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. 

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.

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

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

Why do believers hate atheists?

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism VS Religion for dummies with Richard Dawkins!

I think labeling anyone as being anything is wrong. A person cannot be a belief, they can possess beliefs, but a person cannot be what they possess. Obviously it is easier to label someone as an atheist, Christian,  Muslim, etc., but it seems to easily allow for dehumanization. Obviously it takes longer to enunciate, but it would be better (and more accurate) to describe a person as "a person who holds Christians beliefs" etc. For example I would say that I possess the atheist stance within the context of religion, but I am not a lack of a belief, I am a human. People don't obviously just do this with religion, but do this with sports teams, political parties, and so on; and this causes us to unconsciously/consciously dehumanize those that we disagree with. 

Nations dominated by atheism are more peaceful.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Atheists are more peaceful because they tend to have a much more realistic views of the world by basing their thinking in logic instead of emotion/faith. How a person thinks greatly influences how they act, which is so very true here. Religion causes violent behavior, I know, call the press....

I believe one of the biggest reasons for why atheist nations are that much more peaceful is because they are not as paranoid. Believing that an all-powerful being is constantly watching/judging probably makes many people go nuts. People are scared to death of the government turning into big-brother because they already know what that feeling is like. Paranoia is the leading cause of violence, and religion creates a sense of paranoia for many reasons (topic for another day). 

Atheism is a religion!? (response to shockofgod)

What a joke. Atheism is not a religion, and anyone that believes such a thing is an idiot. Atheism is the lack of a belief in deities, it doesn't matter if some moron claims that it is a religion, it doesn't make it so. Like many of his kind, shockofgod follows one confirmation-bias after another. When there is an idea that he believes/hopes to be true, he ignores all information that goes against it. On the other hand when he finds some information that (in his mind) confirms his beliefs (like unintelligent-atheists not understanding the definition of a word), he grasps onto it and thinks "LOOK, I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!".

"My problem with atheism is that it is faith in nothing"

I  find that argument so blissfully-ignorant that it is almost refreshing. I'm beating a dead horse, I know, but to not believe in a deity does not take faith. It's like claiming that it takes faith to not believe in unicorns.  Shockofgod understands very well the weaknesses of his side of the argument, and it's pathetic the way he tries to apply those weakness to atheism (obviously he fails miserably, making an ass out of himself).

Many of the scientific claims in the bible (God's word) have been debunked by science, so obviously science supports atheism (an all-knowing god would know the world was round, and disease was caused by sin, obviously). On the other hand, science has done nothing to support the existence of any deity.

Atheism is the default position, the main reason it slips into the human-mind is through the indoctrination (brainwashing) of children. Keep in mind, children will also easily believe in tooth-fairies and boogie-men (or really anything that seeps into their imagination), so religion is easy for them to accept as fact, and if nobody tells them the truth, they will hold onto that belief into adulthood. Children believe anything/everything they are told (especially if it is by a perceived authority figure), they are like sponges, and like much information children absorb, so will a sponge soak up shit. 

Justice In An Atheistic-World vs. A Religious-World (a poorly written, ranty blog post)

Many people believe that an atheistic (godless) world is void of justice, and allows for many bad people get away with their crimes; that if everyone was an atheist, there would be no morality etc. Anything and everything would be permissible (e.g. murder, rape, stealing) in an atheistic world. But it seems that this sort of world would exist regardless (as it does/has with religion).

While religion perhaps may scare some individuals into behaving morally, it doesn't seem to be enough for many. In-fact, from what I've seen, atheists are often less violent/confrontational than believers. This is, I believe, because atheists tend to be more rationally-minded, and a more rational person will be more likely to behave morally. It is when we put all our eggs in the basket of emotional-reasoning that we do things that we regret (doing things in the "heat of the moment"). A more rationally/logically based world would lead to a world with less crime and more justice. It's hard to justify things like war and inequality without religion. Look at Bush for example—after 9/11 he used a lot of religious-rhetoric to stir people up in-order to invade a people that had different a set of religious beliefs (if it were a German-born terrorist organisation we would not have invade Germany). If we were thinking with more logic/rational, we would never have invaded Iraq. It is emotional-reasoning that typically gets us into wars. This is why an atheistic-world would be better in my opinion. Emotional-reasoning comes from the primitive parts of our brain, and when people are tapping solely into that area they tend to act Neanderthals.

It seems that an atheistic world would be more inclusive of individuals vs. having the strong in-group/out-group mentality caused by religion (like it does with sports teams, but in a much larger way). Bush, for example, was a very religious person, and he did a good job at dehumanizing our "enemy". Obama is not that religious (possibly a closet-atheist) is much more sensitive to these issues, which is why he has changed up some of the labels (like "terrorist" etc.). It seems that atheists are more empathetic (empathy requires logical-thinking). Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems in all wars we had to have dehumanized our enemies in order to wage it. It is very easy to dehumanize someone using religion and religious labels (they are Muslims! etc.). An atheist-world would see the nonsense of labeling someone as being a belief (it is impossible be a belief). Using logic, it is easy to see that people are people, and should not be devalued in any big way based on their beliefs alone (unless they believe in things like pedophilia, or cannibalism). A religious person often will view someone of a different religion as being sub-human. I remember hearing a Christian (obviously doesn't represent all Christians) talking about how we should just nuke the entire middle-east, that Muslims follow a demonic-religion, and shouldn't be considered human etc. And this is why a religious-world is filled with violence and war. Dehumanizing people causes humans to treat other humans like non-humans.

Obviously not all dehumanization is caused by religion, but dehumanizing has been caused by religion, and I am arguing that for a war to be waged a people must dehumanize their enemy. It it logically impossible to dehumanize humans (for obvious reasons), and I believe it takes certain distorted, emotionally-based beliefs to cause dehumanization (which is the greatest cause of injustice in the world).

Long story short, the world is becoming more of a just place because it seems to be becoming less religious. Look at the most unjust places on earth, and those places are probably very religious, and vice-versa. Religion does not offer a sense of justice. Like I just bought a chicken-club sandwich, and it doesn't even have mayo on it, it's drier than a desert. A less religious world would be much better it seems. Obviously in an atheistic world we still have problems with teaching/continuing to define morality, but religious-morality is a bit dated. And if atheists go with concepts like moral-relativism, then we are in trouble as well. How we define morality is very important, and if any behavior can be considered permissible given the perspective, then we as a species will see a decline. Defining what behavior is moral and what is not, not only should be done, but needs to be done. It is difficult to get some people to behave morally without a fear of hellfire, sadly (but that's a topic for another blog post).

An atheist world I believe would be more empathetic, and more inclusive of all humans. Given the current trends, the world will probably have a majority atheist population in a relatively short time. I believe, if we are able to effectively teach morality without religion, the world should be a more peaceful place. God is the greatest divider of people that we have ever seen, nothing else other than religion can cause such dehumanization to occur. Will the world ever be totally atheistic? It's a mere matter of time...

The Placebo Presence

I think many atheists by merely reading the title of this blog post already know what it will be about. I suppose this post is more oriented towards those believers that claim to believe because of certain sensation/feelings.

Believers often claim that there is proof of a god's existence because they can feel its presence! They believe that because they feel a presence, there must be some outside force causing this to happen. This isn't exclusive to God/gods; many other examples of sensations that are perceived as being caused by an outside force are really caused by certain cognitive behavior.

This of course is perfectly understandable, given the way the mind processes reality. It is not obvious to all that the way in which the body reacts to certain external stimuli can also be generated by the imagination. It is common knowledge that the mind on a subconscious level cannot make the distinction between reality and fantasy (or imagination vs. external input). In other words, a person using their mind's eye to imagine a god existing will cause their body and subconscious mind will react as if there was actual sensory input. Here are a few examples...

There was a girl named Jessica, she was 5 years old. She was terrified of the dark, and obviously, as well as going to sleep.

Why was she afraid?
Well, because she believed..
no....
she KNEW there was a boogie-man in her closet!

Why did she believe this?

Her big brother told her all about this fictitious creature (he left out the 'fictitious' part of course). Being that she looked up to her brother, she naturally believed everything he said. Every time she would lay down in bed, the boogie-man would enter her mind, and she would feel as if this monster was in the room with her.

We all have been around people/animals that make us feel uneasy, we associate certain sensations with certain experiences. Being that the sensations and the supposed cause of the sensations are often linked subconsciously and consciously, they are often perceived as being the same. This is why some people, when they feel a presence, believe the feeling is caused by some external force (they are unaware that the imagination can cause these "feelings" as well).



Another example of this can be done very easily. Imagine in your mind's eye that you are holding an orange.
Imagine peeling the orange, and while doing this, experiencing the sweet, citrusy smell. Now imagine taking a single slice, and slowly chewing it; imagine all the texture, taste, sounds, etc. By now your mouth should be filling up with saliva.

This example should be very straight forward, and it is similar to what happens when a person imagines a god-like being is there with them (protecting, loving, and guiding).




My last example is about the clouds, and more importantly, those that look for faces in them. If a person stares hard enough into the clouds (assuming there are some in the sky), they will probably be able to find something that resembles a face fairly easily. Obviously the faces are not really there, and that is the point.

Humans are wired to look for faces in things in the same way we look for the sensations associated with being loved, protected, and under guidance. Being that people look to experience those things, it is the sensation that is important to them, not the evolutionary purpose. God is probably as intended as the invention of contraceptives from the perspective of evolution; i.e. humans cheating the reward system by going around the reason for it.

If you got this far, thanks for reading my post :)

This understanding is very important to atheists that wish to debate the whole "feeling a presence" thing that believers often bring up.

Are The Greek Gods Making A Comeback?

I'm not sure if this guy is joking or not, he seems very serious...

This is his website....
http://www.templeofthegreekgods.org

Isn't it fascinating the things people will believe in? Obviously people like this are beyond help, you cannot use rational to argue with someone that believes in Greek gods :P

*unleashes horde of atheist-trolls*

Thunderf00t: Newton's Christianity (response to VenomFangX)

Atheism =/= Moral Relativity (an atheist's rant on morality)

If you are an atheist, and out-of-the-closet, chances are you have come across the argument that atheists have no source of morality. When they do this, they imply that an atheist cannot know the difference between right and wrong etc. In-fact, many atheists use the argument that all morality is relative. It seems both sides (atheists and believers) let their imagination get the better of them. For those atheists that view morality as being relative are ignoring the function of morality. Morality is (at least in my opinion) behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society (consciously or unconsciously).

For example, the statement "it is immoral to cheat on a spouse" is a true statement. However, many atheists will use their imagination to think of a scenario in which this statement wouldn't be true. This kind of moral reasoning misses the point. It cannot be denied that a society full of cheaters (especially before birth control) would leave many individuals without a fully-functioning family. A woman is hard-wired to not want their husband to run away with another woman, leaving her all of the burden of raising the kids; on the flip-side the guy doesn't want to waste energy raising some other man's child (the fruit of his energy-input is the passing on of his genes). If morality is behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society, then cheating in the general, realistic sense, is morally wrong.

The famous atheist author Sam Harris wrote a book claiming that morality is behavior that is beneficial for the well-being of conscious creatures. But I'm feel that this misses the evolutionary purpose of pain and pleasure (psychological or physiological). While it is true that there is a hardwired desire to feel good, and to avoid pain, the purpose of both are not for our enjoyment, but our survival (and exclusive to humanity, unless applying a certain morality to animals is beneficial for human-society). When we notice a certain behavior causes pain, this is the body/brain's way of telling us that we need to change course. Also, if we feel good, that is the body/mind's way of rewarding/creating incentive to continue what it perceives as good behavior. As stated before, the purpose of this is to provide behavioral guidelines.

As a social species, there are certain behaviors that are harmful to functionality of a society, and behaviors that are beneficial (but this does not imply relativity). While not all societies have the same functioning characteristics (morality), it cannot be denied that some societies function better than others. The reason morality is not completely instinctual is because human society is taking on factors that are previously unknown.

Also, I think morality should be divided up into two groups: instinctual/learned (i.e. hard-wired/soft-wired). Being that our species, from an evolutionary standpoint, is going into uncharted territory everyday, the old hard-wired behavior can be very problematic—this is where our learned-morality comes into play. Learned-morality is cognition that overrides perceived harmful-instinctual behavior.

All of this is to enunciate the point that not all behavior is created equal within a human society. There are moral truths within this society. An atheist can imagine circumstances in which a behavior that is normally beneficial to the functionality of a society (moral) would not be, but this is dodging the question. I.e. moral relativism is a pseudo-intellectual's way of dodging reality. No thoughtful atheist should argue moral relativism. If this is to become an atheist-world, we must stop dodging moral questions. Whether we atheists want to admit it or not, religion took on a big role for providing our soft-wired morality. As religion goes, so goes the soft-wiring we have relied upon as a society for many many years. As our society continues to evolves, so will evolve our hard-wired/soft-wired morality. It is not good that we have relied so heavily on religion to provide our soft-wired morality, with it gone, we are left with a void that must be filled (otherwise the functionality of society will suffer).

If you are an atheist reading this, try to think about moral questions in the context that I laid out; there are moral-truths to be found in this reality, never dodge the questions by imagining other realities (makes you and the atheism you represent appear void of morality). If you are a believer, then continue to argue against atheists that continue to believe in moral relativism by using secular-reasoning (instead of religious, which an atheist will easily brush off).

Be a thinking atheist, not one that avoids the truth.

Closeted Atheists (and why it is not bad to be "in the closet")

Many atheists promote the idea of closeted-atheists (atheists that don't make their atheism known) to "come out". I have mixed feelings about atheists "coming out". An idea that I feel is more important to promote is that everyone else needs to get into the closet. Beliefs about whether a talking snake or virgin birth happened (or didn't) should be kept private; i.e. people need to realize that religious beliefs, or lack their of, should be kept private. Some people find great enjoyment out religion, I don't feel that us atheists need to shit on their beliefs; it's not like such people will be making any big contributions to science any time soon, just let them be.

Everyone should be in the closet, keeping their beliefs to themselves. Now, when among friends, of course things like this can be talked about. But people don't need to go out of their way to tell everyone when/how the universe came into being. In the end, a believer's world-view (and an atheist's) is dictated by certain ideas. In the context of day-to-day life, does it really matter if someone believes 4+ billions years old? Does it really matter? I believe that religion (and lack of) shouldn't be an important social issue.

Of course those that push their religion onto others can/should be challenged. I believe the ideal is not a world filled with all atheists, or believers, but a world in which people keep such ideas private. Not everyone is as interested in science as an atheist is. Science is a great thing, but it is not everything, not everyone needs or wants to be scientifically literate (and it should not be forced on them). Atheists tend to be logical thinkers, the religious tend to be emotional thinkers. Not everyone will get as much joy out of understanding science that you do (you know who you are)! The enjoyment an atheist gets from science, another may get out of religion. It seems as if the important thing is that people are enjoying their lives, and making the lives of the people around them enjoyable as well.

Some may believe that I am being hypocritical here. For having an atheist-geared website that often attacks religion; but I would argue that not looking to convert people. I am looking to educate those that are misinformed about what atheism is and what atheists believe (not all atheists have the same beliefs, which is another understanding I try to get out). Some believe that atheists are worshipers of Satan, for example. And I believe those that make public claims about atheists being Satan worshipers etc., should be challenged. But that does not mean that atheists need to be running around trying to rid the world of religious belief (will make the religious defensive, and cause more in-group/out-group friction). It also does not mean that an atheist needs to disown the culture of a religion as well. For example, Jesus had many good moral teachings, I see no problem with an atheist using Jesus (for example) for moral-education. Moral education is something that I believe our society needs. In-fact, I believe morality should be a basic class taught in schools, focusing just on morality (leaving the supernatural connections out). In morality class, figures like Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, etc. and what they taught could be learned about. Secular reasons for why morality is good could/should be thought about.

Anyways....

Let people decide what they want to believe, I came to atheism on my own, and I believe people should be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe.

Creating groups through labeling is a just bad idea, it causes too much in-group/out-group mentality which leads to people dehumanizing others because they have ideas different than their own. Judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.

religion may not always be a bad thing (from an atheist's perspective)

This is a rant on why I think the world is not quite ready to be completely god-free.  There may be some errors, just read through them if they exist.

Many atheists (I have been guilty of this myself) believe that their set of beliefs are the both the best for themselves and the best for everyone else. This is one big similarity among both believers and nonbelievers. Would the world be a better place if everyone believed in a god (I'm intentionally not be specific)? Would the world be a better place if no one believed in a god and took on a relativism view of morality?

My stance is different than most outspoken atheists. I do think that religion has its place, and that perhaps it should have more of a place in certain people's lives. To focus on atheists for a bit, I believe that atheists can be divided up into two groups (while there is a continuum, it is easier to label). You have atheists that hope that there is no God due to an awareness of their own moral short-comings—hoping they will not be punished by hoping their is no punisher. Then you have the atheists that don't believe in a god, not because they hope that there isn't one, but because they can rationalize that it is very improbable (those atheists typically refer to themselves as 'agnostic'). In other words, you have your open-minded atheists (sadly, some minds are too open), and your close-minded atheists (unable to think outside the box, will cognitively deal only with what is already known). Also, a close-minded atheists has a difficult time understanding subjectivity.

A close-minded atheist is typically a person who came to atheism because they were made aware of that alternative view of the world by someone else (I like to call them 'sheep-atheists'). All people (excluding rare minorities) can be moved towards a view of non-belief, given enough time to soak up the information destructive to their previously held world-view. What I am claiming is that being an atheist alone does not make a person "special" in any way. Some use atheism as a way to escape perceived moral obligation so that they can more easily obey impulsiveness. Such people would probably behave better if they did believe in a god (pain vs. pleasure rational is so easy to understand a mouse can do it).


Much of religion deals with moral questions, and views morality as being objective (oftentimes "created by God". Morality is a set of beliefs that battle harmful impulses for what is perceived as being good. If all humans naturally behaved well, concepts like morality and ethics would not be needed. Oftentimes our beliefs sharply contradict our impulses, and this contradiction is where the concept of morality is formed.

Many atheists claim that "morality is innate", and that may be true in some cases. For example, it is "immoral" to cannibalize (certain obvious exceptions), and that is innate within the vast majority of humans (who may get sick at the mere though of it). But, I would not say that all people that don't eat humans are behaving morally, but naturally instead. But, on the other hand, people that do eat other humans are behaving immorally (immorality = lack of needed morality to prevent harmful impulsiveness).

Religion has caused many individuals to rebel against their nasty impulsiveness (and the reverse could be said as well). Many criminals, for example, have used religion to keep their impulse to harm others in check. But, on the flip-side, there exists religious beliefs that cause people do to behavior that is harmful (to themselves and others) that they wouldn't ordinarily do. The whole point of morality is to benefit the functionality of a society ("point" as in evolutionary purpose). Many people have the impulse to murder, but it is their belief in a god (or belief in the law) that prevents them from doing it (many also use their belief in a god to rationalize murderous impulse).

All of this is to get me to my main point. Religion oftentimes seems to be a vessel that is able to provide unintelligent, thoughtless, impulsive individuals with a moral structure. What must be understood is that some people have a piss-poor ability to empathize with others. The ability of one person to put themselves in another's shoes is the bed-rock of moral reasoning. But, not all people are able to do this (like some people are bad at math).

Empathetical intelligence is a continuum—not a dichotomy of good or bad (even though labeling can be easier, and sometimes more useful); those low on this scale we refer to as sociopaths, while those high on it are viewed as being good, moral individuals. As an example, there are many horrible kids that behave like saints around Christmas because they want presents! These are the sort of people that need religion. Some people will only behave well if they believe that it will be personally beneficial.

To clarify, not all people have an impulsive nature to behave poorly, some people are naturally good; i.e. they are nice for no reason at all. Naturally "good" people are not behaving "morally" per se, they are behaving naturally. Moral behavior is behavior that contradicts a harmful impulse (as previously stated).

So what is the point here? Well, we must accept that some people have an impulsiveness that is destructive (both to themselves and/or society), these people need a moral structure like Christianity (reward/punishment) to keep their behavior in line. I want all people to give a lot of thought to the subject morality, and stop behaving based on impulse, but I also want a billion dollars and a pony. The world should not give up religion until its people are able to improve their empathetical intelligence. The world in its present state not only can't give up religion, it shouldn't, and many atheists should go back to church for the sake of everyone else. In a culture of "me me me" (thanks to the influences of things like Facebook, certain music, Jersey Shore, America's Next Top Model, etc. have on individuals cognitive behavior), empathy is a force that is weak within us.

If you have made it this far, thanks for reading my post.