An atheist on theism + atheism

I was a bit bored so figured I would check my e-mails; in my message was an email from an xtian asking my views on not only religion but atheism as well.

Okay here goes, should be somewhat simple as I am use to speaking about my views on these issues. This may or may not be updated, and fixed at a later date because my mind is all jumbled so I will write it and then if needed edit at a later date…. It more than likely will be long but we shall see.

I will start with religions.

Since this particularly person did not clarify what type of religion or belief they were referring to, I will discuss them in parts.

First I will speak of my views on the Abrahamic Faiths, which include Islam, Christianity and Judaism. I personally have no favorable view of these particular faiths; with all of the false moralities of a corrupted people. Each of their books speak of killing all who do not believe as they do, each of their books speaking of killing for a myriad of reasons that people do daily.

In general, being in America, Christianity is the largest religion, so Christians makes up the majority. Many of the Christians that I personally have come into contract with in America are quite judgmental and are quite bigoted when it comes to different beliefs and different lifestyles. Depending of course on their religious views can also judge their acceptance of these lifestyles. I generally find that people who identify themselves as conservative [insert religion name here] are generally less accepting to different beliefs and lifestyles when it comes to their religion. In general liberals… or rather those more accepting to changing times and thus expanding views, take more of an indifference view of the difference beliefs and lifestyles. This is not to say that liberals who consider themselves Christian do not hold to some of the same tenets of bigotry. So in general I get along more with those who do not think it is their business to dictate the lives of other peoples.

When speaking of Islam, it would depend on the type of Islam one is referring to; you have more fundamental groups and more secular styles of Islam. As with any faith the fundamental ones are the ones that bother me. The ones who live their life literally according to the Koran are similar to those who live their lives literally according to any of the Abrahamic faiths can be judgmental and very bigoted towards different faiths, and those who lack faiths. Secular Islamic factions are typically less judgmental, and focuses on themselves and how they are viewed more than how others are or rather what it is that others choose to believe, not believe or whatever life they choose to live.

The last and smallest of the Abrahamic faiths is Judaism, in general I have no issues with Jews in general. While I have met several who have acted holier than thou, calling themselves the chosen people and letting their religious lineage go to their heads, yet in general most of the Jews I know are [as with my Muslim and Christian secular friends] are more so the type to do their things and let other people live their lives.

On this site, on other sites and in the real world, with both theist and even atheist I have gotten into debates about this "most violent" religion. In general I hear from them all that Islam is the most violent, quite frankly I do not take a preference of which one is the most violent simply because one happens to be more active during this time period. If we speak of the three aforementioned faiths Christianity has the bloodiest history of any of them, yet their bloodiest histories are for the most part of a distant past. Now you have Islamic extremist who are quite active in their want for takeover of the areas that they are in. So Islam has to kill many more people to get that whole "evilest" religion title. Sorry Islam, Christian still holds that title. Even today you have Christians in Africa that have killed 20,000-50,000 children in the past 15 or so years because they believe that these children are possessed by the devil, such idiocy. Yet in America, of course we do not hear of these things much, because the current state of news in the past decade is to show how those big evil Muslims want to take over the world blah.

Personally I do not judge an entire people for the acts of a minority of a group. I personally find it rather idiotic to judge a person just because they may or may not believe in a god. I do not care if they believe or not, to me what matters most is not what they believe but how they treat people.

I, as an agnostic atheist do not believe in god .. that is not the same as "There is no god" - while I have seen no evidence for this figure that people call god - I have seen no evidence to completely prove or disprove the existence of such - - though I do find it highly unlikely. I have never believed in a god even though I was brought up in a religious family, yet as a realist I do recognize that many people do believe. Morality is not based upon belief or lack of belief. I find it rather stupid to put it plainly when atheist or theist, believe that simply because they believe or not believe that they are somehow morally superior. … I will touch back on this later.

While I know that Wiccan and Satanism are two very different beliefs, holding very different ideals. When it comes to the make up of them I have sort of the same feelings, the majority of them I meet are rather cool, down to earth people who for the most part as with the secular religious mentioned above are quite indifference. They just want to practice what they believe and not have the Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity shoved down their throat,

When it comes to philosophical faiths, I generally have had no problem at all with them. I find that of organized faiths Buddhist, Hindus, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoist and beliefs of that nature I generally find to be quite peaceful.  So when it comes to these beliefs I very much respect them and their outlook on life. Particularly the ways they believe they should treat others, and their not being judgmental and bigoted as the Abrahamic faiths.

Now onto atheism and I will touch back on everything mentioned towards the end.i am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god, I do not live my life attempting to appease some invisible sky deity who watches everything single thing that I do, and will judge me based on what I do, whatever the case may be.

I, as a person live my life how I wish, as would anyone. Though personally for me, I believe that my atheism is only or rather should be extended to my personal outlook on life. Atheism merely says what I do not believe in, so as an atheist I do not believe in "a" god, gods, spirits, etc. Though; apart from atheism I also consider myself a rationalist, materialist, humanist, globalist, internationalist, democratic socialist. Without going into much detail of my politics and world outlooks, all of which can be read in the many works in my gallery where I have spoke of such things.

I believe that we should treat people how they should be treated. By this, I mean I am not going to be a dick to someone who attempts to set out a positive vibe, I can be cool with anyone, religious, spiritual, non religious, atheist.. If they are, in general a cool person and attempt to set out positive vibes in how they treat people, I can respect that. I think anyone can respect that. Yet, if they are trying to be a general dick about every situation, then I see no need to attempt to be cool with that person, as I said when I started this, these views in this writing is not the view of every atheist, these are just my views. Do I expect some atheist will agree, sure, do I expect some will disagree, sure.

I dislike any type of bigotry; it is a big misconception that bigotry is a religious ideal. I personally do not deal in moral nor social absolutes. I base my view on the individual on the way that individual acts, not based upon one aspect of that individual I may dislike or not agree with. I in general have sort of an indifference view, I am a proud atheist so if someone is discussing religion and looking for a differing view, I am more than happy to debate, or just talk to them. Yet I also am quite outspoken when it comes to bigoted ideals. While in general I mostly see bigoted minds on the religious side, I also see it in many atheists. To me, hating someone because they are gay is no worse than hating something for their religion.

For this I will just look at a few atheist types I have seen… once again my personal views, I am sure many will disagree, and some will agree.

You have the "Real Atheist" [I use real loosely] the ones that do not believe in god[whether or not they are agnostic or gnostic is a different matter], who lives their lives doing their own thing. For the most part are quite accepting of other people. Note, for me, you can dislike a religion, I completely understand this since I dislike many religions, for their tenets and what they say. Yet I do not allow my personal views on religion, to then spread on how I will just automatically treat the religious. As I said above, I will treat people with respect if they show they are worthy of it. If they are the type always trying to shove their religion down people's throats, quick to condemn this and that… then I personally have no respect for them, and neither does the real atheist... or rather the atheist who is open to other lifestyles even if they personally do not agree with them. These groups are atheist, because they do not believe in god, not for attention.

Then you have the pseudo atheist, these are the atheist you see on the streets who pretty much claim atheism just for attention. Just to get people to ask why, or show either some interest, or negative view. Basically just to provoke a response… yet the minute that they want something, or hope for something these are the same people who are quick to start praying or looking for some outside "force" for helping them.

The final kind of atheist, I see are the kinds who claim to be so called "militant" in their atheism, to the point of hating god. And who are quite happy to say "fuck god" I hate god… etc. I laugh at these at times. I mean if you're an atheist you therefore  do not believe in god - semantic different from claiming there is no god!!!!!!!!  - - - so in your hatred of god you are acknowledging the existence of that god in order to hate him, so in acknowledging the existence of that being, you cannot claim disbelief in it. As I said above, I can understand the dislike of a religion, for what they say and such, yet when I see atheist with tattoos that say things like fuck god, or many "atheist" tattoos that mention god... I personally just think to myself, you certainly show such high praise for a being you do not believe exists.

I always find the "angry atheist" funny, I mean if you dislike religion, cool, I do too. It has a long history of mistreatment of people, killing, rape, convert or die campaigns etc. Yet when an atheist takes a personal step to have a deep seeded hatred, not for religion in general but god himself/herself, I laugh. I mean you are battling against something that you do not believe exist… so please commit yourself to the redundancy of a theistic mind and go to a padded room where we promise to bring you loads of jello and give you a nice cool hospital gown.  

Personally I do not like religions in general, the text of specifically the Abrahamic faiths are some of the most bigoted books and most hate filled books that anyone can read. These books speak of killing for pretty much everything that people do on a daily basis. Yet we should understand that for the most part theists do not follow these things literally, so I hold out judgment for the person, even if I personally have issues with the belief. But I will not judge a person for their beliefs.

That would be like me, a grown man, hating Santa Claus for whatever reason, and telling everyone I hate Santa Claus…after continuously saying I do not believe in Santa Claus, it is a bit redundant.

Though personally if you would entertain my idea for a moment.
Speaking of, I have a bit of a theory about Santa Claus. He is nothing but a religious allegory to allude to the existence of god.

What I mean by this is simple; it would be hard to explain the concept of god to a child. Albert Einstein said it best "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself"

It would be hard to explain the idea of god to a child, it would hard to explain the concepts and complexities of god as it states in a bible to a child. So I always thought as Santa Claus as a nice allegory for the story of god. So you tell children to believe in Santa Claus, a man who sees everything you do at all times, who rewards the good children and punishes the bad…or rather does not reward them. They behave good, not for their lack of wanting to be, but for a prize. As they age you remove the lunacy of an adult believing in imaginary things like Santa Clause; then you replace the disbelief in an old belief and switch it to a belief of god. Now, as the mind is older, they still do not understand the concepts of such a man made creation, yet growing up believing in such a figure it is a rather easy transition.

… Okay Santa Claus being a transition to god theory is now over.

Moving on, when speaking of atheism, or rather if you are an atheist who often debates religious people, you will by the end usually get the good old Pascal's wager... or the what if you're wrong. Or other false premises that they will try and put forth. Which also is apart of the way in which I see religious people in general; or that person alone.

If you are unfamiliar with Pascal's Wager it is:
"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"

While Pascal's wager has already been shown to be a false dichotomy in that, it only alludes to two choices in the matter; the choice of either this or that. Even though there are a myriad of possible outcomes depending on not only the religion yet the tenets.

When asked about what if I'm wrong, in general I say something like that.
What if I'm right?  If I am right then nothing changes there would then be no god, and I would have lived a full life of fun and enjoyable events. If I am wrong and there is a god, that also presents a myriad of outcomes, first because of my atheism, lack of belief that would deem a punishment of hell by itself. If there is a god, a benevolent one then he or she would therefore judge the type of life that was led rather than whether or not one believed in him or her.

Another argument that makes me laugh at theist who try and use this argument of, that atheist cannot be moral without god since morality comes from god. These arguments when said to me make me laugh. I laugh because it is so easy an argument to disprove, just name all of the immoral religious people who have killed man in the name of either their faith or simply for power. You can also debunk this by naming so many atheists who have done amazing things to better the people.

One of the arguments I hear often, what would be known as an Argumentum ad populum fallacy. It is to state a false premise which states that the argument is true simply because more people believe in it. This argument is funny because it is trying to use the premise of using more people as proof, in the absence of actual proof. To these arguments I generally just bring up past things that a majority of people thought were okay, things that are now socially acceptable and ask them if it was right then? Or use their faith, and offer up the same argument. No matter what you believe in as far as religion, the fact is that the majority of people will not exactly agree with it. Take Christianity, two billion Christians which leaves about five billion more people who will not agree with their faith as "the right" one. So unless they accept this as "fact" simply because more people believe it, then they must disregard their own attempt at the argument.

My all time favorite argument I would say is the "prove it" argument. Since I do not believe in god, or believe one exists, asking for proof to prove a negative is impossible.  When I am met with these arguments, it is very simple. I show all of the things people use to think something was real, and now that we know it is not. I also take it from the position of a sort of law, prosecutor versus the defense. It is the prosecutor's claim that the defendant is guilty, so the prosecutor must prove his case. Since it is the theist's claim that god is real, it is therefore on them to prove their claims of existence.

Though in all honesty, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that such a thing is "real"... I generally do not ask for proof unless they are trying to push their religion on me.. other than that I tend not to think too much on what someone believes in.

Since this is about my views on religion, atheism, I might as well discuss agnosticism.

A lot of people have the misconception that agnosticism is simply a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. This is not true, agnosticism, as it pertains to atheism/religion merely stakes the claim that proof of a god or rather knowledge of the existence of a god is impossible to know. They in general do not asset claims of there being NO gods, or a god/gods. So there can be, and have been agnostic theist, and agnostic atheism. Theism is simply  the belief in a supernatural god, or several supernatural gods. Atheism is the non-belief of any god/gods.

Many of the very well known atheist, were agnostic and never claimed atheism. Yet they did not believe in any "gods" as far as a supernatural being that governed the lives of people.

We can look at such amazing minds such as Carl Sagan, a brilliant man, who denied being an atheist, for he said "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." When asked he said he is an agnostic, yet has said his god or rather what man could learn from was the cosmos.

Looking at Einstein who many [usually theist] attempt to claim that he was a theist for his mentioning of god in some of writing. Yet Einstein made it quite clear the "god" he believed in. Einstein was a deep follower, and greatly respected the philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Einstein wrote a poem about Spinoza. Einstein made it clear in many of his writings that he believed in Spinoza's god. Spinoza said many times that his god was nature, and that everything about man could be understood from observing nature.

So by their not believing in an actual entity as in a god, or gods these men would be considered atheist. There have been many atheist throughout history. The way people often speaks of it, it is as if atheism is something new. Before man thought up the concept of god, they were atheist, since man brought up the idea of god/gods there were atheist who would not buy into the man made creations, that which is god.

I also often hear arguments that atheist hate religious people and cannot respect them. I often laugh at this since of all of the atheist that I know, all have someone they respect that is a theist who either believes in a god, or many gods.

Okay, I will discuss my issues with certain atheist now.

Atheistic theism = absence of god + bigoted morality.

Something I call atheistic theism, which is to say that atheist who have grown up in heavily religious places, who as they age may lose their "faith", or if they never believed, who simply have no belief in god, yet still hold true to some of the many bigoted ideals that have been instilled in them, either from the society in which they lived in, or the family in which they were brought up in.

Like atheist that happen to be against gays; not for anything a homosexual male or female have done to them, yet simply because of the religious mentality of a society that is against gays and thus they have adopted this mentality of blatant bigotry to justify the ideals in which they claim to reject.

Several weeks ago, on this site [deviant art] I debated two atheist. These atheist were against gay marriage, were against any type of homosexual civil liberties, when I asked why, one had the stones to say "being gay is wrong" to which I replied, who said. The brainless buffoon said society. The same theistic society that says atheism is wrong, yet he follows only the part in which he wants.

There is no logical reason for any atheist to be against any groups that the bible or religious text says is wrong. Do understand this, I am not saying that atheist and theist cannot agree on issues, yet ask a theist why they believe homosexuality is wrong, and you get biblical text, if not for that text they would have no reason to say it is "wrong". You often hear the saying that homosexuality is "unnatural", the ignorance of this statement only shows the ignorance of the person. We, as humans, judge what is natural in general as what we see in nature. Homosexuality is quite natural in the animal kingdoms. There are thousands of animal species that have been recorded engaging in such a behavior.

Choice, choice, it all a choice; when speaking of homosexuality and morality we often get a theistic version of it. Personally I see no reason why any atheist can claim anything is immoral when dealing with morality based upon the bible. Where as something is theistically immoral, should hold no bearing on the atheist ideal of morality when compared to society.

I had a debate with a Christian who said that they studied such projects with Christian groups such as exodus international, as well as some group called focus on the family. I have heard of these groups but had to study them fully. These are groups that claim homosexuality is a choice, and that it can be "untaught". They claim through "intense" therapy and "reeducation" of the mind.

I could not help but think of the past homosexual treatment places which usually consisted of electric treatments, and other sadistic forms of mental and physical abuse. When I generally ask the atheist who say homosexuality is immoral, I general get the same theistic societal view of morality that generally equates to a "right" answer in an argumentum ad populum fallacy argument which states that it is wrong because many believe it to be wrong. Many people believe it to be wrong because they have been conditioned to think of it as wrong, they have been conditioned to think of it as wrong because they have grown up in a theistic society that teaches the morality of the biblical text as it pertains to social morality.

When debating the choice it must be understood to separate sex from emotion. Sex is a choice, gay or straight we can make the choice to have sex with this person, or that person. Yet emotion or rather sexuality is not a choice, if it were a choice I do not believe that anyone would choose to be negatively stigmatized by a bigoted religious society. Though when debating the idea of a choice that is pretty easy to debate, as the person did they "choose" to be straight? I am straight and I know I did not "choose" to be straight. Yet they will usually say no…which basically says they did not choose yet the others are.

In one of my debates in my gallery [HERE: atheosemanon.deviantart.com/ga… the man I was debating was anti homosexuality, yet claimed to be an "ex gay". There is no such thing as an ex gay, it is just like an addict, you will never be an "ex addict" you fight with your addiction, in their case sexuality daily to not do it. That does not make you "not homosexual" just means you are resisting your natural urges or want for the same gender.

So, I see no real reason why any real atheist would guess or believe that homosexuality is immoral other than what I call atheistic theism. Although I have seen many atheist who have such a bigoted view of things based upon biblical teachings;

As I said earlier, I do not deal in such moral, nor social absolutes. I am a straight man who accepts everyone. I am an atheist who does not allow religious text to dictate my feelings on groups. I am an atheist so I shall never use such text or the textual readings of the book of a delusional people to allow such blatant bigotry to enter my mind.

OH NOES, atheist say theist are delusional, they are judgmental.
I always find this a bit funny, yes, atheist see theist as delusional, and theist see atheist as delusional. Someone who is delusional is generally not accepting what another deems to be true. Since atheist do not believe in a all knowing being, who denies the existence of such being, then people who believe in such a being, from the eyes of an atheist would be clarified as delusional, and vice versa. Whether you wish to use the term delusional or not, that does not change the fact of what it is based upon your personal perspective of the topic.

I also laugh at times when atheist choose one religion as worst over another as it pertains to modern versus traditional views. I also got into a debate with a few atheist a few days ago about Islam being the worst religion. I suppose it depends on your position. If you mean worst simply because it is currently the most active then you are correct, yet if you mean worst as it has the most atrocities attributed to them, then that would be false.

Personally I do not agree with the whole Islam is the worst religion, simply because it happens to be the most active. All of the Abrahamic faiths has committed great atrocities in the name of appeasing their god, Christianity has the bloodiest history than any faith. So Islam has a lot to do to gain that great noble title *sarcasm* of the worst religion or rather one that has done the most deeds.

God did it!
When debating with a theist, as an atheist you get tired of the same answers over and over. Particularly the universe, galaxies, planets etc; They believe that everything is created by god, and you often hear the, if there is no god then how is it that this is the only planet around the sun that is perfect for maintaining human life.

That would make more sense if it were actually true; granted I will give you that this [earth] is the only planet in the immediate are of THIS SUN that is capable of life. Yet since science has shown us that there are plenty of suns in other galaxies, as well as their finding several planets they believe to be capable of human life, yet with current technology would take us literally over 100 years to fly there, so that makes such a voyage somewhat impossible with the use of the current technology. Since there are also several planets in this galaxy that scientist believe we can start colonizing by2050, that also makes the argument that this planet is the only one capable of life.

Speaking particularly to Abrahamic faiths, you often hear the one sided, god did it.. .oh that is satan/free will.
Who created the universe? God did it.
Who created the galaxies? God did it.
Who created the earth and all of the planets? God did it.
Who created morality and love? God did it.
Who created all of the humans and animals? God did it.
Who knows everything? God.
Does god know everything about everyone? … yes, he is god.
Can god do whatever he wants and intervene? Yes, he is all powerful.

So who is responsible for child molesters, pedos, rapist ect? Well, people are at fault, they have free will.

But you just said god knows everything about everyone, so if that were true why would your god allow such people to live?... well people have the free will to do whatever they want.

But you just said that he is all powerful and can intervene, so why would he not intervene in cases of rape, etc. God can't be everywhere at every time!

Wait, so god's power has limits? No, you are putting words in my mouth.

Basically that sort of questioning will go on and on for hours. Here is something I wrote before called "To a Theist from an Atheist"

"Okay let's say I will give you that something cannot come from nothing

Then let's say I give you that god created the earth

Let's say I give you that your god created all humans and life and planets

Then might I ask you a question...

Who created god?

Then I must also pose the question of who created the thing that created god?

Then a follow up, who created the thing; that made the thing that created god?

The point I am making is sooner or later, when you go all the way back, you will have something that came from nothing and that alone tramples your argument.

And if you are under the assumption that no one created your god, and that this god is just a being that has always been here. Then does that not mean that your god is "something" that came from "nothing"? Then does this mean your god can be used to debunk the existence of your god?"


Though when thinking of that we can look at the Epicurus quotes who was an amazing philosophy accused of being an atheist for his harsh criticism and judgment about the Greek gods.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

One of my favorite pieces from that era it does sort of bring into perspective the questions one can ask a theist in relation to their all powerful god, that has the power to do anything yet chooses not to.

ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL, VIOLENT AND NEED GOD!
If you are an atheist, or even a theist; you often hear that morality comes from a god and that anyone who does not believe in god, must be therefore immoral.

This of course only shows more simply recalling with no actual answer. Even this idea of atheist being immoral comes from their religious text,
Psalms 14: 1
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good."

I will look at this from a scientific standpoint, in 2009 [the most recent survey I could find] the "American Religious Identification Survey" did a study …

[Random information: I did  look at their website, as far as I can tell, it does not seem to hold any bias, it just shows religious trends in American history, as well as how the age sometimes affects what one believes. Or shows people who believe in the same things yet how age and social experience may show them to be more or less hm accepting of things a text may condemn.. so I do not believe it is biased; but here is the website so that you may check it out for yourself  = = www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org]

… this study showed that while 15% of Americans identified themselves as non religious that only 1.6 percent of Americans explicit said they were atheist. So that is let's say that is correct. That 1.6% of all Americans are atheist. That is about 5,000,000 Americans out of 307,000,000 that explicit identify as atheist.  

Another study showed that it is continuously growing, in 1990 only 7.5% of Americana considered themselves "non-religious", in 2001 13.2% of Americans identified themselves as non-religious, and in 2009 16.1% of Americans identified themselves as non-religious. Do understand that non-religious does not mean atheist [though atheist are included in the non-religious group] nonreligious can include atheists, agnostics, humanist, secular theist, and a myriad of other things.

On average America has about 2-3% of its citizens in jail at one time, of these 6-10 Million people in jail, if as the theist say that atheist are less morale, you would expect a large portion of them to be atheist. But, also in a study done in 2008 which is now circulated on many websites show that atheist only make up 0.21% of the average prison make up. So out of 6-10M people, that is only about 12-20K people who are atheist. So if we [atheist] are so immoral and hateful, why do you [theist] make up over 99% of prisons hm, moving right along.

There have been many studies that also show that the higher percentage of atheist in a nation, in general the less crime rate there is.

THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION!!...ATHEISTS WANT TO DESTROY IT!!
When debating many American Theist, especially Christians. You get the same usual arguments, this country is a Christian nation and that atheist want to destroy the way things as done. This not only shows the ignorance of the people. But also shows their ignorance of history of this country.

If they want to say that the united states is made up of mostly Christians, then sure, even an atheist will agree with that. If they want to say that many of the founding fathers believed in a higher power wither interactive or not, then yes, we will also agree with that. Yet to say this nation was made to be a Christian nation goes against the exact thing the original settlers and founders of this nation wanted.

I will use a few quotes, written pieces then add a bit onto them.

Why are we here?
Seems when speaking of this country being a Christian nation, they love to forget the reason we left Britain to begin with. One of the major reasons for us leaving Britain was the religious tyranny and the suppressing of other religions that were going on in Britain. When we left there, and settled here one of the most basic components was the free practice of whatever it is that you believed without fear of persecution, imprisonment or  death which was not unheard of in Britain. No one denies that a majority of the settlers were Christian, they have used this to say it was a Christian nation. They also use the argumentum ad populum fallacy argument of simply because most Americans believe this to be a Christian nation then it must be true.

This nation was founded on the free practice of ones religious beliefs, whatever they may be, it was never meant to be a carbon copy with a different belief [Christianity instead of Catholicism] of Britain.

So if you believe that we escaped a Catholic monarchy, only to come here and start a Christian monarchy you are mistaken. While some of the time did want us to still submit to Britain, most did not. While some did ponder or rather want United States to have Kings and be a monarchy, this was a very small minority, the vast majority did not. It is quite clear this nation was never to be that which we escaped and fought to keep our freedom from becoming.

You often get the argument of the founding fathers were all Christians. That also is not true, several of the founding fathers were deist and deist are people who believe a god created the earth, universe etc and then left. So in general they have no use for organized religions for they see that as praying to something that is not there.

The first amendment of the constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Not only does this show that the founders never intended for us to show favor of any state, yet it also shows within its text that congress shall respect all faiths and beliefs. Touching back on the founding fathers, one of the most important founding fathers Thomas Jefferson is thought to have been the catalyst for this. In the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" written in 1777 by Jefferson spoke of the state having no say in the religious beliefs of man. As well as forcing man to give monetary value or to show respect for something he may not believe in is as it said in the piece, I will be showing what I believe is the important parts of it, you can on your own look it to read it in its entirety

"to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that... is depriving him of the comfortable liberty...

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship"

Also in a letter to Baptist, known respectively as the "Danbury letter" Jefferson stated

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Treaty of Tripoli:
Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty which was agreed by the Americans who were doing the treaty agreed with it. You often get that criticism of it saying that the English treaty was not an exact translation of an Arabic translation, is that a major issue for treaty purposes? Possibly. Yet the agreed upon treaty that the Americans saw, including article 11 was written in English upon agreeing to it.

Another founding father James Madison on the issue of religious liberty in America stated
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others"

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"

Several founding fathers also spoke against religious beliefs, and thought the world would be better without it, of these, just naming a few here.

Thomas Paine, personally my favorite founding father for the written works he produced,

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God.  It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

Abraham Lincoln states "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession"

Many of the founding fathers have said things disputing their religious beliefs, and some spoke against theistic principals, generally because of their deism.

Given several of the previous quotes I believe I have proven or given enough evidence that this nation was never intended to be a "Christian nation" or rather in that it was never meant to show preference for the Christian religion.

ATHEIST HATE AMERICA!! THEY KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE IT!

When sometimes debating with theist in America, especially the conservative ones. You often get the, when paired with this is a Christian nation that atheists are trying to destroy it and make it into a secular nation. Since America was always suppose to be a secular nation, it is not that we atheist hate America, we merely love the constitution and shall not simply be silent when we see religious people try and subvert the constitutions and make laws that they know will pass simply because they are in the majority to vote on them.

You often hear many Christians speak of prayer in schools, okay Christians sure, we can have prayer in school, whose prayer? If you say yours only then that would be unconstitutional in that it endorses or shows favor of one particular religion over another, if you say all religious that would be less time for learning since depending on your religious affiliation It can take 30 or so minutes to finish a full prayer. So taking an additional 30+ minutes out of a school day that is too short already, I do not see how this is helping children at all? To shorten the class day to accommodate something that would best be done at their home?

Personally as an atheist, if you want to teach children of religions, both ancient and modern I would not be against that. In High school we had a whole two months of theistic studies where we discusses Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, as well as the gods and goddess of Egypt, Rome, and other types of belief. In this class we even briefly discussed atheism and the teacher gave us prominent atheist as well as prominent members in each of the religions we discussed. We had a test on each religion and the teacher did not show any favor to any of the religions even though she was an atheist. So if you wish to teach kids about all faiths or rather a wide array of faiths, and not showing any favor I do not think that any atheist will disagree with that. We [atheist] only generally have issues when you push through one faith as "truth" and disregard all others as false.

I have many atheist friends who although they are atheist, they still teach their kids about all religions as to not have them ignorant of others beliefs just because they do not agree with them.

In a recent Pew poll it showed that atheist and agnostics know more about religion than theist did. I think this can be attributed to atheist reading up on all faiths and thus are in general more knowledgeable on religions. Religions usually only read books that agree with their view of a god, most Christians I know have never read a Koran, and most Muslims I know have never read the Christian bible.

I Read the bible, Koran and all religious books that believe in gods and goddesses as I read any mythological book. I read them more so as history books of sorts; it shows me what a people believed at a particular time period in history. It holds no more truth, yet can be as interesting as ancient faiths that modern faiths now see as myths.

Pledge of allegiance,
While in many schools they still say the pledge, in the supreme court case "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette" in 1943 the supreme court held that no school shall ever force any students to say the pledge of allegiance for it violates religious freedoms.

This case was brought by Jehova's Witnesses NOT ATHEIST, because there was a then law forcing or rather making it mandatory that students must salute the flag while saying the pledge. Jehova's witnesses, in their faith are not allow to pledge allegiance to anything but god, so in pledging allegiance to a flag was violating the first amendment free exercise of religion.

The Pledge of allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist, who wanted a pledge that could be said by all Americans. While Bellamy was a Christian minister he wanted a pledge that transcended racial, religious, ethnic lines. So he made a somewhat "neutral" pledge for people to say to pledge allegiance to the country.

When speaking of Bellamy many try and tar him for his "Bellamy Salute" which was to right the right hand facing the flag, many try and say that this was to show his support of Nazism. Which is about as stupid as can be. Let us do a quick history lesson for a moment. Adolf Hitler was not born until 1889… the Nazis coming to power did not happen until 1933… the Bellamy Salute was being done in schools starting in 1892, which means Bellamy was doing this "Nazi Salute" some forty years before the Nazi's came to power, and was praising Hitler when he was only three years old.

Bellamy's salute predated Nazism, yet because he was a socialist and many Americans have no clue what socialism is other than what they see on certain news stations they try and smear his name. It is a bit funny the history of socialist in this country… but since this is suppose to be about my views on atheism and religion I will move along for now.

Bellamy said "(The Pledge was) born out of my own love of the flag and for all the lofty Americanism it represented" particularly the freedoms it grants to the people to explore different things in life and have the freedoms to do so.


Many atheist groups did not mind Bellamy's original pledge, in its original wording of
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Nor did many atheist groups mind the 1923 change of:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Where many atheist groups did start taking issue with the pledge in public schools, as well as the niece of Francis Bellamy spoke against it because that is not what her uncle ever intended for the pledge was in 1954 when President Eisenhower had congress add the words "under god" to the pledge.

To many atheist groups this looked as if the government was endorsing a particular religious belief in their combining allegiance to their country with allegiance with a god. In several supreme court cases the supreme courts held that they did not believe it was unconstitutional. Yet for me personally, I do not think one should have to recognize your god in order to pledge allegiance to this country, and that, to me, violates the first amendment. It also violates the very wishes of Bellamy himself who wanted a pledge that pretty much all Americans could say. As recently as March 2010 the court has upheld the decisions to keep "under god" in the pledge which upholds the original decision which states that the amendment to the pledge was "ceremonial deism' which is to say that seemingly religious statements have lost their value as the repetition/continuous saying of it over long periods of time.

Ceremonial deism is used to keep under god in the pledge, and in god we trust on the money to basically underline the establishment clause of the first amendment.

…moving right along.


ATHEISTS WANT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY!! They want to allow people their liberties that the constitution clearly supports!

A few days ago I was debating a Christian person who was against gay marriage, because the bible said it is wrong. When asked of the constitution he said he did not know if it allowed it or not, but said since people can vote on it that he will continuously vote no on it.

Can it be? The constitution supports gay marriage? Yes it does, so speaking or rather touching back on the atheist more so supporting the secular constitution than the theistic religious text. Here goes, personally I am all for gays getting married, I have yet to hear one decent argument as to why they should not be allowed to get married. What I have heard form the bigoted majority is that allowing gays to marry will destroy the institution of marriage and the American family.

You mean that holy institution of marriage with a 54% divorce rate? That great institution of marriage; where you have a higher chance of breaking up than staying together.

Let us look back at history shall we? … do we remember the Anti-miscegenation laws which banned the rights for interracial couples to marry and even, in some areas were even illegal for interracial people to date and have sexual relations. In the 1883 supreme court case of Pace v. Alabama upheld the decision that said that the Anti-miscegenation laws were legal. In that case a black man and white women who were living together at the time, were both found guilty of violating the Anti-miscegenation law so they were both charged, and were each sentenced to two years in jail…just for being a couple.

Let us not forget two landmark court decisions, that were not that long ago, the cases I am referring to is McLaughlin v. Florida in 1964, and the better known one is Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the supreme court rules that the previous decision of the supreme court upholding the constitutionality of the Anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional and were therefore null and void. This decision made it legal all across the United States for interracial couples to marry, have progeny and things of that nature. These cases ended all racially based restrictions on the institution of marriage that many states had.

The reason I bring up these three very significant cases is that in the Pace v Alabama supreme court case, these were all charged by bigoted ideas, and the people then who supported that law [the majority then] said that the idea of interracial couples were said to destroy the institution of marriage at the time. The idea of marriage in the times of a segregated society were whites with whites, and "colored" with "colored"

Okay back to the constitutional support of gay marriage, in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment it says "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Since marriage is a legal issue in that you must go to your local state department to get it and it will be legal and all that. To say that one group of citizens because of their sexual orientation is not allowed to get the same legal liberty as another group then it is not treating them equal in the eyes of the law. So that would be violating the equal protection clause which says no groups of citizens shall be singled out for unjust treatment in the eyes of the laws.

When I often cite this clause in the constitution, I am met with, well they did not mean as it pertains to marriage. It is meant in the same way the declaration of independence meant it. That everyone is created equal and that they are subject to the equal protection under the laws. It is a bit hard to say that everyone is equal in the eyes of the laws while continuously voting to take these same liberties granted by law away from certain citizens simply because you do not agree with their lifestyle.

Now touching back on morality and religion; religious people say that it is a sin, that their relationships are wrong and all of that nonsense.

We should teach our children that love has no boundaries, it is not settled in ones race, religion, gender, or whatever. We should not set limits of …you must love this way or it is not true love. We should never attempt to define what love is for another, for the fact is we do not nor shall we ever live in a country, nor world of social and moral absolutes. We should celebrate what love is, and most importantly what it is not, and what it is not, and will never be is an absolute to fit just one mold of being.

Okay I think it is about time that I wrap this up.

Hm, my view on deities is quite simple… The gods of yesterday are but the myths of today, as the gods of today shall most certainly be the myths of tomorrow.....which will then give birth to new concepts of god to be worshiped as "the true god" by the masses.

As far as my view of religion itself, I personally find it useless, and pointless in today's society. Particularly the Abrahamic faiths, yet any religion that says you must do this or that or you will burn or whatever. Or any religion that says believe different as I do and you will be punished.  I admit that I do not have a favorable view of religions, they are the epitomes of bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

The man who lies is just that, a man. The man who speaks whole truths even in brutal times is just that, a man. The man who promises everything and offers nothing is a politician. The man who promises nothing yet wants everything... is religion.

Now my views on the religious is a bit different. If you believe in god, that is good for you, if god is your reason or gives you that extra drive to get up and make it through the day, that is great, if god is the reason you do good deeds and help people out, then that is amazing. Yet when you use god as a reason to be bigoted against another just because of your religious text says this or that, then you are about as useless as the text that you follow.

To my theistic readers; If you must denigrate my lack of beliefs in order to validate your own, then it seems you are the one with the issues of faith, not I.

As always my comrades:
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.