The Atheist That Hates

I actually have a good friend who was a Jehovah’s witness but recently decided to leave the church and has declared himself an Atheist. His change was very gradual (he is 35) and before he gave up on them he went to the church and offered them a challenge. He said I have questions, I want you guys to answer them and if you give me good answers I’ll remain with the church if you can’t or I don’t find the answer adequate I’m done. They actually set up a time with an elder of the church and afterwards my friend became Atheist.

The whole point of this is though in his build up I came across a copy of the “Awake” magazine that was dealing specifically with evolution. I read through it and much of the information is scientific and based on current information, but it’s incomplete and outdated. They leave gaps to be able to say, well what is that? That must be god. They provide no answers of their own, simply point to gaps in understanding and label it god. It’s a very old religious practice by many factions.

It’s just another form of propaganda. As much as I dislike religion I have to say they can be very clever. Music, movies, magazines, whatever form of propaganda they can capitalize on they will jump to it. When you really look at it though it starts to fall apart and there is no serious scientists that would ever take the “Awake” magazine as a serious and unbiased publication.

Sorry to keep it brief but I get asked about coming out to family a lot. My advised is always the same. Talk to him, do whatever you can to open a line of communication. Don’t come right out with it but at least open up the lines of conversation so that your family can get an idea about your disbelief. Let them know you have issues with it, or unresolved questions, or problems. Let it be known some how, but still be cautious.

Some people have criticized me in the past for saying people should talk to their family. They’ll say “But you’re financially dependent, they can cut that off” but I don’t think you should let that be held over you. You don’t want to create an unneeded volatile situation though. If you know that he will be in an uproar over it and only cause you trouble and problem it may be best to just suffer things out until you can be who you want to be.

There are no easy answers when it comes to family because the very simple things like wording can make all of the difference in the world. Saying “Dad, I sometimes question if there is a god…” is a world away from “Dad, I’m an Atheist.” Both get the point across, in a way, but the shock of the word “Atheist” to many people is tough to overcome. If your family really does love and care for you though, which I hope all families do, they want you to be happy and to be who you are. It’s horrible to have to suffer in silence for being who you are when it is at all avoidable. Good luck.

This is something I’ve been considering quite a bit lately, so my answer is a bit different than what I’ve said in the past. It has always been more or less the same idea, but viewed at in a different perspective. I know for certain that once my body is no longer used it will return to the earth. It will become food for other life in various forms and it will continue on the cycle of life and death all around us. My body is what allows me to perceive my existence. It is what allows me to feel, see, hear, and experience everything in life. Without my body I feel there would be no way to perceive any type of consciousness in any form that we’re familiar with. I have no reason to believe I would experience something we’re entirely unfamiliar with. Everything that I am will return to the cycle of the earth though, but that doesn’t make a bit of difference to “me”, I’ll be oblivious to it. I sometimes think that the mythical or “spiritual” idea of reincarnation is dragged too far to a literal idea. It is something transformed into terms we understand and as a result often gets muddled. In this sense I’ve come to think I can believe in reincarnation, it just isn’t necessarily the way many people perceive it when they hear the term, because it’s nothing beyond the natural processes that any living organism goes through in death. It’s not a continuation of my spirit, it’s simply dispersing of my components.

The secret is that Rhonda Byrne found a great way to scam people out of money. I honestly don’t know a lot about the law of attraction but from the simple explanations I’ve heard before it sounds a lot like karmic balance. Good deeds get good results, good thinking breeds good result, and of course the opposite. It just sounds like a new twist on old motivational techniques, which in general I don’t think much of. If someone puts in more effort obviously they will get more out of it, but it doesn’t take a technique to get it, it takes trying and accepting that sometimes you’ll fail. If you keep trying and learn from your mistakes hopefully in the end you’ll win out more than you fail. Of course it’s only a hope, obviously we don’t see everyone who buys these books running around with everything they’ve ever wanted so the results should speak for themselves.

Thank you for the message. It seems that agnostic is one of the most misunderstood, yet commonly used, words around. Basically an agnostic is equal to “I don’t know”. Someone who is agnostic says I don’t know if there is a god and I can’t know. Generally Atheists will say the same thing. In theory there can be what are called “strong” or gnostic-Atheists that say “I know for certain there is no god”. Personally I have come across very few people like that, especially considering the definition of “god” is so flimsy, it can change from one person to another.

So given that I am agnostic in this sense as well I will say I don’t know. I can’t know for certain if somewhere out there in our immense universe tucked away in a corner in some far off galaxy is an all powerful being, just hanging out, watching us with his magic remote viewer or whatever he does. That could possibly exist, I can’t know for certain that it doesn’t, but I have absolutely no reason at all to suspect that such a thing does exist. I am agnostic to god in the same sense that I’m agnostic to pink invisible unicorns. I have absolutely no reason at all to believe that they do exist, but I will stop myself from saying that I know with any amount of certainty that they can not or do not exist anywhere.

It has often been said that Atheism should not even have to exist as a term. We normally don’t define ourselves by what we don’t believe, but since the opposite side is the majority a distinction is needed. Perhaps some day I won’t have to say I’m an Atheist at all, I can just be a normal person who believe in real world. It is certainly odd that those that reject fantasy have to be given a special name to stick out from the group. In the end, we shouldn’t have to be Atheists, but as long as we’re the only semblance of realistic people on the world, I guess we might as well distinguish ourselves.

It’s odd that people always think religious people are going to be “good” people regardless of any other quality. I was watching “Stephen Fry in America” last night (would generally recommend it if you like Stephen not really geared towards religion at all, new on Netflix) and during one of the episodes he visits a parole board in Alabama. When he talked to the parole board members that have to listen to all the stories one thing they said was “The first thing anyone does when they come in here is find religion.”

People in that situation go to religion because they believe it will make them look better, make them look more appealing. Thankfully a parole board is so hardened to those claims that they hold little to no weight to them. It is something that runs deep in our society though. Our society is the one that has built up this perception that religious people are automatically good.

It’s very counter-intuitive though. If someone is truly a “bad” person they are going to do all they can to mask it, to hide their true nature, and what better place to do that than a church? Those that really are evil will do whatever they can to keep that from being exposed and as a result will actually flock to the church in higher numbers.

Especially when it comes to Catholics, just think of how many families have been absolutely ruined by “good” Catholics that they trusted, that they invited to be an intimate part of their lives, and were absolutely betrayed. The Catholic hierarchy is one of the most vile groups of repugnant old men currently alive, every single one of them aware of even a single incident of child abuse perpetuated by a priest deserves to be locked up and receive a harsh dose of prison justice. There is no redeeming the Catholic church, they’ve made sure to see to that.

I’m highly introverted, which I find a little funny because even though I spend a lot of time in my own mind it is thinking about global issues and analyzing. I can be social when I want to be and do enjoy it from time to time but at heart I am definitely an introvert.

I don’t really think there can be arguments for non-existence. There are certainly observations that make it clear that god is unnecessary. Evolutions shows that complex life, great and wondrous things, can come about gradually given time and opportunity. The observation of evil in the world the general cruelty of nature purely for survival has long been a problem theologians struggle to explain. For materialists the lack of any proof, any tangible evidence of any kind, has always been a strong contention point.

I don’t think that the burden of proof should be on the Atheists to prove that god is not real, it should be on the theist. Since every theist has failed to come up with proof, in any real sense of the word, the debate rages on. Normally with any other topic the debate would be closed by now, but since god is big business it perpetuates. There is not just money but power up for grabs and religion doesn’t want to lose it. It is though, and it will continue to lose it. Religion grasps desperately to remain relevant to the world but it is certainly slipping.

(Received this ask in response to a message on another page, but the sentiment is generally something I’ve expressed before.)

Now to be clear I would never state that all immoral or amoral actions would be committed because of religion. I will state that it helps perpetuate them, it often encourages them, and people use it as justification for such acts. Weaving in religion changes the very way these actions are perceived by many. I will also say that in order to get otherwise good people to commit tremendous evils you need religion, or something nearly the same as religion.

Nationalism is a good example. People can be convinced to fight and die for their country, they can convince themselves of the superiority of their country’s vision of the world fairly easily. The biggest separation comes in the fact that a country can not make the same promises a religion can. It can not provide you the same reassurance and moral endorsement that people receive from falsely believing in religion. A country can never tell you that when you die you will live again in a conscious form where you will be rewarded, but a religion certainly can.

Even in WW2 when the Japanese kamikaze’s were suicide bombing war ships it was largely influenced by their Shinto beliefs. Japaneses children were required, each day, to recite an oath affirming that they would offer themselves “courageously to the State”. The ultimate sacrifice was one’s own life, it was the ultimate offering for the good of the country. This belief was fostered by the synergy with religion and deep cultural ties to “honor”. These thoughts are indoctrinated at an early age and made even stronger by the state. Of course with Shinto being the national religion, they are nearly one in the same. The will of the state is the will of the religion, and vice versa.

The same is true for many Islamic terrorists, for most of that is well known and there is no point in belaboring it. They may not receive a strong endorsement from the “state” but they will be encouraged and fostered by their religion throughout their life. Their actions will be condoned and justified, even labeled as moral, because of their religion. No matter how much a government can encourage you to commit atrocious acts they can not provide the same moral sanction and ease ethical concerns in the same way religion can.

In observing this it may seem like a fairly arbitrary thing and of little concern but to real people faced with big dilemmas it makes all the difference in the world. If you take a normal, average person and tell them they will receive a miraculous otherworldly reward if they follow what you say, many people will follow it unquestioningly. The promise of a gift beyond this life is so appealing and tantalizing that it overrides rational thought. When someone is already inclined to the ideas presented it makes it even easier. When a religion not only tells you about this reward, but that it is your duty to commit yourself in body and mind to the greater good, why would you not?

Like I said in the beginning of this rant, religion is certainly not responsible for all amoral actions but when you look at the most atrocious you will either find religion or something nearly identical to religion. (like National Socialism, it was intended to replace religion eventually) That is when the force becomes ever stronger because it reaches beyond the material and this world, it reaches on to the unthinkable and unknown, and it does it with undeserved assurance. It certainly isn’t simple, it’s very complex, but it is all part of what helps perpetuate religion.

It actually might not be so bad and there really could be a logical tie in with the two. Among many other things the Knights Templar were responsible for you would also have to give them credit for the inspiration of “The Da Vinci Code” which came out the year before “The Passion of the Christ” and seemed to mark a bit of a renewed interest in biblical and religious history. “The Passion of the Christ” though was simply a grotesque display of a man being brutally beaten for two hours. The fact that some people were “inspired” by this movie or brought to the point of tears is disgusting and shows more about the psychology of credulous and gullible people than it does about the “power” of his death. I am not overly sensitive to acts of violence but the amount of effort they put in to sensationalize the brutality was ridiculous. Not to mention the entire underlying Jew hating sentiments…see, I already have a ramble going.

There is some historical fact in the bible. Many of the people and places mentioned we do know existed but that isn’t really the main reason people look to the bible. For the reasons people actually look to the bible, it is appalling. As far as historical reference though many of the people and places mentioned did exist and are widely known to exist. Unfortunately the same isn’t true for the main character. The bible is an elaborate story centered around a mythical figure drawing on people and places of the time. It was the propaganda of it’s time and is our modern myth. Trying to pin down what exactly is and is not true in the bible is more or less pointless, it isn’t going to make the least bit of difference to Christians. It has already been shown many times that the bible is not consistently correct, even when it comes to basic historical record, but that doesn’t phase Christians in the least. Yet every affirmation is trumpeted as providing validation to the bible…it’s a bit silly really.

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. Most ant-theists are Atheists. Not all Atheists are necessarily anti-theist. If someone is willing to classify themselves as an anti-theist, which I have in the past, chances are they are going to be an Atheist. It would be a bit contradictory to be an anti-theist Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. but it is possible. I am certainly adamantly opposed to religion and all the garbage it entails, but I’m also an Atheist. There is no reason I can’t identify as both.

To me, someone that says they “hate god” so they’re an Atheist. The only “bad Atheists” would be ones that aren’t really Atheist but claim the title, otherwise Atheists are free to be as varied as they like. The Atheist community in general can be a bit harsh on other Atheists at times and I’ve been told myself on more than one occasion that I, or “Atheists like me”, “give Atheists a bad name”. I am a bit more relaxed when it comes to that, but I have come across several people that referred to themselves as Atheists that are in fact, not at all Atheist.

Part of me would love to but part of me feels like I’d never be able to because it would never live up to my own expectations of it. I will never be done learning, there is always more I can learn about. As long as there is always more to learn about and more I don’t know it’ll be hard for me to ever consider myself an “expert” on any topic at all. Plus I like to rant and ramble. My thought progression is a little unusual, a lot of times one thought sparks another thought in a different direction and so on and so on. I’d start out a chapter about the Knights Templar’s influence on Western culture and end it with a rant about “The Passion of the Christ” being the worst snuff film in all of history. Perhaps some day though, I don’t know who originally said it but I heard the quote from Christopher Hitchens and it has stuck with me, “The three keys to a mans immortality are this; to have a son, to plant a tree, and to write a book.” I’ve got one out of three so far and hope to plant a tree with my son at some point, then there will only be one thing left.

It’s isn’t a stupid question, I somewhat wonder what your concern comes from though. It’s simply a name and where it comes from doesn’t really matter much. Plus there are so many names listed at various points in the bible that it is fairly common for people to have biblical names. As long as it’s something you like, I say go for it.

When you’re actually preparing for a child you may change your mind or come across other names you like as well. I know for my son we came up with a lot of possible names, some stranger than others and changed our mind a couple of times. I even suggested the name Mercury at one point, that got shot down quickly. If you feel it fits and is comfortable for you, don’t let its history worry you too much.

The fact that the New Testament talks about prophecies from the Old Testament being fulfilled is fairly easy to counter when you have one simple piece of information. All of the writers of the New Testament had copies of the Old Testament to refer to when making their writings. They wanted to portray Jesus to be the messiah, they know that the messiah is supposed to fulfill these prophecies, so it is not a stretch to imagine they slanted things to make it appear as if Jesus fulfilled prophecies. When they had the list to work with it was just a matter of weaving them into the stories.

Something I always found a bit curious about that too is that Jesus also knew of the prophecies. When Jesus arrives at Jerusalem he has to stop. Zechariah 9:9 says that the Messiah would arrive on a donkey so Jesus has to locate his donkey. It wasn’t just there, he had to stop and send someone to fetch it for him, because he knew that was part of the prophecy. It’s a part of the bible that has actually compelled me to question the idea of a human Jesus at times because it is such a human moment. Even then there is a bit of an issue since Matthew says he rode in on both a donkey and a colt, John says a donkey, and Mark and Luke say it was a colt, so which one was it?

With events like that there are some that speculate that Jesus was doing everything he could to attempt to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. Based on the New Testament he fulfilled some, but he didn’t fulfill all of them. (His name was not Immanuel for example.) Really though how are we honestly supposed to trust that he fulfilled any of them? The writers had bias and they had reference, they knew which points they would have to try to hit in order to make a convincing case. It’s coming up with the ending to the story first and then working around to write it so it meets there.

It’s just ignorant pleasantries the religious throw around to each other to try to pat themselves on the back for being part of the same in group. You see it all the time and Facebook seems to be a real haven for it. I usually try to not let them bother me because I know it doesn’t make sense and isn’t based on logic. There is really no rational way to respond because the statement isn’t based on anything rational to begin with.

The part about it that would bug me the most is the idea Atheists “rejected” something. The only thing that was rejected was old fairy tales passed down as reality from a bunch of people. It isn’t as if “god” himself came down and was like “You going to worship me?” and I said “nope” like it’s some kind of friend’s request. We rejected their religion in the same way they’ve rejected hundreds of others. In the same sense we can say that the religious reject reality and truth, in favor of wants and desires. Of course though, that’s just us patting ourselves on the back for not being credulous enough to fall into the same trap they have.

I have no secondary education unfortunately but I absolutely love to learn. I try to learn new things daily and have a real passion about education. When I learn something new and interesting it excites me and I want to know more. I do consider myself fairly intelligent but my intelligence also allows me to keep my ignorance in scope. I can learn, I love to learn, but there is so much I have yet to learn that I will continue to seek it out. There is just so much out there to the world and the more I know the more I want to know. I often tell myself I’d like to go back to school but with the internet so much of the information I’d learn is already available at my finger tips, I just cut out the middle man and learn it when I have the time and energy for it.