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. 

Why I left Atheism

Caution, the following may seem a little disorganized. It was written in a state of flow, and not thought out and organized beforehand (I hate writing like that, blah). 

It is in my opinion that atheists are wrong in their certainty of an unknown. I used to be an atheist, but I found the position ironically requires faith to maintain (and a belief in an all-knowing, all-aware self). It's without question that this universe is a complex thing, and to make matters worse the ability to be aware of the self is another one of those big unknowns. It's a shame that atheists close themselves off to certain spiritual experiences. It's fairly easy to experience the presence with an open heart (love being what opens it). The reason I consider myself to be an 'agnostic' is because I am ignorant of the underlying source of it. Of course I have no way of knowing that such a thing is capable of creating a universe and/or able listen to and answer prayers. But I definitely see how the "higher power" can be a source of strength for people, regardless of what it is. Without a doubt it does exist on some level (even if it is only in the mind). So yeah, atheism is not a good position to take. I find that most atheists (especially the outspoken ones) are those that have felt pain as a result of religion (obviously not from God, which is not a painful experience). It's easy to attack religion (which I have done a lot of in the past), but when it comes to God, it's one of those things that need to be experienced. It's outside of our external senses, so we have a tough time describing it. In fact, the only word that comes even close to describing it is 'love'. Many people in today's society are afraid of love, and this is why they have trouble with relationships in general, it is why the rate of depression and other mental disorders are on the rise (depression is a spiritual illness because its source is the core of our being in the same way that love is). The word 'love' has been labeled as being cliche and corny in society, and we wonder why society is suffering today.

1 John 4:8 is a bible verse that, I believe, gets at the heart of all of this.

"Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love"


If God is love, then it's hard to deny that God cannot be experienced. So essentially atheists don't believe love exists. 

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. 

atheist's morality vs. believer's morality

I've written blog posts that entertained the idea that atheists are more immoral, along with blog posts that entertain the opposite. Besides being a person that often changes their mind, I see valid arguments on both sides. From one perspective, atheists are harder to control. I don't believe many atheists would argue that point. But on the other, atheists base their moral decisions on reason, not fear (which isn't really morality, but self-preservation). If I was a dictator, let's just say I would have a much easier time controlling the population's behavior utilizing religion than rationality. And that isn't to say that religion is totally irrational, but those are the best words to label (at least in my opinion) the difference between atheistic morality vs. religious morality (atheism being based, hopefully, in reason).

Ignoring the illogical stance of moral-relativity (sadly many atheists possess this delusional belief), atheists, when confronted with a moral dilemma, will use their capacity for empathy along with logical thinking to come up with an answer. A believer in God will defer to the bible or their religious leaders—in other words, no thinking required on their end. In general this is the problem with Christianity (and other similar religions) is that there is no critical thinking required—in fact it is often frowned upon.

The only argument against atheist's morality is that some people can use reason to justify horrible behaviors. But, as we all know, religious people do this as well, the only difference is the use God as a scapegoat. In general I've found that most atheists are good people, no one is perfect, but understanding why moral behavior is good is much more useful than blindly following orders. 

Thunderf00t Vs. Westboro Baptist Church (hilarious, much watch!)

"You're a filthy pervert"

Oh, that is probably the most hilarious thing ever. When the bible says "when one man lie with another man" or "sleeps in the same bed", it is referring to homosexuality (duh?). It's funny how easily offended and insecure those woman are. Thunderf00t made their day complete. I bet that is the last time the Westboro Baptist Church members have an interview with an atheist :P

Atheism and moral-relativity

Atheism is often linked (wrongly) with moral-relativity. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that moral-relativity is NOT morality, but a belief system that seeks to destroy morality. Many famous atheists try to promote moral-relativistic ideas under the banner of atheism, and impressionable herd-atheists automatically accept these ideas. The great majority of atheists are not freethinkers in reality (most people in general aren't), they blindly follow atheists leaders in the same way that Catholics follows a priest. It is especially the herd-atheists that typically are moral-relativists, those that go to the moral-relativism stance on their own are just not very "bright". For those moral-relativistic atheists that are reading this, think of an actual example for where moral-relativity applies. And remember, I'm looking for an ACTUAL example, not a made-up one.

The fact of the matter is that there are right and wrong answers to each and every situation. Moral-relativists use fantasy to imagine how moral rules don't apply in every situation, and this allows them to ignore the rule completely (and/or ignore individuals that violate moral rules). I've written many posts going into detail for why moral-relativity is stupid (just search for "moral-relativism" in the search bar at the top).

The biggest problem I see with atheists associating atheism with moral-relativity is that it creates the false assumption that people can only be moral if they believe in God. In other words, that without a belief in God, a person can't be moral. If a person claims to be a moral-relativist, people automatically assume they are an atheist (which is obviously another problem altogether). It makes people assume that atheists are all amoral or immoral, which isn't the case for all atheists. We are beings that do exist, and there are behaviors that promote psychological well-being and flourishing, and behaviors that do the opposite. There are moral answers to all questions, the "anything goes" moral system is bogus. And it makes the atheist community look bad when an atheist promotes such nonsensical ideas.

Pat Tillman's family insulted for being atheists by Army

It seems that only atheists are offended by atheists being attacked like this. If a similar statement was said about a Muslim in the military, it would have been a much much bigger issue.

While it seems trivial here, atheists don't believe in 'nothing' (would be impossible). Atheists believe in things, we just accept our ignorance and don't believe a god exists. Some atheists believe there is nothing after death, but this doesn't mean all atheists do. But even if an atheist doesn't believe there is anything after death, this doesn't make them any less of a person. This a major empathy problem, it seems some (more or less) members of the military lack this trait. We always here about some dumb-ass in the military saying or doing something terrible (like rape, torture, and so on). It seems the military needs to work on its empathy skills a little bit, it has killing down pat.

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!"

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

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

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

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

God should love atheism

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

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

Richard Dawkins on Islamic fundamentalism

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

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

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

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. 

Abortion is immoral

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

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

"just a ball of cells"


"isn't self-aware"


"is no different than killing skin cells"


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

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

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

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