Why Moses was an evil person.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. -Numbers 31 NLT


Before I was an atheist, this was one of the verses that made me question Christianity. How anyone could read this and remain a Christian is beyond me. If this is God's word, send me to hell. A lot of grey area between good and evil in the bible. Atheists can easily see the evil nature of Christianity—Christians, they will scrabble to warp logic to accept this filthy reality. 

Is atheism getting boring?

I started this site over a year ago, and I am getting bored of it :(

It seems that I have covered every hole, beat every horse :(

I'm going to stick by my original blog (along with doing other projects on Blogger and YouTube). 

But doesn't it seem like atheism is getting boring?

This blog is going to focus on spirituality (a topic many atheists hate) and morality (another topic many atheists hate)...it's the only topic that is interesting at the moment. If you want to debate me or follow along, feel free to do so :)

Fat? Depressed? Try Pills (blamesocietyfilms)

It's funny because it's true..................are you paying attention? Here take some Ritalin *pats head*

Guy claims atheism should be illegal (hilarious)

What a well thought-out argument against atheism. Sarcasm aside, what a tool-bag. If you watched the entire video, I applaud you. I couldn't make it through the entire thing, it was making my brain hurt (ouch). Git wut i'm sayin'.... no wut i'm tryin' to say?

This guy wouldn't know brainwashing if it punched him in the face... git wut i'm sayin'?

Seriously though, you can see the fear in this guy's eyes...it's kind of sad. I'm sure anyone of average intelligence can pick out his "influences" (i.e. sources of brainwashing). Just relax GODsonAL1986, your imagination is much scarier than your objective reality. The times they are a-changin', evolve or be left behind....and leave atheists alone, don't be bannin' them :(

I know, I'm being facetious :)

Atheism and ethics

First of all, animals aren't thinking about the balance of nature. People that believe animals (non-human animals, obviously) think about such things are just plain stupid. Also, it's also odd how many atheists believe that humans are some how supernatural—there is zero evidence that shows that humans are supernatural (i.e. 'above nature', 'unnatural', etc.). If humans are a product of natural forces (as atheists typically believe they are), this means that ALL human behavior IS natural. The mentality that humans and their behavior is somehow unnatural is theistically based. I find it hilarious how so many atheists still believe that humans are unnatural. While it is hilarious, it is no surprise, most people are unreflective sheeps...just going with the flow. The moral of this story: Atheists, you should probably not believe humans are supernatural, such an idea stinks of theism. 

What is the meaning of life for an atheist?

A common mistake that people make about atheists is that we have no meaning in our lives because we do not believe in a god. Also, there are some atheists that outright say that life has no actual meaning. I would say that the life of all people has some meaning, whether they admit to it or not. Meaning is created by conscious creatures, it does not exist objectively, but it does exist subjectively. For example, the Declaration of Independence is really just a piece of hemp paper. What makes the Declaration of Independence have value is the meaning we assign to it. Would anyone actually claim that the Declaration of Independence is meaningless? If so, they shouldn't be taken seriously, but that is neither here nor there.

The point here is that the atheist life does have meaning. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that an atheist life is capable of being more meaningful than the life of a theist. A theist believes that humans are mere pawns in a chess match between good and evil. What kind of meaning is that? That humans are essentially entertainment for a god? I believe an atheist worldview can be more meaningful because it is not limited. If we look at the worldviews of the different types of theists, they all seem to attempt to reduce life's meaningfulness. For example, Christians believe they are born as wretched sinners, and are destined for hell unless they lower their life's meaningfulness to the point of being a mere tool for God. Either way, the meaning of life is what we make it. If an atheist claims that life has no meaning, ask him/her what motivates them to live? There you will have an answer. Most people claim that the meaning of life is to be happy, and this I believe gets at the heart of the true meaning of life. 

Harold Camping is butt-hurt :(

Poor old man. His hopes and dreams of the world coming to an end have been crushed...

Rapture is tommorow

And the first day on my vacation from college too, God damit (npi)!!

Me: "Okay, Jesus, I believe in you, can I haz heaven?"
Jesus: "K"

Cheating is unnatural.

Porn found in Osama bin Laden's compound

I was just watching The Daily Show (my main source of news), and heard this amazingly ironic piece of news. Just thought I would share :)

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a secret child!

I just read on Yahoo News that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a 'secret child' (click me for story). Why does it seem like so many politicians are unfaithful? I believe it has to do with the nature of a politician. Most politicians, in order to be successful, need to be sociopathic to an extent. Harsh? Well, I believe underlying many stereotypes is a grain of wisdom. I believe that, yes, politicians are just good liars, and in order to be a "good" liar, a person must be a bad person (at least in my opinion). People that lie and cheat are moral-relativists. We know of so many politicians that have cheated on their spouses, the question is how many do it and get away with it?

I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is sociopathic, and moral relativism is the morality of a sociopath. When confronted with an immoral temptation (like cheating on a spouse), a sociopath will utilize moral relativism to justify their actions. I bet if Arnold found out that his wife cheated on him, he wouldn't have accepted it like he accepted it as being okay to cheat on her - this is the nature of a moral-relativist. At the end of the day, we are moral creatures by nature, sadly, we can use our brains to think ourselves out of moral obligations.

If you read the comments of this story on Yahoo News, you will see most people being sympathetic (even though I think Yahoo filters comments). This just goes to show that moral relativism is a strong force in society. To sympathize with someone is to accept their actions as being permissible, and this just goes to show how many people subscribe to moral relativistic thinking. Very few people would tolerate being cheated on, yet they accept it when they do it themselves, and feel sympathy for those that do it to others (perhaps they can associate with it). Anyways, yep, just wanted to put my 2 cents in on this issue. It's a shame most politicians are scumbags, I believe if a politician gets caught, even in a white lie, they should be punished at the polls severely. America needs more of a paranoia of being lied to by politicians. If politicians can't be trusted to be faithful to their wives, how can we trust them with running society? 

Moral-relativism is a societal cancer.

While reading the book How We Die by Sherwin B. Nuland, it occurred to me that moral-relativists could be considered a societal cancer. Strong words? Well, before I get too far, let me quote the lines that led me to this conclusion.

"Knowing no rules, cancer is amoral. Knowing no purpose other than to destroy life, cancer is immoral. A cluster of malignant cells is a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents, raging against the society from which it sprang. It is a street gang intent on mayhem." -Sherwin B. Nuland

In the quote, Nuland is literally talking about cancer, but I see ways in which it could be applied sociologically as well as biologically (both are very interdependent). Is it possible that certain individuals are cancerous to a society? Well, for us to perceive it in such a way, we must look at society as being machine-like (which isn't very hard to do), and the individuals that make up the society as being similar to the cells of the body—either functional or nonfunctional. Also what must be looked at is how the world-view of a moral-relativist (including the influencing biological factors) replicates. To clarify, when I use the term 'moral-relativist', I am referring to the world-view individuals posses, not their actual being (chemically, certain parallels perhaps could be drawn as well). I just found this to be an interesting way of looking at the issue of moral-relativism in society. I believe what makes a human human is not the possessed biology, but the possessed moral-values. We don't value flesh and bone, we value meaning and purpose—the life of a moral-relativist is meaningless, and its meaninglessness spreads like a cancer.

Sorry if this post seems a bit rambley. It's just food for thought, and perhaps even a cure for cancer.


Here is a link to purchase How We Die, buy it!

Not much blogging for the next week.

Finals week, going to be very busy. Take care everyone. 

"You need to cool off!"

Ever have your computer get overheated and not work as well? Apparently our brains can experience something similar. A lot of thinking can easily lead a brain to becoming overheated. It's interesting the wisdom in sayings like "you need to cool off"—sometimes we need to literally cool our brains. An overheated brain doesn't function properly, and this is a scientific fact.


Yawning
Scientists believe that yawning is a method of cooling the brain. You can see the heat released from a yawn by yawning in front of a window glass. In fact, right now, put your hand in in front of your mouth and breath normally... now yawn, notice the difference? Apparently the more a person thinks, the warmer the temperature of their brain becomes. Unfortunately, the warmer the brain gets, the more impaired/fatigued it becomes. Yawning is one of those behaviors that are socially suppressed, but shouldn't be. We all know that stereotype of the kid yawning in class and the teacher flipping out on them. For a teacher to tell a kid not to yawn is doing them a huge disservice. Yawning should be a complement to the teacher, it is a sign that the kid is trying to pay attention. Yawn as much as you need to when doing mental activities.


When yawning isn't enough
Wipe cool water on your forehead with a rag, or splash water in your face (people do it all the time to wake up, but perhaps they are unaware that they are literally cooling their overheated brain). Doing this is very effective at cooling the brain. Also an icepack can be effective. When studying, always be mindful of your brain overheated, and take the steps necessary to ensure that it stays at its optimal temperature. If you are really dedicated, you can also get your hair soaked, which obviously would be incredibly effective—it is why people often feel refreshed after taking a cool shower (unlike a hot shower that can cause the brain to get too warm, leading to fatigue).

I also imagine that this is the reason for why we have so many blood vessels on our head, and it's also common knowledge that we "lose" most of our heat from our head. In modern times we are forced to do more thinking than previously in our history, perhaps our biology is not able to maintain temperature as effectively as before. Anyways, just food for thought, I hope you enjoyed reading this post and thanks for stopping by the Atheist Perspective site :)

What's up with blogger?

If you're a blogger, then you have noticed that the Blogger service has been down/partially down for the last few days. One would think that Google, in their all but infinite might, wouldn't have allowed such a thing to occur. I'm a little tentative putting new posts up because of these issues. For those interested, after finals week (this coming week) I'm going to be doing much more with this blog. 

Bible quote of the day - Samuel 15:1-9 GNB

This is the start of this blog's daily discussion of the bible. If a person looks at the bible from an atheistic perspective, I believe the evil contained within it becomes much more clear. The following story is from the book of Samuel, and it is a good example of the evil contained within the "Good Book". As you will soon see, the bible condones the genocide of innocent people. If you are a Christian reading this, ask yourself if this is your god, if not, perhaps you should better reflect on the ideas you worship.

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one whom the Lord sent to anoint you king of his people Israel. Now listen to what the Lord Almighty say.

So apparently the "Lord Almighty" was too lazy to speak for himself—that or Samuel was a liar (yes, even people during biblical times were capable of lying)....

He is going to punish the people of Amalek because their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they were coming from Egypt. 

 That seems fair, punish a group of people for what their ancestors did—they are completely responsible for the things that happened when they weren't even born yet. And this is a just god?...

Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.

 Do I need to explain why this is horrible?

Saul called his forces together and inspected them at Telem: there were 200,000 soldiers from Israel and 10,000 from Judah. 

Overkill much?

Then he and his men went to the city of Amalek and waited in ambush in a dry riverbed. He sent a warning to the Kenites, a people whose ancestors had been kind to the Israaelites when they came from Egypt: "Go away and leave the Amalekites, so that I won't kill you along with them." So the Kenites left. 

Aww, how nice of them :)   In other words, "if you don't leave your homes we will murder the shit outta you...oh, and thanks for helping our ancestors....."

Saul defeated the Amalekites, fighting all the way from Havilah to Shur, east of Egypt; he captured King Agag of Amalek alive and killed all the people. But Saul and his men spared Agag's life and did not kill the best sheep and cattle, the best calves and lambs, or anything else that was good; they destroyed only what was useless or worthless. 

No Christian can claim abortion, murder, and/or genocide is immoral using religious "values" when the source of those values (the bible) has this terrible story in it. This story is found in the bible: Samuel 15:1-9 GNB.



Doesn't this biblical story just give you that warm fuzzy feeling? Apparently it's moral to murder children if your leader claims God ordered it. It just goes to show that people will do insanely immoral things if they believe God wants it (e.g. Islamic terrorism, Westboro Baptist Church, KKK). How can a Christian be aware of such a story, and still believe their God is all-loving? Having a group of 210,000 men go into a city and commit genocide on an innocent group of people (they are not responsible for what their ancestors did, they weren't there).

Christians believe atheists are immoral, but what is more immoral than worshiping such ideas (God is an evil idea)? Either the Old Testament god was real or not, if that god isn't real (no actual evidence to suggest it is) then the nonsense in the  New Testament isn't real either (for obvious reasons). I hope this is just a story, if it is based on actual historical events imagine how horrible of a scene that must have been. Be aware that it was common for leaders to claim divine authority in the past, and we all know that leaders are often sociopathic liars (high rate of cheating on spouses, and being caught for lying in general).


Atheistic moral lesson:
It is immoral to hate a group of people because of what their ancestors did. It is also immoral to blindly follow a leader because they claim authority from a god (why politicians need to keep religion out of politics).

Cheating is unnatural.

Cheating is unnatural.

Cheating is unnatural.

Cheating is unnatural.

Coughlan's obsession with gay porn and Thunderf00t

The joke is on Coughlan. Think about it, what kind of websites was he going on to find those images? In other words, how often is Coughlan surfing around the internet, looking for images of men masturbating? Clearly way too often for any genuinely straight male, at least in my opinion.

Really though, what kind of guy does this? How can he keep a "straight" face while going through all this effort? He obviously has some sort of obsession with Thunderf00t, and an obsession with images of men masturbating. And again, why would Coughlan have the desire to fabricate sexual images of Thunderf00t? The images look so obviously fake, so it's improbable that he believed others would buy it. Regardless, he obviously is very obsessed with Thunderf00t, and obviously looks at images of men masturbating from time to time. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....yeah....

In closing, Coughlan's behavior shows exactly what's wrong with the atheist movement. It is people like him that cause the false-stereotype that all atheists are arrogant, noisy, psuedo-intellectual, immoral, rude, and generally slimy. I believe that atheism is not right for all people, some atheists would be much better off with religion. Coughlan, do the world a favor and find God, He's calling for you :)

#3 Spiritual Atheist: why atheism is better than theism.

By NASA.gov (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1007a/)[see page for license], via Wikimedia Commons

I often would wonder if life would be more enjoyable if I weren't an atheist (I just wrote a post on destiny, so yes, I am a hypocrite). I believe ignorance can be bliss, but it is also soulless for life to exist in such a state (i.e. unaware). I believe the most important aspect of life is our awareness of it. To be an atheist means to reject consoling ideas in the spirit of awareness.

While many atheists do not realize it, being an atheist is highly spiritual. Theism is a highly delusional world-view—theism makes an individual feel comfortably arrogant about the objective truth underlying their world-view. That said, atheists are not free from delusion, but they are much closer to the truth than a theist. Humans feel the need to maintain emotional equilibrium—or rather, it is our nature to feel the urge to maintain such a thing (avoid feeling bad, seek after feeling good). Ideas that influence us emotionally obviously have an emotional effect (consciously or unconsciously), and our world-view is balanced in this way (preservation on one side,  growth on the other). If we come to realize new truths, we must reorganize our emotionally infused thoughts to establish equilibrium—we constantly must restructure our world-view, and this is how a world-view evolves. It is awareness that allows the soul to live through its biological machinery. It is the relationship between awareness and influence that allows us to live the life we often take for granted.

A theistically-based world-view is not open to awareness, it closes off the soul for perceived self-preservation. Fear prevents growth, and we have seen the effect of theism on our growth. The more consolation an individual gains by their world-view, the more they will fear change, a person who is totally open fears nothing. The next time you see an angry person, remember, anger is an expression fear (why theists become very upset with atheists). I occasionally get angry with theists (their perceived ignorance concerns me). It appears theists become angry with atheists more out of fear of being wrong (their position is indefensible), but I would love to see a theist's take on this issue.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" -Franklin D. Roosevelt

#2 Spiritual Atheist: destiny is real

This will be another one of those spiritual posts from an atheistic perspective. Destiny is real, and it is delusional to believe in the alternative. Sounds absolutely mad, right?

However, doesn't this seem obvious? That "free-will" (or 'choice') cannot influence the past? Of course it seems logically obvious. While it logically makes sense, we often are not able to accept this obvious truth on a deep level. We feel guilt over the past, and regret certain things, but it is delusional to believe things could be different. The purpose of negative emotions is to motivate action, which cannot be done in the past; this is a true reflection of our shared delusional state that is seemingly impossible to escape. 

We imagine the past from the present moment, a moment where the circumstances can only be explained by imagining the past (which is delusional in itself). Where our imaginations and world-views often fail is in understanding destiny and our own ignorance (we can't know how much we don't know). The way the past has shaped the present is not left up to chance, to believe otherwise is purely delusional. Probability does not exist in the past (what's done is done), but us humans are often not able to accept this. Like when atheists debate theists, probability of a god doing this or that is often interpreted using probability (again, human-ignorance is not a factor). 

Actually reflect on this, is there any actual probability things could have happened differently in the past? Such as that a god could or could not have done something? No, of course not. This is all obvious, and you may be thinking: "duh, of course it's all obvious..". That is the point, it is obvious that this moment is a product of destiny. Probability is a product of ignorance, we only perceive it to exist if certain factors are unknown. All moments are of equal importance for shaping our future, even if we are not aware of each moment's influence. 

Even our science has been corrupted by this. Chance is our imagination's attempt to help us explain our ignorance. Scientists often utilize chance as being a factor, even though chance does not exist.  That said, science is the most useful—albeit delusional in many ways—methodology we posses for understanding cause and effect. 

You reading this is as much a part of your destiny as anything can be. All moments are of equal importance for shaping our future, even if we are not aware of each moment's destined influence. It is delusional to not believe in destiny. Just because we do not understand all factors does not mean that the future is left up to random chance. We will always perceive chance to exist on a deep level because we will always be unable to truly understand all factors (like a dog chasing its tail). One of the most unreachable factors is the self—but just because we cannot view the self does not mean we are not set on a destined path guided by destined circumstances. Magic lies in ignorance, and the concept of chance is magical.

What does this realization give to us? It gives us the ability to step back, to better appreciate the universe as it is, instead of what our imaginations delusionally perceive it could be. All that exists is destined to be. Things happen for a reason if we create reasons for them happening. 

Feminism hypocritically values objectivity.

Feminists believe society is androcentric, which I don't believe is totally true. Obviously men make more money, and politically have more power. However, I don't believe this is necessarily the most important thing to be valued. If the family unit is the foundation of society, then it could be argued that women have had more of an important role than femanists give them credit for in society. I believe that all people should have equal rights under the law, however, as far as the family unit and roles within the family, I believe it should be left to the individual to decide. My mom, for example, believes that women should assume the role of raising the children until they are in school. Some people may perceive family as being more valuable than economic and political power; for such people, caring for their offspring is the more valuable role to have.

I believe that feminists value the things that men stereotypically value (objective things), and are annoyed by the woman that disagree. I agree with feminism's goal of equality under the law, but disagree with its attempt to homogenize men and woman socially (people should be free to do as they wish under the law). Another disagreement I have is when feminists claim that men have always objectified women, it could easily be applied the other way around. Men have largely been objectified as being tools to provide sustenance and protection, while women have largely been in roles that allow them to value non-objective things like raising/nurturing offspring, etc., so I believe this is a purely subjective argument. The traditional male-role is equally or more objectifying than being a housewife (who probably has closer relationships with her children, for example). Another example of this is during times of war, men are objectified in a way that threatens their very existence in order to protect their families and countries. Valuing wealth and power is to value objective things, so regardless, people are going to be objectified when these are the things that are valued in a society. Feminists are unknowingly feeding into the valuing of objective things, which only exasperates the problem they claim exists. Objectification and dehumanization are the real problems in society; such things are gender neutral, and occur in different ways among the differently labled groups.

Abortion is immoral

I am a pro-life atheist. I have written many blog posts on why I believe abortion is morally wrong, and this is another one of them, enjoy (wrong word choice?)...

Another reason abortion is wrong, a reason that is not often brought up, is because it is the objectification of human life. Objectification is exactly the tactic used by pro-choicers, they claim that it is ...

"just a ball of cells"


"isn't self-aware"


"is no different than killing skin cells"


All arguments pro-choicers utilize immediately seek to objectify human life. An unborn baby (words like 'embryo' and 'fetus' are mere tools to objectify human life) is human life, there is no way around this with any intellectual honesty. Abortion is immoral, and so is attempting to argue in favor of it.

Pro-choicers view human life as merely an instrument for their own ends, and even objectify themselves for the sake of superficial pleasures and/or material gains. This is the sad reality for why most atheists are pro-choice.

Atheists often are too damn wrapped up in their own delusional objectivity (read this blog post to understand what I mean by this). They often have a hard time valuing human life beyond its perceived material worth. For example, many atheists try to dehumanize all human life as being 'mere chemical reactions'. Not to digress, but I would argue that in order to deem something valueless, this requires a methodology of assigning value in itself. I am unable to grasp how pro-choicers are unable to see the value of an unborn baby beyond its physiological makeup. Not only does this devalue the life of an unborn baby, it devalues all human life as being "mere objects" vunerable to the wrath of sociopathic individuals.

Objectifying human life has caused so much evil in this world (check out my post on evil). We must stop the objectification of human life. 

Pat Condell on Osama Bin Laden

For Muslims to claim that what we did to Osama Bin Laden is an insult to Islam is to infer that he represents Islam - no sane Muslim would support Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden got way more respect than he deserved (you know, by shooting him in the eye and dumped his body into the water). I like Mr. Condell's idea, shame we didn't go with that one... now that would have given some resolution. 

An atheist's perspective on evil.

Does evil exist? 

Many atheists would claim that it doesn't. As it was stated in the video I put up by Allsaintsmonastery: evil is caused by lack of empathy, it does not physically exist, instead it is a descriptive state and/or behavior of a being. Evil cannot be done in the presence of empathy for all those affected.

What is evil? 


I believe evil is the potential behavior of conscious beings to be both unempathetic and destructive (to the self and others).

Why don't many atheists believe in evil?


This is because some of the most outspoken atheists are also the dumbest. Those atheists that don't believe in evil are moral-relativists, which means that they embody evil (evil needs the cover of ignorance in order to thrive). It is our awareness of unempathetical and destructive behavior that allows us to resist it.  This is why moral-relativists are evil, it is obvious that they provide camouflage for evil by promoting and embodying concepts that seek to de-label it (evil thrives when there is little awareness of it). Many atheists don't want to believe in evil because of a guilty conscience; such atheists are aware of the harm they have caused.

I would say that the root of all evil is dehumanization (i.e. objectification), and such a thing is caused by lack of empathy (for the self and/or society). I believe the atheist community needs to put more thought into the subject of morality; to pretend morality doesn't exist allows for the perpetuation of immorality (which is evil).  

Allsaintsmonastery: "Does evil exist?"

It's interesting how he believes evil is not an actual thing, but a condition. I tend to agree with him that evil is caused by lack of empathy. It's sad, this world in general is very unempathetic - one could argue that there is a lot of evil in this world. I however would argue against this guy's claims with the standard atheist-arguments...

"Why did God create Satan?"


"Why doesn't God just stop evil, isn't his lack of empathy most responsible because of His position of power?


"Isn't God the most evil being in all of existence for creating evil and allowing human suffering?"

Atheism is not a belief!

Beating a dead horse here, I know.

Theists often argue that atheism is a belief. Hell (npi), they even occasionally will claim that atheism is a religion. Is it just me that thinks this is one of the dumbest argument ever? Do I even need to explain why? Idiots like Dr. William Lane Craig have claimed that being an atheist "takes faith". Does it take faith to not believe in an idea that coincidently also takes faith to believe in? Apparently it also takes faith to not believe in unicorns. Theists often attempt to steal the arguments atheists make, and try to turn it back on them. This shows that they are able to easily recognize the weaknesses of their arguments.

I know, this is one of those pointless ranting blog posts that I occasionally throw up. I just wanted to get my atheist-rage out onto the internets. Be free rage!

Anyways, if you want to argue against atheism, there are plenty of arguments that are much more effective. I don't believe any atheist will take such an argument (i.e. that atheism is a belief/religion) seriously. It's a shame theists weren't more creative with their arguments, the debate could be much more interesting if they were...just that much more... intelligent. This isn't meant to be offensive, but the atheist vs. theist debate has become so incredibly boring now. 

Blog 1: Spiritual atheist.

This is just going to be a quick blog post on some of my views towards spirituality. I expect to do many more following this one.

Atheists are often stereotyped as being nonspiritual. For me, this is a very irritating stereotype. There are many atheists that maintain some spiritual beliefs. To have a sense of spirituality, a person must become aware of what they are. Our spirituality is essentially everything that we are; in other words, all that we cannot lose. A person cannot be what they can lose - flesh, beliefs, inanimate objects, awareness, and so on. Atheists in general have a difficult time comprehending spiritually-oriented topics for the mere fact that atheists are typically more engaged in thinking objectively (which as I have discussed earlier, has its own delusional aspects we cannot avoid). Don't get me wrong, this is not unique to atheists, but that is the audience this blog post is intended for. It seems that theists have a misguided sense of spirituality - their beliefs typically force them to contemplate spituality, but it seems very limiting in itself.

The soul is all we are and all we cannot lose. Many atheists believe we are nothing, but this doesn't seem very convincing (we know we exist, something which exists cannot be nothing). Some atheists believe we are brain cells, I have a difficult time subscribing to this idea because this does not seem to be the role of the brain (at least as we have come to understand it). The brain functions in a way to convert nerve impulse into understandable patterns - light, sound, taste, touch, emotion (I left out smell because that is the same as taste, also we do feel emotions...it is a sense). Our brains convert nerve impulse into understandable patterns for us to observe (parallels can be drawn to how a computer functions, i.e. code being converted into programs with understandable interfaces). The brain can control the body autonomously (autopilot, subconscious, smooth muscle contractions, etc.), which is an interesting area of thought. How much does the soul control? Probably less than we would be comfortable thinking about.

Many people worry about the past and the future, and try to understand spiritual things utilizing these concepts (what happens after death, what happened before birth, etc.). For the soul, things like the past and future are irrelevant because memory is a product of the brain, not the soul. We observe memories, we can  possess memories, but we are not memories. Clear as mud? Well, think of it this way, if you had no memory, no ability to imagine a future, how could you possibly percieve time at all? Time, as far as we are concerned, simply doesn't exist - it is a product of our imagination. In other words, time is a useful delusion (like believing we experience objectivity). Our brains create the universe we live in, all we actually observe is produced inside our heads (nothing outside is actually viewed). Things like time, and objectivity are delusions that are useful for our functioning.

"If it works, it must be true"  

This is the dominate theme within our reasoning as humans. Many things exist in the universe that our scientific instruments cannot detect, I do not believe it is that irrational to suggest that consciousness is one of them. What we are is all we cannot lose, and just because we cannot view ourselves, doesn't mean we don't exist. My hope is that more atheists think about spirituality. 

Robot controlled by rat brain

While this is all well and good, what would be priceless is the look on the faces of the PETA people. While this doesn't look like much, this area of technology could evolve to some very high levels. One area that I imagine that this technology will be used is on humans. They could throw your brain into an android (one that looks just like a human, but functions even better) and with maintenance on both the brain tissue and artificial body, it could potentially live forever. People are afraid of robots taking over the world, what they don't understand is that we will be the robots. You don't think this will happen in the near future? Look at the rate our technology has jumped up in the last decade, and it is only accelerating. Fifty years from now things will be very different indeed. 

It's good to lie to your partner?

there is talk about how we should not talk about our past sexual encounters....but i believe this strategy is just lying.....our experiences are a big part of who we are....if we don't know the person we are with..i.e. there experiences...we live with a lie. 

being sexuallly attracted to disoriented emotional projection

like when a girl looks out of it....guys think she is putting off a "sexy" look...

Video every voter needs to watch (Osama Bin Laden)

It is important that people see this video. Republicans are going to be spreading disinformation that Bush (i.e. Republicans) deserves an equal amount of credit for putting a bullet in Bin Laden's head. Obama did something in 2 years that Bush couldn't manage to do in 8. Obama deserves credit (along with the soldiers). The beautiful thing about all of this is that it totally discredits any claims that Republicans try to make about Democrats not being capable of fighting terrorism. Republicans have been busy stalling political progress while Obama has been very busy with his very large agenda. Republicans are a joke, period. After this event, I do not see any way Obama can lose in 2012. How can Republicans argue that he is inadequate in his approach towards fighting terrorism? Sure they may try, but I don't think many Americans are stupid enough to believe it

Anyways, vote Obama 2012!

We are all delusional (yes, even atheists)

Naturally this blog post is going to be filled with my own delusional thinking, hopefully you enjoy it :)

Everyone is delusional in some way, and most people find it uncomfortable to reflect on this. We have a tendency to believe in the objective truth of believable ideas (what is "believable" is dependent on an individual's world-view). The reality is that a thought is just a thought; one thought is only thought of as being better than another thought if it believed to be representative of something that actually exists. Perhaps your thoughts are fearful of this thought, we often do not want to believe that our thoughts are nothing more than thoughts (especially if they make up part of the foundation of our world-view).

When I think of myself as being an atheist, such a thing is just a thought, and incredibily delusional in itself. First of all, being an atheist is an idea in the same way that being a Christian is an idea. We cannot be a belief, at least within my logical abilities; this is because we cannot be that which we can lose (beliefs and/or ability to think). The scary truth is that we humans really don't know what we are at all, which is why it is so easy to label people as being an idea and/or belief. We use our thoughts to represent what we believe is true - but such a thing will be lost in totality once we lose our brain (my thoughts lead me to believe that my brain will not exist forever, and that my brain is the source of my thoughts). Keep in mind, what makes a thought a belief is if we believe the thought is true, and we all have many beliefs. At the core of all beliefs is some sort of delusion (typically that our thoughts have an existence outside of our own subjectivity, which they actually don't).

However, I would say given the reliability of believing that the objective world exists on some level, it can be believable that some thoughts are better than others; i.e. closer to a true representation of the way things work [albeit typically superficial, and is hardly ever (never?) totally represented]. We become delusional the moment we believe our thoughts are more than thoughts (which itself is a thought). While it is impossible to lose our needed delusional thinking, attempting to be aware of it can bring us to a more dynamic representation of the way things function.

In closing, don't get too excited theists, atheists are able to recognize the wide-spread delusional thinking you possess. However, I suppose we all have a difficult time accepting that our thoughts are nothing more than poor representations (some more-so than others) of "objective reality". That said, I suppose it can be believable that certain atheists are more delusional than certain theists (in their day-to-day thoughts), but I believe atheists are overall more aware of this phenomena. While it is impossible to escape our thoughts, trying to be objective about them certainly creates some intriguing thoughts and hopefully a greater awareness. 

never let yourself get consumed with your imagination of what you want your bf/gf to be.....just get to know who they actually are....be objective

Response to a creationist on this blog.

The post this response was made - click me.

I find creationists to be very interesting creatures :)

They are some of the best bullshitters in the world. This response was written up quickly, I thought I would throw it up for those interested in reading it.






"Your failure to understand theistic arguments does not, in itself, invalidate theistic arguments."

I perfectly understand their arguments and I see the problems with them.

"“God provides the best explanation for…” so and so phenomena."

The origin of the universe is unknown, how can anything be an explanation for an unknown? How can you claim that God is responsible for an unknown, when we don't even know that God exists. You must first prove that this being exists to be able to claim that the being is responsible for something. This is such basic logic, I really hope you are not that stupid.  You cannot use ignorance to explain ignorance. This is a very real hole in your argument, and I find it hilarious that you refuse to except it.

"Let’s be clear, philosophy does not make any scientific claims. "

Of course it does, philosophy makes claims about the way things are. Philosophy is the religion of the pseudo-intellectual. Sociology, psychology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. is where real truth is found. In other words, truth can only be found utilizing observation.


"Philosophers need only demonstrate - through sound argumentation - that their conclusions are “more probable” than their alternatives. "

This shows a failure in the reasoning ability of such philosophers. You cannot access how probable an unknown is - something that is unknown is unknown. There is no probability with past events, only with unknown future events (that which quantum physics is concerned with). If we knew it all, there would be no probability, probability is a reflection of human ignorance.

"Philosophy makes no attempt to “prove” that God or any god exists – the existence of a god is self-evident to anyone with an open heart and mind."

Nice contradiction. Do you mean the same people that believe in talking snakes and virgin births? Yeah, real open minds, lol (irony at its finest).

" Individually, theistic arguments do not “prove” the existence of God, but collectively, they make a cumulative case that God is the best explanation (given the alternatives) for what we know about the world. "

Not at all :)

Why do you think most scientists are atheists? Those that actually know the most about the world do not typically believe in God.

"scientific naturalism has yet to demonstrate (philosophically or scientifically) that scientific naturalism is more (or even modestly) reasonable than it’s alternative (theism). "

In YOUR opinion.

"Furthermore, since scientific naturalism is the foundation of atheism, it also follows that atheists (proponents of scientific naturalism) are just as religious (if not more so) as theists. "

There is a clear difference between observable reality and imagined reality. You probably have zero idea of what I am referring to. But science (or more specifically the scientific method) is based on observation. The theistic realm is based on the imaginations of the ignorant (those that don't understand the big questions).

"if you have an argument you would like to refute, the burden of proof IS on you to demonstrate that the argument is unsound (a premise is false, or more improbable than an alternative) or invalid (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premises)."

Backwards logic. As I said, I do not believe you are truly this unintelligent. Sadly, you will warp logic to maintain an illogical belief. God only exists in your imagination, if you want to keep him there, I would avoid objective reality.

Objectification of women is harmful to men

a world view is the product of our imagination in which we combine what we experience with our senses coupled with how we believe the world outside of our senses is. 

mutual imagination vs. delutional imagination.

Osama Bin Laden is dead!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden

Took them long enough, karma is a bitch. Apparently they used a woman as a human-shield and she was killed, aren't they brave. It's a shame there's no hell for these scumbags to go to.