Atheism =/= freethinking

Just because a person doesn't believe in God, that doesn't mean that they are a freethinker. And I don't think a believer in God is any less "free" (at least as long as they have the option to be an atheist). I have come across many close-minded atheists and many close-minded believers. The reality is that those people that label themselves as a 'freethinker' are probably not all that original with their thinking. In fact the vast majority of ideas are not original (i.e. we got them from someone else). Atheist or not, we can only work with the knowledge that we possess. And the foundation of our knowledge comes from the experience of being exposed to the ideas of others. I don't believe an atheist is any more "free" than a believer, they simply have a different set of ideas that they find to be believable. Believers are exposed to a lot of the same information that atheists are exposed to (same education and media resources), they simply choose to stick with belief as oppose to going to atheism. This doesn't make them any less "free". Those that believe that they are freethinkers are probably just as much of a sheep as a believer (different herder). Being an atheist only means that you don't believe in a god, and that is where it ends (atheism is not connected with political affiliation or science). 

fear of atheism vs. benefit of belief (warning: may be ranty)

Many people fear atheism. Is it justified? Do atheists pose any sort of threat (or rather atheism's effect on people)? In the spirit of being objective, I am going to entertain this assertion. Being that atheism is a non-belief in God (or any other god), what must be looked at is the effect the belief in God has on an individual.  

What a church does is load all of its highest moral views onto God (the word and its meanings). Then it tells people to believe in God or else! Most people are not leaders, they are followers, this is not a bad thing. The Christian churches often use the sheep and herder metaphor to describe the relationship with their followers. And atheists have been referred to as cats when it comes to having them follow along. But again, is this such a bad thing? Having everyone think for themselves instead of following the intellectual elite is overrated in my opinion. Such a thing leads many atheists to stupid ideas like moral-relativism, and television shows like Jersey Shore (people often do not know what's best for them).

Random thought: If you think moral relativism is true, use the search bar at the top of the page and type in 'moral-relativism' to see my views on the subject (I've written quite a few blog posts about it). 


As I have stated before, I am an atheist that believes in belief--but not just any belief. I believe the majority of  people (90% or more) are not intelligent enough to piece together their own moral code. Religion is a morality for dummies. But unfortunately, most religions are very outdated, and better and/or updated religions need to come about. Religion tells a person how they should behave without going into the details, and most people are not smart enough to understand the details anyways.

While I do debate for the atheist position on this blog, I do hope that religion is able to adapt to the changing times, and is able to thrive again. While religion isn't true, that doesn't mean its influences are bad and that it doesn't serve a purpose.

Vegetarians overthink their food.

By SunfishDish1_2.jpg: M.J. Klein derivative work: IdLoveOne (SunfishDish1_2.jpg) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Many atheists are vegetarians (many =/= a majority), not because the position is logical, but because atheists are more likely to overthink (especially if they came to atheism by themselves, and were surrounded by religion). I would argue that overthinking can sometimes be a bad thing (like in the case of food)

Is this a poor argument against vegetarianism? I don't believe so. Vegetarians, when confronted with the idea of eating meat, are disgusted. But the problem is not with the meat itself, but the idea of where the meat came from. Many vegetarians eat meat-substitutes (which actually taste kind of like meat, but not nearly close enough for my taste buds); so the actual taste of the meat is typically not the problem, but the idea of where the meat came from. Vegetarians claim that they don't like to eat food that causes the death of other animals. What they fail to realize is that many many insects, mice, fish (from pollution caused by farming), among many other animals die from the harvesting of plant foods on a large scale. The only way I suppose to avoid the killing of animals is for a person to grow their own food in a sealed off environment (to make sure no bugs get stepped on or kill plants).

What it all boils down to is that vegetarians have been "influenced" (nicer way of saying 'brainwashed') by vegetarian activists. When a vegetarian thinks of meat, chances are that images that were instilled into their memory by slimy ideology-pushing vegetarians. I say slimy because they lack respect for others, exaggerate their claims, outright lie, and are very manipulative. And who do these activists target? The most impressionable people they can find (kids and young adults).

Random thought: A vegetarian is like a person that hates babies because the thought of where they come from disgust them.

When a vegetarian is confronted with the idea of eating meat, their IMAGINATIONS automatically turn to images of a slaughter house. When I eat meat, I'm thinking about the delicious taste of it—vegetarians are overthinking their food. Besides, eating material that has come from a living animal in the past is virtually impossible. Where do vegetarians think animals go when they die? They get turned into soil. It's the cycle of life, or as I like to think of it, the cycle of matter. Animals do not own the matter that makes up their bodies, and in time we all must give back to the soil. 

Monique Davis: "Atheism is dangerous!"

The part about Monique Davis is at 1:28 (if you want to fast forward to it). She clearly believes atheism is dangerous (or at least did at the time). I wish people that claimed atheism is dangerous would actually go into detail. What exactly is it that makes an atheist dangerous? Statistics have shown a positive correlation between atheism and lower rates of crime (Sweden has a very low crime rate and has an atheist majority). This is pure bigotry, and unfortunately, it typically goes unchecked. For example, if she said the same things about Islam that she said about atheism, this would have been much much bigger of an issue.    I'm all for freedom of speech, but it should be much more limited for those that hold public office. Like if the president of the United States were to make such a claim against atheism, he would be speaking for the country (the job of politicians is to speak for/represent the people). Let's just say, prisons are not filled with atheists. If atheism was so dangerous, wouldn't that be the case? Gotta love unjustified beliefs. 

If hell was real

Christians often threaten atheists with hell. In this blog post I'm going to list off some of my thoughts about hell, if such a place was real (I obviously don't believe it is).

"if you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell" etc.

Let's play the devil's advocate, and say that hell (and God) does exist. Being that I'm an atheist I don't believe that the God character exists outside of the imagination. Anyways, what are us atheists to do if hell and God do exist? Christians seem very confident that all that don't believe are hell-bound (and also those that believe but are sinful), should atheists practice by lighting themselves on fire? I think this might be a good idea. But will it really help? I mean, God will give us new bodies and brains for hell, right (bodies/brains decompose after death)? Unfortunately with a new brain, we wont remember why we are being punished, but I'm sure God isn't worried about that. You see, God loves to hate atheists—which is why he would punish skeptics (and reward those gullible and lucky enough to hold the right beliefs).


Can we die in hell? If we can experience pain from burning, then we must be taking bodily damage from the flames....which would eventually kill us. Will God continually give us new bodies after each death? Would he be so generous to us atheists?

Will God allow Christians to view our suffering from heaven (they enjoy fantasizing about atheists being tortured). Because when I'm being tortured I don't like an audience, and I guess this would embody the torturous spirit of hell.

Some Christians believe that hell is just the separation of souls (atheist souls in this case) from God. But is this really a form of torture? God seems like an unpleasant entity to be around. If Christians fear God as much as they claim (i.e. they have the 'fear of God in them'), wouldn't that be torturous to them? i.e. to be around a being that they fear so much? I know when I fear something/someone, I don't want to be around it/them. It would seem that most atheists would feel very uncomfortable being around such an angry, jealous, egomaniac, and would probably opt for hell even if they had the choice. In-fact, I wouldn't want to be around an entity that would dish out eternal torture for something as silly as not believing in its existence. I mean, who is to say that God's judging ways stop at the pearly gates? Wouldn't that be hellish to be on pins and needles for an eternity? Constantly dealing with the fear of God (i.e. fear of him hurting you) and gaining its approval? Christians obviously love that sort of self-deprecation and paranoia—unfortunately, atheists would need to pick their poison.

It would be great if there was an atheist heaven and a Christian heaven. In atheist heaven, heaven is the afterlife that atheists want (which probably varies greatly amongst atheists), and the same goes for the Christian heaven. Christians want a heaven in which they are subject to the will of such a character, I think it would be great if they could experience that hel....I mean heaven. Perhaps the afterlife is the opposite of what we think, and religion is a test of integrity (instead of fossils testing faith). As an atheist I do believe in the possibility of an afterlife (i.e. that the soul lives on); but no, I don't believe in a hell for the ignorant.

Why atheism wins the debate by default.

Many theists still debate atheists as if there is something to debate. They make a claim, don't back it up, and wonder why atheists believe what they do. In a debate there is a winner and a loser, and the debate is over whether or not A (God) exists. In order for a theist to win a debate, they must prove that A exists, and THEN prove that A is responsible for B (the universe). Theists believe they can effectively debate atheists by using the "well how did it all get here" argument. This argument fails because it does nothing to prove that God exists, but does prove that humans don't know how energy began (if it even had a beginning). Theists will argue that the burden of proof is on the atheists to disprove their claim. But are atheists actually making a claim outside of being intellectually opposed to the claim of theists? No. Atheists can only prove their position by pointing to the FACT that theists cannot prove their's (atheism does not/cannot go outside of this).

Theist: "God exists!"
Atheist: "Prove it!"
Theist: "Prove God doesn't exist."
Atheist: "What's your favorite flavor of lead paint?"
Thiest: "I win!"

Creationist Dr. William Lane Craig: "Egad! What an Explanation!" (an atheist's response)

And this is how creationists debate atheists. Apparently finding finding arrowheads and believing God created the universe are the same thing. The main difference here is that we have seen people make pottery and arrowheads and we have seen people. In other words, we have seen the process for how arrowheads and pottery are made, and we have seen the maker. Another problem with Dr. William Lane Craig (got his doctorate at clown college) is that he is comparing the shaping of matter into objects with the creation of energy itself. There is no evidence that energy even needs to be created, but there is evidence that arrowheads and pottery need humans to be created (they aren't grown on trees). Dr. William Lane Craig is probably one of the more popular debaters against atheism out there, would think he could come up with better arguments—being that he has a doctorate and all. Here are two main problems with his argument.

-We don't know that energy needs to be created (our best physics shows it to be eternal)
-We don't know that God exists (we know humans exist)

To be able to claim that something caused something, we need to know that that something is, and then we can assess what that thing is responsible for doing. Atheists win any debate against creationism because creationists are unable to backup any of their claims. If we don't know something we don't know, an unknown cannot be used to explain an unknown—doing such a thing gets us nowhere, and is really just playing with words. At the end of the day, God is just an empty word. 

Edward Current - A Christian's Guide To Sinning (video)

Sins are only fun when they are sinful. This video reminds me of those convicts that "find" Jesus in prison after doing some terrible crime and expecting to get eternal paradise.

Sinner: "zomg I found you Jesus, can I haz heaven?"
Jesus: "K"

By the way, Edward Current is a secret atheist, if you enjoyed this video subscribe to his channel :)

Gay Marriage Legal in New York State

I just recently heard about the legalization of gay marriage in my state, and I figured I would do a quick blog about my thoughts on it.

There is a big debate about whether or not gay marriage is a good thing for society. Some believe that such a thing destroys the meaning of marriage and is immoral. Obviously such a belief is typically limited to those looking to protect religious values. I see no objective reason for why gay marriage is a bad thing. It would only be a bad thing if it had a negative impact—which I don't believe it does. In fact I believe the effect of gay marriage on society is a good thing in that it is what many gay couples want, and it harms virtually no one (may cause stress for those that are philosophically against it, which I guess could be slightly harmful). In fact I believe this development will lesson societal turmoil: when one group is unable to do things that another group is able to do, this is a rights violation, and this only fuels in-group/out-group hatred. Gay marriage certainly will further help integrate the gay community. As far as those that believe it will ruin heterosexual marriages, I don't understand how—unless of course for those "heterosexual" people that get tempted to jump to the other side of the fence (where they feel more comfortable). Obviously I am not all knowing, but from what I have seen, gay marriage should have no effect on true heterosexual marriages. In-fact homosexuality is better in the open than for it to be hidden and for gay men to hide their sexuality by getting into heterosexual relationships (which is harmful in itself). The fact of the matter is, even if gay marriage does go against certain people's values, this is a free country, and freedom is a two-way street.

Moral of the story: Don't worry marriage traditionalists, no one is going to force you into a same-sex marriage. And while this victory for the gay community isn't directly connected with the rise of atheism, I believe the rise of atheism has strengthened secularism, which surely has helped (close enough to a victory for atheism...or more specifically, secularism over religion). 

Why so many atheists are pro-abortion

I would say from my own personal observation that most atheists are pro-abortion (i.e. pro-choice). If you have read my other posts on abortion, you would know that I am a pro-life atheist. This is because I see value in human life that runs deeper than the material it is composed of. Someone that is pro-abortion objectifies (in order to dehumanize) a young human life in order to make its destruction morally permissible in their eyes ("it's just a ball of cells, and so on). Atheists tend to be pro-abortion because they tend to be more objective, and this is good for some areas of thought (like science and economics), but bad in others (like the value of human life and morality). An atheist tends to be more objective than most people, and this is why they are unable to see the value of human life. Obviously not all atheists are objective to the point of not being able to value human life beyond the cells that compose its flesh and bones, but it seems that the majority are.

God should love atheism

If God existed (I obviously don't believe He does), wouldn't He love atheism? According to believers, God doesn't make His existence known to "test" people. But can those people that believe He is watching truly be tested? An atheist can truly be tested because they do not believe that they are being watched. It's like a brat kid that is good around Christmas because he believes Santa is watching—and he is rewarded for faking good behavior. It's illogical for a god that is testing people to want people to believe that they are being watched, such people can only be assumed to be faking some if not all of their good behavior for a reward. One would think that religion would corrupt this judging process, and it would be nearly impossible to separate the sociopaths from the genuinely good (if only behavior is judged, which seems to be the case). The point here is that religions like Christianity and Islam have a system that rewards sociopaths and discourages genuine behavior (as stated before, people can only truly be judged if they believe that they are not being watched). The point of this blog post is to point out the nonsensical nature of the more popular religions. These belief systems (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) are more geared towards controlling people than testing merit (both can't be had). If I was God the first thing I would do is eliminate religion, and all those that alert people that I am watching/judging.

Of course there is no God, just people that are looking to control others and people that will go against their nature for the sake of reward. Religion is equivalent to email spam, be careful buying into it.   

Richard Dawkins on Islamic fundamentalism

A fundamentalist, I believe, truly gets at the heart of a belief system. There is a reason we don't talk/worry about Mormon fundamentalists, but do Muslim fundamentalists. Obviously Christianity has the potential for fundamentalism, but for the most part Christians have adapted to living amongst those with different beliefs. Many Muslims (i.e. the true moderates) have already done this, and I believe Islamic fundamentalism is on the decline. In-fact I have a pet theory that the Middle East is going to be dominated by atheism in a relatively short amount of time (30-50 years) due to the culture's inability to adapt to the rapid cultural changes that it will incur. Religions don't do well in the presence of things like the internet (large exposure to a variety of ideas). I believe atheism and the internet go hand-in-hand, and it all comes down to information flow. 

Richard Dawkins: "Islam Is One Of The Great Evils In The World"

Many people are too afraid to say the things that Richard Dawkins says about Islam. Islam, along with with most other religions, are getting weakened over time by the increased information flow provided by things like the internet, television, etc. People that are only exposed to religions like Islam do not know any different; once these people are exposed to a wider variety of ideas, they will have more to choose from. Like when I was younger, the only belief system I was exposed to was Catholicism, I wasn't truly aware that I had a choice (nothing else to choose from). In 50-100 years I believe we will see ('we' as in humanity) a further rise of atheism and a toning down of religious fundamentalism (especially in Islam). Violence is a response born out of fear, soon enough people will realize there is nothing to be afraid of.  

Why I dislike TheAmazingAtheist

This is his newest video. I really don't understand why people follow him (other than him being a train-wreck). I've always perceived TheAmazingAtheist as an immoral scumbag. He has no respect for other people, not even other atheists, and he is just a nasty individual. Not to attack his psychology too much, but I would say a good candidate for some antidepressants. Watch a few of his videos, it is easy to see that he is not very balanced.

It really bothers me that he is the most subscribed to atheist (i.e. person that has a focus on atheism) on YouTube. At the moment, he represents the face of atheism on YouTube for many many people....isn't that scary? TheAmazingAtheist has done a great deal to harm the image of atheism. When a non-atheist sees him, all they see is a mentally disturbed individual that needs a god. The fact that he has more subscribers than Thunderf00t or Pat Condell speaks volumes for the atheist community on YouTube. If you have been following this blog, you know very well that I'm not a big fan of certain types of atheists, and TheAmazingAtheist is a good representation of them (along with Coughlan666). His most annoying attributes is his lack of humility coupled with his incredible and unjustified arrogance. His message is pessimistic, and the world would be better off without it. 

Here is another video of him talking about his like of porn, and dislike for those that are against it.



Again, it is sad that he represents the atheist community on YouTube (by having the most subscribers he does in the eyes of many). I believe TheAmazingAtheist would be better off with religion. Some people need that sort of thing. Some people will not behave morally unless they believe something is watching them 24/7 that can hold them accountable. I suggest Mormonism :)

My thoughts on Ryan Dunn

I enjoyed watching him on Jackass, but drinking and driving is unacceptable. He could have easily killed a family with his stupid behavior. Drinking alcohol is all well-and-good, but driving while intoxicated is disgustingly malicious. 

Atheist Pat Condell: "Name the poison" (Muslim Rape in Europe)

It's disgusting that people use a belief system to justify rape. It's not very controversial to claim that rape is one of the worst crimes a person can commit, and I believe warrants the death penalty (which shouldn't be controversial).

The Sex Bubble

What is the sex bubble? It is an economic bubble (sex is an industry), and as inferred by the use of the word bubble, it will eventually pop. In the United States, among many other places, sex is a big industry. Hell, anyone that regularly uses the internet knows that many businesses are making bank off turning people on. Anyone with eyes has noticed the steady increase in the pervasiveness of the sex industry in our day-to-day lives. While this isn't directly caused by atheism, I believe it perhaps is indirectly caused by the loss of traditional values given by religion (but not exclusively owned by religion). But perhaps what is more responsible is the cultural lag caused the the rapid changes that technology has had upon our socialization. Each generation's socialization has been very different from the last, and this is reflective of a disturbed society that begs for stabilization.

Nearly everyone has sexual desires (it's not a need like water or food). In other words, nearly everyone gets horny in the same way that nearly everyone gets angry, sad, happy, etc. But just because we all experience these things, does not mean we should encourage them to their fullest. For example, I could be angry at something, and could get myself very worked up if that anger is encouraged (by obsessively thinking about it) over a long period of time—doing this will lead to a very deeply rooted cynicism (like that of TheAmazingAtheist). Anger is a useful emotion, when it is used usefully, and the same is true of the sex drive. That said, if a person constantly exposes themselves to things that generate sexual arousal, the brain will rewire itself accordingly (making a person for lack of a better term, perverted).

But don't we already know this? Don't we know that encouraging a particular emotion will cause changes in our worldview? But it doesn't need to be over a long period of time. For example, let's say I had a positive view towards Arnold Schwarzenegger, but after finding out about his scandal, I experienced anger/disgust towards him. Such a change of view is purely driven by emotionally charged thoughts, and those perceptions transcend the knowledge of his affair and pollute the entire view of him (and it would take effort to undo this pollution). This is true of all emotionally charged thinking/labeling. Another example would be woman that have a sexism towards men. If a woman thinks about men as being bad often enough, eventually those negative emotions will transcend their perception of all men. I believe the same principle can be applied to a society that is overexposed to sexually arrousing images. The more sexually arousing images an individual sees, the more they will want to see to get that euphoric high. Traditionally, people were limited to what they could get away with under the law, and typically marriage—and those energies were channeled into single individuals forming closer family bonds. This is part of the reason the divorce rate is so high: people have sexual appetites that are so great that a single individual cannot quench them. Not only that, but the fact that people have many more sexual encounters will multiple individuals, this destroys the amount of intimacy and individual can experience with the person they end up marrying (sex has become slightly more intimate than a handshake). And this is all caused by an emotional state and worldview perpetuating one another. The sex industry is one of the biggest problems our society faces in the future, it has a direct role in destabilizing the family unit.

This trend however is reaching its ceiling, and we are seeing the negative impacts upon the foundation of society (i.e. the family). If you watch TV, see magazine covers, go on the internet, and so on, there really isn't much more sex they can pack in. I believe with the reaching of the ceiling (again, how much more sex can be put out in the open?) coupled with the negative consequences of this hyper-sexuality imposed on our society by corporations, we will see a popping of the sex bubble. What does this have to do with atheism? Well, I believe atheism is eventually going to dominate society, and it is up to the atheists (by default) to establish (or reestablish) sexual values back into society (at the moment sexual values are far weaker than they should be). An example of this is to reestablish the useful disgust towards promiscuity that once existed—sadly it is now a badge of honor for most—and it eventually leads such individuals (i.e. the majority) to experience...or rather not to experience the deep level of intimacy that binds a relationship. Not only is there a lack of intimacy, but the proverbial bar is raised to unreachable heights for what is sexually attractive. The sex industry has weakened the bond that holds the foundation of a society together; let's hope this bubble pops soon so that its destructive (albeit apparently subtle) influence doesn't raise havoc on our values for much longer.

Boycott the sex industry, you and your society will be better for it in the long run. 

Will be back soon!

I've been uninspired and busy lately, hopefully I will be back to blogging soon. 

Saudi woman campaigns for right to drive

Gotta love backwards cultures. We (as in the modern world) shouldn't be giving these countries technology until they modernize their culture as well....at least in my opinion. Muslims can't say anything about Muhammad's word, cars didn't exist when he was alive (so he couldn't have had any opinion on the matter). And yes, Islam is obviously the cause behind this problem, as the woman was arrested for defying a 'religious edict'. To call a spade a spade, this is some serious misogyny being justified by religion.

Fortunately the Middle East is going to be rapidly westernized by things like the internet, television, etc. Islam needs to adapt to rapid cultural changes (like Christianity has), otherwise it's going to be left behind in the dust by cultural progress. Many Muslims live in the modern world, and they managed to adapt and keep their faith. Who knows, perhaps atheism might dominate the Middle East in 50-100 years due to Islam's inability to adapt—time will tell. 

ShadowStarshine: "Atheist does not mean Rational" (response)

I've seen many irrational atheists. Some people become atheists to be rebellious against what they believe controls them (of course these are not real atheists). I think most people in general are not well thought out. Respect should be earned, not afforded. That said, it is easier to gain my respect as an atheist than it is to gain it as a Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, etc. What a person believes says a lot for who they are. Being an atheist in a country dominated by theists shows that a person many be more of freethinker than most (but obviously not always). I try to judge people on an individual basis, atheist or not—in practice it is more accurate—stereotypes can be misleading. 

Atheist Pat Condell on Islamic terrorism

Political correctness is terrible in that it goes against freedom of speech. The purpose of free-speech is so that people can speak their minds—regardless if it offends. A religion is just a set of beliefs, why should it be immune to criticism?

On Blogger I am very tentative about posting things about Islam out of the fear of getting banned. And when I do post up things about Islam, I tend to put up a disclaimer ("not all Muslims are like this", etc.).  Political correctness is the enemy of free-speech. Imagine if atheists got the same PC protection? 

Atheism isn't always a good thing?

Many atheists believe that being an atheist is better than being a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. In other words, they believe that we all would be better off if religion didn't exist and everyone was an atheist. I strongly disagree with this stance. I believe people can be made worse off by religion...well, certain types of people. For example, at the local church, there is an employee that they have that used to be a drug addict—he claims to have come clean because of Jesus—and I believe him. Have we ever heard of a criminal "finding atheism" in prison and turning their lives around? It is these sorts of people that I believe religion is more useful than atheism. Let's face it, if you're not a thinker, you really do not benefit much from atheism. I see religion as a 'morality for idiots', and it is useful because I do not believe the population of earth is intelligent enough to benefit from atheism. Some people strongly benefit from believing that they are being watched and judged all the time.

It seems that a good percentage of the atheist community would be better off with religion. Many atheists use atheism as a means of justifying their moral-relativistic behaviors. Many atheists believe that just because there is no God, this means that it is morally permissible to do anything, as long as it's not illegal (some don't even worry about this). Atheism is not for the immoral, and such people would behave much better with the fear of God than with the fear of getting caught. Atheism can lead some to deep thinking, and others to "hurray! God isn't watching anymore, I can do whatever I want!". I believe that if you are dumb enough to believe in God, you are not smart enough to benefit from atheism. Many of the values found in religion are good—but those values are not owned by religion—unfortunately such values are not obvious for all, and such people need religion. This is why I never push my atheism onto others, if someone wants to debate against my atheism, I'll do it, but I tend not to push my atheism onto others. I believe atheism is best found alone, not among peers.  

Pat Condell: "Don't pray for me"

funny abortion comment on Yahoo News

On Yahoo News there is this story about a guy who's ex-girlfriend got an abortion, and he made a protesting billboard. (click me for story). Anyways, I just found this comment to be both an interesting point and kind of funny.

It's an interesting point because how many people alive today would choose (if they could) to have been aborted? Emo kids aside of course. 

Reason for my neglect of the blog.

The reason behind the lack of blogging is the lack of inspiration. Been distracted by some things in my life, but I will get back to blogging about atheism soon (maybe even now). I haven't been asleep at the wheel, but have been doing a lot of reflection on spirituality. Spirituality almost (or perhaps is) is a taboo topic for the atheist community, so I expect some atheists do not understand my fixation on it. Spirituality I believe is the most unexplored area of human experience—and it is a shame people are not more curious about it. Another topic I want to promote on this blog is meditation. Meditation is one of those things that if a person doesn't do, they wont understand why others do it—it takes a lot of work. But that's about it, hope to get back to blogging soon :)

Stay skeptical 

Weird pedophile commenter on this blog.

Alright, so I wrote a  post about pedophiles awhile ago, and this person left a very (at least in my opinion) disturbing comment. Here I'll just quote it...

"HAHAHH this is HILARIOUS! it says: to psot a comment, comment moderaiton is in place to filer out spam HATE SPEECH and TROLLING, the article is nothing BUT THAT
in what way is a looking at a woman as a sex object different form looking at a child as a sex objects, and we do not need medical asistance IF WE ARE NOT HARMING ANYONE
Children at the age of 12 in my opinion CAN CONSENT so it is the same, we do not support child molestation and rape but we will nto tolerant being told that we "need" medical asistance as if you are better than us ,we are the same I am no worse than u because I have a different sexual orientaiton
you are the type of guuy that wants us castrrated, that will not happen in a million year no will we get death sentence NO, we are NORMAL becuase normal DOESN'T F EXIST"


Click me for post comment is found on. 

Pedophilia is one of those things that I am very concerned about. As stated in the post this creepy asshole commented on, those that are found to be pedophiles should be dealt with so that they are not a threat to children. The fact that this guy claims that a 12 year old "can consent" shows me that he has probably had sex with children (giving an age of 12 is oddly specific), and obviously doesn't understand that a 12 year old IS not an adult. This person (UsersAgainstYouTubeDiscrimination) is the third pedophile to have commented on this blog. Obviously the internet is popular among pedophiles, if these disgusting individual's hard drives were searched (if there's a will there is a way), I would be willing to bet child pornography would be found, and many of them have probably had sexual encounters with children (or have thought about it). Keep in mind, people are wired to want sex, and those that are wired to want sex with children will be inclined to act on those urges. There is nothing more important than the protection of children. We have all heard those very common stories of a child being abducted, raped, and murdered.....you know what, here is an example video...

Obama on abortion

What an answer, lol. Obama clearly struggles with the issue of abortion. It's good that he at least reflects on the issue. For me, I wonder if he is pro-life for political reasons or out of genuine personal beliefs—sadly it's hard for me to tell. If he is indeed pro-life, he really should take a firmer stance on the issue....a person is rather pro-life or they aren't, and it's odd to see a pro-lifer be that unconfident about their stance. 

Jack Kevorkian is dead

I just read on Yahoo (click me for story) about the death of famous/infamous (depends on your view towards euthanasia) Jack Kevorkian. He died at the age of 83, so a good long life he lived. RIP

British Study: "human fetus cannot feel pain before the age of 24 weeks" (Monica Potts vs. Janice Crouse + pro-life atheist response)

This study shouldn't really matter in the argument for whether abortion is right or wrong. Why? Well, it implies that it is okay to destroy a human life because it cannot feel pain. In other words, that if a human life can feel pain, we shouldn't kill it. By this logic it is morally permissible to kill anyone, just as long as they don't feel pain.

"we believe life begins at conception" -Dr. Janice Crouse

That isn't a belief, it is a fact—Monica Potts actually debates that life doesn't begin at conception—that is a complete lie, that is the start of a life, we already know this scientifically (duh?). Pro-choicers are very illogical—pro-life is the only logical choice to make for those that value human life.

"having an abortion can be the most responsible decision they can make for that child" -Monica Potts

The mental gymnastics she goes through to justify killing human life. First she dehumanizes human life to justify it, then she is concerned about that life's interests. You can't have it both ways Monica. To destroy a perfectly healthy life, full of potential, is NOT looking out for its interests, but the bank account of the mother. I don't understand why woman that don't want children just don't go on birth control methods (mixing them is an obvious thing to do) or get themselves fixed—I prefer the latter.

"I think abortion is as old as time" -Monica Potts

Yeah, I bet Tyrannosauruses got abortions all the time. And of course, according to "Ms." Potts, even a billion years ago bacteria were getting abortions as well. I'm sure "Ms." Potts knows everything that happened throughout time—she would have to. Sarcasm aside, what a complete tool-bag. Again, it is so easy to see through the bullshit that pours out of her mouth to justify the destruction of human life. I bet this "woman" got an abortion herself, and of course she needs to make it justifiable in her little mind. I believe woman that get abortions should be unable to be mothers in the future—they obviously couldn't care less about the safety of their own offspring (if they are willing to destroy it for the sake of financial convenience).

Pro-life is the logical stance to take for those that value human life, it is the stance atheists should take. Many atheists sheepishly follow what they believe is the "atheist position" on issues—for those atheists—I would look to point out that many prominent atheists are pro-life, one of the best examples is Christopher Hitchens...and of course there are many others. Either way, at least think about the issue of abortion, don't just accept the talking points of the liberals for the mere fact that they are liberals, it is important.

As soon as a person recognizes the dehumanization of human life, they should automatically resist it (peacefully of course)—it is reasons like this that should motivate atheists (and all compassionate individuals) to resist the selfishly driven pro-choice agenda by arguing against it utilizing reason. Atheists are in a great position to debate abortion because we can't be dismissed as easily—many pro-lifers are dismissed as being "religion nuts", "illogical", "old-fashioned", etc.

#4 Spiritual Atheist: Why fear-based "spirituality" fails

Religions like Christianity and Islam are fear-based "spiritual" systems—and I quoted the word 'spiritual' for good reason. Below is a great example to get this discussion started...

Notice the last comment (left by deenznl)... it is a perfect example of what I am talking about. First of all, he believes we possess spirits, which is illogical. Any true spiritual person believes that we ARE spirits and POSSESS bodies. Also notice the fear-mongering—no truly spiritual person believes fear will lead a person to spiritual enlightenment.

"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed." -Buddha (click for source).


Spiritual truth is not found in a group, it is found in the self. Spiritual truth is not found out of fear, but out of inspiration. Religions like - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology (lol), and so on - don't inspire people, they use fear to get obedience. Religions like those listed are concerned with their own ends here on earth...not the only end that matters—the individual. Pseudo-spirituality has gotten in the way of true spirituality. True spirituality is only available to those that are not intellectually imprisoned by religion. Religions that peddle fear and call themselves a source of spiritual truth are false. Fear closes us off, inspiration opens us up.

Atheist Ayn Rand on Religion

Look at all the shocked Christians in the audience, priceless. 

Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs

I'm not a drug user, but this makes me happy from a sociological perspective. The decriminalization of drugs is going to rape the "gansta" thug culture. Crime in the inner-cities will go down drastsically, most crime is CAUSED by drugs being illegal (creating a black market). I'm a strong believer that drug addicts should be treated, not thrown into prison...which only exasperates their rebellious nature. Doing meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. are dangerous as hell, but so is jumping over a bunch of cars on a motorcycle. That isn't to compare the two, but both are dangerous, and both being illegal or not, would still occur. If being a daredevil was made illegal, it would become the forbidden fruit for the rebellious, and more would probably engage in that behavior. The same is said for why many teenagers drink alcohol, i.e. alcohol is the forbidden fruit for them. Decriminalizing drugs will remove the problem of drug dealers and the forbidden fruit aspect of drug-use. With drug dealers out of the picture, you wont have some asshole pushing drugs onto kids. Another benefit to the decriminalization of drugs is that a drug-users will be more likely to seek after help, without worrying about the consequences of doing so. Just my two cents :)

Dangerous drug-use is a medical and sociological problem, not a criminal problem.  

ItchiroCannotDie: "Why aren't YOU angry at God?" (video + response)

I've often wondered this myself. But then I think: When a threatening person is present, people tend to get angry or submissive. Christians are submissive out of fear, and many admit it; e.g. "I have the fear of God in me". Christians are afraid to hate God because they believe they can read their mind. Perhaps some people are "atheists" to 'get back at God'....but those people aren't true atheists (for obvious reasons). For a long time, as a Christian, I wanted it to be true, and I was looking for any possible way to justify my belief logically— fortunately I wasn't able to. A good Christian goes with the flow, a bad one questions their beliefs....and many bad Christians end up turning to atheism because of it. 

Feel sorry for atheists?

Many people feel sorry for atheists. For me, this is ironic as hell (npi), because I actually feel sorry for believers. Whenever I see a believer confronted with opposing views, they always seem to have that 'deer in the headlights look' in their eyes. For example, my sophomore year at college I remember that very look in a biology class when the teacher talked about evolution (and he made little jabs at creationism). I also feel sorry for believers because I believe they are missing out on a lot, that their beliefs instill fear, fear for the sake of the controlling religion. Anyways, this post isn't going to be that particularly long, but what do you think? Should atheists feel sorry for believers in this way? Why should believers feel sorry for atheists?

In reality, I don't think many believers (if any) actually feel sorry for atheists; they say that they feel sorry for atheists as a way of putting them down without directly attacking them. 

My first run-in with an atheist as a child

If you follow this blog, then you know that I used to be a Christian. This story is set back in middle school, in the gym locker room. Everyone was a Christian, or so we thought. For me, I didn't really grasp that there were non-Christians, at least in the United States. It turns out, we had an atheist amongst us in gym class. Once we found this out, rumors started to spread that he worshiped the devil and that when a cross touched his forehead it burnt it. At the time, I believed this atheist (and all atheists) was pure evil, and I didn't want anything to do with him (afraid that the evil inside of him would rub off on me). The kid was troubled, so it wasn't hard for us to associate him with evil; but what is interesting is how we associated atheists with being Satan worshipers, almost reflexively. It's hard to pin down specific memories (this was a long long time ago), but I remember that the common narrative of the time, at least in my community, was that atheists were evil. Obviously the association with atheists and Satan worshipers is still commonly made today, but not nearly as often, which really reflects the social progress atheists have made over the years. Yes, of course many children even today would believe atheists are devil worshipers, but this is probably only typical of those few children who are still indoctrinated (church attendance is much lower than it was 15-20 years ago).

Moral of the story - You don't know how wrong you are until you do....isn't that obvious? Well, it wasn't at the time. Us kids shouldn't have alienated that atheist kid—but, unfortunately we didn't know better—we weren't open to the possibility that we could be wrong. For those that are wondering, no, the atheist kid wasn't beat-up or anything like that, and we didn't harp on him for that long.

In short, don't hate a person because of the beliefs they possess, unless those beliefs motivate them to harm others. 

"The times they are a changin'" -Bob Dylan

Ironic spam in my blog's email

In my blog's email (atheistpnet@yahoo(dot)com) there was this highly ironic spam.

(Dear Truly God sent)


Please excuse this humble email if it offends your sensibilities, but I have
no other means to contact you. I cannot talk on the telephone, so I did a
search for your email address, which I found on the international business
directorate email data search. I am Mrs Barbara Brown, 52 years old woman, A
Christian widow who is dying of oesophageal cancers.


Recently, My Doctor told me that I would not last for the period of Seven
Months due to cancer problem, Yes I have been touched by God to donate an
amount of money Inherited from my late husband Smith Brown to you for the
good work of God on Charity" People in the Street and Helping the Orphanage
which my husband derived this money from his vast Estates and Investment in
capital market, I decided to WILL/donate the sum of USD$8.5 Million to you 30
Percent of the total money is for your personal use While 70% of the money
will go to charity" people in the street and helping the orphanage.
I will give you the contact of Bank Manager for the releasing of the specific
amount, my personal Referrence Number Law/WILL/ 9834520012. I will appreciate
your utmost honest in this matter until the task is accomplished as I don't
want anything that will jeopardize my last wish.
With Regards,
Mrs. Barbara Brown


The funny thing about all of this is that this is exactly the way religions work: They make big promises in an attempt to screw people over. Whoever sent me this bogus email would love nothing more than to suck my bank account dry. I would be willing to bet that the person that made this email is not an atheist. Not saying all atheists are perfect, but statistically it is much more likely that that is the case. This is a great metaphor, and sadly, many gullible people, like with religion, buy into the scam, and are sucked dry spiritually and financially by someone making big empty promises. I would be curious as to know the % of believers that fall for email scams vs. atheists; in other words, how many atheists fall for these scams vs. believers. 

No-one created everything (an atheist's response to GodLowDown)

"The big bang must require an external, transcendent cause"

Why? His argument, in reality, does nothing to prove the existence of anything.

"because logically the cause of the Big Bang must transcend the elements of the known universe, which includes space-time"

Why only the "known universe"? And why do these things need to have been created by intelligent forces? Do we even know that energy can be created? What if energy is eternal? What if over time, energy created its own complexity; because that is essentially what we are talking about here...complexity is what makes a human a human, not the physical matter itself. We don't know the exact process responsible for all of this, and that is exactly where it ends. Darkness is darkness, theists call it "God", atheists call it "unknown". Theists pretend to understand things they can't, and this closes them off to marveling and thinking about the big questions. Atheists are free to think about the big questions openly, theists are free to think "God did it".

Apparently words can do things, underlying the word 'God' is a bunch of smoke and mirrors...nothing about this supposed being is actually known, NOTHING! GodLowDown claims that God doesn't need a cause, blah blah. The universe needs a cause, but God doesn't, right...Again, nothing is known about this God, if such a thing exists, it would have to be very complex, and would have to had come about by SOME process (otherwise God wouldn't exist). God is magical, and magic and ignorance go together so nicely (it gives the human worldview some stability and euphoria). It is much more logically coherent to believe that intelligence came about from the unintelligent evolution of self-replicating patterns (not just biological). Playing the devil's advocate, let's say that God does exist, how does this guy know that God doesn't have a creator? All his video proved is how warped theist logic is. Atheists will always win the debate until the existence of God is proven (which, I believe, won't happen for another eternity or two). Atheists are claiming that God doesn't exists, and theists are unable to prove that God does exist. Atheists win by default, and both sides know it, they just love argue. Theists like GodLowDown need to study up on the concept of faith, and understand that it is not about proving anything.

Atheist: "How did all this complexity come about?"

Theist: "Oh God did it"

Atheist: "How can you possibly know that?"

Theist: "How else can we explain this complexity?"

Atheist: "How can we explain an unknown with another unknown?"

Theist: "With God"

Atheist's inner-monologue: "I'm sure glad my crib wasn't pained with lead paint"

Theist's inner-monologue: "And another atheist defeated, I'm so great"

Impossible to worship God

In this post I'm going to argue that even if atheists are wrong, and God does exist, it is impossible to worship him—and such a thing might as well not even be labeled 'God'. To clarify, there is zero evidence that God exists, only strong evidence to suggest that humans would personify their ignorance—as they do with all things they don't understand—such as when they get angry at inanimate objects like cars and computers (but that's neither here nor there).  

I believe that God is impossible to worship, this is because what God is and where God is located is unknown. Fortunately (for them) theists do not see the problem with this. But think about it, how can a being be a target of worship without at least some information regarding the actual being being available—any sort of description of physiology or at the very least, location. How is it possible to know what it is that you are worshiping if you don't at least have some information about this being? Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. worship the actions of a god and have no information about the actual being. The problem here is that they are getting ahead of themselves: the being must first be known of in order to give it credit for doing something...in other words, how can we know A is responsible for doing B when we can't know if A even exists? Wouldn't it logically make more sense to first prove that A exists? The point here is that God is impossible to worship, what is actually worshiped is an idea. Do theists deny that when they talk about God they are thinking? i.e. that thoughts are occurring? That if they got a nasty enough head-injury they wouldn't even know what the word 'God' means? Anyways, the point here is that theists worship ideas, that it is truly impossible to worship God (regardless if He exists or not).

I'm surprised more atheists don't utilize this type of argument more often. While theistic arguments are/have been demolished, it seems that this, philosophically, gets at the core of the issue.