APB #6: If only Adam and Eve didn't sin....

This blog post is going to be about what would have happened if Adam and Eve didn't eat the 'forbidden fruit'. Obviously I'm an atheist, so I don't believe the story actually happened—but, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (pun intended).

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve sinned because they ate a fruit, and then became embarrassed about their nudity. This caused them to cover their genitalia—which apparently angered God (God lost his eye candy). If Adam and Eve didn't sin by eating the fruit, all humans would still be naked. This shows that God's intention is for people to not wear clothes (i.e be naked), and that wearing clothes is unnatural/against God's will.

Isn't that such a heartwarming story?

What is the message behind it?

Don't eat fruit that will make you wear clothes?

It's as if God wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit...why else would he put the damn tree there?

The tree the fruit came from is called the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". Apparently being naked is evil, but why would God want people to not be aware of what is good and what is evil?

From an objective perspective, it's a weird story (a weird story among many in the bible). That's the nice thing about being an atheist, I don't need to seriously ponder such questions—unlike a Christian who has to make sense of nonsense like that. 

APB #3: Atheism is spiritually liberating

The image used in this blog post is one shot by the Hubble telescope. Thinking about the vastness of the universe is incredibly spiritual for me (as it should be for all people). Before I was an atheist, I was a Christian. I found theism to be incredibly limiting spiritually (this I noticed in hindsight). While many atheists have thought themselves out of thinking subjectively—such atheists are really ignoring the closest thing to truth that they can ever experience—the self. And it's a shame too...many atheists leave one spiritually limiting belief to take on others. Even though atheism doesn't necessarily cause people to ignore spirituality, it certainly has many associated beliefs that do. Anyways, a perfect example for how atheism can be liberating is the fact that many Christians refuse to practice yoga because they believe it is evil. An atheist is free to practice things like yoga and meditation without having to worry about what "God thinks". Obviously I can't speak for all Christians, but I remember how I felt discouraged to think about anything that went outside or contrary to what was taught by the church. I suppose that I had this paranoia about thinking the wrong thought, and ending up in hell. I suppose people have different interpretations and experiences with Christianity, but for me, going to atheism was intellectually very liberating—and it requires a free intellect to explore the subjective.

Attribution: image by NASA-hubble (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

APB #2: Abortion is immoral if...

Abortion is immoral if we place a value on human life. If you are pro-choice, this blog post will be like nails on a chalkboard. I've found that most atheists are pro-choice, which doesn't seem reflective of a group of individuals that claim to be 'thinkers'. I believe atheists are pro-abortion (pro-abortion = pro-choice) because many of them are overly objective, and are unable to understand the value of human life beyond its superficial appearance. The matter that makes up a human being is surely not what gives it its value (the matter that makes up each person can't be worth more than $10)—no, it is potential and joy of experience that gives life its value. Pro-abortionists argue their case by dehumanizing (by objectifying) human life by labeling it as 'a mere ball of cells' or 'just a fetus'.  Pro-abortionists refuse to think of human life as being human life (which is obviously delusional).

Pro-abortionists often point to how millions of sperm die on a regular basis, and that each one of them is a 'potential human life' in the same way that an embryo or fetus is (similar argument is made using the eggs). Again, this is an attempt to minimize the disgusting act of having an abortion (the killing of offspring). And it's a poor argument. It's like saying that a bullet and gunpowder are completely harmless—ignoring the fact that if the gunpowder is in a copper shell with a bullet, it has the potential to kill. Alone, the sperm and egg are not a potential human life, but when combined, the product is. Human life is more than the cells that make it up. It is the potential of pleasurable experience that makes life worth living (it is why we work and sacrifice), and to get an abortion is to deny an entire life—typically for the sake of convenience.

Pro-abortionists—I tend to find—are immature and illogical (at least when confronted with pro-lifers). Here is a good example of this. In this video there is an off-duty police officer spraying pro-lifers (who are doing a peaceful demonstration) with water and vinegar 

(Part 1)



(part 2)

This probably would have been a bigger issue if it was a pro-lifer spraying pro-abortionists during one of their demonstrations. Gotta love the media bias. This incident occurred in Ventura California, and according to a news report, no charges were filed. However there is some "internal investigation" within the police department. 

Benefits of an imaginary god?

Everyone (except atheists and agnostics) have an imaginary god. Are there psychological benefits to having one? I'm going to list the pros and cons of having a god. I used to have one before I became an atheist, so I feel this list is relatively accurate. (The list of pros and cons is not in any particular order.)

Pros:

- Source of confidence.
- Increased sense of control over surroundings.
- Feeling of loneliness is less present.
- "Sinners" are punished (making it easier not to hold onto hatred).
- Fear of death is easier to overcome.
- Increased sense of purpose.
- Increased sense of order in the universe.
- Feel safer.
- "Someone" to talk to about problems.
- Increased sense of belonging.
-Easier to attain peace of mind.




Cons:


- Potential feeling of always being watched/judged.
- Potential decreased ability to distinguish between objective reality and imaginary reality.
- Potential fear of nonbelievers.
- Potentially manipulated by those that claim to represent your god.
- Potential fear of science.


Those are all the pros and cons I could come up with at the top of my head. If you disagree, or wish to add things to the list, put the addition into the comment section, and I'll consider adding it. I'm an atheist that believes in belief, sorry (not really) to those atheists that want a hate fest. I see the belief in a god as a useful coping mechanism. Some people's minds are more suited for utilizing this coping mechanism than others (to put it nicely)--and even though I don't share this "ability"--I do respect its usefulness. 

Atheism =/= freethinking

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

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.

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.   

The Sex Bubble

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

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

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

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

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

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.  

My first run-in with an atheist as a child

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

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

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

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

Ironic spam in my blog's email

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

(Dear Truly God sent)


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


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


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

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. 

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. 

Pro-Life Atheist (arguments for why abortion is wrong)

Needless to say, I am a pro-life atheist. It should also be needless to say that most atheists are pro-choice.

Abortion is morally wrong, and can be easily argued against using secular-reasoning. While moral-relativists will attempt to twist logic to justify its practice, they are unable to do so without completely devaluing human-life.

In the below video, Sam Harris fails to present an argument for why destroying human-life (albeit young) is morally permissible.

Firstly, he claims that every cell in "your" body has the potential for creating a new life, which is dodging the issue by creating a fictitious scenario. There is a difference between potential and actual occurrence (hindsight vs. foresight). An embryo is human life that is actually occurring. The said life would develop into a fully functioning human being (excluding death via disease and murder). By his logic it is morally permissible for a mother to kill her offspring regardless of age. She could potentially have gotten an abortion in the past (which is impossible outside of this warped logic), which is "morally acceptable" if we accept abortion as being moral. The life could potentially have not existed at all, so it is not wrong to end it if we use our imagination. Using the imagination to create scenarios of what potentially could have happened in the past can be used to justify anything. Obviously we should be looking at what is actually occurring, and leave fantasy out of the debate.

As far as consciousness is concerned, it is impossible (at the moment) to know of consciousness outside of the self. We see life that is similar to us and assume it must have it, but we cannot know for sure. The consciousness argument (i.e. lack of consciousness in an embryo) doesn't hold water for the simple fact that we do not know what consciousness is. It is impossible for us to determine scientifically what does and what doesn't have consciousness. But, let's say that consciousness exists subjectively only if we are able to remember it (for the sake of argument, obviously memory of consciousness does not equate to consciousness itself). Does lack of consciousness completely devalue human life/potential? Is it morally permissible to murder someone after knocking them unconscious (referring to the act of murdering the unconscious, not the act of knocking someone out)? Of course people that are knocked unconscious have the potential to be conscious, given enough time, and the same is true for an embryo/fetus.

With his morally bankrupt rational I could justify the murder of anyone. For example, let's say I have an annoying neighbor. I go over to his house and put an end to his life (without going into the details). Me putting an end to his life is not murder because his life potentially could have ended on that day anyways (or shortly down the road). Besides, everyone is going to die eventually, right? If it wasn't me that killed him, something surely would have eventually. As long as I remember to make him go unconscious, it is morally permissible to do whatever I want with him. This logic doesn't sound as great now does it? Human life should obviously not be valued on the consciousness it has at a particular moment (we all have to sleep).

The point here is that many pro-choicers use their imaginations to distract them from what is actually occurring (making murder an easier pill to swallow). They create fantasies in order to distract and justify their wicked beliefs (to themselves and others). When human-life exists and a person acts in order to put an end to that life, that is murder by definition (if the life agrees to be killed then that is euthanasia, which is a separate issue).

The reality is that an embryo is a human life in and of itself (a very dependent one, like most humans are in one way or another), and will grow into a fully functioning human-being if it is not murdered beforehand. Pro-choicers create fictitious scenarios and use word-play as a means of dodging the actual issue. This is one area within the atheist community that disappoints me. It shows that many atheists are as sheepish as anyone else. Anyone that actually thinks about what is occurring here should easily see how immoral abortion is. Sociopathic individuals will warp reality and logic to suit their own ends, regardless if human life gets in their way. Of course for the practice of abortion to be morally acceptable (as well as not a crime) pro-choicers must do everything they can to convince others that they are not actually destroying human-life. Pro-choicers use their imaginations as a means of diversion as well as a means of dehumanizing human-life (which can't be done with any intellectual honesty).

If you agree with this, share it on Facebook (see buttons below).

Christians also need to start using secular arguments for debating abortion, God is not a convincing argument for atheists/secularists. 

The Limits of Human Logic: understanding the eternal

Christians (or similar types of creationists) believe that the universe is finite and God is eternal. They argue against atheism by asking "how can something come from nothing?". Which is a fair question, but then they jump to the "God must have done it!" argument.  It seems creationists are intentionally missing the forest full of trees here. If energy cannot come into existence from nothing (i.e. be created out of state of nonexistence), then it must never have been created and must itself be eternal. While this is very basic physics, many people are not aware of the law of conservation of energy. 

Here is the Wikipedia entry on the law of conservation of energy for those that don't know what it is...

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.


While I'm a layperson when it comes to physics, it seems to me that concepts such as time are a creation of the human mind (i.e. do not exist outside of human imagination). If energy just exists and flows around, it can seemingly do this for an infinite amount of time (can't be destroyed). However, if human-consciousness is destroyed, then does time still exists? There are people that get nasty head-injuries that can't remember the past. Hell (npi), when we sleep at night, we see that time is not as fluid as we perceive it when we are awake (it can flow faster or instantly bring a person several hours into the "future"). It seems to me that, as far as human experience is concerned, time is purely subjective. This is an impossible concept to truly wrap the head around, and an obvious failure in human logic.

I can say with certainty that time within the context of human experience is a product of the imagination. Physicists want time to exists; time seems like such a fundamental concept, for it to not exist would be a complete mindf@ck. In my opinion time is just the combination of all underlying factors that influence the rate of change in observable (which is meaningless without an observer) energy (and do so in a perceived reliable pattern, i.e. like clockwork). The human mind organizes information into patterns, when we observe things like the sun rising, we count it, and create the concept of days out of it (which allows us to create a measuring stick of time). If there were no patterns for us to observe, time would stand still, i.e. would cease to exist. Time (or at least our perception of it) seems to be our imagination connecting observable patterns together for the purpose of understanding (this creates the fabric of our reality).

Christians do this with God. They see babies being created, and extend that pattern out and falsely apply it to the universe (believing it must have been created by some sort of life-form). Atheists do a similar thing with the Big Bang, and often misunderstand that the creation of the universe does not equate to the creation of energy. The Big Bang is descriptive of the way in which energy was organised -- the big bang created no energy -- it merely reorganized it.

The point in all of this is to point out the failure in human logic when it comes to understanding the eternal. When contemplating the eternal, it makes me aware that my imagination is running wild, and I could never live in this world without it. Our imagination encompasses much more of our reality than we are consciously comfortable with, and it seems we are all living in a fantasy world. 

Atheists Are Emotion-Deniers!

Okay, maybe not all atheists are emotion-deniers. However, it seems that many (if not most) atheists attempt to totally shut off their ability to think emotionally. Like with morality, many atheists cannot tell the difference between right and wrong (or wont admit it because an irrational belief in moral-relativism).

Humans are emotional beings by nature, and require emotion to function properly in society. I believe that suppressing the 'emotional reasoning' part of the mind causes people to behave sociopathically. Moral-reasoning asses both logical-thinking and emotional-thinking (emotional-thinking in a bigger way than normal). If one of those types of thinking (emotional or rational) is suppressed, then a poor view of morality is created.

Another type of thinking that requires some emotion is empathy. Even though many atheists deny emotion as being real—which it is, subjectively, and our subjectivity encompasses everything. With subjectivity properly understood, emotion is just as real as logic, and it should not be denied as existing. And while many atheists suppress emotional-thinking, that does not mean they can completely get rid of this faculty, but it can be weakened (harming empathetical-intelligence, etc.).

Sadly, being able to think with some emotional-intelligence is important—obviously this type of thinking should not be suppressed. Having a well-rounded mind is better than having a mind that leans towards one area by suppressing another. Obviously most atheists are able to think emotionally. But, I would argue that those that are moral-relativists are emotionally-unintellectual—which is why when discussing concepts like morality, they look a-little "slow" like this guy in the video below...

What Atheism Is NOT!

1. Atheism is not a system of morality.

This means that atheists such as Stalin did not get their morality from atheism. Atheism is not nor should it ever be considered a system of morality.

2. Atheism is not a spiritual position.

An atheist doesn't need to not believe in an afterlife (there are many Buddhist-atheists for example). An atheist can maintain some spiritual beliefs, and as long as they don't believe in a god/gods, they can consider themselves to be atheist. Many atheists do not believe in a soul and/or the afterlife, but that does not mean all atheists hold such a position.

3. Atheism is not a scientific stance.

No matter what an atheist claims, atheism is not a scientific stance. What I mean by this is that an atheist does not need to believe in things like the Big Bang, biological evolution, and a round earth. Many of those that argue against the atheist position claim that all atheists believe these things, and while that may be typically true, it misses the point of what atheism is. A person can believe in the Big Bang, biological evolution, and a round earth and be a Christian (many Christians believe such things). The "you believe it all came from nothing" argument regularly comes about due to a misconception of what atheism is. If someone refers to themselves as an atheist this only means that they do not believe in a god/gods, and nothing more.

4. Atheism is not a political ideology.

Being an atheist does not mean you need to be a liberal. On many issues I find myself to be liberal, and many issues I find myself to be conservative. An atheist can be a conservative (Christopher Hitchens for example). This seems obvious, but many argue that all atheists are pro-life, anti-gun rights, pro-healthcare etc. For example -- I am pro gun-rights, pro-life, but also pro-government ran healthcare. It seems many people over simplify the political-views of the atheist community to have all atheists fit into a neat pro-choice, anti-gun rights, pro-democrat package, which is simply untrue (the atheist community is much more complex than that).

5. Atheism is not a religion.

I hear this claim made often, that atheism is a religion, and it takes faith to be an atheist. This is so obviously untrue, and this is because atheism has nothing that is descriptive of a religion. While many atheists may share many common beliefs, this does not mean those beliefs are exclusive to atheism (other than a god/gods not existing). Atheism is not a belief, it is a non-belief, and obviously it cannot be considered a religion anymore than having brown hair can be considered a religion.

I will probably add new things  about what atheism is not. Essentially atheism is nothing but a non-belief in a god/gods, and it is disturbing to see some that are trying to turn it into something more. Such as people that are trying to make atheism a political position (which is insane, and destructive, which I will get into later down the road).  

An Atheist's Life Has No Meaning?

The argument that an atheist's life has no meaning is often brought up. While whether or not life has meaning is meaningless in the debate for whether a god exists or not, that is not what is going to be discussed in this blog post.

Of course I cannot speak for all atheists, but from my perspective, my life has meaning. It should be no argument that meaning is created by conscious beings (even a god would be considered that). As humans, we seek to understand, it is our niche. The problem here is that there are certain mysteries that cannot truly be understood, and this is disturbing to some individuals that desire a  purely logical world. Ignorance motivates some individuals to learn, and it motivates others to make up fantasies that "feel good" and  provide a false-sense of purpose (typically to serve God). The only meaning of life a person can grasp comes from the self and those around them.

As an atheist, I believe even those atheists that claim life doesn't have meaning, are ignoring the meaning of their life for the sake of arguing religion. Many atheists even argue that things like color are not real, and this is a reflection that many atheists ignore the reality of subjective experience, and ignore their own individuality. For some atheists, all that is real must exist objectively, and unfortunately for such atheists, objectivity is only viewable through the lens of subjectivity. Not too stray too far off discussing the meaning of life, those that cannot appreciate the life they have will have a difficult time finding purpose and meaning in it. The meaning I find in life (people find other meaning, obviously), is to understand the processes that got me here, and to enjoy the ride (I'm continuing to contemplate my meaning, so that my answer can be more complete).

This is one area that many atheists fail in the debate with believers, they are often unable to give a serious answer with any emotion (great passion should always exist for an individual when contemplating the meaning of life, and I fail here to). When I see atheists give an answer for what they feel the meaning of life is, they typically do it sarcastically, or with no emotion (like they have given the meaning of their own existence little to no thought). Humans can find meaning in anything they desire, meaning itself is not a factual thing (which is another reason atheists have a hard time contemplating the meaning/purpose of life). In-fact many hard-core atheists try to avoid emotional thinking completely, and view emotion as a sign of intellectual weakness. But even those atheists that will not admit to meaning in life have some meaning that they refuse to admit (family, friends, enjoying hobbies, etc.).

One thing I want to avoid is to say that life has a definite meaning, I believe that the meaning of life should be up to the individual's interpretation. While many atheists believe that life is meaningless, this appears to be in contradiction with other beliefs; those that truly believe life has no meaning will quickly find the nearest bridge. In other words, most of those that claim that life has no meaning secretly find meaning in being melodramatic attention whores. Atheists, like in the field of morality,  need to put more of an effort into finding meaning in life. Meaning in life is one area believers are able to hold over the heads of atheists; it is not because their arguments are compelling, it is just because atheists have no good answer. If we want to make atheism more respectable and appealing of a position, morality and meaning in life need to be addressed in a more aggressive manner, instead of being ran away from with false-concepts like relativity, etc.

Keith Ward: Arguments for God's Existence (and an atheist's rebuttal)

It's great seeing a philosopher pretend to be an expert in biology and human-psychology (ego never gets in the way of pseudo-intellectualism). He assumes that God exists, then looks for God in everything. I wrote a poem a while ago that describes his way of perceiving the world perfectly.

ever look at the clouds?

stare up at them?

so many things to see

all sorts of objects

practically all of them

they work so hard

constantly creating

so many faces

so many boats

do they want credit?

it is impossible to know

The problem with many philosophers is that they get too hung up on "feelings", and are apparently unable to differentiate between feelings caused by beliefs vs. feelings caused by sensory input. In other words, they seem to rationalize that if people feel a sensation, that sensation must be caused by something "out there". And that something must be God! Creator of the universe! Why? because an old desert-book says so.

Any philosopher that believes God is a good explanation for the universe should find the nearest time machine and go back a few hundred years. All intelligent philosophers are atheist, or at the very least agnostic.

At the moment, there is no information to suggest the existence of God; therefore the idea of a God is apparently as man-made as a flat earth, and sin-causing disease. If something cannot be known to exist, then obviously there is no way to know about it. Atheism is a respectable position if the human psychology is understood and taken into account. We should be asking ourselves not whether or not there is a creator, but why we are asking the question when there is no valid reason to suppose there is one. We should understand the forces behind the way we process information (and not assume we process information correctly). If science has shown us anything, it is that we humans should not trust our intuition.