Easter Fools!

Bit late, but what do you expect when everyone is doing April Fools pranks? Some times you have to be careful. I'm still finding various pranks, and some are downright unavoidable. You know what I think the biggest prank of all was? Easter being in March! Certainly threw me for a loop. I knew it moved around a lot, but I've never actually seen it outside of April. Now that I'm old enough to pay attention, I realize it can jump around in a time span of more than a month! Which leads me to a question that has come up lately.

"What do Atheists know about Easter?

A great deal, actually. It's amazing what you can learn online when given enough initiative. For starters, it's not just one religious holiday, it's several rolled into one.

During the 7th century, the Roman Empire, back before they were catholic, would conquer neighboring countries. In order to better adapt their new citizens to their forced occupation, the Romans altered their own religion and their holidays to better match those of the religions they wiped out. This led to many combined holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. Easter, at this time, was probably known as Pascha, the Latin word for Passover.

When the Catholic church began the dominant religion, they, too, incorporated this idea of merging religions to adapt to shifting citizens. That's when Christmas came to be. This is also when Easter was combined with the resurrection of Jesus. With Jewish calendars being Lunar, as opposed to our own which is Solar, the day of Easter was placed onto the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox. Since our Solar calendar now has this date set firmly at March 21st, Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21st. Unless, of course, you are from the other Christian factions who follow a different Solar calendar in the east, who place it about a week or so farther along in the year, with it still jumping around just as much.

Being stuck with the Gregorian calendar here in the USA, we had to buy our eggs and bunnies VERY early this year. However, why did we buy eggs and bunnies? What do they have to do with Jesus or Passover?

Current versions of the Easter celebration actually take their cue from the German Passover holiday, Eostre, in celebration of their pagan goddess, Ostara. Their Easter was based around spring, renewal, and new life. As such, the imagery commonly found at these celebrations happened to be symbols of fertility, including eggs and rabbits.

So, now you know more about Easter than most people in America. Go ahead and spread the word, especially to your Christian friends. You'd be surprised just how many of them will actually be pleasantly surprised by this information and thankful to receive it.

Roman Atheism

In a recent debate, I was thrown an interesting curveball, an argument I had never heard before and had to look into. I was accused of using a "fake" definition of Atheism, the definition I've been giving on this blog, and that my definition could be used to define anyone. Here is, generally, how the accusation was phrased.

"The Romans called Christians "atheists" because they didn't believe in their gods. Doesn't this prove your definition is fake?"

So, after that was lobbed at me, I had to look it up. Turns out, the first sentence is accurate. The Romans did call Christians Atheists because they didn't believe in their gods. During their persecution of opposing religions, they mistakenly believed that Theism only accounted for "true" religion. And since their religion was the "true" religion, they were the only Theists and all others were Atheists.

Shortly after this time, everyone, including the Romans, agreed that Theism didn't account for which, if any, religion was correct, only belief in one or more deities. As such, their understanding of Atheism also changed to match the original definition, not belief in deities.

Since I wasn't using that definition of Atheism, and it's be proven wrong anyway, this would seem to settle the question, as the Romans even admitted to their mistake. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Romans were the inventors of the word and they decided that Atheist meant "one who does not believe in the correct gods." There would certainly be a conflict. Not only would this definition assume Roman gods to be the "correct" gods because of them creating the term, but any who did not believe in "particular" gods could be labeled as those without any belief. This would indeed include Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and true Atheists.

This new definition would also destroy the label itself, as it was built in original latin. A-The-Ist is a combination of "A-" (negative form) "The-" (theos, gods) and "Ist" (personal belief) and cannot be defined any other way. The negative form of a personal belief in gods is simply "Not a personal belief in gods." As such, the Romans would have been wrong, even if they created the term. They would either be wrong about the definition or wrong about the word itself. One of those two would have to change simply for the sake of consistency.

To use a more modern example of how this misnomer would and should be avoided, let's say someone hates a chair. They love the chairs they use, but hate this one specific chair for some reason. It's gotten to the point that they don't even consider it a chair, more like a torture device. There are other people who love this chair and don't consider the chairs that person likes to be a chair at all, more like a table with a back on it. So, this group of people decide that this person must not believe chairs exist and they call him an anti-chair person. In truth, he is not an anti-chair person, as he loves chairs, just not those chairs. And they are also using the term "anti-chair person" incorrectly, as an anti-chair person would be someone who hates all chairs, not someone who doesn't believe in chairs.

So, hopefully I have properly explained how the above argument simply doesn't work. The Romans had no idea what a Theist was, let alone an Atheist, and even if they had made the definition it wouldn't apply to the words used for the term. There is no possible way it makes the definition most commonly used today, the original definition, fake or fraudulent.

All dictionaries agree, there is also no definition of Atheism that can be applied to anyone who has any belief in any deities.

Stories of my Life

Everywhere I go it seems someone has a story they want to share. A nice little tale that proves their point and makes them feel all warm and cozy inside. While the story about the racist woman on the plane being told off or the soldier who survived a terminal illness might make you feel good when you read it or hear about it, what are the odds of it being real?

"Doesn't this story prove my god exists?"

I'm sure you've seen stories online, probably on Facebook, that tell a tale of a student proving an Atheist teacher wrong, or a soldier who drives a jeep without an engine after praying. While these are nice stories, do they actually have any merit on whether or not gods exist? Unfortunately, the short answer is "No."

While stories tend to have an element of truth to them, not all stories are true. Take the first example of a racist woman on a plane. In the story there is a racist woman who doesn't want to be seated next to a black man. Upon hearing this, the stewardess apologizes to the black man and moves him into a vacant seat in first class, basically telling off the racist in the process. A simple search on Google can tell you that this is an old story that actually started off on a bus. It's been passed around and upgraded and localized so often, there's no telling how much of the original tale exists, or if there ever was any event such as this one when the story was originally written.

This is why websites like Snopes.com exist. They look up facts about stories and scams to help those who don't have the resources needed to confirm a story. Even they will tell you that 99 out of 100 stories spread around are not true. So, if they are false, why do they spread so much? Because people want them to be real. Everyone knows someone like one of the people in the story. By bringing the story home, it sits in their mind, especially if the story ends in victory. So, they pass it around to have others feel the same way. For a similar, yet opposite reason, stories about hardships and vengeance are also spread around the internet, usually faster than the truth that follows it. Strong emotions move faster than facts.

So, what if the story is true? If you can't prove that it never happened, why not assume it did? And if it did happen, wouldn't that be proof of a god?

Not exactly. Assuming the story is real and did happen exactly as stated, it is still just a story. Even assuming the events all took place as described, that doesn't automatically mean a deity had to be involved. It simply means the people in the story could not explain what happened or counter the argument given. Even if it does turn out to be a deity at work, why does it have to be the one you worship? Why can't it be a deity from another religion, or one that we are not at all aware of?

The bottom line is, there are far too many unknowns with these stories to be considered evidence, let alone proof. In order to allow them to be evidence of anything, you have to assume or provide evidence that they are real. Afterward, you have to assume or provide evidence that the events really happened as described and were not a product of human imagination. Then you have to assume or provide evidence that something outside of nature (supernatural) was involved. After that, you have to assume or provide evidence that this supernatural force was caused by a deity. Finally, you have to assume or provide evidence that it is the deity that you believe exists. Only after all of that can you call it evidence for your deity of choice.

So, go ahead and feel good about the stories you read on Facebook and other such websites, but don't use them as your arguments for your god. It just doesn't work.

2,013 reasons to care

Another year, another apocalypse.

It really is one of the few things the majority of us can agree upon, isn't it? Whether or not the world is going to end sooner or later, with a bang or a whimper, from a comet or a plague, most of us agree that we won't know when that day will be. And until that day arrives, we all agree that we need to help our fellow human beings as much as we can. Which brings me to the answer of this month's question.

"Why do you Atheists never help anyone? All you do is argue!"

Not true. In fact, there are many secular organizations that are heavily atheistic, though not exclusively.

AU (Americans United [for Separation of Church and State]) is a secular group, with many Atheists in it, that is trying to keep church and state separated, so no religion gets an unfair deal and no citizen is forced to worship or believe in any particular religion. Fun fact about this organization: It is actually lead by a minister who believes his religion would be better served by keeping the government out of it.

Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) is a great example of a humanist group. It tries to stay out of political and religious grievances and focuses primarily on giving medical care where it is needed. It was started "by a small group of french doctors and journalists who believed that people have the right to medical care regardless of race, religion, creed or political affiliation, and that the needs of these people outweigh respect for national borders." ~ Wikipedia

ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a nonpartisan non-profit organization. It was started to defend and preserve the rights of individuals as stated in the Constitution. Going farther beyond AU, ACLU covers everything from Freedom of Speech to Gun Ownership to Women's rights. The ACLU is responsible for combating police misconduct toward Native Americans, defending the rights of Japanese Americans during WWII, and even various communists during the Cold War.

This is just a small sampling of organizations that don't push Atheistic world views, but are furthered a great deal by Atheists. Even those who don't join these groups tend to fight along side them, fighting for the rights of individuals, the well-being of their fellow humans, and even the freedoms of local religions to not be controlled or regulated by government.

So, the next time you see an Atheist who is arguing loudly, and fruitlessly, remind them that there are organizations dedicated to helping humanity overcome their differences and their struggles. You may be surprised at how much they are already doing to help, and how much surprise you will get from them when they realize you're not such a bad person.

Happy New Year, everyone. Here's hoping the new year is always better than the old.

Merry Christmas!

Yeah, disappointing, ain't it? No blog post this month. It'd be more than a week late as is, and I'm just too busy doing other things. Might even make a habit out of leaving December off the list. 'Tis the season to be busy, eh? Back on schedule next month.

Merry Christmas

from the Land of Disillusionment

Repetitive, Ain't It?

Like many internet Atheists, I do enjoy debating online. I spread what I know to be true while others attempt to convince me of what they know to be true. It's truly the fastest way I know of to learn anything, and the easiest way to point out exactly what you don't know about your own truths. However, more often than not, there is a shadowy element to each debate, an element of misinformation. And every time I try to correct this misinformation, I get the following question.

"Don't Atheists also follow a dogma?"

You'd be surprised just how often that comes up. And, of course, I need to replay to it with what dogma is and why Atheists don't have one.

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Atheists don't have any kind of authority, or principles, and they see nothing at all as being incontrovertibly true. Another definition for Dogma replaces principles with beliefs and doctrine (set of beliefs) which is held by a religion.

As I have already stated many times in this blog, and I'm sure it's getting a little old for everyone, including myself, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. There are no beliefs, no principles, no doctrines, and no dogmas associated with it. Some Atheists have beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas, and I'm positive most of them have principles, but none of those have anything to do with Atheism.

I am getting rather tired of repeating myself in this fashion, but it seems I have little choice. Every misconception about Atheism seems to stem from the misinformation that Atheism is a belief, generally, the belief that no gods exist, and specifically, the belief that God doesn't exist. Every debate I have on the topic of religion boils down to this, and it does get rather tiresome. However, I will continue to spread the truth as I know it as needed.

I'm sure the rest of you will do the same.

Ritual Posting

Today is the third anniversary of this blog. It is now three years old. Like anything else that's turning three years old today, it has less to do with supporters and more to do with a kind of stubbornness to survive. At the time of this writing, it has a grand total of two followers. But, I suppose it's better than nothing, especially if they are actually reading these entries.

In celebration of this blog's birthday, I've decided to pose a question of my own, to myself, so that I may answer it. I know, what else is new or unusual? However, this time is slightly different. This question is one that I have never heard before, but I think should be asked constantly.

"Why do Atheists celebrate birthdays?"

It amazes me how many people don't question this practice. Birthday celebrations are originally a pagan ritual. It was believed that evil spirits were especially attracted to someone on the day of their birth, so friends and family would gather around that individual and would bring good thoughts and wishes, as opposed to cake and presents. At least, that's one of the more popular origins of Birthdays. No one is entirely sure where they originated.

Still, it is a spiritual ritual, all the same, and a superstition surrounds this ritual on all sides. So why do we celebrate them?

Getting past the fact that some probably don't, there is nothing wrong with celebrating a Birthday. Atheists typically celebrate their Birthdays in the fashion their parents did, passing it on like a tradition. Some eat cake, some break piñatas, almost all of them give and receive presents. Some of them even go through the superstitious portions of the ritual, like making a wish.

The bottom line is, we celebrate out of habit. That's how all holidays go for us. We enjoy the celebrating and see no reason our lack of belief should get in the way of having fun.

So, Happy Birthday, Land of Disillusionment. May there be many more, and hopefully some more guests at the next party.

Meager Stock Options

Money has always been referred to as the root of all evil. It's a common theme in just about every religion. If you are rich you are supposed to give to the poor, give until it hurts. Your giving nature in life is supposed to reward you several times over in death. At least, that's how the religious are supposed to see it. Instead we find churches and other buildings of worship popping up everywhere, taking in donations from everyone, and the spiritual leaders actually making a profit. This, of course, leads to a very important question that I actually don't get asked very often but is just as important all the same.

"What do Atheists have against churches?"

Nothing, really. Churches themselves and other such buildings are perfectly fine. If you want a place where you can meet with your peers, worship together, and discuss your religion, that's great. However, it's not the building itself that's at fault here, it's the people running them.

I'm sure anyone away from particular religions will have noticed that certain spiritual leaders, especially within the large confines of the radically different sects of Christianity, have taken it upon themselves to hold onto the funds that their church raises, rather than giving it to those who need it. Quite the opposite, in fact, as they seem to want to take every cent their patrons have and are willing to promise them anything to get it.

There are spiritual leaders with yachts, mansions, private jets, and even Mega-Churches, which just seems like a slap in the face, to me. These people seem to think that the meek will inherit the Earth while the rich can buy Heaven. As mentioned above, I understand the need to have a place of worship, but I don't understand the need for a large monument to the wealth of the person running that place, which is exactly what a Mega-Church is. And, to make matters worse, these buildings are a part of a religion and are thus free from taxes, as I understand it. I certainly hope I'm wrong about that one.

The bottom line is, churches, in and of themselves, are perfectly fine. Even non-religious people gather together to discuss their non-religiousness. It's human nature to want to congregate and share likenesses. If I had a problem with churches, I'd have to have a problem with every place of gathering or worship, which would rule out most of the planet. A hard life to live, indeed.

The problem I have is with those who run these spiritual establishments expecting to make a profit, and actually accomplishing this task. These people who seem to have forgotten that religion is meant for spiritual wealth, not material. These people have lost their way, spiritually and morally, and the community they claim to be a part of owe it to themselves to bring them back into the fold and teach them the same lessons they claim to be teaching.

After all, it's one thing to ask for donations to keep the church around, and something entirely different to ask for donations to add another room onto the fourth floor of your "modest" home.

Lessons Learned

It's no secret that I like to debate online. Many Atheists who are vocal about their Atheism tend to get into these debates, but some of us actually enjoy them. I enjoy discussing philosophy as well as science and history. Every debate is a chance to test my knowledge and logic against a new person, to possibly learn something I've never even heard of before. I research as many aspects of the debate as possible, whether I think I know the answer to an argument or not. I present my arguments with confidence and I refuse to back down from them until they have been sufficiently defeated. As such, it can be quite easy to mistake my confidence for arrogance and my knowledge as being closed minded. This leads to one fairly obvious question.

"Why do Atheists think they know everything?"

The short answer is that we don't. Granted there are some of us who are that arrogant, but I'd hardly call them the norm. These types are in every culture, and aren't to be taken seriously. Those of us who debate online tend to acknowledge that they could be wrong and are more than willing to admit when they are wrong. The problem, and the question, arise when the opposing side does not provide a convincing argument but thinks that they have. While they continue to present the same argument over and over, wondering why the Atheist is not convinced, they are incapable of seeing that there is a glaring flaw in their argument which is preventing the Atheist from seeing any kind of connection.

Of course, we are not immune to this flaw. There are many times when we enter a debate with flawed logic or false knowledge. I can recall a couple of instances where I have stood by an argument throughout an entire debate, not knowing why the other person could not see the logic behind it, only to learn long after that debate that I was the one in error. If the other debater had found the exact information I had seen and presented it to me, I may have altered my argument right then, as I have done in the past.

The key, however, is not to know everything during such a debate, but to continue to learn through every encounter and to research everything you are talking about to ensure you have up to date knowledge. If your opponent refuses to see your point, it's time to look into it further. If they are right, it's better to find out immediately. If you are right, you are lacking the exact knowledge needed to convince them. In either case, repeating yourself like a broken record will get you nowhere, regardless what position you hold.

So, to sum this up, and to get back to the question, we don't know everything and we never will know everything, but we're okay with that. We get that we can be wrong and that we'll probably be proven wrong at some point in the near future on one point or another. If we're wrong and we're called out on it, most of us will admit that a mistake has been made. Those who don't aren't worth your time.

So keep debating, keep learning, and keep an open mind. We'll try to do the same.

Independent Atheism

As the 4th of July approaches, America's Independence Day, I can hear fireworks going off around me. The occasional red glare fills the sky, the sounds of bombs bursting in the air, and flags waving all over the place, whether the family is traditionally patriotic or not. Every year around this time I am reminded, quite forcefully but pleasantly, that I am living in a free country. These freedoms are challenged on many occasions, but they still exist.

"What rights and freedoms pertain to Atheism?"

Directly? None of them do. Not one right or freedom that I'm aware of directly mentions Atheism. I could be wrong, of course, but I've never heard of any. Indirectly? There are quite a few. I won't go into all of them, but here are a few big ones.

The first one that comes to mind is freedom of religion, part of the first amendment written in 1789. The government is not allowed to make any laws which support or harm any religious organization. In other words, no special treatment in either direction based on your religious status. Without this amendment, we could very well be living in a nation run by religion, one of the very things this country was formed to get away from. This amendment also guarantees that your child will not be forced into religious ceremonies in public schools.

Also part of the first amendment is the freedom of speech. You are allowed to voice your opinion despite how many people disapprove or disagree. As long as you are not intruding on the rights of others, you can say anything you want, in theory. In practice you still need to show a great deal of constraint.

Thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for anyone to reject employment based on religious status. You can't be denied a job because of being an Atheist. Again, in theory. In practice it's still possible, but only if the excuse is good enough. Still, it is one of our rights and freedoms. Besides, any company that would deny employment simply because you're an Atheist isn't a company you should be working for, anyway.

To make a long story short, we have the right to be Atheists. No one can punish us for it and no one can tell us otherwise. This is our right and our freedom practically since this country was taken by the colonies in 1776. As long as we live here we can continue to fight for our right to be Atheists. Not by fighting other countries, but by enforcing the laws in our own.

While freedom still reigns supreme in America, so will Atheism exist and thrive.

Happy 4th of July.

Accurate Corrections

It's quite rare when I find an actual question being asked of Atheists. Typically I have to dig through various websites or create one based on debates that I have with people. This time, however, I have a real question asked of Atheists all the time. This question was stated by a Theist a while ago and has never been answered by Atheists. In fact, I dare say it's impossible for them to answer it. So, what is this question?

"What is the proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?"

I'm sure a lot of readers already know why this question has never been answered, and can never be answered. The question simply makes no sense.

In the first place "proof" does not exist. As such, evidence is all we have. Evidence cannot prove anything, only make it unreasonable to see things any other way. This is what's known as demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the closest we can have to proof of any kind, and even this can be shown to be wrong if we find enough evidence against it.

Second, in order for something to be accurate, it has to be correct in all details. It has to correlate to reality as we know it. This means that saying both accurate and correct is just redundant.

So how does this work with Atheism? Put simply, it doesn't. There is no relation at all between the position of Atheism and this question.

Atheism cannot have evidence for or against it as it is simply a lack of belief. The position of Atheism is based entirely off the lack of convincing evidence for deities. It is impossible to have evidence for or against a position like that.

Atheism also cannot be "accurate" in any sense because it doesn't offer anything. In order for something to require accuracy, it has to have a mark it's trying to hit, a point it's trying to make. Atheism is a rejection of a point, not a point in itself. There is nothing to be accurate about.

So, can you see why this question can't be answered, why it makes no sense? Just because it's possible to ask a question that doesn't mean it has an answer.

Why do apples chop fewer logs than shoes? The question makes no sense. You'd think I was crazy if I seriously asked that question. Well, it's the same as the above question. Anyone who seriously asks that question doesn't understand what they're asking at all.

So if you see this question going around, try not to get too worked up over it. Just tell them it makes no sense and calmly explain why. If they still don't get it, they're not worth worrying about.

Let them have their nonsense and just focus on reality.

Sphere of Knowledge and Belief

There is a growing number of people that I'm debating with lately who are under the mistaken impression that Atheism is the same as Anti-Theism, that Atheists believe there are no gods. They of course site various definitions that claim that Atheists are people who believe there is no God, singular, referring to the Judeo-Christian deity. Despite how often I attempt to point out that this is not the be all and end all, especially since their quoted definition doesn't even include other deities, they just don't get it.

So, here it is again, in plain english, and with pretty pictures.

"What is Theism? What is Atheism? What is Gnosticism? What is Agnosticism?"

Let's say for a moment that the two theistic positions are a colorful sphere.

Theism is all of the warm colors. Atheism is all of the cool colors.

Of course, this is just the center of the sphere, using only the x axis and y axis. There are also the light levels, on the remaining axis, which are the levels of Gnosis. The darker colors are Gnostisim and the lighter colors are Agnosticism.

This makes a complete sphere, with colors going all around it and the higher the colors the lighter it is.

As you can see, there are many colors and shades of both Theism and Atheism. These are all of the religions and philosophies concerning these two halves of the sphere. Some are more Gnostic than others, purporting more answers to mysterious questions than others. The higher you are on this sphere, the more open your mind is to new things. The lower you are, the more you stick to what you know to be true, despite what others tell you. Obviously, it is not a good idea to be on either the top or the bottom of the sphere, as you would learn nothing in either case.

On the top you accept nothing as knowledge for no one can know anything about anything, and thus always know nothing. You don't even know if YOU exist.

On the bottom, everything is exactly as is, no different, and nothing ever changes. That blade of grass you saw years ago is still right there at this very moment, even if you saw the land it was growing out of destroyed, relocated, and turned into a brick house. By the way, that never happened, either.

So the middle sections, where you can actually see the colors, is the best place to be. It's hard to be in the exact center, but it's always best to attempt to remain as close as possible. You are open minded, but not intentionally ignorant.

So, where does this leave us in this analogy?

By "us" I am referring to the Agnostic Atheists. We are scattered around the upper half of the cooler colors. We are but one quarter of the sphere. Our equal opposite is the upper half of the warmer colors, the Agnostic Theists. Both sides are open minded, but hold their own beliefs.

How does this go against what I've been debating?

The definition of Atheist that I've been handed several times IS Atheism, but only half of it. The darker half. These people seem to think that the bottom half of the cooler colors is all that exists for Atheism. They also think that this is all that exists for Theism. They then place the entirety of Agnosticism as its own thing, which encompasses both of the remaining parts, the entire upper half of the sphere.

They are blind to the real definition and real use of the terms Atheism and Theism, which cannot hold any claims to knowledge in and of themselves. They are blind to the fact that there are four main positions, each with their own shades and colors which are freely traversed as opinions change and knowledge is gained and lost. They are blind… to this.

This very simple, yet very informative analogy.

I'll say it again, because it needs to be repeated until everyone gets the message.

Atheism is simply Without Theism. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You either have it or you don't. You either believe or you don't. You're either warm or cool. You cannot be both and you cannot be neither. There is a very fine line that cannot be stepped on, only crossed.

The sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can get back to the real issues at hand, like not killing each other for having a differing opinion.

Playing the Fool

I've talked a lot about holidays on this blog. Christian holidays, Pagan holidays, Jewish holidays. However, I've never mentioned any kind of Atheistic holiday. To put it quite simply, there is no Atheistic holiday. It's almost a contradiction, really. Most Atheists don't consider anything to be "holy" so they wouldn't have any kind of holiday. On the other hand, there are many Atheists who wish they did have their own holiday, whether they want it to rub in the faces of Theists, or to have something to share with family, or simply a day of their own for getting off work. There is one day, though, that is argued by some as being the Atheistic holiday of the year. What day might that be? If you checked the date, you may already have guessed, which leads us to this month's question.

"Don't Atheists already have a holiday, April Fool's?"

Despite this being a poor attempt at a joke on behalf on the questioner, it just shows ignorance of the day itself, and the purpose behind it.

It's widely believed that April Fool's came about when the calendar was changed to make January 1st the start of the new year instead of April. The day was then marked to call people fools and play pranks on them for not knowing when the year actually began. This is why some Theists associate the day with Atheists, they consider Atheists to be fools.

This, however, is not the origin of the holiday. We can trace portions of this holiday all the way back to the Romans who celebrated Hilaria on March 25th. This was a day of great rejoicing, when winter ended and the planting season began again. They would dance and play games and could even disguise themselves as another person and imitate anyone, including their own rulers.

That being said, while April Fool's is not an Atheistic holiday, Hilaria could be adapted into something. That's not to say our favorite April holiday isn't for Atheists. We can and do celebrate this day in much the same manner. If it did hold such a disregard for other's calendars in the past, it certainly doesn't now, and no one is safe from the pranks. There is not a shred of any kind of religion left in this day of pranks and musings and it is open for all to enjoy.

Back on the topic of actual holidays, though, there are some holidays that are celebrated by Atheists. Remember those Buddhists I'm so fond of mentioning? Songkran is one of their April holidays which seems the most related to April Fool's. This Thai festival goes on for days where people clean their houses and clothes and sprinkle perfumed water on the monks, novices, and other people. On top of everybody being wet they can enjoy boat races on the river. Good times are had by all and there's a lot of wet, clean fun. No deities involved, so any Atheist can join in when and if they want.

There are, obviously, other such holidays celebrated by various Atheistic religions. However, what about specifically Atheistic holidays? Well, I doubt we'll ever see any of those, for the same reason we will probably never see any specifically Theistic holidays. It just doesn't make any sense to base a holiday on a state of belief or lack there of. It's only when you start getting specific and creating a religion or philosophy that you are able to create a holiday for your group.

So, remember, today is a day everyone can enjoy, not just Theists or Atheists, and don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

The "Nature" of Atheism

Debating with people online, particularly over Atheism, can yield some... interesting results. Not just debates with Theists, either, but also with fellow Atheists. There are those who simply don't understand the term on both sides. It certainly makes it hard to maintain an identity when so many others are shrouding that identity in misinformation. In an attempt to shed some light on the true meaning of Atheism, I'm going to be answering a question pointed at fellow Atheists.

"Are rocks, animals, and babies Atheists?"

It's a three part question for a reason. All three must be addressed individually in order to properly answer this question and every other form of it.

This question, and the related misconception, actually stems from what I have been using as the definition for Atheism, a lack of belief in deities. People have said on both sides that rocks, animals, and babies all lack that belief, so they must be Atheists, too. However, this is simply not accurate. Let's start with the rock.

Rocks are not Atheists.

While it is true that they lack a belief in anything at all, let alone deities, they also cannot believe in any way. They are not living things. In order to be described as having a lack of belief, there must be a point in time where one could potentially carry that belief. If that situation is impossible, then the opposite is also impossible. So, all non-thinking things cannot be Atheists.

Animals are not Atheists.

Some of them can hold beliefs, this is true, especially the more intelligent ones. That's not the problem in this case. however, there is an additional problem that also falls back to the previously mentioned rocks. In order to be an Atheist, you must aslo be a person. The -ism and -ist suffix sets Atheism and Atheist as being personal traits. Personal, meaning for people only. If the animal in question isn't a person, they cannot be an Atheist, regardless how much belief they lack. The same goes for rocks. Rocks are not people.

Babies are Atheists.

Surprised? Don't be. Babies fit the description. Babies are people. When they become people is still up for debate, but no one denies that babies are people. At the moment you are born, you are an Atheist. There is no getting around that. If you want your child to believe in something, you have to teach it to them. They have no idea what a belief even is, let alone how to hold one. However, because of their ability to learn what a belief is and hold beliefs later on, they are able to be either Theist and Atheist. And, since they do not start with any knowledge, they do not start with any beliefs, making them Atheists.

So, as I have said, only people can be Atheists. Rocks are out. Other animals are out. The only animal able to have the personal trait of lacking belief is homo sapien, human. With this in mind, I would like to ask all Theists and Atheists to stop spreading this misconception. It's just making the debates take longer as we have to get all of the junk out of the way.

Theistic Threats? (Atheistic Myths #5)

When it comes to myths, it gets hard to tell what is or is not true. Myths, especially those spread on the internet, can be passed around so much, for so long, that they become virtually indistinguishable from facts. Such is the case with today's Atheistic Myth. And, for the first time, it does not stem from a lack of understanding the definition.

"Why do all Atheists think all Theists are murderers?"

First, the short answer is that we don't, not all of us, anyway. There are some that do, but they typically aren't in the mainstream.

However, that is not where this myth comes from, that's just part of the underlying truth. In the past, there have been many instances where people have killed and tortured in the name of their god or gods. Most Atheists these days know better than to lump all Theists together under the banner of murder just because some Theists in the past killed others.

What the majority of Atheists do say, however, is that the religion has killed people, which is very true. There are many instances where a particular religion was responsible for a lot of deaths. These facts cannot be denied. However, does this mean that Atheism could have avoided these deaths? Probably not.

As I stated earlier, there are many people today who do not kill just because it is in their religion. In fact, they have altered their religion significantly to avoid the bloodshed. This means that Theists are not the problem, just the old religions combined with people who were pretty close to unstable already. The religion would simply be the final push they needed. This does not, however, clear the religion of being at fault, if only partially, as it was the final straw, a straw that would not have ever existed otherwise. The person may have been messed up to begin with, but it was the religion they held that ultimately made them decide to kill.

Atheism and Theism cannot kill anyone. These two things, by themselves, cannot do any harm. You cannot kill in the name of Atheism or Theism. Anyone who tries is just using an excuse, as neither of these things have ever commanded death. While there have been Atheists and Theists who have killed people, their Atheism/Theism never told them to. That is simply part of the bigger truth that there are murderers in every large group.

There is, however, another bit of truth to this myth, one that is uncomfortable for others to hear. There are those today who are perpetuating this myth on both sides. While there are those Atheists I've already mentioned who hold this belief, there are also Theists who are constantly wanting the deaths of Atheists, who openly pray for Atheists to die, and who occasionally take it upon themselves to kill Atheists. These same people will also occasionally kill those of other religions, but within this group, those particular people are fewer in number.

As an example, there was a story recently about a girl who noticed a prayer hanging on the wall in her public school, something that goes against the US constitution. She informed her teachers about this, and they did nothing. She informed the school board about this and they did nothing. She was eventually forced to go to the courts to get it removed. All they needed to do was revise this prayer to not include any religious element and it would have been able to stay. They were adamant about not removing it because it was a tradition in their school, one that could have remained just by altering it slightly.

Why am I bringing this up? This girl has since received a never ending supply of hate mail and death threats. As I said, these people are perpetuating the myth. There was also a story about FOX News who had interviewed an Atheist. Simply from that, the FOX News story on Facebook got hundreds if not thousands of death threats against the Atheist, to the point of needing to remove the story from their wall.

These are not the first instances of this happening, either. Theists have been sending death threats against Atheists for a long time. Every time we try to do something that they disagree with in the slightest, there are death threats made.

As I have already said, this is not the fault of Theism, it is the fault of those making the messages. However, the religion is not entirely faultless. It is the religion that taught them to not respect other's beliefs or a lack there of. These are the people who have chosen not to follow the new versions of their religion in the new age. These are the people who are still of the mentality of their ancestors who murdered people in the name of their religion.

So where does the myth stand? The myth is just that. It is a myth that all Atheists think all Theists are murderers. However, some of us believe this, and some Theists aren't making it easy to change their minds. We each need to get these people to stop pushing this myth into the realm of fact, before we have death threats on both sides actually being fulfilled.

A myth is only a myth as long as people don't act upon it.

Thoughtful Resolutions

I've been focusing a lot lately on the aesthetics of what makes an Atheist; how we are defined, how we react to certain situations. However, I've not really gone into depth on how an Atheist thinks. Granted, this is a difficult subject to delve into as Atheists, like all people, are widely different and vary in just about every way from one person to the next. Though there are many similarities to how they think as well, especially when you get a like-minded group in one location.

The main problem I've faced with this topic, though, and the one that has kept me from writing about it, is that it's hard to get into someone's mind, especially when that someone is not yourself. While I may be an Atheist, there is very little point in trying to explain my own mind and my own way of thinking. It would be too personalized and completely unhelpful. However, my mind is all I have to work with. So, I came up with a new way of tackling this topic, and it is very different from how this blog has been handled thus far. Today, I am going to ask the Theists a question and then try to answer it myself in their stead. I already know it won't be very accurate, but I'm not trying to be. I'm simply demonstrating how an Atheist thinks when trying to understand Theists, which is one thing I've been trying to do more lately. Think of it as a New Year's resolution.

As with other touchy subjects, I'll have to give a warning right now that this may offend some people. I'm sorry if this does offend anyone, as that is not my intention. With this in mind, let's get to the question.

"How do Theists know their god(s) exist(s)?"


I figured something broad would give a lot of details to work with.

The simplest answer anyone can give to this question is that they don't. This then falls back on the faith aspect of Theism, where you keep belief that the particular god does exist despite your lack of physical evidence. This is great, as long as you don't then assume that there is no other possible solution. Faith, after all, is meant to teach an open mind.

Some people claim they look at the complexity of the universe and can't fathom it coming from something other than a god. The problem with this is that the most complex things we know about are not designed in the slightest, but the work of various forces. Sure, one could argue that these forces were set in place by this god, but that's going back to the first answer, faith, as there is no evidence for this.

There are those that have a feeling, deep within them, and they believe this feeling is their god. This is a lovely feeling, and one many people would benefit from. However, this also is not a way of knowing whether or not their god exists, but merely assigning something to their god arbitrarily. This, again, leads us back to faith.

The most often used argument for gods that has been used recently is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Essentially, this argument states that all things that began to exist had a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause. This sounds good, and is logically correct, but the facts aren't there to back it up. We're not entirely sure that everything that exists has a cause, nor are we sure when or even if the universe began. Without the evidence to back these premises, we are, once again, back to faith.

So, from an Atheist viewpoint, the only thing that lets Theists know that their gods exist is faith. As I've already said, faith is not a bad thing. As long as one keeps the open mind that faith requires, it can be a great tool and a great feeling. There are many Atheists who actually wish they could have the faith it takes to believe in gods. However, as I've stated in a previous blog, these Atheists also require evidence to change their minds, making faith unobtainable.

So, there we go, an Atheist's view on how Theists know their gods exist. I hope I have not offended anyone with this topic and that the Theists that read this now understand how Atheists think a little bit better.

Happy New Year to everyone. May this year bring even more joy and disillusionment than the last.

Not-So-Holly Jollies

There are many Atheists who celebrate Christmas and many who don't. Many feel it has outgrown any religious context, others think the religious aspects are stronger than ever. Some hear the pleasant sounds of the season creating a wonderful atmosphere, others can't stand the noise and constant praising of a baby savior.

Regardless how you look at it, Atheists think about Christmas very differently than Christians do. As there are many people out there who are going to be celebrating Christmas with an Atheist, I felt it only right to answer a very important question. Keep in mind, I will be speaking from personal experience as I cannot speak for everyone around the world.

"How do Atheists celebrate Christmas?"

Not surprisingly, it isn't very different from how a lot of people celebrate Christmas. We enjoy the music, love to give presents, and are overall happier during this time of year, if celebrated correctly. However, there are some major differences that may be present, and they change from person to person.

1. The music

There are three different categories that you must be aware of. There are those of us who hate the music this time of year specifically because it is played on repeat for three months straight. There are also those who love all of the music and appreciate the culture that surrounds this holiday. The most prominent, however, are those that enjoy the "X-Mas" songs but not the "Christmas" songs.

Essentially, if they hear anything about Jesus during this time of year they will want to change the station or skip the track. Typically they will enjoy the music, just not the lyrics. Some can ignore the lyrics and just concentrate on the music, but most of them refuse to listen to them at all. As I said, though, not all songs are bad. Jingle Bells, Frosty the Snowman, Up on the House Top, these songs are all great and remind them of the joyous times ahead.

Good rule of thumb, if you'd typically find it sung by a choir, try to get an instrumental version of it. At least then you have some leeway and can learn what kind of Atheist you are celebrating with.

2. The decorations

At a church you will typically see a manger scene, perhaps an angel on top of a tree, various obviously religious aspects. These are things you will rarely find in an Atheist household, for obvious reasons. Again, there are those who don't mind these decorations and actually find them to be rather lovely in the right placement, then there are those who despise anything that even remotely relates to the religious side of the holiday. And, just like with the music, you'll mostly find those that are half-way between these states.

If your Atheist enthusiastically puts up a Christmas tree, they are probably not 100% against these decorations. Watch what they start putting on the tree or what they buy for decorating their house. These are important clues and can even help in determining the other aspects they like about the holiday. If they buy a star and not an angel, try to avoid obviously religious aspects. If they do buy angels, but not too many, don't be afraid to talk about the religious aspects or get them something that looks nice just because it is religious, but don't over-do it.

If you'll find it at a church, steer clear until you know they won't mind.

3. Activities

This is rather easy to guess most of the time. The majority of Atheists won't go to any church or participate in any religious activities. However, there are a few that will for various reasons. Some attend just to make fun of the religious (best to avoid the situation altogether) and some are more than willing to participate if they have family or friends that enjoy them. And then there are some that refuse outright.

There is no majority in this case, so you'll have to play this one by ear. Watch what they do and make casual mentions here and there and you'll usually get an honest answer out of them before long without any feelings getting hurt.

4. The rest

You can pretty much guess all of the minor details from here. A lot of the time you won't even know an Atheist who celebrates Christmas from anyone else who does. They enjoy a lot of the same activities, music, and decorations, with only minor changes. Once you can pick out these minor changes, you'll know the kind of Atheist you are celebrating with, and everyone involved can have a much more enjoyable holiday season, even if it is a little more secular than you're used to.

In the spirit of giving, this year I've decided to throw in a bonus question.

"Do Atheists celebrate Kwanza and other religious holidays?"

Just like with Christmas, a lot of Atheists will celebrate these other religious holidays, around the world and throughout the year, if they have grown up with them and can still appreciate the greater meaning behind them. They will celebrate them differently most of the time, with the differences being similar to what I described above, but they will usually see nothing wrong with maintaining a tradition they grew up with, as long as it can be modified to suit their new beliefs, or lack there of.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Sinful Comedy

Recently, as a part of Halloween, I learned about an interesting building known as a Hell House. Apparently, some Christians decided they didn't like Halloween and instead put up their own haunted house tour that involved a ton of different sins, what you have to do to be absolved of them, and what happens if you don't do those things. They find these things to be terrifying and a real wake up call, much better than any Halloween activity. In fact, this kind of attraction has spread all over the US, especially in the heavily Christian areas. So it comes as no surprise to find this question being asked every year.

"Why aren't Atheists affected by or concerned with what they see in a Hell House?"


Well, the answer is quite simple. We've seen worse. In Haunted Houses, in Halloween movies, in chilling video games, we've seen far worse things done to far more innocent people. Sure, the real thing would still churn our stomaches, but more fakery will do nothing.

However, I don't think that's what the question is really asking. I think it's asking on a spiritual level. Well, that's a little harder to explain without offending anyone. I'll do my best, but keep in mind that I have no intention of offending anyone at any time.

Basically, we don't see any of it as real or anything to worry about. That should be no surprise by now, but for some reason it still is. Atheists typically don't believe in souls or an afterlife or any kind of deity that will punish us. And the typical Hell House is chock full of misrepresentations. For example, Magic the Gather leading children to "the occult" is a flat out lie. If anything, it keeps them away from it as it shows them that, should it really exist, magic can be very dangerous. And, besides that, it's just a card game. It's not like they actually think they are casting creatures to do their bidding. Also, the "occult" is not always bad, either. There are those who practice only white magic, abilities meant to only help others.

With all of the inaccuracies and corny acting, the typical Atheist will have a great deal of trouble keeping from laughing, even if they are a very nice person, willing to hear out the host's views. This is why they are ineffective. They have a great deal of misinformation and they don't target the things Atheists typically care about. These houses are usually geared toward preaching to the converted and their children, keeping the new generation grounded within the confines of their religion.

You can't expect that kind of thing to win over a steadfast disbeliever, now can you?

Historical Non-Belief

Considering this is the second anniversary of the Land of Disillusionment, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look back into history, the history of Atheism, that is.

Although many refuse to believe it, Atheism has been around for many centuries in many forms. It has always been there to define cultures, philosophies, and logical thinking. And yet, there are many who honestly believe that Atheism is a recent movement, something that began in only the 18th century. While there is some truth to this, it is still far from reality.

"Just how old is Atheism?"

Believe it or not, Atheism has always existed, though not in the same form. Even before Theism, Atheists walked the Earth.

"The earliest evidence of religious ideas dates back several hundred thousand years to the Middle and Lower Paleolithic periods. Archeologists refer to apparent intentional burials of early homo sapiens from as early as 300,000 years ago as evidence of religious ideas."
~Wikipedia

As described in many blog posts, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. As such, all it takes for Atheism to be around is to not believe in gods. Without knowledge of gods, there is no belief in them.

However, Atheism, as an opposite to Theism, arrived significantly later. Before then, Atheism was simply a lack of belief, a philosophy without a name. It wasn't until the 6th century BCE that Atheism became an opposing philosophy, and we didn't even have a name until the 16th century CE. That was when the greeks came up with the name Atheos, godless.

As I said, though, there is some truth to those that think Atheism didn't show up until the 18th century. Modern Atheism is slightly different from the older philosophies. While older Atheism was completely pacifist and more geared toward belief than actual knowledge, Modern Atheism is not willing to roll over to anyone and is very focused on science, logic, and rational free thinking. This actually started with a romantic poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, who submitted an anonymous paper to the dean of Oxford University titled The Necessity of Atheism, and was subsequently kicked out. If not for this man and many others like him, Atheism would not be what it is today.

So there you go, a brief history of Atheism. I hope you've learned something, or at least didn't fall asleep while reading all of it.

Good Intentions

As I have mentioned many times before, the one thing all Atheists must do is defend their position, their reason for not believing in any deities. Just like all theists must defend their reason for believing in their chosen god(s). Although I am firmly against this blog directly attacking any religion, Atheistic or otherwise, I also feel it is important to offer ampule evidence, reason, and logic to help those who must defend themselves.

I'm sure you can see my dilemma.

As such, I must offer a refutation, one that can be seen as an attack. And while my refutation will be specific, its use can be quite generalized. I would just like to clear up that this is not an attack, just a specific example, like the ones I have used in the past. In fact, it is a response to the Problem of Evil argument.

"Just because God CAN do something, that doesn't mean he WILL do it!"

I can see where this is coming from, but under the circumstances, I'm afraid I must disagree.

For those who are not familiar with the Problem of Evil argument, it typically goes as follows:

If God is willing, but not able, why call him omnipotent?
If God is able, but not willing, why call him benevolent?
If God is both willing and able, why is there evil?
If God is neither willing nor able, why call him God?

The above quote is a generalization of the typical answer. It usually takes the form of "No one understands his ways" or "Perhaps he requires something from us?"

The reason I disagree is because we are not using the actual God as the example. We are using what we have described him as in various conversations and documents. God is almost always described as All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Loving. Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. If these are the characteristics and abilities we are attributing to God, then there are certain things God will and won't do.

For example, God would not cause harm, as he is omnibenevolent, God can do anything, as he is omnipotent, and God knows everything, as he is omniscient. One characteristic and two abilities.

If God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent, all at the same time, then there are three things we can infer from this.

1) God is able to do good
2) God knows how to do good.
3) God is willing to do good.

This falls into the third premise of the Problem of Evil argument, "Why is there evil?" If God wants to do as much good as possible, and can do anything, and knows both of these things, why has he not eliminated evil? Why does it still exist?

As stated, one of the arguments I have received on this topic basically said "He is expecting something from us and will not help until then." That's all well and good, but that means he is not yet willing to help. He is unwilling to do good in this instance. Which brings us back to #2, why call him benevolent?

As for the final argument, "God works in mysterious ways," there is only one response. There must be something that is more good than removing all that is bad. If this is the case, then there is only one thing left to do, one question left to ask.

What good act could be greater than eliminating everything that is bad?