Are you an atheist or agnostic?
Before I answer this question, let's look at what an agnostic is.
"One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."
For most of my life I considered myself agnostic. I sometimes believed in God, but for the most part was unsure. Over the last couple years I decided to look deeper into the subject so I could be certain of my own beliefs. I read the Bible, Book of Mormon, Qur'an, and the Torah, and after reading these religious texts I noticed several flaws and contradictions not only between the texts, but in each book itself. I then went on to study books that support each position, from Christian books like "The Case For Christianity" to Atheist/Skeptical books such as "The God Delusion." After reading a multitude of books on each, I went on to research theories such as Creationism, Intelligent Design, the Big Bang, etc. Finally I went to a Baptist church, a Temple, and spoke with a personal friend who happens to be a priest, to see their point-of-views. After doing a ridiculous amount of research, and being what I consider to be very open-minded, I can now safely say that unless someone comes to me with evidence that proves otherwise, There is no god, and I am an atheist.
Atheists are a very diverse bunch and I have been around many atheists. It seems as if there isn't that much in common between you guys.
You also really do not have that much of a doctrine to inquire about. But I do have a question:
How come atheists target Christianity? I think it is merely targeted only because it is what most of you were raised in close proximity to on English speaking forums.
However, there are all sorts of complaints you can lodge against a plethora of religions.
You also seemingly investigated and stopped only at Christianity, why is that?
Thanks.
Atheists don't solely target Christianity, but Atheists in the United States do tend to place more emphasis on Christianity than other religions simply because 75% of the United States claims to be Christian.
What most Christians don't realize is that their religion isn't the only one. When I call myself an atheist and people seem stunned that I don't believe in god, they rarely realize that god isn't a proper noun. "God" is not the one and only god. When Christians refer to god, usually they're referring to Yahweh. It's therefore interesting to note that when I asked a group of 10 self-proclaimed Christians who Yahweh is, 7 of them had no idea what I was talking about.
I'm sure that none of you believe the creator of the universe is Zeus, or Aker, or Allah, or Poseidon, or Zenu, despite the fact that they are all gods. And there are still people today who believe in all of these. In fact over 1 billion people worship Allah rather than Jesus Christ.
As for me, as I said earlier I've read not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, and the Torah. I can tell you specific arguments for each religion, as well as contradictions and errors in each text, but find that most of my responses apply not only to Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, but rather to religion as a whole.
Keep in mind that there are billions of people who look at Yahweh and Jesus Christ the same way you look at Poseidon, Athena, or Zenu.
"We're all atheists, I just go one god further."
I've noticed that atheists as a whole are just about as divided as Christians are when it comes to what they, as a group, believe. So, tell me, what do you believe as an atheist?
Atheists don't have any "Group beliefs" simply because we're all individual people. We don't need a doctrine to base our lives on, since we all have different ideas of what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, truth or fiction. That said, as a whole Atheists (And myself) tend to believe in what can be proven.
We believe that faith is belief without proof or evidence, and is not a sufficient reason to believe in a supernatural deity.
Why is belief in God irrational?
Again, you are probably referring to the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian god, you're automatically rejecting Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru, and thousands of other gods you've never heard of. You simply believe in whatever faith you were taught growing up, or had the most exposure to during your childhood and adult life. The followers of all these thousands of other religions reject your god just as you reject theirs. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think yours are imaginary.
Atrheists reject all gods equally, simply because there's no more proof that the Judeo-Christian god exists as there is that Vishnu, Buddha, or Waheguru exists. If one of these gods were real the followers of that God would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits that are obvious to everyone. They would pray and their prayers would be answers. Everyone else would notice this and eventually everyone would converge and start to believe in that one god which has shown himself to be the true, undeniable supreme being.
Yet there doesn't seem to be anything of this sort. There are over 2 billion Christians, 1 billion Islams, 1 billion Hindus, 400 million Buddhists, etc. And there's no proof that any of them are experiencing undeniable benefits that the others aren't.
Atheists often claim that Hell is unreasonable, do you also then claim that heaven is unreasonable too?
Atheists believe that both Heaven and Hell are unreasonable, since they both go hand in hand with religion and the belief in god. The question is if the Judeo-Christian god is supposed to be loving and forgiving, and if we also know that he is omnipotent (All-powerful), omniscient (All-knowing), and omnipresent (Everyone at once), why did he create what he must have known would become a "Fallen angel" and enemy of himself? If god is really all-knowing and all-powerful, he should be able to destroy Satan and Hell, or at the least not have created them in the first place. What's more, if god is omnipresent and is everywhere at once, would that also mean that god is in Satan, and in Hell? The notion of Heaven, Hell, and god just doesn't add up. The only way to believe in such things is through "Faith" or the ability to believe in god despite lack of evidence, or in many cases an abundance of evidence against him.
As for proof of God, what kind of proof are you looking for?
There's a great video on YouTube called "How to Convert an Atheist" which describes exactly what it would take to convince most atheists to believe in a god.
The first is verifiable, scientific prophecies that could not have been contrived. So far every prophecy in the Bible is vague and unclear, making it easy to find many occurances over the past 2,000 years that would seem to "fulfill the prophecy." One thing that would make myself (And many other Atheists) believe in god is a clear, undeniable prediction that would be impossible to know, which specifies exactly when and where the prophecy will be fulfilled, and can not be guessed or otherwise stumbled upon.
The next would be scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time. Some reference to the atomic theory of matter, information on quantum physics, vacuum fluctuation, quasars, the laws of electro-magnetism, or anything that could not be guessed by the people of the time without modern technology.
The next is miraculous occurences, especially brought about by prayer. For example, if a double-blind study was done by a hospital to study the effects of prayer and the results were found to show a significant benefit when members of a certain religion prayed for a recovery, I would instantly convert to that religion. However, there have been several studies testing exactly that, and none have found that prayer has any effect, despite the fact that Jesus claimed in the Bible that Christians would be able to work miracles through prayer.
Finally, any direct manifestation of the divine. If God talked to me in person in a way that I could be sure I wasn't dreaming or hallucinating, I would instantly convert.
How to Convert an Atheist Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
How to Convert an Atheist Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E
Where did the 1st particles come from? Where is the beginning of your evolution?
Who's to say there ever were any first particles? To say that is assuming that the natural state of the universe is emptiness. However, from what we know about the universe, even in a perfect vacuum in which there is only "Empty space" there is still the opportunity for a naturally occuring phemomenon known as vacuum fluctuation, in which tiny quantum particles can pop in and out of seemingly empty space, which is devoid of anything recognizable as matter.
People (Atheists and theists alike) often search for the origins of the universe. Obviously the universe has not always been in the state it is now, but there's no reason to believe anything created it. Isn't it much more plausible to believe that the universe always existed in one form or another than it is to believe that an incomprehensible being was powerful enough to create itself as well as everything in the universe?
Why do people think that we as humans are so special? The universe is trillions of times more extensive than the planet earth. Why are people so selfish as to believe that a supernatural being created the entire universe just for homo sapiens?
The creationist argument of the origins of the universe ties in with the popular "God of the Gaps" concept. A thousand years ago people believed fire and lightening to be the work of gods, and that there were gods that controlled every naturally occuring phenomenon. People believed rain was a sign that they had pleased god, and that earthquakes were a sign they had offended him. The reason people believed this was a lack of knowlede. People didn't know where rain, fire, lightening, or earthquakes came from, so they assumed that god did it. Even a few hundred years ago people took natural occurances that can be explained by science as a sign of god.
This is the "God of the gaps." The notion that God lives in anything that people can't personally explain. If someone has a dream where they accidently cut their finger with a knife, and the next day they accidently get a cut from a knife, they assume that it must be god trying to warn them, instead of recognizing it as an unlikely, but entirely possible coincedence. One of the few remaining "God gaps" is the origin of the universe. Because of the fact that scientists don't agree on how the universe evolved over the last 14 billion years, people assume god must have done it.
The population as a whole has become far less religious over the last 100 years. Today roughly 20-25% of the United States define themselves as Atheist/Agnostic, and the USA is one of the most religious countries in the world. In Europe the majority of the population doesn't believe in a god, and most would laugh at the mention of divine intervention or visions.
I have no doubt that within the next 50-100 years, we'll have a much better understanding of the universe and world around us, and god will have to find another gap to live in. Keep in mind that most occurances you attribute to God can be easily explained by science, if you take the time to look for the answers in books instead of talking to yourself.
What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What's the point?
In my opinion the question itself is flawed. People assume that there has to be a universal answer to the meaning of life, or a conscious reason for humans to exist. Hundreds of millions of species have lived, evolved, and died off, without making any noticable change in the world around them. Most humans are self-centered and believe that the homo sapien race must have some purpose to fufill, or desiny. The fact is (If slightly pessimistic) that most people live, die, and the world moves on without them, and that's ok. The world doesn't revolve around you, or me, or anyone else.
As comforting as it is to believe that when you die there is a being of infinite power and wisdom waiting to welcome you into his kingdom of the sky, that doesn't make it any more likely. Many people don't question their beliefs because they don't want to find out they're wrong. They'd rather live their lives content knowing that everything's going to be ok when they die, and that there's going to be something more. Personally, I'd love to know that when I die I'm going to live in a paradise for eternity (Although I'd imagine that even in a perfect world, it'd get boring after a few millenia). However, for me (And the 30 million atheists in the United States) comfort isn't enough. We want to know the truth. We'd rather make the most of our lives while we're living, instead of basing our lives, morals, and daily routines around the teachings of a book written 2,000 years ago by people who believed the Earth is flat.
So to answer your question, the meaning of life is different for all of us. For me, it's to excel in everything I do. To hone my skills at the piano, to learn as much about the world as I can, to help others who need it most, and to to help people overcome their fears and obstacles that keep them from being the best and happiest they can be. Perhaps in another 20 or 30 years I'll be able to discover something that will benefit the world. What's meaningful in my life may be completely trivial to someone else. The point is that you don't need to believe in god to be a good person, despite the constant pressure from society to "Let Christ save you" or to be a "Good Christian guy/girl." You should let your own life guide what's meaningful to you, and don't let anyone, be it friends, family, strangers, or Yahweh, tell you what should be important in your life.
I mean seriously look at how beautiful the Earth is and all the life in it. It is just the right distance from the sun. If it were a bit farther we would freeze or if it were just a little but closer we would burn. Earth is just one planet out of many in our solar system and our Sun is just one of billions of stars, and are galaxy is just one of billions. I cannot accept the fact that the Earth came into existence by accident. Things are just to perfectly made to be an accident.
Not true at all. The Earth (As well as the other planets) orbits the sun in an elliptical path, meaning that the distance between the Earth and sun is constantly changing drastically. The Earth is also not the only planet in our solar system capable of sustaining life. Mars is believed to have contained water in the past, and may still harvest some forms of life below the surface.
As far as the Earth being just one out of many in the galaxy, if anything that's proof against your claim. There are billions of planets in the known universe, the odds are pretty good that at least one of them has the right characteristics to support life. This is the common argument that "The odds of things being exactly as they are right now is almost impossible, so there must be an intelligent creator." Which is completely absurd. The odds for the world to be in any situation is almost impossible. If the Earth was flat, water was pink, and we had gigantic walking trees roaming the Earth, people would still be using the argument that "The world is too perfect to have happened by chance."
Even assuming the Earth was considerably closer or further to the sun that it currently is, you're completely forgetting the fact that life evolves and adapts to the environment, not the other way around. We know of creatures deep in the sea that can survive temperatures of several hundred degrees fahrenheit, as well as creatures capable of living in temperatures significantly below 0. People look out the windows of their air conditioned homes, wearing several layers of clothing, sunglasses, and hats, and talk about how perfect the world is, and how amazing it is that the environment is perfectly suited to allow life.
I dare anyone who says that to go outside without any man-made luxuries, processed foods, or technology, and spend a day out in the real world, then come back and talk about how perfectly designed the world is. Ever since the beginning of the human race we've been adapting to our environment by sheltering ourselves and creating tools to help us. The people who claim the world could not be the way it is without a creator seem to forget that they're looking at a world filled with man-made alterations. Landscaping, construction, beds to sleep on, refridgerators to keep our food from spoiling and stoves to cook it. The reason the world looks like there must be a creator is because there is. But the creator is man, not god. It's man that is responsible for the survival and evolution of the human race, and it's man that will determine whether the human race thrives or dies off.
"Is it the ten commandments that most people would agree are generally the "right" thing to do?"
Some of the ten commandments are almost universally considered common sense, while others are questionable or outright unreasonable. We'll take a look at each individual commandment, but first keep in mind that the ten commandments aren't the foundation of the ethical code in civilization. People had a general sense of right and wrong since long before the ten commandments were supposedly given to Moses by god.
The First Commandment - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
According to old testament, other (Pagan) gods are assumed to exist, but are not to be worshipped. To the Jewish/Christian population, this commandment would be almost universally accepted. However, since 5/6 people in the world are neither Jewish nor Christian, following this as a ethical standard would automatically render the 5 billion people who don't subscribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs immoral, including Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. Therefore I'd say most people wouldn't agree that the first commandment is the "right" thing to do.
The Second Commandment - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
Ignoring the fact that according to this passage, 4 generations under anyone who breaks the second commandment will be held responsible for their father's actions by god, we'll look solely at the morality of this commandment. Basically what this means is not to create (Or worship/bow down to) an image or likeness of anything in heaven or hell. That means that anyone who attends a church with an image of Jesus Christ, or draws a picture of angels, is immoral. Considering the fact that most Christians/Jews have broken the second commandment at one time or another, I think it's safe to say it has no place as a standard of ethics.
The Third Commandment - "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
This commandment is one of the most widely misunderstood. It was originally meant to prohibit use of the name of god for any frivolous/malicious purpose or in magic. However, regardless of which way you interpret the third commandment, most people have done so and therefore including the third commandment in a code of ethics would be considered by most both unreasonable and hypocritical. If anything it would be restricting the freedom of speech that most people hold to be so valuable.
The Fourth Commandment - "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
According to the bible, the sabbath is on Saturday. It was a pagan by the name of Constantine that moved the day of worship to Sunday in the year 364. Jews have their sabbath beginning Friday night until Saturday, Christians worship on Sunday, Wiccans on full moons, and Muslims on Fridays. This commandment has been broken by more people than any so far. Even Christian bookstores are open on weekends. So again, most people wouldn't consider following the fourth commandment to be the "right" thing to do, or to have any place in an ethical code. Try to keep track of how many commandments you've broken so far.
The Fifth Commandment - "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."
This means that those who honor their parents will live longer than those who don't, a claim which has absolutely no scientific evidence. Regardless, at face value the idea of honoring your parents seems reasonable, and something few would disagree with. However, is honoring a parent who is a rapist, child molester, physically abusive, or neglectful the "right" thing to do? Most parents are deserving of honor and respect, but honoring someone merely because they are your father/mother would be considered unreasonable by most if they molested you as a child, repeatedly beat you, or neglected you, something which tens of millions of parents are responsible for.
The Sixth Commandment - "Thou shalt not kill."
Ok, finally a commandment that is undeniably and universally considered the "right" thing to do, right? Well it depends on how you interpret it. Killing chickens and cattle is something that has been going on since biblical times, and is as common now as it was then. But let's say you're a vegetarian. Does this make you exempt from breaking the sixth commandment? Perhaps, but if you've ever picked a fruit or vegetable from a garden, you're effectively killing it, since plants are a form of life just as chickens and humans are. Perhaps this commandment refers only to the premeditated killing of another human being, in which case the script is hypocritical and contradictory. In the bible, women who have been raped, children who have cursed at their parents, non-virgin brides, those subscribing to another religion, and those working on the weekend are all subject to the death penalty. Of course we're not referring to the religious aspect of the ten commandments, but only to the secular morality of them. So is the sixth commandment the "right" thing to do? Only if you don't plan on eating meat, fruits or vegetables for the rest of your life...
The Seventh Commandment - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
In the context of the bible, the seventh commandment extends not only to a married person having sex with someone other than his spouse, but also to sexual fantasies, talking about sex, listening to someone talk about sex, delaying a marriage longer than necessary, divorce, and writing/singing/drawing about unclean images. In that the seventh commandment would be completely impossible to follow, and ridiculously prudish. That said, if we are to look at the modern definition of adultery only as a married person having sex with someone besides his spouse, the majority would almost certainly agree that this is the "right" thing to do. Still, it does raise certain questions. For example, if both the man and woman agreed to have a threesome, or consented to having sex with other partners, is that still considered wrong? Many would say it's still wrong, and many would say if it's consentual then there's nothing unethical about it. So let's say the man and woman were separated for 5 or 10 years, but have been dating other people for several years. In this case would sex outside of the marriage still be considered wrong? Some would say yes, and some would say no. Saying that most people consider it the aboslute "right" thing to do may be a stretch, but there's certainly a very large number of people who believe the seventh commandment is absolute, even if 30% of married couples have commited adultery.
The Eighth Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal."
In the original context the eighth commandment referred only to stealing (Kidnapping) a person, forcing him into labor, and selling him into slavery. But again, the question asked refers only to the modern (And often naive) interpretation of the ten commandments as a moral standard among the majority. If you asked anyone, they would almost certainly agree that not stealing is the right thing to do. The problem is that as with most questions, this one has several sides. For example, if someone is poor and homeless with 4 starving kids, would stealing a loaf of bread to keep them from dying still be considered "Not right?" Or if someone broke into your house and stole all of your possesions, would it be considered "Not right" to steal your own possessions back? This is the reason why morals are not absolute, and our decisions and ethics can't be based off of one person's (Or even a majority) opinion. What one person considers immoral may change depending on the cirumstance, while someone else may have an entirely different opinion. Calling someone moral or immoral is only a term used to describe a person's difference of opinion to your own.
The Ninth Commandment - "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Again, lying is considered wrong by almost everyone. And yet almost everyone does it. Is lying about something insignificant any more/less wrong than lying in a life-or-death situation? Is it ok to lie when your girlfriend asks if her pants make her ass look big, or when your boyfriend asks if you find him physically attractive? If you're planning a suprise birthday party, is it ok to lie about it to keep it a suprise? Almost every one of these commandments has another side. It's easy to say, "Don't lie, steal, kill, or curse" but almost everyone does it. It's not a matter of if it's ok to lie, steal or kill, but WHEN it's ok.
The Tenth Commandment - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
Covet means to wish for enviously. So can you tell someone that they're wrong for something they can't control? How many people in the world do you think have absolutely no envy, and have never desired the possessions of someone else? Very few, if any.
So basically we have a list of Ten Commandments, none of which have a rational, absolute moral foundation. Some are completely unreasonable, some are questionable. Some people considered them always right, and some believe it depends on the situation. Regardless, saying that most people would agree the ten commandments are the "right" thing to do is being naive and hypocritical. You've probably broken almost all of them yourself.
i get austin cline's newsletters. i was a regular on his blogs. actually, an unprecedented thing happened there. one of the other bloggers, sort of became my teacher of sorts. & we managed to take over this one particular blog. we were joking, & long story short, i got booted off for being off topic. i actually have a huge respect for austin. too bad he wasn't too fond of me.
i'm also reading some books on erasmus. i have several books on secular humanism. the atheist debater's handbook, paul kurtz's in defense of secular humanism, of course darwin, dawkins, god is not great [is that by hitchins?], & a bunch more that are not immediately coming to mind. anyway, let's just say, i have reading material for the rest of my life.
the questions i was asking in austin's blog were mainly related to evolution. the question i started with was essentially, if you are so sure of evolution [which i am not denying--i just don't know] why all the arrogance? arrogance, to me, smacks of insecurity. as you can imagine, this was not received well.
it just seems that if you dare to suggest another option besides evolution [with the majority of secularists i've encountered], you are quickly put in your place with all the supporting data as well as a good dose of insults & attacks on your intelligence for even considering something so inane.
i was under the impression that humanists were freethinkers, & on a quest, so to speak, for the truth. i don't understand why this sort of skepticism is met with such hostility. if i'm wrong, i'll surely find out in due time, what difference could it possibly make to them?
the only conclusion that i can come to is that it could be a defense strategy. that perhaps, enough "well-meaning" church-folk sort of did the same thing, to them & from now on, they stay on the offensive.
thanks for being willing to indulge my questions.
Everyone reacts to questions in different ways. I can't defend the people on Austin's blog, as I haven't read the conversation, and don't know if you wrote it with a subtle hint of arrogance, or if they drastically over-reacted. I can however tell you why (In my opinion) supporters of evolution are intolerant of creationism or intelligent design.
Although the theory of evolution is technically a theory, that doesn't mean it's unproven. The theory of evolution is just as valid as the theory of gravity, and you don't need a textbook to prove it. More than anything, evolution (Along with natural selection) is common sense. Looking around, you can see evolution occuring every day, in timeframes as short as a few minutes to as long as millions of yeras. For example, a few years ago I had a pet praying mantis. Praying manti lay several hundred eggs, and are also cannibalistic. I remember waking up in the middle of the night to about 300 praying manti crawling around the room. I put them all in a cage (Not knowing that they were cannibalistic), and a couple weeks later there were only about 8 left in the cage. The 8 praying manti that were the most fit to survive killed the weaker ones, and as a result their genes would be more likely to be passed on, while the other 292 would never live to reproduce.
Most atheists are faced with intolerance every day, and are often faced with arrogance and intolerance by the religious majority. Although I usually try to maintain a tolerant attitude when debating with theists, I can certainly understand why they would be impatient when dealing with someone who tries to refute what they know to be a matter of undeniable fact, rather than a matter of personal belief and blind faith.
As controversial as this will sound, all opinions are NOT equal. Some opinions are undeniably wrong, some are undeniably right, and many don't have a clear answer and could be argued for days on end. I don't claim to always be right, and I know that much of what I belive to be true will probably be disproven at some point in my life. That said, the fact is that creationism along with intelligent design (Despite claiming to be a secular theory) has no factual basis, and rely on religious texts and a presumed belief in a supernatural deity to support it's claims, while evolution is based on what we can observe around us and see for ourselves.
Music
..0>
Ask An Atheist's Details
Status:
In a Relationship
Here for:
Networking, Friends
Orientation:
Straight
Hometown:
Okinawa, Japan
Body type:
6' 2" / Athletic
Ethnicity:
White / Caucasian
Religion:
Atheist
Zodiac Sign:
Scorpio
Smoke / Drink:
No / No
Children:
I don't want kids
Education:
In college
Ask An Atheist is in your extended network view more
About me: My name is Shane Wiker, and I'm an Atheist. There's a lot of hatred toward those who openly admit being Atheist, as well as a lot of myths, misunderstandings, and misinformation. Many people don't even know what an Atheist is. Here's what the dictionary says:
Atheist: A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Many theists (People who believe in a supreme being or creator of the Universe) think that Atheists are devil-worshipers or hate god. This isn't the case, since it's impossible to hate (or worship) something that doesn't exist.
You can send me a message and ask anything you want regarding Atheism. If you have any questions regarding what an Atheist is, why we don't believe in God, or anything at all regarding Atheism in general, I promise I'll have an answer for you.
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Like the ten commandments update. :) I only have one criticizm-- the "everybody does it" argument doesn't really support the question "Is it right?" because if you know anybody that thinks everything they do is right, they're fucked up in the head. But I can still see where you're coming from, and you backed each up with more points. Good job ^_^
*seems to be the only one who writes frequent comments* Like the update. That video is very rational and understandable, and I find the idea of Jesus preaching E=MC^2 amusing XD
Hm, I have an idea... if you have a really good conversation/heated debate/ outright argument, you should post it in a blog for all to see so we can laugh at their ignorance and nod in approval at your researched responses :3
Thanks for adding me. I thought you needed a friend and I'm glad you accepted the offer. Seems you now have more than one, which is good. :) Hopefully you'll get a chance to answer various questions. Sorry I don't have one for you, but who knows, it could happen. :D
![Sarah [♥]](http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/53/s_be00ad4514604aab8bd51095a1d817b9.jpg)