*** How People React To The Unknown! (Atheism vs. Belief) ***

It is natural for people to be afraid of the dark. In-fact, some are so afraid of the dark that they refuse to sleep without a light on. Some (especially young children) believe that the boogie-man hides in the dark. The fear of darkness is rooted within our general fear of what is unknown.

It has recently been found that the brains of social-conservatives tend to have a larger fear center (amygdala) than their liberal counterparts. It is also no mystery that conservatives tend to be religious and liberals tend to be secular and not all that religious. Also the portion of the brain that is responsible for optimism and courage (anterior cingulate) tends to be smaller in conservatives. I don't want to get too far into this study, if you are interested in reading about it, a link to the source can be found at the bottom of this blog post.

Anyways, back on point...

Naturally, the unknown is a scary thing. Virtually all people have a intense fear of the dark during their lives at some point. This shows that fear of the unknown (or of the dark in this case) is innate within most humans (at least until it is overcome). People often project their worst fears onto the darkness of uncertainty, thinking up pessimistically deluded  fantasies and believing (subconsciously or consciously) that their worst possible fears are the only possible outcome. There are two ways in which a person can react towards a perceived danger: (1) fight, or (2) flight. In other words, the unknown can either be confronted or ran away from.

It perhaps is easy to see who is doing the running here, but perhaps I should spell it out. It seems to be that atheists in general want real answers to the big questions, and accept that humans have much to learn. This is why atheists accept the truth behind biological evolution, how could anyone not? If certain information destroys the only thing protecting the ego from a deep seeded fear of the unknown, it must be avoided at all costs, no matter how intellectually dishonest. While believers look avoid the reality of human ignorance by pretending they have a "friend" that knows everything, using an unknown to explain an unknown is running away from the problem. A fear of the unknown will always exist within believers because they refuse to face it. The unknown should not be a source of fear, but a source of inspiration and excitement. I believe it is important for people to give up on running away from the unknown with gods and other superstitions—not only because I believe that understanding the universe can be a great source of inspiration—but because running away from a fear will cause that fear to chase a person to the grave.

Another typically innate fear is the fear of heights, but some people find no greater joy in life than to jump out of a plane with a parachute. Let's say, for the sake of example, I have the answers for all of the big questions (how the universe came to be, the meaning of life, what happens after death, etc.). This information is somehow guaranteed to be 100% accurate and beyond any doubt. To make it simpler, I have put the answers to these questions on sheets of paper, and put those papers inside a box.
All people knew without any doubt that these answers were correct (including both believers and nonbelievers). Let's say I was to go to a group of fundamentalist believers (Christians, Muslims, Jewish, etc.... it doesn't really matter). These believers, know, without any doubt, that the answers are 100% correct. In their minds, however, there is a possibility that the answer in the box would confirm that there is a god (and perhaps even the right god). How many of those believers would actually look inside the box? If you are a believer reading this, would you want to know the true answers to the big questions? Say what you will, but I do not think that very many believers would want anything to do with that box. On the flip-side however, virtually all nonbelievers would be curious as hell (no pun intended) as to what answers lie within the box.

Is such an example unfair? A straw-man? I don't think so. From seeing the reactions of believers when faced with the fact of evolution, I feel I am not being unfair at all.


I will admit, stereotyping all believers as being afraid of the unknown, and all atheists as being curious about the unknown may not be entirely accurate for everyone (some atheists may not want to look inside the box, and some believers may want to). I do believe that as a whole, the stereotype that I have painted is reflective of a psychological truth. That truth is that some are afraid of the unknown, and some are inspired by it. It seems to be that nonbelievers use science to explore the unknown, and believers use God as a way of avoiding it.

Here are a few quick things I want to touch on....

Both scientists and priests see opportunity in human ignorance. Priests are able to take the fear of the unknown that exists within many individuals, and turn it into power (Catholic Church for example). Scientists do a similar thing, but instead of exploiting fear, they exploit curiosity, and the result is much more productive and awe inspiring (technology, space exploration, study of our evolutionary past, and so on).

Another place that this phenomenon can be seen is in the media. For example, Fox "News" has been using fear tactics, not because they are evil, but because they are preaching to their conservative/religious choir. Fox "News" has an audience (in general) of terrified people -- clinging to guns and God -- so of course Fox is going to suck such people in because such a narrative speaks to their audiences' view of the world.


link to study here!

Pat Condell on American Islamophobia

I have to agree with Pat. You can put phobia on any word, doesn't make it a mental illness. Some fears are good, and fear of radical Islam (suicide bombers, etc.), is very rational considering the amount of violence caused by fundamentalists. This isn't to say that all believers should be thought of as being violent, or extreme. I am referring to the fundamentalist.

You see, much violence is found within certain ancient books (not to name names), anyone that takes those books 100% literal may be incited to violently lash out because of it. Fortunately most people don't, however those that do act barbarically (as they have shown). Many people have committed suicide bombings in the name of Islam, this is a cold-hard fact.

The problem here is labeling. While it is not appropriate to label all Muslims as being terrorists, it is appropriate to label fundamentalism as a problem. Another problem is that the "moderates" are not condemning the fundamentalists. To remain silent is to own it, they must disown the violence if they don't wish to be associated with it (at least in my opinion, otherwise people will have a difficulty in distinguishing the difference). I know not all Muslims support the fundamentalists, and they need to speak out so they are not wrongfully associated with the nutty fringe people.

Another problem are the PC-Nazis constantly looking for people to fit the standard for what they view as 'politically correct'. To ignore this problem is to tolerate it, tolerating fundamentalism will cause blood-shed, and that blood will be on the hands of the PC Nazis that fought for tolerance.

YouTube: Lethal Injection a Life Saver? (LiberalViewer)

The death penalty needs to happen quicker and cheaper. Why can't cyanide be used instead? What about hanging? Or even the electric chair. Considering the crimes some of these scumbags commit, they do not deserve to be alive, or even to experience a painless death.

The death penalty is a good thing. Some people should lose their right to be alive. Keeping these thugs in prison waste a ton of money, and is pointless exercise. Cheapen up the death penalty, and expand what is considered to be a capital offense (e.g. certain extreme violent offenders, people convicted of attempted murder, child molesters, rapists).

I know many liberals disagree with this stance on the death penalty, they want all people (including the person that killed 6 people in Arizona recently) that commit the most heinous crimes to be pampered with free food, entertainment, and health care for the rest of their lives. In other words, they want the worst of the worst of our society to live better than the poorest of the poor—aren't some liberals precious?

Jay-Z on why understanding context is important in hip-hop music

Ever notice that the music genres of hip-hop and rap both have had shifts in their messages over time? In my opinion—like smoking is censored from being exposed to kids—music with violence, drugs, and anything sexual should be banned by the FCC. Go on YouTube, look up some of the more popular songs, most of them are filled with whores and thugs, leaving kids with twisted world views. Sex and violence sells, but it shouldn't be sold to impressionable children through music.

MUST WATCH Documentary On Jehovah Witnesses

It's great to see people that actually follow their faith. I do however wonder if that alien-like skinny dude realizes that the liver he got probably had some blood on/in it from the donor...

Perhaps no one should tell him...

The Nightline Interview - Atheist Sam Harris on morality and spiritual experiences

The people that don't think science can determine morality are the same type of people that thought science wouldn't be able to understand disease. Moral relativists hate the concept of a set morality, an objective morality destroys their self-righteous mentality which they are probably very comfortable with. If there are right and wrong answers in morality then that would mean certain people would rather have to ignore it, or admit they were wrong in certain believes/behaviors. Atheists should embrace this concept, not push it away for selfish, self-righteous reasons.

Happy New Years!!!