George Zimmerman claims 'God's plan' underlying the shooting of Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman recently claimed that he believed it was "God's plan" that the Trayvon Martin shooting took place. Before I get into my belief in God's role in this situation, let me give my take on the case as a whole.

Unless you don't pay attention to the news, you are painfully aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting; the media has been going OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder [anxiety disorder]) regarding its discussion/informing of the case. The short of it is that George Zimmerman—a neighborhood watch volunteer—shot Trayvon Martin in what he claims was self-defense. The media has been pushing the perception that Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon was racially motivated and unwarranted. If you want to know more regarding the case, seek out your local Google website. 

At first I didn't buy the whole "he's racist" thing. But my opinion slowly turned around when family and co-workers came out of the woodwork to claim he was. In fact, a former co-worker (I believe a Muslim) claims that he harassed him because of his religion. 

To make matters worse, and while it isn't directly related, one of Zimmerman's cousins claimed that he molested her several times over a 10 year period (6-16 years of age, him being two years older).  

Random note: In the comment section of the molestation article I read (can't remember the exact article, I believe it was on Yahoo), this guy was defending Zimmerman's action saying that everyone "played doctor" at that age; stupidity on the internet is certainly not in recession. 

Keeping all this in mind, I'm going to step back and wait to see the results of the trial. On second thought, if I had a guy following me at night, I may get confrontational as well (probably wouldn't get physical). 

Is God responsible? Is this His will?

In my opinion, no; I don't believe this is a result of God's influence, but rather the opposite. The Bible is quite clear about God's perception of killing (one of the Ten Commandments) and hatred (Jesus said that to hate is to commit murder in the heart). If George Zimmerman is racist, he is certainly not following Jesus' teachings; Jesus said to not prejudge a person based on their outer appearance. In fact, Jesus taught non-violence; remember how he said that if someone slaps you in the face, slap the other side, etc.? 

Complexity and Creation: an argument that made me re-think atheism)

I believe in an intelligent creator of the universe. Do you? Without bogging you down with trivia, many scientists believe in a creator. In-fact, 40% of scientists believe in an intelligent creator; Francis Collins, the source of the mentioned statistic, is a scientist (Human Genome Project director) and also a believer. My point is that not all scientists are atheists. 


The Universe is much more complex than anything humans have created; in fact, it's even more complex than we can comprehend. Shouldn't that give us pause? To think such a thing could "just happen" seems ridiculous. The reason many are atheists today is because of two things:


1) Many famous atheists have presented articulate arguments against intelligent creation by attacking old religious scripture. 


2) There is a major disconnect between contemporary moral values and traditional ones; this creates the need for people to escape Christian values by formulating arguments against them. 


In this blog post, I'm going to address the first reason people become atheists. Sure, religious text (referring to Old/New Testament) can be argued against; especially if they are looked at with a narrow lens (literally and/or taking the text out of context). Let's say a portion of the Bible is capable of being argued against, does this disprove God (intelligent force[s])? No. It's like claiming that just because leprechauns aren't real, this disproves rainbows. More importantly, atheists miss the point of the Bible: the moral and spiritual lessons that are contained within. The bible is not intended to be a scientific book because it was created with a different methodology.



Evolution debunked as real science. 

Evolution is pseudo-science that has caused people to miss the forest full of trees—an intelligent force underlying the creation of the universe. As you read the following, keep an open mind; don't just view it with a hateful, biased attitude.

Atheists claim evolution disproves scripture (specifically Genesis; spontaneous biological creation via an intelligent force). Has macro-evolution even been shown to have occurred? No. The best they can show is micro-evolution; but micro-evolution has not been shown to be able to accommodate for all the structural complexity and speciation. Even those that use "micro-evolution" to breed different varieties of foods and animals know that there are limits to their meddling. At best, all micro-evolution has been shown to do is alter the representation of existing features (within a population), not create new ones. Micro-evolution's reach includes things like bone length, width, and density; hair color and texture; internal organ size and strength, etc.; skin color, texture, and thickness. There is a lot of room for variation among existing structures, but this capacity was known about way before Darwin. Darwin went wrong when he claimed that variation within a species was capable of creating entirely new species and internal structures. He claimed (with zero evidence) that with enough time, the most simplest form of life (known to us as 'bacteria') could transform into a multi-celled organisms as complex as human beings. There is simply no solid evidence that such an event occurred (bacteria > all modern life). It is all hopeful speculation on the part of scientists, but certainly outside of the scientific method; yet it's being taught as science. When scientists leave the realm of science and get into speculation, they are really outside of their domain (which limits them by the scientific method). Scientists simply have no evidence (only speculation) evolution is responsible for the complexity of life on earth, and let's not even get started about how life even got here to begin with (their speculation is even more scattered).

Sure, variation exists among populations, but when someone breeds a dog to have slightly longer fur, is any new complexity added? I'm talking about real complexity: some new evolutionary change that makes the animal's internal structure(s) more complex than its peers' (otherwise the species' population would always remain unchanging). Most biologists claim that "evolution took a long time", but what does more time get us? If it can't be shown to occur (increasing complexity) in the short term (even within a 1,000+ years) in even a minute amount, what is more time going to give us? I'm not talking about anything unreasonable; just the slightest little change that creates new, viable internal structures within existing species. Let me repeat, complexity has never been observed to increase, only speculated to increase. Yet with zero evidence (only speculation), we are suppose to believe that our earliest ancestors were bacteria—it just took "a long time". I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have faith in scientists' speculation of what happened; they are bound by the scientific method and anything that goes beyond that transforms them into laypersons. They have faith in an unproven concept (macro-evolution) because it seems more "scientific" than the religious explanation; they would rather go with that speculation than with one which seems even more unreachable—God.


A scenario to put scientific speculation into context


In an experiment, amino-acids (important building block of life) were created in a lab using basic materials speculated to exist on primitive Earth. Here's an example of what that would be like: Humans die off and all traces of our existence disappear. Aliens descend on this plant to study its life. They managed to discover this strange contraption, perfectly preserved in ice, with wheels and an apparent design....

Image by StaraBlazkova (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons 

It seems that there must have been a designer...but wait! Oil was discovered in it! Alien science has proven that oil originated by ancient plant life. Hmm, that must mean that with the natural production of oil, over a long period of time, machinery must have evolved around its use. I mean, the oil must have came first; without oil, the machine could never have functioned. Mystery solved, evolution is true! And complexity "just happened" *poof*. 


An intelligent creator is too hard to prove, probably impossible. Scientists don't like that. They prefer ends that they believe could be proven to occur (which is fair enough, speculation is an important part of the method, but requires evidence to support it before it can be considered true scientific knowledge). That said, I hope our search for the truth doesn't cause us to miss the forest full of trees like it did for the aliens.

The reality is that increasing complexity has never been shown to occur without the interference of intelligence, guiding the process. Scientists need to humble themselves with an awareness of their ignorance. They have blurred the lines between speculation and scientific knowledge.    

I used to be an atheist...

I used to be an atheist. Now I'm busy working on being a good Christian. I was converted back after reading a book about evolution and humanism from a Christian perspective. It made a lot of sense to me. Honestly, looking back now I can't believe that I fell for the lie of atheism and humanism (two heads of the same coin, which only diminish the greatness of humanity and the universe we inhabit...not to mention the creator). Atheism is certainly very pervasive in american society, and it needs to be met head-on. The further we move away from the moral truth (Christianity), the worse society becomes. On this blog, I'm looking to debate atheists. I'm willing to bet many atheists are out there that would absolutely love to debate (they are more trying to convince themselves than convert others to atheism). Again, I used to be an atheist, so I know how their minds work. 

Thoughts as a source of entertainment

During the "good ol' days" religion was much more influential. I believe religion was one of the best sources of entertainment for people during the time before things like television, music, etc. It's not that people have stopped using religious ideas to entertain themselves, but there is a lot more competition (things today are just more entertaining). Back a long time ago, probably the most entertaining thing they did was attend church.

Of course even atheists keep themselves entertained in this way (thinking philosophically, thinking about science, contemplating the universe, etc). There are two important things to consider here:

1). An idea doesn't need to be logical to have an emotional effect
2). If an idea is believed, it will have a stronger effect

The importance for a believer is how the belief makes them feel. Thinking about the concept of heaven, and truly believing that one will someday be there, would certainly feel good. It's obviously not heaven being real which makes a believer feel good, but the idea of heaven. This is why Christians are so passionate (i.e. emotional) when defending their beliefs, and obviously the more people that believe an idea, the more believable it becomes. People are the same way with their drug of choice. For example, people who drink often will ignore and/or get angry at people who openly talk about the negative effects of alcohol.

People are nutty about defending their sources of entertainment. Me, I get some joy out of writing about atheism (and the other things I write about on my other blogs). And of course, I can easy get emotionally involved when defending my atheism (although I try not to). Sometimes I find it entertaining to debate hot-topics like morality or politics.

Getting back on point, many people, when they are bored, like to daydream. Even if the daydream is not based in reality at all, they still enjoy doing it. But for religion, it's (as stated before) a double-whammy because the actual thoughts (done through prayer, etc) cause good feelings and the ideas are believed to be truth (like heaven for you and a hell for your enemies...a fantasy that would make even an atheist feel entertained, and if it was believed to be real it becomes that much more powerful).

Today people aren't so reliant upon religion (and many people go to atheism because it is more fun to believe in evolution and science, and not be as morally restricted [for good or for bad]). In modern times being an atheist (for many) is just more fun, unlike the past, where being a believer was the most entertaining option. People only care about truth so long as it entertains them in some way (keep in mind that being afraid and/or angry can be entertaining).

Life must be boring if the most entertaining thing you have to do is pray to an imaginary friend, keep that in mind the next time you surf the internet or watch a movie. 

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 people believe what they do.

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

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

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

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

"How can atheists believe there is no God?"


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

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

Disturbing process of becoming an atheist?

Scary title right?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worshiping the actions of imaginary beings.

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

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

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

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

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

bloodvile: "TheAmazingAtheist is wrong"

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

Joe Rogan on religion/morality

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

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

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

Why do believers hate atheists?

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Haggard Apologizes to Gay people

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

Pennsylvania Diocese Facing Financial Drain (from abuse lawsuits)

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

How To Disprove Atheism

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

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

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

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

An Atheist's Perspective on Euthinasia

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

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

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

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

Ray Comfort's dog is an atheist?

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

Atheism is Moral Relativism?

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

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

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

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

why hope is bad for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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