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.    

Talking to God vs. Talking to Yourself.

I'll admit it, I talk to myself all the time. Sometimes I even talk to the internet (which is what blogging is, and people are allowed to watch). But why is it so weird for people to talk to a "higher power"? During my more close-minded days, I used to make fun of people that would pray to God. Regardless if God exists or not (I have no way of knowing if such a being exists), is it any less rational to talk to yourself as oppose to what many atheists refer to as an "imaginary friend"? When you talk to yourself, you're really talking to an imaginary self. Sometimes we just need someone to talk with. It's not like anyone can be totally free of delusion anyways. Nearly everyone's (other than maybe some Buddhists monks) perceptions have inaccuracies, but there's such a thing as "useful delusions". At the end of the day being happy is what's important, and if praying to God or talking to yourself helps fulfill a psychological need, I say go for it. 

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. 

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.

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!"

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.  

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. 

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. 

Biased study on atheism.

If only truth was a democracy.

"popular Christian YouTube channel, shockofgod"

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

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

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

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

"my imaginary friend is better than yours"


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

Worshiping the actions of imaginary beings.

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

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

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

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

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

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). 

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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. 

"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.