlie Sheen); but, in reality, this is done more so that they are able to convince themselves that this is true (as they do with God). Self-brainwashing is the name of the game for a believer (i.e. faith). 

An Atheist's Perspective on Euthinasia

I fully support euthanasia because I believe it is a very valuable tool in certain circumstances. I don't think very many atheists totally disagree with the practice of euthanasia, it typically takes a world view with God in it to be against it.

We often treat our animals more humanely than we treat humans. Out of our fear of losing loved ones we make their inevitable death prolonged and torturous. Having euthanasia available as an option can prevent a great deal of suffering for our species. The fear of death is often generated because of our fear of experiencing extreme amounts of suffering; euthanasia takes the sting out of death in this way.

That said, my stance is slightly different than the majority of atheists out there (well, I believe it is anyways). I believe that it should be more than just terminal illness that causes us to utilize euthanasia. I believe those suffering with extreme psychological disorders should also have this option available at the doctors discretion. I do not believe that putting people in straight jackets and padded rooms—all doped up—is humane at all. The purpose of euthanasia is to relieve unending suffering, and I believe this includes certain types of incurable mental illness. Naturally, many atheists will disagree with this position. They will claim that if a person is unable to give consent, then that is murder instead of assisted suicide. However, I would argue that no rational person would want to live in such a zombie-like/confused state for the rest of their life. What kind of quality of life is that? It isn't any quality of life at all. Essentially they turn off the brain with drugs, and continue to support the existence of the flesh, which is not only pointless, but extremely wasteful. Obviously I'm not claiming that we should 'put down' all of our mentally ill, but I think in certain circumstances it is much more humane to do that as oppose to what we do to maintain their existence. I also believe that the mentally ill should not have as easy of a time as they do to be deemed "cured", and released into the population (that's another topic all together).

Euthanasia is one of those things which I believe will become more socially (and eventually legally) acceptable in the United States. In reality, the only thing getting in its way is religious belief. Essentially it is the religious beliefs of others that causes an immense amount of suffering for people who do not share their beliefs. If a Christian believes euthanasia is wrong—they are not forced to utilize it—but it should be open to those that want it (in appropriate circumstances). It would be ignoring the elephant in the room to claim that Christianity isn't the sole reason for euthanasia not being legal. Just because your imaginary friend believes you should suffer an incredible amount during death, that doesn't mean everyone else should.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on the end of the world

Astrophysicist Neal deGrasse Tyson predicts that 99942 Apophis, a near-Earth asteroid and the namesake of an evil demon in Egyptian mythology, may collide with Earth in April 2029.


At least those that survive 2012 will have something to look forward too; that or the apocalypse will get pushed back to that date (remember, even God forgets to do sh@t). I would much rather see the end of the world happen in 2029, I think I can fit that better into my schedule. I can see republicans denying the existence of asteroids and cutting the funding to get Apophis (the big rock of death) diverted. 

Atheist Christopher Hitchens On The Compelling Arguments for the Existence of God

I never found the 'fine tuning' argument all that compelling. It basically states that if the laws of physics were different, things would be different. If the laws of physics were different in such a way that human life couldn't exist—obviously it wouldn't—but it's not. It seems to me that those with poor arguments create fantasies, then structure arguments around those fantasies to avoid reality. Even though there is no evidence the universe is intelligently designed in any way, let's say for the sake of argument that some came about. How could this intelligent design even be linked to a god? Proof that God did something cannot be found unless the actual being in question is found to exist first, then we can assess what this being did or did not do.

Anyways, Mr. Hitchens is right, that is probably the best argument going for them at the movement. I   hope he is doing well in his battle with cancer (haven't heard an update in a while). 

Thunderf00t on Terry Jones burning the Koran

It's funny the value people will place on silly things like paper. It will be interesting to see how YouTube (Google) will handle the Draw Muhammad Day. I assume they will do the right thing—which is nothing—in the spirit of freedom of speech.

Which is more offensive?

A). Burning a book


B). Large scale violence/murder  for burning a book.

The problem here is that some people learn that violence is the way to deal with those they disagree with. To give into their threats of violence over and over again will cause them to impose themselves more and more onto our way of life (which they disagree with). Many people are trying to be peace-keepers, when in reality they are nurturing this sort of behavior by not condemning it (i.e. they are causing the perpetuation of violence). We should never condone this violence by not condemning it. They need to learn that the reason we protest by drawing their prophet (which is silly when thought about) and burning certain books is because of their violent reactions. Imagine if it were the other way around. What if people overseas were drawing Jesus—causing Christians to flip out by cutting people's heads off and burning effigies in the street?

Here are two common sayings that I think speak volumes here..

"If you give them an inch, they will take a mile"


"The squeaky wheel gets the oil"


Oh, and by the way, isn't idolatry a sin for Muslims? Why do they idolize a prophet and a book? Me thinks Allah might be a little pissed (just kidding, a word cannot be pissed).

Priest calls terrorist 'terrorist' to face witch-hunt by church and govt

And the PC Nazis strike again! It's insane to think that this is occurring in a modern nation. They threaten to cut his head off and HE is the one that gets into trouble? Crazy world. 

Becoming An Atheist May Be A Long And Painful Process?

For me it wasn't that painful of a process. I have always been skeptical of it (even when I was very young), and I eventually just fully gave in to my skepticism and became an atheist. One of the main reasons I believed was due to my belief that an authority figure must be right (parents, priests, teachers, etc.). If becoming an atheist does cause pain, it is due to basing an entire world-view on illogical beliefs, and then becoming aware of it—which can be scary and confusing (remove the foundation of anything, and it causes problems).  

God Loves Penises (Deuteronomy 23:1)

"No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included among the Lord's people. " -Deuteronomy 23:1 GNB


So I was skimming through my bible today and found this gem.

So why does God value male-genitalia so much?

Why does he want all of his male "followers" to have them?

Is heaven a trap?

Do Catholic priests know something we don't?

Yeah, I know, I'm just being a dick (no pun intended). But it can't be denied that this verse is strange—even for the book of Deuteronomy—and I thought I would share it. If you are a Christian-male without a penis/testicles, perhaps you should hedge your bets with another god. Find one that doesn't just want you for your junk. 

Atheist Chat Today

I will be in the chat-room today @ 8:00 pm. If you are interested in debating, asking questions, etc., feel free to stop by. Discussion doesn't need to be limited to atheism. If no one shows up, I probably wont be sticking around for too long.

To enter the chat room, CLICK ME

Shockofgod makes fun of fat atheists

It's good to leave the hungry part of the brain turned on—if we don't, then we will absorb no new information (Shockofgod's brain has been "full" since the 3rd grade). For someone to make fun of another's physical appearance in such a way speaks volumes for their own personality/intelligence. I've seen many overweight Christians and atheists, so I don't see the point here, other than for the sake of being a douche.

Richard Dawkins is a much much smarter person that you Shockofgod (which should go without saying). Obviously for being as qualified as he is in the field of biology, the question the creationist posed was not what was "stumping" him...

He was probably thinking: "who the f@ck are these people?" and "are they serious?".

I would love to see someone that is actually well-studied in the field of biology deny evolution (wont happen). Evolution is denied only by those that are uninformed about it. To debate evolution with creationism is as ignorant as debating the 'round-earth theory' with the 'flat earth theory'. Your need to protect your religious beliefs by warping logic and ignoring reality is adorable. You put up a strong front to cover up your own doubts about the existence of God, and the truth of your religion. I would be willing to bet that you battle skepticism all the time. Being skeptical of illogical information is A GOOD THING.

I posted a video from the Atheist Experience below. Russell Glasser addresses the "stumping Richard Dawkins" video, and you will notice that he has very little body fat :)

Terry Jones burning the Koran (an atheist's response)

If it were atheists that went around killing people because someone burned an Origin of Species, people would automatically place blame on the atheists (as they should). There is a double-standard in the world today. While yes, there are some good Muslims (weird how I always feel compelled to put this disclaimer out), many of them are so culturally behind that they stick out like a sore thumb. I view this sort of thing as mere growing pains for certain Muslim peoples (referring to the kind of Muslim that violently lashes out, murdering people because of things like cartoon drawings and book burnings).

Many Muslims need to be shown that their religion is one among many, and is not immune to criticism (regardless if it is justified). Just because a person criticizes another's beliefs, this does not give that person the justification to be violent, no matter what god they worship. We cannot give Muslims special privileges over other groups. For example, if it was the KKK (a Christian dominated group) that was acting this way towards someone burning the bible, obviously it would not be tolerated. Muslims that are killing those people need to be held fully accountable. A guy burning a book is not responsible for their actions. The PC Nazis are using Terry Jones as a means of diversion from the actual problem because they are afraid of calling a kettle black. Perhaps not all kettles are black, but it can't be denied some certainly are.

Let's say some foreigners burned an U.S flag (which they do all the time). Would it be justified for Americans to run around killing people because of it? This obvious double standard needs to be done away with, it is clouding our (i.e. the world's) perception of reality.

In general, if people lash out violently, and get their way/get away with it, they will continue behaving that way as an automatic response (because it works). We cannot bow down to threats of violence/actual violence, if we do, we will never rid ourselves of it. Respect is a two way street. 

Ray Comfort's dog is an atheist?

I thought this video was cute. And it is true that all animals (other than certain humans) are atheists. It's ironic that it takes a human-level of brain power to believe in God. 

Atheism is Moral Relativism?

This is a common argument that the religious make against nonbelievers (i.e. atheists). Obviously atheism =/= moral relativism. Atheism has nothing to do with morality at all (atheism is the mere disbelief in deity/s). However, most atheists seem to be moral relativists, so this stereotype can be applied in most cases. But, not all atheists are moral relativists (including me). Most often it is Christians that accuse atheists of being moral relativists (I've seen a few Muslims do it as well), when in reality they are the ones with morality that is relative. Morality for a Christian is based solely on their perception of the beliefs of a particular god (imaginary or not). A Christian's view on what his/her god's morality is varies greatly, so obviously some or all Christians are wrong (more likely all). For example, some Christians believe God hates gay people, others believe that God loves gay people (someone is obviously wrong).

An example of this would be during the time of slavery. Christians used the bible to justify the practice, believing that God thought it was morally permissible. This shows that a Christian's view on what is moral and what is not is completely relative/bias. Christians enjoy engaging in moral-relativity and use their god as a means of perceived justification (slavery, rape, genocide, etc).

As I claimed before, I am not a moral relativists, unlike many atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. For someone to not be a moral relativists they must first understand what morality is, along with what purpose it serves. Morality, simply put, is behavior (can be in the form of cognition and physical action) that is beneficial to the functionality of society. Obviously the smallest unit in a society is the individual. Being a social species, it is very important for us to have an innate sense of morality without understanding its purpose. But, it is undeniable that this is the purpose of morality. When a person believes they are acting morally, this does not necessarily mean that they are. It can be difficult to get beyond personal bias and warped world-views in order to see a clear, objective picture of how the behaviors of individuals influence society as a whole.

This model of morality can be easily applied, and in many cases, our moral reasoning is spot on as a society. A great example is murder. We view murder as being morally wrong. Why? Well, the act of murder is destructive to the functionality of a society (destruction of individuals and the harm to the well-being of others). Lying is morally wrong—as a species that relies heavily on information, if we are unable to get good, accurate information, our society's ability to function is harmed. While there are exceptions to actual acts (such as lying in certain situations), the foundation of morality is not relative with this view. While it may be difficult for an individual to assess how their/others behavior influences society as a whole, it cannot be denied that it does. It also cannot be denied that actions have consequences, and those consequence, while they appear to be the sole of cause of harm, have underlying factors that do not appear on the surface to be harmful in themselves (i.e. the underlying causal behaviors). This is why morality should be thought about in this way—it allows for a deeper understand of morality.  This is the kind of morality atheists should subscribe to, not moral relativity. When atheists endorse moral relativity, they look like fools—when Christians do it, they look like hypocrites. 

Fox News: Modern Science Found In Bible

When a cure for cancer is found in the bible, then I will be convinced the writers weren't ignorant egomaniacs. It's amazing the confirmation bias believers have, like men 2,000+ years ago had no knowledge of science or biology (they did).

Jezuzfreek777 talks about how bad Marijuana is

Jezuzfreek777 is a cock-block for potheads. Christians are going to lose their minds if the stuff ever becomes legal. 

why hope is bad for you

Religious people (primarily Christians) claim that atheists have nothing to live for because we have no hope. I am going to argue that hope itself is unhealthy for our well-being in the longterm, and detracts from our actual existence. Strap in, this is a long one (but worth the read)....

To first address the claim that atheists have no hope, this is obviously due to our non-belief in heaven, etc. While obviously not all atheists believe there is nothing after death, let's assume for the sake of argument that all atheists believe that there is no conscious existence after life. In which way does this diminish our current existence? Well, it does if we believe there is a possibility of an after-life. If we accept death as it is, as a fact, then it is just a fact like any other, and wouldn't be feared. It would be a fact of life like any other. Religions have created this fear of death within us, and then used that fear as a means of exploitation. 

It seems that those that constantly hope things will get better are those that are unable to fully appreciate life as it is. Hoping for a better future is merely fantasising about a better reality, which always diminishes our perception of the current state of things. We can find heaven here on earth if we  just stop for a moment and appreciate how good things are (or at the very least accept things as they are). 

Things are what they are, what matters is how we perceive them to be. The concept of 'hope' I believe causes psychological distress—unless a person is in an extreme situation (like being tortured)—then hope can be a good distraction. Humans are very intelligent, emotional creatures. Religion has made huge afterlife promises that completely down-play how great the reality of life is. Sadly, how good/bad things are is completely relative to an individual's perceptions of reality. For example, many Christians believe that the roads in heaven are paved with gold. They create this imaginary reality, and then stack it up, side-by-side, with actual-reality. Most people live very modest lifestyles, and many of them fantasize about things being better (what 'hope' essentially is). By doing this, and believing that such hopeful outcomes could happen makes actual reality look depressing (perception of reality is relative). 

The grass is always greener on the other side—for people to constantly reinforce ideas of wanting more and more (i.e. hope) will cause them to never fully appreciate what they have. The more deluded and grandiose a person's conception of the future is (or what could be had), the more pessimistically they are forced to perceive their existence. 

Some people in developing nations dream of living the american lifestyle, and many Americans dream of living the celebrity lifestyle (incredible wealth, fame, etc.). I notice that many Christians are unsatisfied with life (with themselves, and the world around them)—I believe it is hope that is disallowing them from appreciating the way things are. It is very difficult—dare I say impossible—to fully appreciate life and hope for it to be better at the same time.

I think the concept of hope should be replaced with enjoying the world as it is, and simply aspiring to do our best, while accepting consequences as they pass (the future lies in the imagination). The kind of hope Christians, and people in general, get themselves into I believe strongly detracts from the way they perceive existence. 

Still not convinced hope is unhealthy? Well, let's say I was to lose my leg. I believe that after I die—I will go to heaven—where a new leg awaits me. Many people might perceive this as being a good way of viewing it. But is it really? Wouldn't it be better for me to accept not having an leg, instead of wishing I had one (along with believing I will)? Since when is wishing for things we don't have consoling? We need to do away with hope and replace it with acceptance and wisdom. Perhaps this is my (and your) peak of existence. Perhaps this is as good as it gets—wouldn't it be foolish to waste our time hoping things were different? Atheists should argue against hope in this way.   

It seems many atheists get caught up in this argument, and it is poor one (that hope is good, and we should all have it). Not having hope does not cause despair—but too much hope can cause despair when actual reality comes into view. Atheists should argue against hope because it detracts from our perception of reality. Constantly hoping for more/better will lead a person to hate the way things actually are, and will cause a distorted view of the way "things should be" (which will cause things like frustration, depression, and anxiety). 

The grass is greenest on this side—we should appreciate our own life—the only life we have at the moment. Hope will constantly leave us wanting more and more—the thirst of such thinking can never be quenched—but is an endless source of emotional frustration. To ultimately enjoy life, a person must accept it in its current state (along with the past that lead to it). 

While this sounds strange (our society overemphasizes the importance of things like faith and hope), atheists need to live life without hope if we want to fully appreciate our existence. Atheists are gifted in this way, we are free to enjoy life because we are not forced to believe things can/will be better. 

Atheists are not forced to believe the grass is greener on the other side. 

If you enjoyed this blog post, share it on Facebook, etc. (buttons below)!!! :)

"You Atheists Have No Hope. What Keeps You Alive?" (edwardtarte) {}+ rant against hope

Many atheists would have given a similar response that he made to this question (see title). I however find that hope can be a distracting way of wishing things were different. It's better (at least in my opinion) to enjoy every moment, and not worry about things like death because it is out of our hands anyways.  People want to believe in God, and they want others to believe in God so that it is easier for them to believe in God (some believe truth is a democracy). It's better to accept, and appreciate the present moment, instead of worrying about what could have been, or what you hope it will be.  Perhaps this moment is the highest moment of your existence, if so then hope will prevent you from enjoying it. Hope is merely the concept of wishing things were better, and believing they will be (which is a form of pessimism in my book).

But let's say hope is something a person wants—an atheist is much freer to experience hope than a Christian. A Christian is forced to believe some "higher power" is pulling all the strings, and has complete control and knowledge of how life will unfold. If your life sucks, well, your God wants it too. Atheists are able to accept things as they are, instead of begging an all-powerful egomaniac to lesson the pain of existence. It is very difficult to have hope without freedom, and atheists have freedom in a big area where Christians do not. 

Make Atheism Illegal?

"Since were a judeo-christian nation and all of the founding fathers wanted America to be a christian nation, can't we just make atheism illegal?"

I found this question on www.questhall.com. It seems more rhetorical than anything, but just imagine if religious-nuts like this guy were to actually get there way? Imagine if atheism was illegal? Obviously people like this would make all religions that aren't Christianity illegal. I just wonder what percentage of Americans believe that atheism should be made a crime. It would be interesting to see the results of a study on this. Obviously atheism being illegal violates the first amendment to the constitution,  so that is a bit of a problem. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


This is a problem because banning atheism would be "respecting an establishment of religion" (Christianity). So constitutionally atheism cannot be banned without an amendment (which will never happen). In the United States, one of our core values is liberty -- obviously to ban atheism would be a sign of the end of that core value. The moment atheism gets banned is the moment that the United States turns into a nutty theocracy, which would be bad for everyone (including Christians). Remember the Dark Ages? To actually ban atheism would make it required that people believe in God (or else), just think about that concept for a few moments.....

book burnings...
public hangings for blasphemy...
society/culture regresses back hundreds of years (thousands?)...

It has happened before.

I find it disturbingly-refreshing how intolerant some people are on the internet, and that these expressed opinions are real, but perhaps unfiltered to an extend (or let's hope). 

Conservatipedia claims atheism should be illegal.

The article starts off: "People seem to think I'm some intolerant religious nut. I'm really not."


He claims that atheism causes homosexuality, drug-use, and other "godless behavior"


This nut then goes onto claim that atheism should be illegal.

"They (atheists) should spend the same time in jail as a rapist or child molester. Atheists practice the same things on a child's mind and that's what they deserve."


If you want to read the full article, click me.

Imagine if an atheist were to make such claims? They would be relentlessly attacked by both sides (atheists and believers) for being "bigoted". Why are Christians given a free pass to be assholes? It is because they can use God as a scapegoat for their unjustified hatred.

"I don't hate you, my god does"



It is disturbing to think that there are probably many other Christians in the United States with similar beliefs. Atheists are society's punching bag for the moment, I wonder what group will come next...

Dr. William Lane Craig: "Richard Dawkins destroys science"

William Lane Craig is great at warping logic by playing with words and creating false-dichotomies (would make a good lawyer). We know Indians exist, we have proof that they do. We do not have any proof of God, this is the end of the line. We have proof that people wrote of this 'God character', but no evidence of the actual character's existence in reality. You cannot believe everything you read, there are many books of fiction that aren't properly labeled. Science should be an atheistic-force until it is able to provide evidence for a God-created universe. Obviously atheists see this man as being a fool, but I wonder what believers think of him. Do they think he presents sound arguments?

jezuzfreek777 calls atheists "fools"

Atheists are fools for not believing in the accuracy of the bible (according to the bible). Christians are insecure about their intelligence and this is reflected in their name-calling.
It has been shown that atheists statistically possess a higher intelligence, and are less violent. Atheists are apparently fools for not being gullible (it takes a certain level of gullibility to believe in virgin births, talking snakes, and magic-wisdom-fruit) that is some epic irony.

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

Just because an argument exists, doesn't automatically make the argument valid. I could argue that millions of little gnomes engineered the universe, and would maintain the same level of intellectual honesty as William Lane Craig.

Many children "personally experience" the present of a boogie-man, that doesn't obviously count as proof of their existence. The title of this video is "William Lane Craig pwns Richard Dawkins", and this just shows how delusional certain people can be. Many atheists have already refuted  all of his points. Creationism is a product of intelligent (using the word 'intelligent' loosely) design. The reality is that there is not a shred of evidence to show the complexity that exists cannot come about through natural processes. Supernatural causes cannot be assumed to exist without evidence. Atheists will always be right unless actual evidence comes about. Experiencing a "feeling" does not count as evidence (these feelings are created by the imagination, like when a child fears a boogie-man). If a person was told from birth that the sun is god, they would believe it. When people are young, they are incredibly vulnerable to nonsensical ideas. 

April 1st is National Atheist Day?

Oh the irony. It taste so good, it must be fattening. Atheists are fools for not believing something without any evidence (epic brain fart)? Atheists are fools for not believing in virgin births and talking snakes apparently.

Any atheist that goes to religion was never truly an atheist at all (that or their brain was somehow damaged).

A fool is descriptive of someone that is stupid, gullible, and close-minded when they shouldn't be (a very poor term to use in describing atheists). While I don't want to be labeling Christians as being fools, this is very ironic. To close off this little rant, I would like to say that, according to Christian beliefs, the core value is faith (which essentially spits on logic/evidence). For shockofgod to be claiming to have evidence makes him a liar (there is zero evidence for God), and shows that he sees the weakness of believing something without evidence (making him a hypocrite).

Shockofgod, why do you filter your comments buddy? Afraid that everyone will see how many disagree with your nonsense? 

Sam Harris vs. Hugh Hewitt (atheism vs. religion)

Tolerance is not always a good thing. Religion shapes individuals world-views in a big way, which has incredible influence on their behavior on all levels of society. A person could start a religion, and mandate that everyone needs to sacrifice themselves to God by throwing themselves into an active volcano at the age of 40 (if they failed to do so, they would go to hell). If its followers had enough faith in this religion, they would do it.

For example, even though atheists are one of the most hated groups in the United States, we don't see atheists committing acts of terrorism against society. When was the last time an atheist suicide-bombed a hospital? Or crashed a plane into a building? Studies have shown that atheist-dominated nations in the world today are the least violent. On the flip-side countries that are the most religious tend to be the most violent. It is obvious certain religious beliefs (not naming names) can cause intolerance and hatred of others (a paranoia, really).

An atheist can disagree with someone without believing they will will burn in hell. Atheists are freer to understand why people do the things they do. Atheists are freer to see the ignorance of humanity. For someone to claim that religious belief has no impact on behavior is just plain wrong, and as stated earlier, societies with less religion seem to be less violent. An atheistic world is less divisive for sure. 

Atheist (me) converts to Islam!!!

I have been an atheist for the past 8 years, and after doing some soul searching, I have decided to convert to Islam. All praise be to Allah (peace be upon him). Hopefully many more atheists will see the light before it is too late. I always knew that there was a higher power, but I also knew that it couldn't have been the false god of Christianity. I challenge all atheists to do some research on Islam. Any atheist with a half a brain will quickly see that Islam is the one true religion.

I'm not just doing it for the 72 virgins (not just). I have come to the realization that the religion of atheism is just going to give me a one-way ticket to hell. Atheism is the religion of ignoring the truth, of ignoring reality. I feel sorry for all of you atheists, as well as all non-Muslims, hopefully you all find the truth before it is too late.