An Atheist Life

In this blog I aim to depict the inner perspective and experiences of a typical atheist in order to enhance understanding of what it means to be an atheist in our day and age, and what atheism is about.

[comicatheist]

Hitler V.S. Stalin (and why the argument fails)

           It’s not uncommon for people to cite examples and ad hominem when having a discussion, especially in religious debates. It almost requires as much in the context of religion when you think about it, because there really are no verifiable instances that can prove their premise to be true or even reasonable (cheap shot). One of the appeals often made on both sides when it comes to theists V.S. atheist are the examples of Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler. Truth be told, the arguments used citing these two as examples have become so rhetorical to me, I put them on the same level as “The fine tuned universe” or even “Pascal’s wager” (citation) While not as many people use Stalin, they almost without fail will divert to Hitler when trying to paint the other persons stance in the realm of evil.

             Firstly, in the eyes of history and the events these two men were responsible for, there’s no doubt they were among the most evil and sadistic people to ever walk the planet, and my discussion hence forth in no way serves as a justification for their actions and their outcomes. More so I wish to paint a grey scale as a more accurate representation of their existence, and why using them as a reference in common debate is an allusion to peoples general ignorance on the subject.

             There’s no doubt or denying that Stalin lived and died as an atheist. Before entering into the Bolshevik party he was raised Greek Orthodox by his mother, and even entered into training for the priesthood as a teenager, but recanted as an atheist soon after. As part of the Bolsheviks he ascended in the ranks of political power even amongst the midst of Russian civil war during WWI. In 1922 with the quelling of the civil war and passing of political party members he rose to the position of General Secretary in 1922, from whence he consolidated his political party and became the primary leader in 1924. Stalin was a proponent of Marxism, and advocate of a Russian Socialist Union. His aim was to use the vast territory and resources under his power in order to make Russia the sole world power. Initially his plans were a success and he was able to modify the nation and bring it into the modern era of industry, but his long term goals were too far fetched given the short sighted nature of his decisions.

To build up Russia as a world power he relied heavily on forced labor of the public who were forcibly imprisoned into the work force. This left a shortage in agricultural areas of the nation which lead to a great famine in the 1930s. To resolve the nation’s food shortage Stalin imprisoned even more of the population and held mass executions. The death toll of Russian citizens during this time has no precise number, but the count is presumed in the millions. A major advocate against the rise of Hitler to power, Stalin did sign a non aggression pact with Germany in 1939 paving the way for an invasion of Poland that year. Hitler would later violate their treaty and invade Russia two years later as the next leg of his eastern campaign.  After the second World War Stalin would continue to lead his nation for 7 more years, continuing to mold the nation into a fiercely communistic society, while simultaneously building tension with the western nations. His example served as a catalyst for western ire towards communism and socialism leading into the “Cold War” in which the west would become fixated on stopping the spread of communist ideology in the world and a mutual arms race of nuclear arms.

           Adolf Hitler on the other hand, cannot be pegged as an atheist in any sense of the word. Adolf was born in Austria, but grew up with a deep sense of national pride for Germany. He was raised a Roman Catholic and never rescinded his baptism or renounced his faith publicly or in any of his records. Hitler served as a crewman on a German U boat during the first World War, and became a political activist after Germany’s surrender in 1919. The first World War brought about a realization in terms of the destructive capacity developed nations now had when it came to waging war on one another. Feeling that continuing on that path would lead to world anarchy the victors and the defeated came together to form the “Geneva Convention” and discuss a standardized method for the practice of warfare. Aside from Geneva, Germany’s formal surrender to the allied nations came to be documented as “The Treaty of Versailles” This document was the source of much contention amongst Germany and their allies. It demanded the German nation accept personal responsibility for the damage and destruction caused during the war, while imposing strict regulations on the nation in terms of allotted military power such as standing army size, and the amount of vehicles and weaponry such as tanks, planes, and artillery.

A solder himself Hitler didn’t agree with the Treaty of Versailles, and felt no patriot of Germany should stand for it. His activism earned him a short prison sentence in which he formulated his ideology into the book “Mein Kampf” In his book he potted out point by point his reasoning and belief structure in the German people being the descendants of the Aryan people. A lost civilization of what he regarded as perfect beings defined by a Norse heritage and Scandinavian descent. He believed that these people were chosen to inherit the earth above all other races as the master race. The most ideal examples of these being people with blonde hair and blue eyes. While not strictly Christian in the traditional sense, he made reference to God often, and Nordic mythology. He is also often accompanied with rumors of Occult ritual and practice, though these are not confirmed. Upon his release from prison he joined into the National Socialist Party in Germany. Through many political maneuvers and subterfuge he became the elected leader of Germany in 1934.

The effects of the treaty imposed on Germany had taken their toll paving the way for the socialist movement to seize power, and it was at this point Hitler’s positioning was most opportune. The world was still in the grips of economic depression, which helped to level the playing field for Germany. Hitler rallied the German people with a banner of patriotism, citing the unfair restrictions that had been placed on the people by the rest of the world after their defeat in the first World War in the Treaty of Versailles. He imposed his ideas of German superiority and of a master race often, and used examples of people he felt inferior as being the initial downfall of German society and the world society at large. Among these were ethnic groups such as Africans, Mid Eastern peoples, and most significant the Jews. Anti Semitism had been prevalent in Europe for generations, and Hitler used it as a catalyst to forge a common enemy for the German people. Anger and animosity towards the Jewish communities in Germany escalated, erupting in Kristallnacht (The night of broken glass) In which Jewish store fronts and homes were vandalized and burned in mass by German activists. During this period Hitler openly defied the treaty imposed on Germany, building machines of war and enlisting a massive army from the patriotic population. There were many Nazi founded programs that committed heinous acts during the parties reign. Too many to list in detail here, but the most recognized event that took place under the Nazi regime were the construction and operation of concentration camps designed as centers of ethnic cleansing under the guise of work camps. These camps had their origin in the eyes of Heinrich Himmler in response to Hitler’s proposal of a “Final Solution to the Jewish problem” Himmler himself orchestrated the operation of the camps at large, but Hitler was fully aware and expressed his approval in their intent. Under the Nazi regime. From the time the camps were constructed to their closure upon Germany’s defeat in the second world war in 1945, the toll of the people who died in the camps is estimated in the tens of millions, compiled with the deaths of civilians who were publically executed or killed via indirect combat there’s really no way to tell how many people died as a result of Hitler’s xenophobia and anti Semitism.  Hitler held his belief in German superiority according to sources up unto his end in 1945 where he committed suicide in his hidden bunker among the ruins of Berlin. According to witness accounts within the bunker Hitler had felt betrayed by his military command and described them as cowards for not coming to the aid of Berlin. Even in death his orders were to maintain military discipline and continue the war for German superiority. It’s likely that if the western allies had been the first to take Berlin Hitler might have survived as accounts suggest his reason for suicide was refusal to be used as a symbol of victory for the Russian army given the heated war that had taken place in the East. Shortly after his death Hitler’s staff are reported to have taken his body to the surface of the bunker, and burned it along side his wife Eva. (They’d been married for mere hours)

 So why the history lesson? Well if you remember, this is all in the context of people using these two figures as ear marks in their arguments, particularly in terms of religion and non-religion. To place it bluntly, they don’t work. Often when we’re opposed to something we’re just as likely to cite negative examples to discredit it as we are to reinforce the belief in positive ideas that promote what we do agree with.

Yes, Stalin was an atheist, but what people miss, and where there argument becomes fallacious is when they take that one descriptive aspect and try to apply it to their intentions as a whole. The atheist position is one that simply does not acknowledge belief in a god. Truly, unless you simultaneously hold a belief in the existence of every god figure ever proposed throughout human history, you too are to some degree or another, an atheist. If you are a Christian, you are likely an atheist about Ra the Egyptian sun god. Hopefully that gives you some insight into how useless the word is when it comes to linking personal behavior and ideology. Additional adjectives are required to better and more accurately describe personal philosophy, and while certain traits may be generally shared by people who identify as atheists, that doesn’t mean we all hold those views, or even hold them to the same degree.

It’s a ridiculous segue to state Stalin’s atheism is true, therefore A), B), and C) are therefore automatically true. It’d also be difficult to provide any form of reasoning to justify the course of his action as a direct result of atheism, largely because nothing he did was ever done in the name of being an atheist. His ideology revolved around social constructs and labor, along with a diminished power and removal of the church. Ideas I myself don’t agree with, but still, not done in the name of atheism as an ideology. Amongst atheists we are a highly diversified bunch, that don’t often agree on much of anything beyond the word. There are intelligent atheists, and there are dumb ones. Some of us are atheists for good reasons, others bad, and a multitude of grey separates us on an individual level. It’d be hard to form a philosophy around atheism, and we likely wouldn’t have a presence at all if not for the things that we do tend to agree on such as humanism, and the pursuit of knowledge.

 To the religious reading this I understand it seems I’m beating a slow path around a bush trying to separate atheism and the actions of Stalin, but the truth is I don’t need to, because there isn’t a link to begin with for me to attempt and sever, just a fallacy. Really, what I want to do is show you why YOU should recognize that fallacy, and take heed of where we atheist’s are coming from with this.

Remember the other bundle of joy in our discussion? Time and time again I head people use Hitler as a short hand method of pointing out supposed evil in another person’s position. It’s obnoxious and needs to stop, especially if the extent of your knowledge on the subject is you’ve heard of him, and you heard he did some really bad things. When it comes to Adolf in arguments on religion, both sides tend to claim him for the opposing team, which again, stop doing that. While the certainty of his affiliation as a Catholic may be tentative, he was by no means an atheist in the pure sense (remembering of course if you don’t hold unified belief in all gods at the same time you do still count as an atheist.) His ideas towards Nordic mythology and the Aryan race are more than enough to disprove the notion he was a secularists. He often cited God and divinity when it came to his public speeches and rallies addressing the public, so at the very least he appealed to the sentiment of his mostly Roman Catholic citizens for his own benefit.

So to the religious I say, if this is how you plan to conduct your arguments, you should be aware of how easily it can be turned in reverse towards you, and why it’s utterly pointless to try and rationalize a persons entire philosophy based on a couple of words that do not always form complete ideas, or may even be deceptive in your understanding of them.

While we atheists must acknowledge Stalin as one of ours, the theists of the world must recognize Hitler as one of their own. If you want to set the standard by which ideas are measured, and weigh these things between good and bad, they’ll both end up in the red, which would dictate that the belief in god(s) was a non factor. Likewise if you weigh them in the affirmative on the other end with people who have done good things, they’ll both offset in the positive, which again, places god in the irrelevant box. It should be glaringly obvious to that effect, that peoples ability to do good or evil is not dependant on a belief in god. People who have good intentions seek to fulfill that intent. The ideology they form is the lens they see through in helping them determine how to go about those good intentions. It’s the rigidity of the lens and it’s ability to focus clearly which ends up either being successful or failing in those endeavors, which is where the majority of our disagreements take place.

We all have a lens tempered and shaped throughout our entire lives, and some see much more clearly than others, but all have the potential to get better or worse depending on what we focus on. I wouldn’t think many atheists would boast to have everything all figured out, but I could always be wrong. We’re trying our best to discern the best way of doing things just like everyone else, but as far as the lenses of religion go, we’ve seen nothing through them that promotes positive societal change, and that is where we often draw the line with you. At least when I argue with people on these issues, I’m asking for a good reason to be put forth as to why I should abandon my reason in favor of faith, and thus far no good argument has been presented. Religion has time and time again proven itself a dangerous pursuit when applied to society, whereas secularism has not proven out to be the case. I should know, our nation was founded on it, and we’ve managed to get this far on those principles despite our mistakes.

 “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”  - Steven Weinberg.

[comicatheist]

Argument and Rivalry

           It could easily be argued, that some of the best ideas in human history have been brought to us by the most bitter of rivalries. Coke Vs Pepsi, Tesla Vs Edison, Donald Trump Vs Intelligent Thought. The list goes on and on, at the core each one is an argument over which idea is superior and most worthy of recognition. In some cases the answer is highly subjective and truly can’t be held in a category of right or wrong, sometimes both have merit and eventually find themselves meeting to become something entirely new -(Here’s holding out hope for you Donald.) Other times, it’s really a no contest and one opponent is left in the dust to be forgotten- but more on that later.

             We do a funny thing as humans, in that like our fellows of the animal kingdom we are born with certain instincts. If you show someone who’s never seen a spider before a tarantula or a banana spider, they’re liable to climb the walls to try to get away from it. Same goes for snakes. These are deep rooted fears inherited through genes passed along by ancestors who survived because they had these healthy fears. On the other hand though, we have this ability to think beyond ourselves in a way that forms models of the world out of nothing but the empty space in our thoughts. We can just as well take the fallen limb of a tree shrouded in grass to also be a snake, or a lion even, crouched and ready to pounce. We can even fall prey to our imaginations impractical delusions and conclude it was in fact a dragon hiding in the brush. Compound it several times over in ones head that what we saw was most certainly a fire breathing lizard nobody had actually ever seen before, but it’s certainly possible, and the entire village is suddenly out prowling the fields with sharp tools searching for a stick covered in brush.  We kid ourselves in the modern era into feeling superior our ancestors who believed in things like dragons, and wizards. Everything seems absurd in hindsight, but the truth is, we very much still think in terms of monsters hiding among us.  One of the biggest rivalries that persist throughout human history, including up to the present- is our battle between truth and fiction. Something seemingly simple to define, right up until you ask someone for their opinion.

             Which brings me to another rivalry that is science, and religion. It’s one of those things that create a firestorm in the room whenever someone brings up one in opposition to the other. Some people like to entertain the idea that they are compatible with one another, and that there’s no reason to argue. These people are on an entire spectrum ranging from atheists in denial, to liberal believers, and if it’s a faith held by people in the developed world, then it has members in this range, and that includes Islam. While the idea of compromise is very appealing on issues that create such hostility, I must decline the metaphoric olive branch extended in trying to rationalize science and religion. I don’t see any inherent worth in holding both ideas as valid. Science will always chip away at the claims made by religion. Not out of spite or aggression, but because as we get better and better at discerning truth in the universe, the more our logical sense will self refute the fables and tales of ancient holy books. Apologetics attempt to compensate for this, but never really succeed in anything other than pandering to the delusional who wish to maintain their world view. Maybe Jesus built a rocket ship, and flew by Earth seeding it with life. That might explain the hypothesis of Panspermia to those non believers in a Biblical context. Scratch that, they do succeed in making people outside their sphere laugh.

           Our method of thinking hasn’t improved much over the time our ancestors hunted dragons and witches. The names and costumes have changed, but the methods by which we discern information are still limited to what we can see, taste, touch, smell, and hear. Powerful senses indeed to rely upon, but handicapped in many ways in comparison just to other animals, and useless when applied to things like X-ray light, or detecting radiation and gamma rays. Our biggest handicap of all though, my just be our own imaginations ability to run wild and see what isn’t there; what couldn’t possibly be there.

           I argue, a lot. I argue much more now than I did before my friends and family knew I was an atheist. It’s a difficult thing to try and explain to someone who isn’t skeptically inclined in their thinking. People like to think that they’re skeptics; at least it seems they do, but being opposed to religion doesn’t automatically initiate you into the skeptics club. It’s a framework of the mind that doesn’t allow you to think you’re right about anything, although people will certainly tell you otherwise.

           For instance; if people are discussing something with me, as I’m listening I may agree with virtually everything they’re saying, at least to a degree. I absorb their reasoning and then it happens. I form a counter argument. I just agreed with the vast majority of what they had to say, and have examples in my own mind confirming their sentiment, but nevertheless, I form an argument against their premise and throw it out into the ether. Some people lack friends, then there’s people like me who know why they lack friends. Whatever little sliver of doubt they leave open in their discussion, whatever inconsistency no mater how small, I pry it. Buy why?

           It has to do with the rigorous and unapologetic pursuit of truth, and the realization that when I’m presented with ideas that agree with how I’d like to view the world I should be the most skeptical. The soundness of whatever argument I can present against the ideas I hold give me better insight into their validity. In my head I’m arguing against myself as just as much as I’m arguing against them; of course they’d never know that unless I’d told them as much. It’s not about being right or having recognition for being better in a debate, it’s about finding the truth, and understanding that truth too can be subjective.

             Thankfully when it comes to the universe and the physical laws that govern it subjectivity is a human concern only. Gravity didn’t cease working throughout the cosmos from the time Newton discovered it to Einstein redefining its properties with relativity. It’s been chugging along under the same processes from the beginning of time. Only our understanding of it has changed. We do that you see, change. Whenever I see an article online or in my Facebook feed with titles like “Scientists defy physics with new fuel source…” or “Engineers defy gravity with new building structure…” and so forth, it perpetuates this very basic misunderstanding people commonly hold about how science works. We will never defy anything that drives the engine of the universe. The only thing we defy is out own understanding of how we once thought things worked. It’s our intuition which is challenged, not gravity. People take pride in what they know and what they think they know. What I find to be an exciting and empowering experience when I discover I’m wrong about something, only seems to infuriate and terrify others. People take it personal, as if they feel being wrong signifies they’re inferior to other people, and they don’t like that. The truth is, we as a species are fortunate in that we can discern our morality out of more than the mere instinctual responses we’ve inherited from our ancestors. We can change and modify these things based on what we see in the world around us, and for as far as we’ve come we’re only just starting to comprehend the universe. We have a rare opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity in the universe, to be wrong about the universe. Every time we discover we’re wrong about something, we take another step closer in the direction of being right. Celebrate that fact, embrace it. It’s what’s taken us from using leeches and mud for healing wounds and poison, to antibiotics and skin grafts. From horse drawn carts to vehicles that can break the sound barrier, and escape earth’s gravity. We didn’t accomplish this by pretending we were right all the time, but by recognizing when we were wrong. So yes, to the religious I hold firm to the stance that I am incredibly weary and justifiably so of the claims put forth of knowledge and ultimate truth about the universe, especially because so many of those claims can be proven wrong. However, despite whatever apparent errors you are presented with in the confines of your religion, you never fail to brush them off, or do mental gymnastics to try and justify your position and why it’s correct. This is why I don’t feel the rivalry of science and faith will ever be resolved in a mutual manner.

             “Only intelligent people know how stupid they really are.: -AronRa

[comicatheist]

Recently the CDC released a disturbing statistic showing that measles has had a record number of reported cases this year. The highest number of cases since the year 2000 when it was reported that the disease had been eliminated from the United States altogether. That’s right, a disease that was...

[comicatheist]

Anti Vaccination Movement, get bent.

Recently the CDC released a disturbing statistic showing that measles has had a record number of reported cases this year. The highest number of cases since the year 2000 when it was reported that the disease had been eliminated from the United States altogether. That's right, a disease that was declared eradicated from the U.S.A. has made a record breaking resurgence. From 2001 to 2013, the total number of cases is only slightly higher than the confirmed cases of just 2014 so far. From a year to year basis in that period the number of cases bounce from less than 50 in 2002 and 2004, to about 220 in 2011. For 2014 the confirmed cases have reached 592; and that's just by August. September, October, November, and December are still unaccounted for. An entire quarter of the year has yet to be seen and the number of cases has already become higher than the combined diagnosed cases over the last ten years! CDC   

Ebola is a hot issue right now, especially since the CDC released the figure of 20,000 as the potential number of infected by the end of the year.  As fierce a disease as it is, Ebola is one of many diseases that could potentially bring entire communities to a halt, if not entire nations as Ebola threatens to do in Africa. As frightening as they are, we do have a defense against these diseases in the form of antibodies which occur naturally in our own bodies. They are part of our immune system which has developed with us as animals as it does in all species on the planet to give us a defense against foreign invaders. As remarkable as they are, when we come into contact with diseases our antibodies are not always at the ready. They require energy and space to reproduce, which can interfere with other bodily functions, so typically only a few of each type are floating around inside you at any given time. When a foreign body enters your bodies cells identify it and tell the corresponding antibodies to begin reproducing like crazy to attack the invaders. Typically when someone begins to "feel sick" it's not the invader causing the symptom. Invasive organisms have a much higher chance of fulfilling their function when they can go undetected, so it's in their interests to go unnoticed. The symptoms that you notice most when you become sick are actually the physical reaction of your body in its attempts to remove whatever organism has taken up residence in you. 

Despite how amazing our auto-immune system is, it's far from perfect. Evolution is a never ending arms race, and micro organisms have a huge advantage in that arena. Normally antibodies are transferred from mother to child through breast feeding in infancy. Any diseases the mother had survived and developed antibodies for are passed along to the next generation, just as they were given to her and so forth. The effect of this biological function has been notable throughout the study of pathology and contagion through history. Many types of diseases become innocuous to a population after generations of exposure allows animals to build a strong index of antibodies against it. When Europeans came to the new world they decimated native populations of North and South America by bringing foreign bacteria and viruses with them that the indigenous people had never been exposed to, thus had no antibodies for which to protect themselves.                                                                               Even when someone possesses the proper antibodies for a disease, if the contagion undergoes change such as mutation, the antibodies can become less effective or even completely useless at combating the new type of disease. To help combat these problems we humans had to invent a new way of manipulating biology to cover these blind spots and alleviate deaths from illness. The world would likely not be the globalized society it is today if not for Edward Jenner and the work he accomplished in discovering the links between infectious disease and the causation towards immunity leading up to the invention of vaccines. Many different vaccines have been invented by many  different people since Jenner's time, but they all follow the fundamental mechanisms of inoculation he discovered. 

Vaccines provide a sort of gap fill, giving your body a chance to "practice" on  weaker or less harmful types of a disease, so that when the real thing comes along it has a fighting chance to win. Without it, invading organisms can launch a surprise attack and the outcome is left up to the odds. Vaccines are cheat codes in life to skew the odds in our favor, and they're so effective we've been able to do something that no other generation in human history has been able to do by eradicating entire pathogens from the planet protecting people and animals alike from dangerous microbes. That is, until recently. 

In 1998 "The Lancet", a medical journal based in the United Kingdom published an article written by Andrew Wakefield. Born in England, Wakefield had trained as a surgeon and medical researcher. He took on many studies, but he is best known for the article he submitted to the Lancet which declared a potential link to vaccination (specifically the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine) and a causation of autism in children who had received it. The article proposed data showing strong correlation between children who had been given the vaccine and then developed symptoms of autism. The article caused national outcry in both the U.K. and the U.S. demanding explanation from vaccine manufacturers and spawned a movement of "Anti-vaccination" which has gained a strong following in America due to celebrity backing and several physicians with private interests. 

In 2010 the Lancet retracted the article published by Wakefield having concluded an investigation spanning several years into the ethical nature of the study and its findings.

Upon retraction the Lancet stated:                                                                        "Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record [4]."  

The retraction followed several peer reviews and subsequent studies conducted to either falsify or confirm Wakefield's findings over the years since its original publication. No one has been able to replicate any of the data or outcomes submitted by Wakefield pertaining to his original article. His inability to replicate the study under review He resigned from his position as Lecturer at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine (now  UCL Medical School) in 2001 and soon after came to the United States after earning much scrutiny from the medical field in his native England; many of his colleagues calling for his credentials to be stripped from him. His resignation from the "RFHSM" was publicly announced as a "mutual agreement" yet Wakefield has been quoted as saying "I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular."                       Wakefield continued his research to prove a connection between the MMR and autism in the United States. His ethics were called into question again in 2004 when The Sunday Times published an article detailing the origin of the twelve test subjects Wakefield had conducted his trials with. The parents of some of the children had been recruited by a lawyer who at the time was preparing a lawsuit against vaccination manufacturers. Further investigation revealed Wakefield had accepted large sums of money from the firm building the suit, confirming a conflict of interest. With this new evidence into the study, ten of the twelve co-authors serving as peer review to the original article withdrew their support of the findings drawing a partial retraction from the Lancet. 

Finally in 2010, Wakefield resigned as head of his research center in the U.S. upon findings by the British General Medical Council. Prompting the full retraction of the study he'd published twelve years earlier. 

Andrew Wakefield has been barred from any medical practice in the U.K. and is not licensed as a physician in the U.S. His findings have been judged to be fraudulent, and unethical, possibly criminal. He's been linked to several private interests (including his own) proving bias against vaccination manufacturers and a self serving drive contrary to public health. He's been discredited, and denounced by his peers as unethical, and even though his study has been disproved, and millions of dollars have been spent conducting similar studies in the years since, all of which showing absolutely no connection between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism, Wakefield's findings have fueled a movement of anti-vaccinators. 

The effects of this are now beginning to surface. Not only have these groups vowed to not vaccinate their own kids, but actively seek to discredit vaccinations as a whole. Conspiracy theories are commonplace and even though reputable medical researchers have thoroughly debunked the issue, sensationalist minded people in the media have influenced many parents to tread a presumptuous path around all vaccines, if not outright refuse to vaccinate their kids altogether.                   It may seem like our lives are filled with many versions of truth, and we are entitled to our own views on everything, but more and more we seem to favor abandoning reason in favor of simplistic irrationality. Unfortunately there are plenty of predators such as Andrew Wakefield keen on exploiting such situations if it means making a quick buck. 

I worked almost exclusively with people who had autism for five years, and in that time I studied up on the disorder to better help those I served and to gain a deeper understanding of the condition. In all the information I absorbed the consensus is that no definitive cause for autism has been found. However; the evidence disproving the link between the MMR and autism is immense. 

Even if autism was caused by the MMR, it would still be in poor judgment to not vaccinate. Penn and Teller illustrated this point much better than I dare to replicate so I'll direct you to them. 

So with all this information, and the motives behind Andrew Wakefield's study, should we surmise that all vaccinations are inherently safe? No. There is an element of risk with all vaccinations and medications, and people should be weary of the potential dangers involved so they can properly assess any potential risks they are taking by choosing to either vaccinate or not. Increased understanding on the part of parents will do much to disbar these fallacious claims and plays on emotion. 

The "Sunday Times" investigation into the Wakefield claims

"The New York Times" on Andrew Wakefield

[comicatheist]

Things I am because I'm an Atheist (According to ignorant Christians)

Personal introspective is something rarely afforded to us, yet is the most revealing aspect of ourselves. How we respond to criticism is telling of our maturity, moral concepts, and understanding of what it truly means to receive criticism. Since becoming open about my atheism and advocating within my own community on a small scale, I've come to learn all sorts of things I am now associated with by identifying with that word, and my actual positioning on the absurd associations.

1) Atheists eat babies...

First of all, just read that aloud and try to hold any sort of valid belief that such a thing is true. If you are of such a ridiculous minded understanding on things I will now in an act of futility disbar this notion through reason.       If it were true that I had a desire to eat babies there are a few inherit problems. For one thing, I'm not in prison. Surely if this had taken place someone most certainly would have called the police and linked me to murdering an innocent baby for means of committing cannibalism. Also, I would imagine that to avoid the pitfalls of manslaughter directly I could simply purchase dead baby meat from some shady black market right? If anyone can actually find a figure for how much baby meat costs I'd sure be interested in how you know of such things, but I imagine it'd be fairly expensive. Being a man of simple means I'd doubtfully be able to afford it. I suppose you could say I don't eat babies for the same reason any sane person doesn't eat babies. Because it's wrong, I have no desire to do so, and even if I did I'd surely lack financial means to accomplish such a thing.

Perhaps this idea comes from an obscure reference. Maybe an incident happened where someone did eat a baby, and by coincidence didn't believe in God. Well if that's a fair assumption then in fairness I can also declare all christians to be child abusers, as the bible specifically dictates that disobedient children are to be stoned, and not in the Cheech and Chong good time sense. I don't know about you but I've never met any child that wasn't disobedient at some point. 

2) Atheists have no morals...

I pose a question. Is it you identify as having morality because it has been dictated to you by means of indoctrination of a belief in God, and the supposed teachings of the Bible and nothing else? If so, I find you are a poor human being of weak social value.                                            Things are good because they are good, but the perception of that changes. American history is laden with examples of this, and our nation has barely existed for a fraction of time compared to recorded civilization. I cannot speak to atheist morality as a whole but if you ask any of my friends they will tell you, I don't drink, and I don't smoke or partake in drugs of any kind. I DO have an affinity for using curse words, so mark one against me on that front.                                                         If the Bible is some representation of where our values should be placed then I'm very afraid, as I'd attest is the same for many atheists. A doctrine advocating murder of those who disagree with your belief, killing of children, inequality for women, inequality for different ethnic groups, and slavery would be a large step back for civilization. Type a simple google search for passages relating to any of these things in the bible and see what comes up, then go a step further and confirm it in your own Bible at home. 

Lastly before you assert that Jesus was a breaking point that lead to salvation from the old testament: Luke 19:27 (KJV) 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.         (Without sin my ass)

3) Atheists don't appreciate life...

When you operate under the premise that this is it, and our time here on this planet is our one and only shot, you see how such a statement is so flawed it can only come from willful ignorance. More importantly, we place a higher value not only on our own lives, but those of others, because we recognize the afflictions brought onto others by others as being a human affair, and not divine influence. (Still don't get how you can call it free will, yet everything is influenced by God even though he already knew what was going to happen anyway) 

Our interactions with one another determine our future, which we know based on studying the past. With that knowledge we can predict that our actions will shape the future for better or worse, and that those who follow us will be left with either a good or bad place to live (Earth) We appreciate life so much that we give a great deal of thought towards those lives which have yet to come, and the parables that religion has set forth which threaten that future. 

4) Atheism is just another religion...

Atheism is a religion like off is a T.V. channel. The biggest doctrine in atheism is, that there is no doctrine. Opinions and views differ as wildly as you could think with the exception to the identifier. It expresses a great deal of futility on the atheists' part when fundamentalists liken the word "Reason" to being a faith based initiative. It shows how much they simply cannot grasp the concept and just how futile it is to try and have a relevant discussion with these people. For as much ridiculousness fundamentalists invoke on society moderates are worse. At least fundamentalists attempt to make a grab at facts, however misguided they may be in associating them to predetermined truths. Moderates for the most part have an enormous void of any form of fact or interest in discovering things that are within their own doctrine. Sheep is an apt word, as since they lack any sort of basis for their own ideas they simply piggy back onto those of the fundamentalists and potent speakers as their own ideology, picking and choosing what they feel suits them.

5) Atheists are secretly worshiping Satan...

I can't worship something I don't believe exists. It'd be like worshiping Captain Planet, or Mr. Magoo. They're completely fictional, I know they're fictional, so why would I hope to derive anything out of fiction? It'd have to deal with something from a deeply psychological origin, like if I touch my index finger three times the next roll of the dice will be a six. If it doesn't happen, it means nothing, because I just didn't believe enough. If I make belief my focus and it eventually ends up being six, huzzah! I was right! If not, keep trying until I achieve validation. 

I know that this concept comes from the dichotomy of christianity with good and evil. All things good are from God, and all things evil are from the Satan... except for in the case of Job in the Bible, or the flood, or any time in which things that are recognized universally as being evil are done by God, because then God just works in mysterious ways. Or, the devil? I mean, God created the devil, so viz a vi, all evil originated from God, and persists because of God. It get's confusing. Nevertheless, my jabs at coaxing reasonable thought out of individuals when it comes to discussing these things are seen by the faithful only as the temptations of Satan, so their natural assumption is that I'm an agent of the Devil.

6) Atheists can't conceive what love is...

Ouch, that hurts. Been accused of this one directly and it really puts a stinger in the heart. Again I know where this can come from with the rhetoric spouted in church. They teach you that to not know him is to be vacant of love and joy. So, from their perspective they're right. Because I don't recognize God or Jesus as existing I'm devoid of "God's love" and you know what, I'm okay with that. I know what unconditional love is. I also have an inventory of other emotions I call on to associate with that love, such as empathy, and understanding. 

Christians define all their relationships through divinity (God must have his own version of facebook, and he must hate it as much as we do.) If two people drift apart, it must be because of something they did towards God: or the devil is trying to tear them apart. That creates a profound situation of two people trying to understand something that they can't. What did they do or not do? How can they know when God won't answer? They're left to rely on counselors or their own reasoning, and typically choose the counseling which can be just as bat-shit if it's also coming from a religious standpoint.

I'm left to my own reasoning and an unclouded assessment of things when dealing with others. I'm an introvert for sure, but I recognize that which is important. It lets me know that sometimes I need to be more vocal and assertive with the people I know, and when things go wrong in relationships I look inwards for perspective. I love many things, and many people, but my way of showing it is unique to me, just as it's unique to you. I cannot be anything more than what I am, but what I am is just fine. 

[comicatheist]

Up to debate

   So recently I got around to watching the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate. I know it happened a while ago but every time I looked at the time indicator I just weighed out all the other things I could spend two hours doing instead. In watching it I realized two things. First: Bill Nye is possibly the most patient man on the planet, and second, Ken Ham is a complete moron. (Yes, there's a book that answers that Mr. Ham, but there are thousands of other books that discredit that book at virtually every turn, including the book itself! ) 

   Unfortunately the view of this issue and many others like it are represented to the public at large via the coverage they receive in media outlets. Bill Maher, Bill O'Reily, John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh all represent polar extremes when it comes to liberal and conservative ideas, and while it can be argued each one presents valid arguments on some things, it almost always comes with an agenda to push public opinion. As much as I respect the fact the Maher and Stewart champion to point out and ridicule the inadequate and narrow minded views of their counterparts, there's no delusion that they still have a self interest in what they report, and that facts will be molded to fit that view. Journalism in its true sense doesn't really exist outside of small pockets any longer, and unfortunately as Americans we no longer spend any time dedicating ourselves to research and fact checking, which means a great deal of public opinion is influenced directly by the recycled content shown on news networks and local channels, even though we live in an age when fact checking is as simple as doing a voice search on your smart phone. 

    I digress. When it comes to public debates I think they hold little relevance outside of people who float in the middle of the issue whatever it may be. I've got no problem admitting a bias towards Bill Nye. I grew up watching him in school, and he made learning fun. That said I gave Mr. Ham the benefit of the doubt, even though what I'd seen from him up to that point was nothing outside of the normal Creationist ideas. The first half hour was excruciating. Mr. Ham presented a plethora of arguments against evolution and the invalidity of the so called science it was based on. He put forth a great effort to try and discredit the scientific method and all of its findings by association, even though he continued to refer to the things he, Bill Nye, and other scientists all agreed on. In his entire argument he presented nothing but speculative arguments using either evidence that was irrelevant, wrongfully associated, or had no evidence at outside of "The Book" 

    He even went so far as to declare that secular science has "... hijacked..." the word science and keep creationist scientists out. There was this scenario in my head that was playing out the whole time Ham spoke, and it was of a kid playing hockey in the street when he looked up and saw a bunch of kids had made a tree house. Curious he asked to come up and see what they had done. They agree and take the time to show him how they made it and all the hard work they'd put into it along with why. The hockey kid decides he likes it, but still wants to play hockey too, so he proposes to use the tree house for that purpose. The other kids say no because it's a ridiculous idea, and all hell breaks loose. I equate the creationists stance as being that of a spoiled child. They want to play in the tree house of science, but keep their street hockey religion too. When things don't pan out in their favor they play the victim card, and enough people are silly enough to empathize with them over their fictitious plight. 

    Science has never had an interest in disproving Gods existence. In fact one could argue many inquiries into the natural world have been done in the search of God to further our understanding. In all these centuries of scientific effort though God has not shown himself, yet we gain understanding anyway. As our understanding of the natural world progresses we assign less to God's influence, and more to practical applications of these revelations. If we came across an image from Hubble (Space Telescope) of God picking his nose as he planned Armageddon, I don't think anyone in the scientific community would (after rigorous study and examination to rule out fraud) still hold onto a belief of evolution over intelligent design. It would seem that for Ham and many like him, science serves as a conspiratorial force bent on destroying Christianity rather than being a means of finding factual truth over convenient truth. 

    These things appear to have lead to Hams' idea that he can make science what he wants it to be, and therefor not have to credit the parts of science he doesn't want to. He spent a lot of time in his opening statement and responses to trying to claim the inability of science to assess time frames and happenings based on what cannot be seen. Bill responded to this several times brilliantly, of course Ham and most people in his court were either too stupid or simply chose to disavow it for what it was. 

    "Prediction" was the word Bill used, time and time again in that we use science to predict occurrences in order to further understanding. It might be argued that such a thing cannot be removed as anything else than trying to be prophetic and no more provable than such, except that it can be proven as effective and has been by the discovery of Neptune in our solar system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_neptune

    Neptune's discovery was a triumph in science as it was the first application of Newtonian mathematics used to predict the existence of something that to that point could not be observed directly yet made sense and was measurable by math. The planets discovery came about in it's disruption and defiance of those equations when astronomers tried to deduce the orbit of Uranus and could not do so with the information they had. The consensus was another body must have been tugging (gravity) on Uranus Le Verrier was accredited for predicting the orbit and observable point of Neptune in 1846. 

    I do wish that Nye had more directly opposed Ham on key points, but I understand why he didn't in many cases. Christians no doubt would see Hams' conduct as being noble and just, but in truth he was an ass and committed the same frivolous assertions at points where Bill didn't have an answer by saying "Well Bill there's a book for that." essentially saying because Bill didn't know something, how could he know anything. The gap of having an answer is not justification for immediately tossing aside everything we do know so as to clamor towards a comforting answer. 

   We don't know everything, but since we've realized the importance of reason over superstition we've learned just how much we don't know, and have invented a way to diminish that uncertainty. I know why Nye couldn't answer, and it wasn't because Ham had presented some grand argument to shake his belief to the core (all Ham had was circular reasoning, nothing new) Bill didn't answer because as satisfying as it might have been to throw down the might of knowledge and reason upon Ham, I'm going to assume that the "Science Guy" understands enough to know that making his own assertions for the sake of convenience would unravel his efforts, and make him no better than creationists. 

   I think I can say this on behalf of all true atheists in that, we don't know the origin of our universe beyond the big bang, or how life on earth began. We would like to know, and we have an earnest interest in discovering it, but we are mature enough to accept the fact that just because we lack an answer to that question doesn't give us the right to make one up that suits our liking, because that's not truth. No matter how unsettling it might be, the truth is what matters. 

[comicatheist]

The best allegory I've found for my activism as an atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw

[comicatheist]

Popular Misconceptions of Atheists

       Misconceptions about atheist people range from just about everything. There are many assertions ranging from the reasonable to the most ludicrous ideas imaginable. There was once a guy I knew named Alex who thankfully I'm no longer friends with. He once told me that "For as much as I hate Muslims, atheists are worse. At least Muslims stand up for a belief in something, atheists just hate God and are weak."                                              I didn't say anything towards this, mostly because Alex was the type of guy that kept a crowbar handy for such occasions as people disagreed with his point of view, and I was not that type of person. When it comes to giving the perspective on Christians, I have every right to provide insight, because I was one. However not all Christians have lived as rational atheists (I distinguish this because we are all born atheists with no concept of God as infants. God is something we learn from other human beings) 

    The great thing about being an atheist is that altogether we share a label, and nothing else. Our views are our own and there's no mandate on how to conduct yourself as an atheist or any group meetings you're required to attend, you simply are an atheist. Now this does not mean that there are atheist groups that don't exist (Athiest Plus (+) being one of the most prominent) but being an activist group they do not speak for all atheists by a long shot. Most of us are individuals existing in small pockets of America outnumbered by religious minded individuals at nearly every turn. With that much division, it's easy for other groups to assert the traits they find true about atheism from their own personal feeling, and some of these are what we'll touch on today. 

1) Atheists have nothing to live for.

Hurray! I no longer have to participate in this senseless grind of daily living because as an atheist there's no point! I can go buy a gun on credit and just blow my head off now. I've had this one directed to me personally quite a few times now, and it's funny how ignorant the statement is. When a Christian gives me this line I wonder how many brain cells they have to switch off to realize that it is in fact they who have nothing to live for. The ultimate aim in praising God and accepting Jesus is that when they die they get to go to heaven, which in their eyes is better than this existence in every way conceivable.                                      Ricky Gervais has thus far given me the best quote to use in this instance. "... It's the opposite. We have nothing to die for. We have everything to live for." Without attempting to patronize too much, when you don't believe in anything after this life, you take nothing for granted. The earth is all we have, and you want to provide something to the future. Deep down I see many Christians still acknowledge their embedded sense of self preservation, which is at odds with their ultimate goal. If they did this in spite of being Christian they could easily be labeled as selfish, or having doubt. I don't tie this to it though because that is instinctual. Now on the other hand, there are the absolutist and fundamentalist types who feel that since we're on the verge of the rapture there's no point in preserving things like resources or ecology for future generations. To those people I'd kindly urge you go ahead and take up that whole buy a handgun on credit philosophy and take the express. Give us some more room to work out some sense in this world and prove us wrong while you're at it.

2) Atheism is just another religion.

  Again, how many brain cells have to go dormant to arrive at this assertion. It almost feels like a desperate playground jest. How circular and stupid is it to say that when there is no basis to it whatsoever. Being of a former Christian mindset I can only figure that the indoctrination of religious dogma and practice is so ingrained that it is literally impossible for them to conceive an existence without religion on their own. It must exist in some way, because they need it to in order to maintain their own reality. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. I imagine Christians think that we all get together at secret clubs and pray to effigies of Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin. 

3) Atheists have no sense of morality, or atheists just want to sin.

In the same year the United States had a reported 11.88 million incidents of violent crime in 2002. For the sake of argument we'll round that up to twelve million. That's a pretty stark contrast in numbers there. America's crime rate is two thirds higher in comparison for the same year, but it's not a fair assessment. We need to take population into account here too. Currently the U.S. reports 318 million citizens, while Japan boasts 127 million. Rounding down this time we get 3 million and 100 million. What does it say that as a "Christian nation" we still boast no better a crime rate via population than an Atheist minded nation? And before you implicate the decline of Christianity in America as reasoning for this. 73% of U.S. citizens identify as some form of Christianity currently with 19% non religious, 6% other religious affiliation, and 2% undecided.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States )

4) Being an atheist is un-american.

    This comes from a self centered view. America was built with the idea of diversity in mind and freedom to express that diversity. The majority cannot impose upon the rights of the minority, period. Being Atheist is most certainly Un-Christian, via definition it must be, but un-american. If anything I'm more American for standing up what I believe to be right, and not letting myself be ignored. Again we have a childish short handed argument that only wants to assert the self centered point of view of how things are.

5) Atheists choose to believe in nothing came from nothing.

   Firstly, I identify belief not as a choice, but rather the condition our ideas rest upon given the amount and types of information we have accumulated. Belief changes as we gain information, but that belief is not something we control in its entirety. If someone told me they had a talking dog that could ride a motor cycle, I'd likely not believe it, as such a thing had never been presented before. I would demand evidence, and if they could produce none, I would be inclined to doubt their assertion. However if they did in fact show me a talking dog capable of riding a motor cycle, I would have no choice but to believe it. Perhaps the dog simply had a speaker attached to it and was riding in the side car, or it could physically produce speech on its own, and had mutated feet capable of operating the gear shift on the bike and pulling the throttle all at once, so there are different degrees there of understanding how this could come about. Regardless though I would have to believe in the concept of a talking dog riding a motorcycle. To do otherwise would not be a choice, but willful ignorance.

6) Atheists only seem to bash on Christians.

    Far from accurate. So far from accurate. I think it's a persecution complex shared among Christians that when others around them are being called into question or ridiculed they could care less, but once Christianity is on the table, the call to arms has been sounded and they're suddenly the only group being challenged in the sense of ideas. It's absolutely infuriating to see the injustice Christian groups inflict on others, yet feel they are beyond reproach. Yes, atheists have a large amount of dialogue and resources combating Christians in particular in America, but being the most prolific religion in America, the odds are just so much higher that we will encounter a person of that particular faith. That doesn't mean we don't equally dismiss and point out inadequacy in Judaism, or Islam, but they hold relatively little influence in American politics compared to Christians. 

Recently on Facebook an aunt of mine posted this.

There's no mention of what atheist group in particular was making this request, which leads me to believe that they were just using the term atheist as a scapegoat to push an agenda for whatever reason. Then I discovered that this image and campaign was derived from an issue more than five years ago and no longer relevant. I proposed to her this, as an atheist, that I couldn't see any reasoning behind an atheist group wanting to have it taken down as a symbol, but that I noticed a lack of equality if in that sense a Crescent moon and Star of David could not also be placed there in memory of the Muslims and Jews that also died in the Trade Center attack. I think that most Atheists would agree with me on this issue. Either it's all fair game, or none of it is. I would have no problem seeing those symbols in place with the cross to show that not everyone who died in the attack was affiliated as a Christian, but they can't see that they have in essence hijacked a symbolic relevance in order to be exclusive. From the atheist view, no that is not fair, and it is not american. Despite how you want to feel you exist in a world where not everyone shares your view, and unlike you can be respectful in expressing that fact without attacking you. It's the stupidity and selfish attitude that bring about this sort of thing that stir up the atheist activists and get what you are doing as Christians dragged out into the daylight to be assessed in the first place.

That's it for now, the top misconceptions that I've had to confront thus far as an open atheist arguing with Christians. Send me a line if you've faced similar arguments, or have ones unique.

[comicatheist]

Coming out Atheist

      In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth... Then he filled 75% of the Earths' surface with water... Then God created all of the plants and the animals therein, and eventually got around to making man in his image, cause God is a bit of an egotist (just read like, anything in the bible) and he gave the Earth unto man for he loved man. Except wait, shit! God filled up most of the Earths surface with water and man needed air to breath. Slight oversight, okay, I'm sure the fact that man doesn't know how to swim by instinct won't be a problem, in fact it might be handy later on. (Genesis 6:9) It's fine, man can simply exist up on the land where it's safe. Hold on, where did these volcanoes come from? Must have made a super dense super hot core at the center of the Earth when God smashed all that mass together to make it. Man can just avoid those though, they're stationary. What, why the fuck are the animals trying to eat man!? No no, man has dominion over you! If Adam wants to put a saddle on a lion you will respond by not clawing the shit out of him and eating his entrails! Now what? Storms, seasonal shifts, earth quakes, and the potential for death from exposure because God didn't give man any protective fur like the other animals to survive the elements, and no knowledge of clothing so he could protect himself?! Fuck it! God made the Earth for fish!

  I realize that origin stories of normal people are rather bland and difficult to stomach unless you have a vested interest in learning about other people, or are just kind of wired that way. In this case, I thought I'd open up with a little insight into how I view the whole creationist point of view. It's cute, in a very self centered sort of way. Honestly the fact that we exist as we are and that it was by sheer chance is a much cooler way of looking at things, and it makes you a lot more humble.  

  But that's a story for another time. In this post I wanted to talk about an issue that is derived from my life, and while it's an experience based on me, I know that there are others who may be able to relate, and others still that might find insight from it.  To touch upon my prior post, I was raised as a Christian, and in a particularly nutty type of Christianity. I know that it was because while I may not have been a Mormon, when I describe the type of church I went to growing up with all the hooplah, shouting, jumping, dancing, and Oil to the forehead, they tell me it sound crazy.

Key advice for growing up: If someone you know to be a rational, dependable and generally truthful human being tells you that something you're doing or you yourself are(is) crazy, you should take heed.

That said, there is a sense of self preservation that comes along when you begin to doubt. Doubt is a good thing, and never let anyone tell you otherwise. I plan on giving a fully fledged representation of doubt and it's applications, but that's for another time. When you're a doubter, surrounded by christians you have a couple of options based on your situation and the denomination you're surrounded by. I've met some very enlightened people in my time, and each time I have a dialogue with them I absorb everything I can and share all that I can. With these types of individuals it's apparent that if you present a counter argument to their view in a civil way, they are more than willing to hear you out, and level with you. Generally they are very accepting and understanding. They may even give you their blessing and take an interest in your perspective being applied to their own. This is the best representation of human growth I can display. In my case though, to doubt God was a sign of the Devils influence over me. Pentecostal Evangelist Christians have one policy when it comes to Satan, scorched earth. It's kind of like the movie Commando, except you picture Arnold as Jesus, and all the bad guys are Satan and his demons (It's in you brain now, you can't un-see it!) And of course your soul is little Alyssa Milano. 

       Because I wasn't a dumb kid I knew the kind of ridiculousness that awaited me should I try to bring any of this up, and the more I pressed the issue, the more napalm they would put on back order. Being young I lacked three things: experience, an ability to argue effectively, and in their eyes, the right to assert myself given the lack of those two things. I knew the consequences both to me and my relationship with my family should I press the issue, and so I chose the most reasonable option at the time which was to hide it. Go along with their ideas, even if I feel they're silly, it's easier than stirring the pot and risk family bonds. It worked out for me, or so I thought.

       The worst thing about rationality is that you do it continuously once you figure out how. Things build up, and you begin to dispel a lot of wishful things in your life, but in return, rationality and logic offer you a way to rebuild your sense of self as something stronger than it was. This happened in my case. I was a doubter, then an agnostic, all the while only to myself. I'd managed to successfully deflect the God issue in my life while still maintaining a convenient cover. Anyone who has any moral bearing will tell you, that when you lie over a long period of time, a few things happen, as they happened to me.

The first is apparent, as most anyone can relate to it themselves because it's just so plausible, and that is you begin to believe your own lie. Even though I was agnostic, I still held onto some of the silly ideals of Christianity. When I was in a rough spot, I'd barter with God. The classic plea of "I'll stop this if you help me out of this jam!" type deal. There were also the thoughts towards doing certain things and not doing certain things because of whatever fragmented affinity I had with God. It put me in a weird place of not believing in God, but when shit hit the fan, he was on my emergency contacts. 

The second thing that happens in particular when you're lying about yourself to others, you begin to repress who you are. I became a chameleon of sorts. In high school you'd probably imagine my groups of friends were, unorthodox. I was friends with the band, the R.O.T.C. the Soccer Team, Football Team, Science club, and the multitudes of different individuals outside of those groups that consisted of my friends. I'd laugh because I felt it was right in one instance, and repress it in another. There was weakness there, and once I got home I would revert to a basic state of being with my Mom. I hid my interests for fear of what she'd assume about them; which was ridiculous, because despite everything I was a good kid in the sense any normal teenager is capable of being good. I didn't drink, or smoke pot. I wasn't running around after every girl I saw or looking for slutty girls to get laid by, and I wasn't associating with people of that mindset. The worst trait I had was an affinity for swearing, which I still have, but now it's more on principle than anything. (Fuck) Even so I hid myself, and created a dichotomy out of myself which I'm sure only added to the conflicts between the two of us. 

The harm in all of this is that I lost myself. I became a beacon for imprinting via other people. My confidence suffered for it, I had no sense of self or what I stood for, and I felt like an outcast when all it was simply in my head. I wrote a lot as a teen and used the artistic talent gained from my dad, but even those things I hid for fear of judgment from my family. Not my friends mind you, but my own family. I was depressed, had a poor demeanor with others, and eventually, became filled with a bitter rage. I'd made this choice that was now eating me alive, and I would either have to die with it, or come clean. I weighed the options and realized that I'm as human as anyone else, despite what my mind may have been telling me. The needless doubts I had faded away when I realized that all the people who I felt deserved social justice, and to be treated morally were valid, and in no short sense I was one of those people. 

   I came to terms with myself, and realized I no longer lacked what I did when I was a teenager. I had experience, and if you asked anyone who knows me, I have the gift to argue effectively in spades. All I needed was to assert myself in where I stood, so I went to see my mother. Now, this visit wasn't intended to be the means to this assertion, I'd simply been invited over for dinner to celebrate the Fourth of July. My mother is a rambler of sorts. As a kid our conversations in words spoken usually went 95% to 5% on my mothers behalf, and in my teen years probably more 75% to 25% on her end, but now as adults we're on a fairly 50/50 playing field. 

    Whenever we meet, God inevitably comes up, and so I knew this night would be no different, but I was frayed. Working a lackluster job with little gratitude and being duped into doing it over nights can do that to that to a person. This time, for whatever reason I broke away from the norm of our conversation about my not going to church, and how she felt about it, and why I should go. I wont say I saw her as the enemy, but I was fed up with it. I countered, which took her aback physically and mentally for a moment. I'd challenged her on something I never had before, and she was part in disbelief, and part way towards the phone to call the pastor, or my uncle who is also a minister.                                                                   Shy pried, and I answered, each question building and building. It was one of those frivolous arguments between a believer and non believer in which she had all the answers based on nothing tangible outside of personal feeling, but I had answers too, and reason (the devil) along with practical examples and logic (devil, devil, Richard Dawkins, devil) Finally it slipped out, the one word everything we'd discussed after dinner had been leading up to... "atheist"  I said it, not her. To that point she still held onto some thread of hope that she could save me, but now it was out there.                                                                                               "No you're not." She told me as if I wasn't capable of assessing what I was. Of course to her this was sudden, the lie had permeated so many things and how she saw me. To her I may not have been faithful to God, but I still believed he existed. Our conversation went on for hours, and covered all the base points most every individual who finds themselves arguing between these two points would cover. (I had the advantage though in that I worked over nights, so my bedtime was waaaay later than hers.) Begrudgingly she conceded that she had to go to bed, and I agreed. There was some tension there, but still love.                                      I stood up, we hugged, said we loved each other, and I went home. I knew I'd hurt her on a level most people don't realize someone can hurt. So embedded is this sense of hell and a person's immortal soul that Christians will often cast that fate onto others, but when they realize it's a loved one of theirs, the terror is real, and they become even more irrational. I felt bad in that sense, but at the same time, I was proud, proud of myself. I realized then how counterproductive my self inflicted exile had been. I realized that the true me was coming forth and whether it was accepted by the people I knew or not wouldn't matter, because it would be me, and I cannot any longer justify being anything but me in my life. 

   From here on out, everything pertaining to this blog will follow my experiences being an open out of the closet atheist, along with insights combating the misconceptions between believers and atheists. I welcome criticism, and feedback, along with constructive arguments. If you'd like to contact me with comments and questions please do.

The takeaway most relevant to my coming out as an atheist to my mother: 

We argued belief, and she interjected how could I believe Einstein existed, or Darwin. I couldn't prove they existed so how did I know (My head almost exploded all over my mother at that point, like fucking seriously, so stupid I couldn't remember how to breath for a second.) Finally that transitioned to...                                                                            "How do you know that I love you?"                                                       This was my reply, and It was for as well as memory can serve exactly as follows.                                                                                                        "I know that you love me, because you gave birth to me knowing nothing about the person I would become, yet you kept me. Even though it inconvenienced you, you clothed me, you fed me, and you protected me. When I got older and developed my own thoughts, even when they conflicted with yours you didn't throw me out, and you still stood up for me when I needed you to. You did that for eighteen years, and even though we don't always see eye to eye you still invite me to dinner, and have a vested interest in who I am. That's how I know you love me. I have received virtually nothing from God in comparison to what I've received from you." She teared up, and that's when I knew that there was still love there.

[comicatheist]

Coming up Atheist

We live in an amazing world so it’s been said. Something can be said about the human capacity for emotion and our sense of elation. Nowhere is that elation felt greater than when we reach the edge of our understanding and project the possibilities of how things may be. Growing up and even now, I relish the chance to walk through a snowstorm. Something about the way the lights from the city reflect off the snow and up into the clouds makes for a wondrous experience. Of course when I was younger, I had no idea why it happened, but the fact that the winter night sky was painted with hues of pink and purple was enough to make my heart stop. Eventually of course, I realized that it was the light of the city reflecting off the snow that made for this magical time, but that didn’t detract from the feeling it gave me. Growing up I experienced many beautiful things in nature, and ugly things as well; that’s the kind of luxury you’re afforded when you grow up in a place like Colorado.  I felt as a kid that I wanted to take in and experience as much as I could in this world, and somehow leave my mark on it, and I’m grateful that understanding is a window to experience everything that I’ll never be able to touch first hand. I find this world beautiful and full of wonder, not in spite of being an atheist, but because of it.

We live in an amazing world.

  Please, forgive my melodrama. Once I was an avid writer but It’s been some time and I feel this sort of thing is good for clearing out the cobwebs. So I suppose we should start from the beginning, of my perspective that is. I was born in a snowstorm in Colorado on a December eve, and with all the thought they could muster my parents named me David. As the story goes I went home with my parents and then immediately became sick, resulting in my second hospital stay at only a few days old. Compounding my struggle for survival I was also born with cranial-synosis, which is a birth defect resulting in the skull cap being closed at birth. If you have a child or work with them you’ll realize how serious this is as an open skull is necessary at birth to allow the brain sufficient room and to grow. Eventually it closes to form the skull, but is life threatening if this happens too soon, or can result in brain damage. Doctors watched me closely in case they’d have to operate and open it manually which thankfully was not the case. Soon enough my skull segmented and everything was fine. By Christmas I was home, having survived my first two brushes with death at only a week old. I suppose it’s a good thing I was born Irish.

            I was born into a one child family, and my arrival was displeasing to my older sibling. I’m told he took a couple of cheap shots at me as an infant, and there was an infamous egg incident that was enacted against my head, but I’d already beat death twice and thus was at action hero status, so I let him off for it. My older brother you see was also born with a disability, though his is o f a more permanent nature. Having a brother with Downs syndrome is a life molding experience, and I credit much of the foundations of my empathy to having him in my life. As begrudgingly as I was treated by him when I first came into his life, we grew to have a unique bond that he shares with no one else in my family, and I am the only one he refers to as “Buddy.”

            Then, there’s my other brother. About the time I learned what peace and quiet was, I simultaneously learned what it meant to have it destroyed. By younger brother came into this world like a gunshot, and through adolescence he never lost that inertia. I met a lot of firefighters and policemen as a kid, usually in the aftermath of my younger brother meeting with his own near death experiences, though his were more optional than mine between poison control and encounters with animals and fast moving objects, it’s a wonder he survived. Again, it must be the Irish influence.

              Then we have my parents. My Dad was a bit of a free spirit I think. I have sketch books of his, depicting stenciled works and still lives he drew. He had a talent that’s for sure. I remember on a few occasions he woke me up late at night and would have me learn how to play guitar with him. It never stuck though. I received his artistic sense, and my younger brother was gifted with music, though there was some overlap. He was the youngest of 3 brothers, and grew up in a small town outside of where I was born. His mother was regarded as a fairly domineering woman amongst the wives of her sons, but she loved me to death. I never quite understood why she treated my mom and aunts so poorly though, and in part, I couldn’t forgive her for that. My fathers’ father is where I find my kindred spirit with. My dad passed away when I was on the verge of ten years old, and when he died, my grandfather stepped in to fill a void we otherwise couldn’t see. I get my blunt and frank thinking from him, and probably my impatience for stupid too. When he died, I was a junior in high school, and I felt a part of me died with him.

              My Mother is the second youngest among two brothers and a sister. Her father more or less abandoned his family after several years of cheating on his wife without shame. While his kids including my Mom hold a tenuous relationship with him, I never really knew him as a kid, and the more I learned about him growing up I decided I held no stock in acknowledging him as family. Her mother on the other hand, I have no qualms declaring as being in the rightful ranking of one of the kindest most genuine women to ever live. She once brought me a sandwich at my home. I was baffled and she explained she’d bought it for a homeless man who was panhandling, but she didn’t want to give him money for fear he’d buy alcohol with it, so she bought him lunch instead. That surmises her in a nutshell.  My Mom is something of an odd sort. In many ways she’s like me, but in key ways we are worlds apart. When my father died she was torn between taking care of three kids alone, and as an adult I realize how difficult that must have been for her, though as a teen we fought constantly and passionately with one another. I was her crutch to lean on in times of need between my brothers and family, yet I was also her biggest source on conflict at times as well. To this day, our relationship is hit and miss, largely because of our difference in views, and this is where my purpose here begins.

              My family is Christian, there’s no doubt there. My fathers’ side is more or less Baptist, and my mothers’ side is Evangelical Pentecostal which is what we were raised as, even more fiercely after my father died. My youth afterwards was filled with God and Jesus, which didn’t so much leave a bad impression on my, as much as I disliked getting dressed up for the weekly rendezvous. God wasn’t presented to me in the scary package that a catholic child might receive him. God was loving, God was good, and we should celebrate our relationship with God above all things; but even so God is above question. To question God is to be influenced by the Devil, for Satan seeks your soul, and will do anything to inconvenience you and destroy your faith.  It was there Hell was introduced into the picture. Eternal damnation, fire, suffering, and torment because the Devil hates you, but God loves you.

            Time and time again my younger brother and I found ourselves at odds with this ritual of going to church on Sunday. We fought the good fight, and used whatever reasoning we could muster as a ten and seven year old to persuade why we should be exempt from this, but in the end we were children, and my mothers spirit wasn’t so easily broken. When we learned that the time away from God was going to be further supplemented by attending Wednesday night services as well we toiled in agony. To me church was absurd, just a bunch of singing in public, which I hate doing, followed by one person on stage spouting out whatever message they felt was relevant from the Bible that week. Sometimes the worship session would last an hour, sometimes it lasted almost two. Each factual hour felt like four when you were lip synching and being forced to stand up the whole time. My older brother had it easy, just sat there with a piece of paper and crayons to keep him occupied. Sometimes I managed to play it cool, and work my way over to join in with the drawing, playing it off as quality time with my bro. On occasion I did enjoy the sermon, usually when it pertained to the personal experience of whatever minister was speaking that day. A few of the ministers were more straight laced than the others, but if there’s one thing that can be said about evangelicals it’s that they don’t like to sit still for very long. People would often jump up and shout “Hallelujah!" or "Amen!" Sometimes someone would suggest the choir come back and we all sing some more, at which point I would go into a convulsion reminiscent of a death toil. 

    Despite my hatred of worship and being forced to participate in service there was an allure there. In the teaching we heard it time and time again that we were flawed and incomplete. Something I could relate to being a boy who lost his father. Pentecostals have an affinity for celebrating their faith, and the inhibitions towards dancing and jumping around aren't known to them. I wanted that same feeling. I was miserable, I didn't know why but I knew that I was. The ultimate level one can reach in their relationship with God as an evangelical is speaking in tongues. As it was explained to me, speaking in tongues meant you'd opened a direct dialogue with God (weird because he if's omnipotent he's technically listening to everyone all the time anyway), but not only that God is talking back, and filling your heart with what it needs to know. If you'd never seen someone speak in tongues before, it'd be a spine chilling experience. Even now I get uncomfortable when someone goes on a tangent speaking in tongues. From the inside though, it comes with a sense of purpose. I'd see people speaking in tongues and shaking, sometimes they'd go all the way to the floor, and people would have to catch them and guide them down softly (somehow the ushers always knew who the people prone to feinting were and would stand in waiting)        Those people were admired, and praised for their experience by everyone. Even my Mom would sometimes get the spirit within her. She'd cry, shake, and speak in tongues, which is frightening to a kid, especially with that whole direct line to God thing. God might rat my younger brother and I out on stuff. Even so, I saw kids and teens being "washed over" by the holy spirit. What impacted me the most was the attention. I was a reserved kid, a trait which has shrunk to last all of 5 minutes with me as an adult. I rarely talked, was often looked over, and felt neglected in everyday life. These people had the eyes of the entire congregation upon them though, and it was a just attention.                                                 By age fourteen I'd been saved, and backslid roughly ten times. I'd been filled with the holy spirit, spoke in tongues, and had been spiritually awakened... sort of. Making a face of being a sinner and coming back to God because you're helpless has a certain allure towards ladies of faith. Being a God fearing man even as a teenager gets their attention pretty quickly, and what teenager isn't going to exploit a cheat code in the game that is understanding women? Of course the attention was still nice to have regardless, and I can honestly say I had a vested interest in seeking to understand God, but that didn't mean I was stupid, in fact I love to learn. I saw "Saving Private Ryan" the year it came out, and it had an impact on me. I absorbed everything I could about the second World War from that point forward to the extent I'm an amateur historian on the subject. I applied all of that reasoning and insight towards God as well, and it altered my views.                

   I'd accepted everything about God, he was a living breathing entity in my life, but I remember where my reasoning finally overtook my indoctrination. Someone in the ministry let it slip, and it hit my ears like a gunshot going off. The service was about Abraham, and all he went through for his sons. He made the link between Islam, and Abraham's first son. I'd known that the old testament was linked to the Jewish faith, and that Christianity had spawned from it and the new testament (though I didn't know that the Jews didn't acknowledge Jesus as the messiah. Christians have a funny way of painting in broad strokes until specific questions arise, and the answers to those are always favorable to their point of view) That story stuck with me, and prompted me to go into uncharted territory at fifteen. I had a vested interest in religion now, and not just my own, but those of others. I didn't fit the christian mindset very well. Admittedly I wanted to learn about God, but with anything worth knowing, you want to know the whole story. Islam was new to me, and a part of my religion albeit obscure or otherwise to that point. God wouldn't be mad at me for trying to learn more, what good was this brain he gave me if I didn't use it? How could someone be mad at another person for seeking truth unless there was something to hide? I learned the foundations of Islam, and Judaism, inheriting a convoluted mess within my brain. Judaism serves as the foundation for both Christianity and parts of Islam? They share "Genesis" and the flood?! Islams' profit is Mohammed, but they still acknowledge Jesus, just not as divine? Judaism acknowledges neither? To top it all off they're at such odds with one another, yet they share so much. The devil is in the details as they say. They could all be right... right? Bits of this one mixed with that, compromise is what they tell us is important to how society works, but no, they're adamant that their view is the sole correct one.                                      So now the question became which one was right? Could any of them be right? The problems of a teenager far outweigh the significance of religion for most people, so this question was not at the forefront of my daily thinking, but still it persisted, and the more information I accumulated the more I placed the puzzle together from my perspective. By seventeen I was a closet doubter of God. With a family of God fearing individuals it was best to keep the peace by locking such thoughts away from public discussion. Any type of questioning that called out God would result in a house full of faithful breaking out olive oil and anointing of foreheads and doorways while rebuking the devil... The sort of thing that really cut into my "me" time. So I kept quiet, and I kept my doubts to myself. By age twenty or so I was a self admitted agnostic, and by twenty five, a closet atheist. A long transition I know, but I had a vested interest in faith and hope towards higher calling. It's a powerful idea, and when you haven't reached that required level of maturity you can only see the alternative being a pointless and meaningless existence waiting to die.              

      I'm twenty-eight now, approaching the zenith of my prime, with plenty of intellect to spare. My view on God has not wavered, but I have reached that level of maturity to understand how misguided my thoughts were. This world has much to offer us, but we sell it and ourselves short with pointless fighting and torment of others be it foreign or domestic. I'm a humanist with an expectation of intelligence out of others. Not one so high it's unreasonable mind you, but one elevated enough to see beyond concepts of self. I believe that humans are capable of transcending our current method of thinking and bringing forth a new era in our history that will continue into the stars beyond our current reach. We have problems to solve, some larger than life with no conceivable solution, others rather small, with equally inconceivable ends. None though seem to be so blatantly apparent as that of religion, yet so off limits. I watched in first period as the events of September 11th unfolded on the classroom television, by second period my Mom had pulled me out of school hysterical, and in a panic over the "End Times" and "Revelations" I wanted to slap her and tell her how stupid that was, but I was still a slave to tolerance over ignorance, and had no way to reproach her ideas. There are problems to solve, and my biggest one to date, was to confront my mother.