Sunday, August 29, 2010



Wednesday, August 25, 2010


In answer to a question posted on the forums.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Epistemic Circularity

CORRECTION: About 3:50 "just as reliable as any other..." is supposed to be "epistemological" not "empirical."

William Alston's "Piercieving God" is an excellent resource for this concept. Although I do not fully agree with his conclusion.

His conclusion is that, basically, SP (spiritual perception) is just as unreliable as DP (doxastic perception.) Since there is no reasonable cause to doubt spiritual perception is true, it is beneficial to the individual to believe in their spiritual perceptions.

There are problems with this. The first is when spiritual perception is not at all beneficial to the individual, or life. For example, seeing an angel tell you that Jews need to be slaughtered, or God telling you to kill your babies, or demons/spirits telling you they demand rape and slaughtered black kittens. Furthermore, how do you logically separate the ones that tell you to do harm, and the ones that simply tell you you shouldn't have sex before marriage because that's bad for some reason?

The second, is that since that spiritual perception is so exclusive as to not be shared unless it is a group vision. I can go to my memory, or testimonies of others even to prove my sense perception is not lying to me. Or I can use other sense perceptions to validate one sense perception. If my eyes tell me when I stick a straw in the water it becomes contorted, I can reach in and verify with my sense of touch that it's not. Spiritual perceptions by nature are usually exclusive and can't be verified.

But.... this can easily become many other separate blogs.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Atheists in Church

The issue was brought up multiple times, and is always brought up when I tell someone I'm an Atheist.

Truth be told though, I have not gone to church in a while. Mainly because it's too early in the morning for me and I always have work that night. My one problem with church was always it's totally inconvenient time. When they had Saturday night services I was thrilled, but that's stopped since.

Basically guys, it's a culture issue. My whole family is Christian, and like I said I was born and raised in that place. Luckily here in America Atheists have some freedom and ways to slip through the cracks. The most we have to feign is not digging in to eat during family meals before grace is said. But when it comes to holidays, all of the Christian holidays have pagan roots anyway and have commercial alternative ways of celebrating them and still feeling included in society.

Other cultures do not have it so easy. There are many non-believing Jews, for example. But they still participate in Shabat, Pesach, and Chanukkah. Atheistic Hindus may still go to their services simply because they find comfort in meditation and structure.

Furthermore, there are many Atheists in the pulpit. Yes, I said in the pulpit. Look it up, there's a few books on the subject and they can best answer for themselves why they pastor/priest when they don't believe in God.

So in conclusion, there are many reasons. But I can only answer for myself. =)

Thursday, August 5, 2010

In this blog I briefly addresses the issues between Atheism and Agnosticism and explain why I call myself an Atheist.

Here I address the many questions and objection brought up from the rant against agnosticism as life stance.

I to say one doe snot know, or cannot know as an agnostic theist is absurd. To say I believe in someone I cannot describe or define in any way, and give no empirical or logical data on makes no sense.

Referenced Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.

Will GLADLY send the book to anyone who will 1.) Read it, 2.) Pay it forward.

Also, I am now the proud owner of

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Saturday, July 10, 2010

No religion, know peace.

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" John Adams

Just one of the many thoughts I gleaned after watching the documentary "Religulous" with Bill Maher. After sharing this very quote, I learned two additional details not shared by the movie. First of all, John Adams returned to a religious lifestyle later on in life and is know also for saying "We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus" (thanks to Jesse Fortner) . Second, I have come to the conclusion that most atheists are not actually anti-theism, but anti-religion ( "In the history of Ideas anti-religion does not necessarily equal anti-God" thanks to Prof. Garcia). I am anti-theism, and I will explain that in my concluding thoughts.

The real problem many Atheists have is with the manipulating, power-tripping, elitist nature of religions. I agree with their sentiments, but so do many believing theists and deists. Bill Maher's movie definitely pointed out the flaws in religion, and many have before and many have and will after.

The fault is not by the mere fact that religion is human made. I do not believe in original sin or inherent evil within mankind. I tend to think we are a wonderful species. Religion is a marvelously fantastical way for mankind to understand their world and reality. That is, of course, the original intention of religion. Examples being something as complex as explaining a peaceful feeling during the death of a loved one as the love and compassion of God and His Holy Spirit, to something as simple as connecting thunder with god slamming his fist in ager. But religion soon became a tool to be used by powerful people to manipulate the masses.

I could explain here what exactly is wrong with religion, but that's not the point I wish to make. The point I wish to make is that this argument is flawed when it comes to theism. It is equally flawed for believers to use this as a reason why atheists should consider theism.

If religion is a man-made concept, then any organized form of worship is a religion and will probably become just as corrupt as anyone else's creation and well intentions. The only way to believe in God is, therefore, for God to reveal himself. Granted, that's a large leap and for the sake of making this brief, I decided to make that leap purposefully. Before the the religious believers argue with me on this point, I'll bring it to your attention that this comes mainly from a religious institution and comes from a long-line of theistic thought. Our theologians will recognize the terminology thus: the difference between general revelation and special revelation. According to some, (thanks to Dr. Perez and other Calvinist professors) special revelation is the only way to come to a knowledge of God, specifically Jesus. They will argue that knowledge of God is apparent in creation, as says the Bible, but this is assuming that the Bible is a special revelation from God in itself. The later is unfortunate, the Bible is just as man-made and man-handled as anything else.

So, if the only way to believe God is from a special revelation and personalized visitation, the Atheist has no problem. The ball is in God's court. My JW sisters who have been visiting insist the Bible has put the ball in our court, the reasons why this is fallacious deserves another blog entry.

So, as is always my personal problem why doesn't God personally reveal himself to each and every individual if belief is so important to him? Or is it?