Unicorn Logic


All people really believe in unicorns, unicorn non-believers just hate them. And they hate them deliberately. Furthermore, the very existence of people who say they are unicorn non-believers proves that unicorns exist. Therefore, there can be no true unicorn non-believers.

Sounds like flawed logic no? This is a common theist position against those that disbelieve in their myth. Read the first paragraph again, substituting “unicorn non-believer” with Atheist, and “unicorn” with god. I’d like to see a theist that uses this logic tell me they also believe in unicorns! Lmao

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

10 Questions For Christians.

10 Questions for christians

Posted in Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Combat Religion?

Combating religion video

Posted in Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts On The Afterlife


It is true that no one can prove or disprove the afterlife. People have been debating the subject for centuries without any success at finding truth. So my interest is not to prove or disprove to the reader, but to explain why I feel there is a problem with believing in an afterlife.

Allow me to put some context on the subject: we live in a world where 9 million children die each year under the age of 5. This is equivalent to an Asian style tsunami, very much like the ones that struck in 2004, coming every 10 days killing only children before the age of 5. Now think about those children, think about their parents. Know that virtually all the parents were people who believed in god, and were praying all the while that their children would be safe. Yet all their prayers were unanswered…

Now the afterlife comes to us in the midst of all this reality as a promise that all of this is going to somehow make sense in the end. That somehow at the end of existence we’re all going to be let in on the punchline and share a mighty laugh with almighty god for eternity. There is no evidence of this and all concepts of a heavenly afterlife function as a substitute for wisdom. It functions as a substitute for really absorbing our predicament, which is, that everyone is going to die, there are circumstances that are catastrophically unfair, evil sometimes prevails, injustice sometimes prevails, and the only justice we will see is the justice we make in this life. We have an ethical responsibility to truly absorb this down to the soles of our feet. This notion of an afterlife, the happy talk of how it’s all going to work out in the end and that it’s all part of god’s plan is a way of shirking that responsibility.

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Belief & integrity – my outlook from the foxhole


Have you ever felt like certain people will never understand you? That know matter how hard you try to explain things there is always going to be a cerebral blockage affecting their ability to perceive anything beyond their view? Try feeling this from a position where the challenged perceiver either pities your position, takes a moral high ground without substantiation, or simply tells you you’re wrong because some invisible force that they were told about “says so”. Try being a non-believer surrounded by believers that have absolutely ZERO understanding, or even ability to comprehend what it’s like to be an Atheist, but yet, will take on a variety of assumptions based on their own experiences or someone else’s that shares their views. It seems like every other day someone starts pretending to know how we think, or why we’ve rejected the fanciful notions of madmen. They assume, based on their own experiential fears, that all atheists are essentially pampered intellectuals who would run crying back to the fold of religion if the shit ever hit the fan:

Put differently, they proclaim, everyone–even the most hardcore atheists, i think–will start believing in God if put under a high amount of stress. Think of the last time you prayed to God, and I will bet that, for many of you (whether you generally classify yourself as an atheist or not), it would have been when you were under stress. For most of us so-called atheists, when things go horribly wrong, we think of God.

What the fuck are these people talking about? When I feel “stressed”, the last thing that pops into my mind is “gee, I better pray to some kind of anthropomorphic God rather than try and solve my own problems”. It’s just another version of the argument that there are “no atheists in foxholes”, something that’s been proven time and time again to just be baseless religious propaganda.

What this theory suggests, then, is that whether you believe in God is not as much a matter of how smart or educated you are, but rather, a matter of whether life has worked out in a way that makes you feel comfortable enough to be an atheist.

So according to these folks, if you’re an atheist it’s because your life has been too easy, and you haven’t had the need for the comfort of a deity. This would suggest that non-belief has nothing to do with intellectual integrity. Instead, your own thoughts about the existence, or non-existence of God is based mostly on how miserable your life is.

This means that no one is a complete atheist or, for that matter, a complete believer in God. Each of us has a propensity to be somewhere on that continuum. And even a hardcore atheist may exhibit belief in God if he feels his life is sufficiently broken.

So, if your life turned to shit, you would abandon your ideals and proceed immediately to believe in the immaculate conception of Jesus, or the brilliant bolts of lightening cast by Zeus. Seriously? This reminds me of just how poorly we atheists are understood by outsiders.

I could argue, in the same manner that the religious do, that stress and misery would actually make someone cease to believe in God. After all, how could the death of a loved one, or some other cruel tragedy that befalls them, not convince a believer that his loving God was merely the figment of an overactive imagination?

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Truth About Sin



Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How To Prevent Your Child From Becoming An Atheist


Do not educate them, or expose them to critical thinking, logic or science.

Lie to them constantly about how the world works. Feed them a steady diet of mumbo jumbo dressed up like real knowledge – the jumbo jet in the whirlwind for example – and pretend that it is deep wisdom.

Make them loathe their own natural bodies and functions. Convince them they are small and weak and worthless and need redemption. Tell them everything enjoyable is grievously wrong to even think about, and that their only fun should be in grovelling to an invisible friend.

Ensure that they resent anyone who is not like them in every way – skin color, nationality, political opinion but especially creed. Make such people out to be evil and vile and give them – impotent minorities all – the fictional power to somehow oppress and persecute the vast majority who do think like you.

Teach them to laugh at and dismiss out of hand any faith but their own. Early – early mind you – make sure they are taught the difference between superstitious deadly error – that one raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people, and divine eternal truth – that another raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people.

Instruct them with all severity and import to never question for themselves – to never think for themselves – to never live for themselves – but to seek answers only in one – just one – particular set of semi-literate bronze age folk tales.

Above all – and this cannot be overemphasized – make sure they cannot spell, use correct grammar, or understand basic English words.

That should do the trick.

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Christian Bible commands followers to murder nonbelievers


One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. That sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what shields religious extremists from criticism. The presence of religious moderates provides a context in which extremism doesn’t seem nearly as dangerous as it should. Moderate believers make it far more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs.

Isn’t it a bit of an exaggeration to say that religious belief is dangerous? Maybe Islamic extremists are dangerous, but surely there is nothing wrong with Christianity! Let’s examine the Christian bible: Deuteronomy

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Fairly clear, isn’t it? Christians are instructed in their “holy” bible to murder persons who do not believe in their god. Why haven’t we heard more about this? Because many Christians are content to ignore certain parts of their bible while obsessing about others. And what of those who do not ignore such parts of their “sacred” text? We call them extremists.

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Our Intentionally Godless Constitution



The Christian Right regularly claims that America is a “Christian Nation” and was founded on Christian principles. If this is the case, then those principles should be identifiable in America’s founding legal document, the Constitution. If the Constitution explicitly reflects Christian principles and doctrines, then the Christian Right is correct that America was founded on Christianity; otherwise, their claims are wishful thinking at best. So where are God and religion in the Constitution?

No Religious Tests:

Article VI says: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” In practice this prohibition was often violated, and even today there are unenforceable prohibitions in state constitutions against atheists holding public office. If America is a Christian Nation, why weren’t public offices limited to Christians, or even particular types of Christians? Why weren’t public offices limited solely to monotheists or to theists?

Sundays Excepted Clause:

Some take hope from Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 which gives the president an extra day to deal with a bill from Congress if the 10th day falls on Sunday — known as the “Sundays Excepted Clause.” Is this an establishment of the Christian sabbath and thus of Christianity? No, it was a recognition of the fact that many Christians wouldn’t work on this day and that an extra day may be needed. It must be noted that at this time, the government continued to deliver mail on Sundays.

In the Year of Our Lord?:

At the end of the Constitution, the date is prefaced with “in the year of our Lord.” Is this an expression of the fundamental role played by Jesus and Christianity in the Constitution? No, this was just the standard dating convention. It’s no more significant than using BC and AD when writing dates now. At most, it’s an example of the cultural importance of Christianity at the time; it’s not a sign of the political or philosophical importance of Christianity to the Constitution. Read More…

Oaths and Affirmations:

The Constitution requires elected official take oaths or affirmations before serving; was this understood as an example of the importance of swearing an oath to God? No — if it was meant to get people to swear an oath to God because only theists could be trusted, the Constitution would have said so (and would not have banned religious tests for public office). Oaths can be taken on more than the Bible and God; the choice of using an affirmation signals that religious oaths were not privileged.

First Amendment: Free Exercise:

The first amendment to the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect just the free exercise of Christianity nor does it suggest that Christianity and Christians should be have special protections and privileges. The authors used the term “religion,” meaning that all religions have exactly the same status before the law and the government. If they had thought that Christianity were special, they’d have said so; instead, they treated it like every other religion.

First Amendment: No Establishment:

The first amendment to the Constitution also prohibits the government from “establishing” any religion. The meaning of “establishment” is hotly debated and some insist that it merely means that the government can’t create a national religion. This reading is too narrow and would make the clause all but meaningless. To have relevance, it must mean that the government can’t favor, endorse, promote, or support any religions just as it can’t hinder any: it must remain as neutral as possible.

We the People:

The Ameican Constitution begins with the phrase “We the People,” and its significance cannot be overlooked. This establishes that sovereign power rests with the people and that all government power and authority derives from the consent of the people. It’s a repudiation of older Eurpean ideas that governments are established by God and derive their power or authority from God (for example, the divine right of kings). It’s also thus a repudiation of the Christian Right’s arguments today.

The American Constitution is Godless, Religionless:

No matter how hard conservative apologists for the Christian Right try, they cannot locate endorsements of religion, God, theism, or Christianity in the Constitution. At no point does the Constitution exhibit anything less than a fully secular, godless character. The American Constitution was a novel experiment in the creation of a secular government on the basis of popular sovereignty and democratic principles. All of this would be undermined by the Christian Right.

God, Deism, and the Authors of a Secular Constitution:

The authors of the American Constitution were not atheists, though some might be regarded as little more than atheists by self-righteous religious moralizers today. Many of the authors were deists. Among those who were Christian, few seem to have held same sort of religious beliefs common with conservative evangelicals in America today. The Christian Right would claim them as religious brethren, but the two groups are far too dissimilar for that.
Why does the Christian Right seek to make a big deal out of the religious beliefs of the authors of the Constitution, though? They seem to think that if these men can be identified as devout Christians, then it follows that the Constitution is a Christian document which embodies Christian principles and doctrines (as defined by the Christian Right, of course). This does not follow, however. A Christian is every bit as capable of creating a godless, secular document as an atheist is.

Indeed, if many of these men were devout Christians (even if not in the way that the Christian Right imagines) bolsters the case of contemporary secularists because it makes the absence of overt religious and Christian language all the more glaring. If they had mostly been atheists, the non-religious language would be expected and unremarkable. Yet because they were religious and steeped in Christian education, the absence of Christian language and references must be read as both deliberate and purposeful.

What might that purpose have been? To establish a secular government, untainted by the many problems which sectarian divisions, religious violence, and Christian bigotry had inflicted on European nations. For the most part the authors of the Constitution succeeded. Why does the Christian Right work so hard to undermine and undo what America’s founders accomplished?

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Pascal’s Wager Debunked


Pascal’s Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal, that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. – Wikipedia.

In other words, we ought to believe in God because, if we do and he exists, we’ll go to Heaven, and if we do despite him turning out not to exist, we haven’t lost anything so there is no matter. This suggestion in itself implies that a person living their life in accordance with a disbelief in God has everything to lose if he/she is wrong (going to Hell), and nothing to gain even if he/she is right (no afterlife anyway).
While this gambit was quite popular and logical in the times in which it was thought up, it has been found nowadays to be less so, despite being an argument that is still often used in favour of theism. There are a number of reasons why it is no longer considered valid.

1. The suggestion in itself bears a serious logical fallacy, known as a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is a situation that is hypothesised involving two opposing beliefs or outcomes, which are assumed or implied by the proposition to be the only two such options (e.g. “either people go to Heaven when they die or they go to Hell”; a “black and white” perception of things). The reason that a false dichotomy is fallacious is because the two presented ideas may not necessarily be the only two that are possible (relating to the aforementioned example; there may be an alternative place to Heaven and Hell, such as purgatory, or maybe even none at all; the “grey area”).
Pascal’s Wager is invalid on these grounds, because it assumes that God (as Pascal sees him) is the one true god, and indeed the god that will decide whether or not we “gain everything” or “lose everything”. It assumes that the religion concerning God (in this case Christianity) is the one true religion. In turn it ignores all other perceptions of Heaven and Hell, which might differ to those of the Christian religion that Pascal refers to, and might well be the real ones.
Seeing that there have been found to be hundreds of religions and ideas of gods and heavens and hells believed in by many different people of the world, it is unreasonable to assume that the only choices are to get to Heaven by believing in the Christian god or to go to Hell by not doing so. For example, just because one believes in a particular god, doesn’t mean that they won’t end up in the Hell that relates to another god (which might exist instead).

2. There is another invalid assumption in the gambit; Pascal implies that a life spent believing in and worshipping God means nothing lost, even if he doesn’t exist. It could be said in response to this that every minute spent praying, worshipping and serving God, and every penny spent in deference to God and the Church, would have been wasted if it had turned out that no such god or afterlife existed.
On the flipside, it implies that if a person goes about their life disbelieving that God exists and indeed turns out to be right, there’s still nothing gained. It could, however, be contested that a life lived with the assumption of no afterlife could well be one lived to the full; the belief that there is no life after death would make a person conscious of what little time there is to live, and in turn could spur a person on to put what life they know they have to good use.

3. The Wager also involves the presumption that belief is subject to will. It states that one should consciously change their belief; to become a theist and believe in the Christian god (if they don’t already). When taking into account the fact that beliefs are formed based on perceptions and cognitions, i.e. things which we have little or no manual control of, this presumption is nullified.
Evidence for this comes from cognitive dissonance, which involves people feeling uncomfortable emotionally as a result of believing one thing but wanting to believe another, or partially having two or more beliefs that contrast and don’t suitably agree with each other. It is illogical to assume that everything we believe is necessarily what we want to believe.

4. By implying that people should essentially change their beliefs in order to be “safe” from Hell, Pascal’s Wager also implies that God would be naïve enough to buy into this as a reason for doing so (arguably a “charade”); that God would be perfectly happy to accept someone into Heaven for believing in him, despite the fact that that person only believed in him to avoid hell; not for positive reasons.
In other words, it characterises the Christian god with something that contradicts Christian beliefs about him; i.e. Christianity would explain that true belief in God will get you to Heaven, as opposed to belief that has been changed accordingly out of fear or selfishness.
Blaise Pascal lived in the early 17th century, so it is understandable why his Wager would have been considered logical at the time. However, since then it has been shown not to be as good a reason to believe in God (or any god for that matter) as was originally considered.
It has still not been proven whether a god exists, and it’s reasonable to assume that it never will be. There will always be evidence for both sides and there may be even more in the future, but Pascal’s Wager, despite still being used today, is arguably defunct as it doesn’t sit well with today’s way of thinking, which has developed during the last 400 years.

Posted in Philosophy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment