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. 

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. 

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.

Atheist Officer Resigns From Military

This video was made in 2006 (ancient in YouTube years), but I'm sure discrimination against atheists is still a problem in the military. Being that the military is run by the state, it is really hypocritical to claim that there is a separation between church and state. Atheist or not, a person should not be subject to discrimination based on there beliefs (or lack there of). I tend to find that believers are much more paranoid about the beliefs of others than atheists are. While some atheists get all worked up over trying to convert the world, it seems to be a drop in the bucket when compared to Christians (% wise). 

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. 

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. 

Coughlan's obsession with gay porn and Thunderf00t

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

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

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

Abortion is immoral

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

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

"just a ball of cells"


"isn't self-aware"


"is no different than killing skin cells"


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

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

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

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

Pat Condell on Osama Bin Laden

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

An atheist's perspective on evil.

Does evil exist? 

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

What is evil? 


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

Why don't many atheists believe in evil?


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

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

We are all delusional (yes, even atheists)

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

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

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

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

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

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.