7 Brutal Truths About Atheism

http://jackhudson.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/7-brutal-truths-about-atheism/

I have covered a few of these points in my Atheist Contradictions posts, but I wanted to create a comprehensive list of what I considered to be a number of realities that emanate from atheistic belief – brutal realities that are certainly true if atheism is true. In and of themselves these do not disprove atheism, but they do detail the cost of atheist’s beliefs. Most of these truths are acknowledged by various atheists.

1.Your life has no meaning or purpose

One obvious conclusion of believing that life and the universe are the result of wholly incidental material interactions is that one’s life has no inherent meaning. There is no reason why an atheist is here – and the atheist’s existence will serve no ultimate purpose. The typical rejoinder amongst atheists is that they can make or find their own meaning, which apparently means they can pretend there is meaning to their lives – but they seem to miss the fact that this is exactly what they criticize the religious of doing. In the final analysis to be an atheist is to either acknowledge that one’s existence does not ultimately matter or to live a life of pretense.

2.You are an atheist by virtue of when and where you were born

Atheists like to say this about the religious (in an attempt to reduce religious belief down something we unthinkingly inherit from our parents) but the reality is while people convert to and from various religions all around the world, atheists are by in large concentrated in the more advanced industrial nations. The reason for that is simple – being an atheist really only works for the relatively wealthy and comfortable. Most of the world outside of industrialized countries must endure the harsh realities of life – hunger, disease, violence, shorter lives. This flippant atheist tagline, “There’s probably no God… now stop worrying and enjoy your life” makes absolutely no sense if one lives in a slum in Africa or India, or under one deals daily with the ravages of drug cartels in some central American city. Atheists are atheists because they have the luxury of denying the reality of that which gives human lives essential dignity, and still living comfortable lives themselves.

3.You can never be certain that what you believe to be true is true

There is no basis in atheism for any confidence in one’s ability to discern what is and isn’t true about reality. The reason for this is because if one’s main instrument for deriving beliefs about reality (one’s physical brain) is the product of undirected incidental forces then there is no guarantee that this instrument is accurate in that respect. In fact, there is much reason to believe our cognitive equipment is faulty. So atheism contains its own internal defeater; if atheism is true, there is no reason for an atheist to be confident that atheism is true.

4.There is no objective way to evaluate moral choices

This is another truth that invites atheists to imagine something that can’t actually exist. In a purposeless universe, there is no basis for contending that creatures who incidentally evolved there should behave in a particular manner; there is no anchor to which we can tether an idea of right or wrong moral choices. From an atheist perspective moral claims are wholly derived from our own mental faculties – and as we saw in the previous point that would make them fairly arbitrary. This is especially true considering there are competing claims about right and wrong behavior. So then while an atheist might desire to act a certain way or desire that others acted in a certain way, he or she can never say others should act in a certain way as no human behavior is actually ever ‘wrong’ in any objective sense. Atheists often argue that they are as moral as any religious believer – but such a claim requires morals to exist in the first place.

5.The most brutal regimes have been atheistic

In their opposition to religion, atheists often like to point out that religious belief has historically often been a source of violence and persecution. While this neither proves nor disproves the existence of God; it certainly seems to make a belief in God undesirable. Unfortunately for atheists, they have some of their own history to deal with. In the early and mid 20th century, atheism, thanks to communism, was at its zenith historically. More than any time in history, a number of governments were overtly atheistic – there was no religious belief to motivate their leaders and armies. And it was during that time and in those places that the most horrible actions were taken – perhaps the worst in the history of man. The governments of Stalin, Mao, the various leaders of North Korea and Vietnam, as well as various regimes in Eastern Europe, Africa and South America killed tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people all told. They imprisoned millions more merely for their religious or political beliefs. The worst forms of torture and forced labor occurred under these systems, and many places have never fully recovered from the ravages of those times. If one were to evaluate beliefs based on the degree of pain and violence those beliefs provoked, then atheism would certainly be the standard for motivating horrible behavior.

6.Human rights and equality don’t exist

In the atheist scheme of reality, only that which has a physical component can exist, so claims of inherent rights or human equality are necessarily understood to be, like morals, wholly illusory. Take for example the concept of human equality. In American political philosophy our equality derives from the notion that we were created by God as equal persons of equal worth. What is equal about two humans in this view isn’t their physical qualities but intrinsic ones, a worth that can’t be diminished. On the other hand, people are inherently unequal according to any physical or biological measure. A person with substantive intelligence would certainly be more valuable than someone with a mental defect. A healthy person who can contribute to society would have more much worth than an ill or handicapped person –and so in a world where only that which was physical is real, ‘equality’ could not exist. Much the same could be said of the notions of rights or liberties – these entities can’t be found in a materialistic universe. This would explain in part why wholly atheistic regimes have such atrocious human rights records – they are under no obligation to recognize intrinsic human worth.

7.You will always be a small minority

The reality is as long as there have been recognizable human communities, there have been religious beliefs. Ideas about God or gods were the foundation of musicality, art, literature, even civilization itself. Our capacity for spiritual comprehension is our most distinguishing factor – perhaps more than any other thing that is what it means to be human. Even today, religious belief persists and is growing in the world – and this is made even more the case as primarily secular societies fade due to lack of procreation. If several thousand years of human history and all current trends are any indication, atheism is in its twilight years not its infancy.

Atheists will no doubt contest one or more of these claims, or find ways to wish away or excuse the reality of these claims. All of these claims has either been demonstrated by history or certain facts, and are completely consistent with atheistic beliefs and thus easy enough to defend. One could argue whether atheism is true; one can never say that it is a idea that is inconsequential.

This is extremely shallow thinking.

Whether life is eternal or only for a brief time makes no difference in terms of meaning. In other words, if life is meaningless for someone then it would continue to be meaningless for all of eternity even if it never ended. So the length of a life has nothing at all to do with the meaning of life.

For an atheist the meaning of life is in the living of it.

For a Christian fanatic the meaning of life is to worship someone who is far greater than they are and continue to remain in that state for all of eternity.

I'm not convinced that worshiping something that will forever be greater than me is all that meaningful. Just seems rather redundant to me. Sounds boring actually.

Of course I'm not an atheist. But I also don't have such a petty view of "God" as the Christians do. But I'm just comparing atheism with Christianity because that seem to be the fad.

No one seems to be interested in the truly intellectual and wise spiritual philosophies.




So your saying that only desperate people believe in God?

That's probably true for many people.



Same is true of a believer. Christianity is based on pure FAITH. Faith in a book that was written by a truly rude and crude male-chauvinistic society no less. A book that clearly contains stories and idea from myths of many different cultures. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.



So? Whoever said that morals have to be absolute?

I'm even a deeply spiritual person and I can see where an idea of absolute morals are silly. Morals will always depend upon the context of the situations.

Even the hypocritical Christian Bible verifies that I speak the truth.

In the Bible your God commands to humans "Thou shalt not kill". But then he goes on to direct and instruct people to kill other people in various situations. It not only ok to kills sinners, but we're supposed to do it. It not only ok to kill heathens, but it's our duty to seek them out and destroy them without mercy, etc.

So clearly there are no absolute moral values even within the Biblical context. It's all relative to context.



Atheism isn't a religion. It makes absolutely no sense to compare the actions of one atheist with that of another because they aren't following the guidelines of a single book that they are holding up as the "Laws of Atheists"

You scenario here can truly only be applied to religious people who do indeed hold up their Bible as the "Word of God", and historically we have seen many atrocities being carried out in the name of Jesus Christ the Almighty.

So Christians LOSE big-time on this one.



They may not exist for ignorant selfish fools, which many Christians often suggest they would become if they didn't believe in their God.

But clearly there are many atheists who are humanitarians, and even care about animals and the environment. And imagine that! They care about these things more than most Christians do!

This is also proof that the Bible is filled with lies, because the Bible claims that no good can come from an atheist, which we know is false.

Thus we have proof that the Bible cannot be the word of any all-wise all-honest God. Thus is must be the works of devious selfish and controlling men who claim to speak for God, when clearly they aren't speaking for anyone but themselves.



The bulk of the masses are always of low intelligence and easily led like sheep, so it makes sense that atheists would be a minority. Only few people are wise enough to actually think for themselves.



Nah. These are just very poor accusations that were quite easy to shoot down, and I'm not even an atheist.

did you know that in europe over half the people are agnostic or atheist,just do time for here in this country

I believe this is also true of Canada?

Americans are the last one's to give in to reason. And unfortunately it fluctuates. Well, actually maybe that's good. From what I've read the youth of today are mostly non-Christian. And the one's who are Christians revolt against dogma anyway, so they are giving rise to a large movement toward "Designer Christianity". Keeping the label alive to preserve Jesus' divine status, but basically reject the dogma as verbatim and start viewing it more intuitively as being more metaphorical rather than as iron-clad dogma.

Abra, well put

I have no idea where you got that information.The highest percent of Atheism was for France at 33% and every country under that was lower.So there is no country even close to being over half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe


Here is Canada

In the 2001 Canadian national census,[1] 72 percent of the Canadian population list Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as their religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Canada is by far the country's largest single denomination. Those who listed no religion account for 16 percent of total respondents. In the province of British Columbia, however, 35 percent of respondents reported no religion—more than any single denomination and more than all Protestants combined.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Religion_in_Canada

Nicely stated Abra!

Did anyone else find that his arguments made no sense, like he was talking to himself?

That's because he probably _was_. The author of this screed states that he's a converted agnostic skeptic, and we ALL know how most 'reformed' _______s can be super-zealots. Besides, he's in IT, and we all KNOW what Control Freaks they can be when challenged on their opinions. :)


-Kerry O.

well put. thnk u, and I'd remind the abracadabra poster that this thread is not intended as a venue to attack Christianity.

Your knowledge of Christianity is very weak. Christianity is a New Testament religion (except for a few sects or individuals that mistakenly cling to Old Testament beliefs). The Old Testament is violent and it is the book of those judeo-christian faiths who are today still the world's most violent, on that we can agree.

Christianity, however, is based on the New Testament, the distinguishing feature being, of course the teachings of Christ who forbade sacrifice, and the eye for an eye mentality of the Old Testament. It is based not just on faith, but on the virtues of love, hope, charity, forgiveness, and mercy. The last 2 clearly distinguishing it, and putting it at odds, with the older other Old Testmanet faiths that still believe in retribution. (IDK if the jews still believe in retribution, but the muslims do) In fact Christ's loathing of retribution and his love for forgiveness are so strong that most Christians cannot fully live up to his expectations. It is easy to love those who r loving, kind and agreeable, but to love ones enemies, the wretched, the infidel, and sinners this is what he has commanded and is the crux of Christianity, and the challenge. I also agree, Abra, that many Christians lose sight of these basic tenets in the hustle & bustle of daily life , as I do myself. I think Atheists see our human weakness and point it out, and in this perhaps do us all a favor to remember that to be Christian we must make at least an attempt to live as Jesus taught.

I also follow the Bhudda fondly and love both religions equally tho IDK as much in depth of Bhuddism, it's complicated facets, and cultural references I find difficult, understandably. I have read and heard the dalai lama and find him to be the only living (like alive now, in 2010) man of God that we have that I am aware of.

So you can make posts attacking atheism but no one should defend them, is that right? Atheists can be attacked but don't say anything bad about christianity?

Gotta love the people that can dish it out but can't take it...

No, you gotta love those who do nothing but dish it out, then cry foul when it's finally dished back.

For every 1 post the bashes any other religion here (including atheists), you can find 10 bashing Christianity.

What is most telling are the posts that resort to name-calling. They show the character of the poster more than the object of the attack. Call me a "Designer Christian", call me "delusional", call me a "fundie", call me whatever you like, but don't think for a minute that those terms are not derrogatory.

(Foliel, that was not directed to you, but to those who only have fallacies and ad-hominems as weapons.)

i don't believe this is a total attack on atheism. i am an atheist and some of what was said is true to an extent. of course, i disagree, or at least feel some of what was said needs some defending. for example, "your life has no meaning or purpose" on a large scale has some truth to it. eventually humans will no longer exist, this planet will no longer exist, and everything we ever did will be just a blip in time. however, in the time i have alive, i am here to do everything i can to make my daughter enjoy her life, to do everything i can to enjoy my life. to appreciate that i do have a life. i don't worry about an ultimate purpose because in the end, there isn't one. and as far morals go, i believe in doing things that i believe are right. i am a good person because i want to be a good person. i do not need a creator slapping my wrist every time i do something bad. what do i consider moral? i consider the actions i am taking and how they affect people around me. when you think about how youre actions might affect people around you, its not hard to figure out what is right and what is wrong. i don't feel like arguing about this post to the death. i dont think this post was an attack, just an argument for religious people to feel more confident in what they believe in. the religious/non religious arguments should really try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to a healthy debate.

I absolutely agree with you sweetestgirl11. If Christianity could indeed represent the moral values of Jesus alone it would be a beautiful religion. In fact, it would basically be Buddhism.

The problem with Christianity (and I'm speaking of the doctrine itself, not the followers), is that the authors of the New Testament are basically claiming that Jesus is the only begotten son of the God of the Old Testament.

So here you are proclaiming that even you think the laws of the Old Testament were horrible. What does that say? It can only mean that if it wasn't for Jesus you wouldn't like the biblical God either.

But how could Jesus be the complete opposite of the Biblical God and still be his son? That makes no sense at all.

This is why it makes sense to recognize that Jesus most likely was indeed a Buddhist who was either simply misunderstood, or horribly abused by the authors of the New Testament in an attempt to use his martyrdom to prop up the very religion that Jesus preached against.

I personally feel it was actually the latter. I think the New Testament was indeed written on purpose to make it appear that Jesus was the son of the God of the Torah, just so the scribes and Pharisees could regain religious power.

In any case, recognizing that this is a very possible scenario should not offend anyone. It should also be a far more popular theory. The Christians don't want it to become a popular theory. They don't want to have anything to do with anything that doesn't support the biblical picture. They really couldn't care less whether it holds any truth or not. They don't seem to care about truth, all they care about is keeping the "Christian Myth" alive and well, at all cost.

It shouldn't be like that. People should be able to offer alternative views without being pushed aside as "Christian bashers". That's just silly.

You can't even voice an honest opinion that the bible might not be the word of God, or that Jesus might not have been the only begotten son of God, without being called a "Christian basher"

That's wrong.

A person should be able to voice why they feel the Biblical stories may not be from a divine source at all, and not have that opinion be considered to be "Christian bashing".

After all, the Christian organizations don't own the Bible, and even more to the point they try to PUSH the bible onto everyone else as the "Word of God", and that's all the more reason that people should be able to voice their reasons why they do not believe that it's the word of any God.

That's a valid reaction in the face of Christians constantly shoving the Bible at everyone claiming that it's the "Word of God". Well, gee whiz, if you simply try to explain why you don't believe them, they start screaming "Your Bashing Our Religion!"

Well DUH!

If they quit shoving the Bible down everyone's throat as the "Word of God" then maybe they wouldn't need to hear why people don't believe it.

They want ONE-WAY proselytizing and evangelizing rights. They want to be able to go around preaching to everyone that the Bible is the "Word of God", and at the same time they want to dismiss everyone who holds an alternative view to be silenced as nothing more than a "disrespectful Christian basher".

Well I guess they would LOVE that.

Then they could go about pressuring people to convert to Christianity and no one could say a word against their claims because to do so would be considered, "Christian Bashing".

That would be like a FREE TICKET to run proselytizing campaigns without ever having anyone QUESTION anything, because as soon as people start questioning the Bible, they'd will quickly be labeled as "Christian Bashers". How dare they be so disrespectful as to question the Christian religion!

I'm not about to get into that baloney.

As far as I'm concerned I'm just giving my views on an ancient book, as well as some of the affects it has had on people throughout all of history right up and including today. It may as well be Moby Dick as to be the Bible as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not saying that to offend anyone, I'm just telling it like it is.

static28, I'm curious about something you wrote:



In what way would immortality have an affect on the meaning or purpose of life?

Imagine for a moment that you are an eternal being living with other eternal beings. Does that automatically make life meaningful and give it purpose?

If so why?

Also, imagine that as eternal beings something suddenly went awry and you learned that you were no longer immortal and that you will eventually die. Would that knowledge suddenly make your life less meaningful? Or maybe more meaningful since now you know you only have limited time to live?

I don't understand how the length of a life can have anything to do with the meaning of life. You could have a totally meaningless life and never be able to die. It would still be meaningless. Or you could have a wonderfully meaningful life and then die.

How would living forever give life any more meaning?

And why does knowing that you'll die make it any less meaningful?

I'm just curious of your thoughts on this.

i do not think that knowing you will die gives your life any less meaning. in fact, i believe that the fact we will die is the only thing that drives many people to greatness. in high school i wrote a poem called "the sunny side of death" which focuses on this very thing. living forever would eventually get boring, and it would be way too easy to say "ill do it tomorrow". i dont think that immortality in any sense would be a good thing. in my opinion, the key to life is enjoying what you have, and what it has brought you. i also believe that some people are in so much pain or have been through so much pain, that they can no longer enjoy just being alive. death is a motivator. in my original post, what i was trying to say is that eventually human kind will be no more. some of us will end up as fossils in the ground for some other creature to find in the future. and even after that, our sun will not last forever. this galaxy may not lost forever. when you look at time as a whole, we are a microscopic dot on an infinite timeline. it doesn't mean that we can't enjoy what we have, but in the long run, in the entire history of everything that has been and will be done, we are nothing.

I certainly hear you. I have problems with procrastination even knowing that life is terminal.



Perhaps this is a reason why physical life is short. To prevent suffering from continuing on too long before rebirth.

I tend to believe in reincarnation for many reasons, I'll speak to those reasons momentarily



Well, time truly is relative, and you vividly show this by comparing a human lifespan to the age of the universe itself. One length of time seems extremely brief relative to the other. But what if you didn't have the other concept to compare with? Then what? If the span of a human lifetime was the only length of time we could grasp we wouldn't be able to say whether it's long or short. Long or short compared to what?

I personally believe that we are all eternal spirit because time is indeed a property of physical stuff, so outside of physics time is a totally meaningless concept. Even scientists with the help of Albert Einstein have now recognized that time itself is as much of a 'physical' property of the universe as space it. Thus they speak of a "spacetime fabric" now rather than of space, and time as being something separate.

So to an observer "outside" of our spacetime universe (or potentially residing in another dimension) the length of time of a human lifespan versus the length of time of the entire cosmos may itself be trivial.

On the Topic of Reincarnation

Finally, what is it that becomes conscious?

Let's say we have a ball of dust. That ball of dust condenses to form a human body, that human body experiences it's existence as a human being. Then it dies and become a ball of dust again.

What was it that experienced being a human? Only the human form? Or was it the dust itself that experienced becoming a human momentarily?

I realize this is a deep thought. But is you accept that all that truly exists is the dust, then surely the dust must have been the "thing" that ultimately had the experience of having become a human.

If it could do it again, then it could have the experience again, and again, and again.

Are we humans? Or are we the stardust that we call the cosmos merely becoming humans periodically in an endless cosmic dance?

This is the fundamental basis of the Eastern Mystical view of life. Although it can get quite deeper than even this. Not only are we the stardust, be we are the thing that makes stardust. We are the being that creates the cosmos and for us, there is no such thing as 'time'.

Romantic? Sure.

Physically possible? Well our best scientists have no clue about that. They are currently searching to new dimensions and even potential parallel universes, so they aren't yet convinced that are little glob of spacetime is all that exists.

How does it all work? Who knows? That's why they call it "Mysticism", it's a mystery.

Anything is possible. It doesn't need to be anywhere near "mundane". Mystics imagine that is is controlled via a cosmic karma, what you do in one physical lifespan will carry over to determine what your next incarnation is like. But let's face it, that's just a guess.

It could be that every time we physically die we simply wake up to our true spiritual nature, which is not physical. We then realize our true nature and all the possibilities. Perhaps knowing that we are eternal with nothing to "DO" would indeed be boring. So what we "DO" is create physical incarnations to experience whilst we blind ourselves to our true immortality. Thus making life EXCITING, dangerous, and a real challenge. Then when we physical die we wake up again and realize that it was just a kind of dream. Perhaps we can have some say in what our next dream will be like.

Who knows? It's all a mystery to us.

But, for me, this actually sounds better than the idea of some eternal heaven worshiping a creator. What would be the point to that?

I think that would soon become so boring we'd be asking the creator if we could experience another physical incarnation where we are blinded to our true nature once again.

For me, heaven would be able to become reincarnated for all of eternity, assuming that I have at least some choice and control over how I am reincarnated. And I'd certainly accept karma too, where my own actions would determine my own fate and experiences. That only seems fair.

Anyway, that was a very LONG ramble for such a SHORT life.

Opening thread point 7, “you will always be a small minority”; why are you so worried about them and spent so much text bashing them if they will always be “small”? It’s like the little boy that likes the girl so he pulls her hair to get her attention.

The human race will be here a long time unless we kill ourselves with bombs, chemicals or whatever. When we talk about it all coming to an end (IE: “our sun will not last forever”) we need to realize that were talking about billions of years. That’s a really long time.

If we want to talk about meaning of life with evolution in mind then were all bound by the same biological imperative, which is to reproduce. This requires cooperation, planning, and some positive thinking. Regardless of religion or atheism, it seems that every creature on this planet is biologically bound by this rule.

I think one huge impediment for considering atheism is about fairness. To think Hitler killed millions and he only dies once isn’t fair. Another impediment to atheism is about death. To know you will die and then there is “nothing” would be hard to accept. So, believing in a heaven and hell creates fairness and takes away some of the fear of dying.

The question I have is this. I’ve seen/meet Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormon’s and “yes” even atheists that seem very happy and content; as I like to say, “centered”. Why is it that people, from all these different belief systems, can find a center? Maybe it’s about a shared process, rather than any one belief system? Maybe “meaning in life”, “purpose” and “happiness” are earthly and not divine?

That's an interesting thought. When I was quite young, even possible preteens, I recognized two things.

1. The world is already well-populated, if not over populated.

2. Human societies seem to be focused in greed and competition rather than on sharing and cooperation.

With those two observations in mind I decided that I did not want to be responsible for bringing new life onto the planet. For the sake of the people already here, we could use a little population control. And for the sake of the child I would be bringing into the world, that would almost be mean to bring them into a society that is based on greed and competition.

The funny thing is here that from a purely biological point of view, even a fungus multiplies on a piece of fruit until the entire orb is totally covered with fungus and the fruit dies along with the fungus.

So to just blindly procreate simply because we can is to be no more responsible than a fungus.

Also, for me to think that my genes deserve to be passed on because they might be better than someone else's genes seems rather arrogant.

Although I could see this being a potential criteria for a society as a whole. Let the people who have been proven to be successful in good ways (without using corruption as a crutch) be the ones who reproduce and have LARGE families, whilst the rest of us, just accept that to not have children would be better for the WHOLE of the human race.

As it is now we are doing basically the opposite. The truly intelligent and successful people tend to have very few or no children, whilst the very poor and undereducated tend to have lots of kids, and raise them on welfare.

That's just a fact. No "judgments" being made here.

In short, procreation just for the sake of procreation without any other criteria being considered isn't any more intelligent than what we'd expect to see in fungus or bacteria. We're just a big fungus on Planet Earth really.



Passing judgments on Hitler may be unrealistic. I just chalk him up as someone who was mentally ill. I can't even imagine a God sending him to hell. Just fix his brain.

Clearly he was out to create what he believed would be a superior human society, whilst getting rid of those who appeared to him (and even supported by the Bible) to be worthless idiots.

So from his mentally handicapped position he was trying to do something "Good" even though sane people recognize that it was ultimately sick.

However, consider this, "How is the God of the Bible all that much different from Hitler?"

The God of the Bible wants only those people who will obey his commands without question and he's going to toss all the rest into a fiery furnance. God is supposedly going to create some sort of superior society in his kingdom of heaven by weeding out all the undesirables.

How is this truly any different from what Hitler was attempting to do?

They are both totalitarian dictators who are attempting to created a superior society based on criteria they choose as the guidelines.



I think you can have happiness without purpose too. Or maybe if your purpose to to be happy and you succeed in that purpose, then happiness is all that's required because it would then be the purpose.

I'm happy.

My "purpose" right now is to write music which I'm doing. And I'm enjoying it. I'm not concerned with the finished product. I'm enjoying the process. Although I confess that it would also make me happy to see my music performed, or perform it myself with other musicians. That would be cool.

In the meantime I'm happy just writing it and playing it myself on recordings.

What more do I need?

I do confess that there are things I can imagine that would be even better than what I currently experience. It would be great if Catherine Zeta Jones came knocking at my door and said, "I'm fed up with all the boys out there I need a real man!"

But let's face it, that's not very likely gonna happen.

In the meantime, I'm as happy as reality permits.

Abracadabra,
For you to decide to not have biological children is an exercise in “free will”. I totally get your feelings about not having (or having) a child and unimportance (or importance) it brings to you. But, I believe we are still driven to reproduce. It doesn’t have to be bearing a child or about genetics, rather it’s about nurturing. I bet if you meet that perfect someone (IE: Catherine Zeta Jones) and they had children, you would do everything you could to protect, teach and love them.

Now, on the God/Hitler thing; “YIKES” dude . I’m not sure I can comment on that. Instead, I was focused on “fairness” and why a god is appealing for the purpose of justice. Without the notion of a God, a Hitler, serial murderer or child molester, in a way, they get away with it. They create much havoc, much more havoc than their one life. The notion of hell allows folks to believe there will be justice.

And music must bring you much joy. Without some positive purpose in life we falter. It sounds like you’ve got purpose in music; what more can a human ask for. It makes me feel good for you to express your happiness with music; your desire to hear it played and so on. Thanks for that.

"Brutal" is defined on dictionary.com as: –adjective
1.savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2.crude; coarse: brutal language.
3.harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather.
4.taxing, demanding, or exhausting: They're having a brutal time making ends meet.
5.irrational; unreasoning.
6.of or pertaining to lower animals.

I must say that the #5 applies to your "brutal" truths for atheists because you are not logical nor do you apply reasoning. Also, you are, by your own admission, making "claims"--they are not truths or facts, but your opinions based on your own illogical needs to prove the existence of a god; therefore, you validate your beliefs and even yourself.


1. Who are you to judge the meaning of life for anyone? Being alive is merely enough to establish meaning! I enjoy my job: it gives meaning to my life (I teach). I love my family and friends: they give meaning to my life. I have many purposes.

2. Actually, I WAS a Christian by the "virtue" of being born into a Christian family. I was indoctrinated from the time I was able to understand language. In fact, I am sure that it even started before then. At this point, I am more of an agnostic than an atheist, but in my vast contact with religious people, most believe because their parents believed. Yet I have met no atheists who are atheists because their parents were.

3. What is your point? You can claim to be certain about what you believe, but that doesn't mean it is so!

4. Of course there are objective ways to evaluate ETHICAL choices--forget morals. I have NO morals, but I am quite ethical. Ethics are culturally determined, and as such, we have civil laws set in place to protect humans from other humans. If there were no religion, the same laws would still be in place. If Christians claim supremacy in the area of ethics, I would point to older, pagan societies that had the same frickin' laws!

5. Since there have been few atheistic regimes, let's come back in a few thousand years to evaluate this one. However, whether regimes have been religious or atheist, it is a moot point: humans are cruel and they use religion or other types of ideology to validate their need for power and control. To say that atheist regimes have been more corrupt or brutal than religious regimes is not true--no one has the monopoly on cruelty.

6. This is so illogical I don't even know where to start, but let me go waaaaay back. There is evidence that ancient humans took care of their less fortunate companions. Remains of human skeletons show bones set, skulls trepanned, and other aspects of medical treatment. Trust me, these cultures were not governed by Christians. I also suggest that you read the Hebrew Scriptures where people with diseases were outcasts. If your #6 "proves" this is why atheist regimes have been so cruel, how do you explain pogroms, ghettos, slavery and other atrocities committed by religious people.

Oh, I know! They weren't REAL Christians!

7. What is your point? Because a majority of people "believe" something, does it make it a "fact"? When pagan Rome was at its peak, does that mean they had the "right" belief until it was superseded by Christianity? In India, Hinduism has been the prime religion for centuries, does that mean they are "right"? If Muslims take over the world, including your Christian sector, does that mean that Islam is "right"?

In addition, you make claims that you do not substantiate. You say most of these "truths" are substantiated by most atheists; please, give me their names. You make illogical claims that are based on fallacies, i.e. these things are true if atheism is "true." I could point to the crusades, witch burnings, the Inquisition and many other aspects as exemplifying the "truth" of religion, eh?