Monday, 19 April 2010

atheism is ONLY non-belief in god and religion ... THAT'S ALL IT IS (religiorant)

atheism + atheism == atheism

atheism + communism == communism

atheism + butterfly == butterfly

atheism + christianity == christianity

atheism + socialism == socialism

atheism + a good person == a good person

atheism + a fucktard == a fucktard

atheism + brutal dictatorship == brutal dictatorship

atheism + science == science

atheism + a single water molecule == a single water molecule

do we see a trend?

0 + 0 == 0

0 + 1 == 1

0 + 2 == 2

0 + n = n

do we see a trend?

atheism is the number "zero", it is the non-belief in something supernatural being responsible for this plain of existence, anything beyond atheism, even one little concept, shifts the view of the atheism, to something else beyond being "just" an atheist ...

non-belief expends *no* energy - it requires no participation at all, unless of course, the atheist is outspoken enough to attempt to counter the overpowering droning noise of people claiming to believe in god

technically speaking, there are no real atheists because no atheist can possibly get any concept of life from atheism ... apart from the statement that atheists don't believe in god, there is nothing else to atheism, because atheism is an empty shell.

how many times does this need to be said?

ps. and therefore, atheists get their morals from the environment they grow up in, you know, like everybody else does, christians and muslims included...

Thursday, 15 April 2010

non-believers have superior morals... (religiorant)

that's right,

non-believers have superior morals

so in spite of certain arse hole christians who go around insisting and insinuating that non-believers have no morals at all, the reality is just the opposite.

non-believers are NOT limited to sourcing their morals from ONE source like christians do.

For instance, a christian who claims to have superior morals, can't possibly have superior morals, as they only have ONE source for their moral guidance.

And besides, any christian saying that they have superior morals, instantly nullifies that statement, seeing how they have just committed the sin of PRIDE by BRAGGING that they are better than everyone else. What happened to the meek shall inherit the earth? Bragging is polar opposite of being meek, is it not?

So here's me, on the other hand as a non-believer, I am free to pick and choose from a very wide set of belief systems for my moral guidance, instead of picking and choosing from the one set of morals like the christian does... Furthermore, I get to *REJECT* all the NEGATIVE bullshit that these "moral" sources seem to often advocate. That is to say that if I don't like something about one of my moral sources, I don't have to tip toe around the issue to try and make it fit into my doctrine, instead I expand upon my doctrine, and find a morally acceptable position by expanding my morals.

eg. How can christians hate gays when Jesus taught to love everyone? If that's what chrsitianity is, then you can keep your belligerence and hateful bits of your religion to yourself.

As a personal example of a non-believers' source for morals, my moral influences include:

George Carlin
Carl Sagan
Robin Williams
The Dalai Lama
Bilbo Baggins
my family
etc etc etc

And many others, in fact, I would go so far as to say, that everything and every experience in my entire life has gone towards the fabric of my morals, unlike christians who limit their moral guidance to one book from before the Dark Ages...

So excuse me, Mr and Mrs and Ms Smart-Arse christian, how can my morals be less than yours, let alone be non-existent, when my moral guidance *includes* the teachings of your messiah, as well as many other sources?

christians *limit* their morals to the teachings of christianity, I do not....

well, actually, that's bullshit, because I am yet to know of any christian that is actually following the teachings of Jesus as taught in the bible.

furthermore, of the things that i choose to use as a source of my morals, i am free to ignore the bullshit that goes along with it, just like christians completely ignore the two commandments Jesus gave and focus on the eye for an eye bullshit of the old testament... are you christian, or are you jewish?

for example, there is a handful of good things in christianity, from Jesus, I learnt... "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "judge not lest thee be judged your self", "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"... and anything else from christianity that doesn't fit those few things, I ignore.

My morals are not weighed down by religious bullshit, they are not weighed down trying to find answers, if I don't have a simple answer in my philosophy to some moral question, I don't go and try and find that answer in what I already know, I don't try to solve this moral dilemma with what I already know, I grow, I expand my horizon and look for the answer beyond what I currently know.

mostly written 3rd April 2010 ... mostly ...

Monday, 12 April 2010

non-believers give god the most respect... (religiorant)

before I start, I am not saying that you should not believe in god, what I am saying is quite the opposite, so believe in god if you want, but that belief is personal, ie. you should keep your god to yourself, and you should not give this god random qualities... mostly written 2nd April, 2010, mostly ....

so... to start.... I've been thinking about this topic on and off for a couple of years, and the concept that it was based on was this:

"mere belief in god, is *blasphemy* to god"

that's right ... so even if there is a god, your belief in it, is blasphemy, or rather, that public act of declaring your belief is blasphemy.

don't understand?

by saying you have this god, and that this god has such and such a thing attached to it, like say, a religion, then do you not insult that god with the petty attributes you have given to it?

it's GOD, for god's sake, think bigger!


let me demonstrate what i mean.

Often I've heard god has done some fantastic thing, like making the universe and everything in it.... and this god is infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely everywhere at once, infinitely perfect... blah blah blah ..

so *you* are *aware* that this god of yours is all powerful, so why do you not honour this god with the things of infinite grandeur you say about it and leave it at that??

god made everything? do you not insult your god?

"everything" is a term we mortal humans use to describe everything of which we are aware, anything and everything you can associate with a god is petty and irrelevant as anything you can think up about god, is FINITE ...

god made the universe? what?!?!? just *one* universe? that's it?

your god made a universe a dozens of billion light years across? I ask you, what else has your infinite deity done?

can't you think bigger than *ONE* *TINY* universe?

if your god made a trillion to the power of a trillion universes, I would still say to you, WHAT?!?! that's *IT*?!?!?

what did Shakespeare say??

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
--"Hamlet" by Shakespeare

No matter what you can think up, I am at least 90% sure I can think up something bigger, better and brighter than your god can do, so it's still an insult to god, but at least my insult would be less of an insult than what you came up with.

god is an unknown, nobody knows what god is nor do they know what god wants.. so "i don't know what god is" is the most logical and respectful thing to say about god, is it not?

by saying that you don't know what god is, you are giving it the *ultimate* respect, by not giving god petty attributes, you are indeed a more honourable and profound and respectful (non) believer than anyone who gives god finite qualities.

so a non-believer is a win, because they don't give god trivial qualities, thereby they do NOT insult an infinite being with finite parameters, and a non-believer also has a second win, in that they have not wasted their time should god not exist in the first place.



by not taking the word of what somebody else thinks their god is about (eg religion), you refrain from insulting such a creature with guesses that belittle your god...

god hates FAGS!

If you think you know what god wants you to do, or indeed, if you believe what your religion says about your god, then were these things that your religion told you, or were they things that you came around to because of your religion, or is it just that these views just happened to be your views anyway?


by aligning god with what *you* want from god, you are bringing god down to your level.. you dishonour your god by bringing it down to earth... by giving god things that you like, you are trying to make god into a tangible thing....

oh god likes picnics ...

oh and god likes blue skies and sunsets...

you insult your god by thinking that *you* know what god wants, do you not see?

god likes spaghetti!

And it does not matter if it is a good thing that you wish for god to have either, god likes "christmas" - bullshit .. if god liked christmas, god would have made it up itself zillions of years ago.

god likes SATAN and god hates SANTA ... oh wait? did I get those the right way around?

frankly, any one spouting off their mouths about what god wants or likes, GOD LIKES MUSIC, makes me take a few steps back from them, GOD HATES SOLAR FLARES! just in case there is a bolt of lightning that strikes them down and fries their internal organs that might just jump across at me in some sort of collateral damage, because I was standing too close to your blasphemous arse.



I can't speak for other non-believers, but when somebody pushes the point to what I would say if there was a god of some sort or not, I would say, "yes, there could be a god", I won't deny it, but then I would say that nobody knows what god actually is, *therefore*, god is irrelevant in this plain of existence and any attempt to qualify god, is a man made qualification.

there are thousands of religions - the "biggest" doesn't mean that's the right one - otherwise Catholicism is "the" religion, or Sunni Islame, take your choice as they are neck and neck at the moment, but religions are still petty attributes given to god, regardless of the size of that religion.

the "oldest" doesn't make it the right religion either, if that were so, the Aussie Aboriginals story of The Dreamtime, should be "the" creation story ... seeing how the Aboriginals have had the longest continuous civilisation of modern man dating from 40,000+ years ago, thus making the christian creation story, and every other creation story, a lie, because these petty attributes given to god, are what *you* want your god to have, you've ignored the oldest known creation story as being incorrect. But more likely you've never heard of the Dreamtime, as you just assumed that your "truth", was the only "truth" to be found.


By saying that "I don't know what god is", do I not admit the sheer enormous gravity of what god is?

do I not honour the vastness of god by not even trying to bring this god into my realm by even acknowledging it at all?

do I not assign god to the realms of the unknown and beyond anything my puny brain can even dream up, by saying "I don't know"??

in other words, by admitting that you do not know what god is, you are saying that god is so great, and so baffling a concept, and so super extraordinary, that our feeble minds can not possibly comprehend it, that it's a complete and utter waste of time to speculate on the parameters of such a creature.. let alone attempt to guess what it wants..

so regardless of actually believing in god or not, if you do not give god petty attributes in the first place, you give it more respect than someone who thinks that god likes music or hates gays or whatever you can think up, because these things you give to your god, are things that *you* have thought up.

If you associate things with your god that you like or hate, then that is *proof* that your god does not exist, because these things you give to it, are things that you want attached to the god that is under your control. eg. the god you created in your brain.

How do you know god hates fags? loves christmas, easter bunnies, santa blah blah blah ...

You *know* what your god wants, because that god is you, that is how you give it qualities and how you can be perfectly fine with those qualities.

Is there anything you don't like about your god, or are all the things that you don't like about god, given to Satan?!?!

Is that what your ego tells you to do?

Newsflash, this god *is* just your ego, if your god hates fags, that is because *your* ego hates fags, ie. YOU hate fags. Worse still, is that you can not even take responsibility for your own prejudices. Worse still again, you don't give yourself credit when you should, you just pretend that is something else, some external part of your universe.

But it's not, it's *all* you. god satan heaven hell ... all in your brain .. because even if they did exist, you would not know anything about it.

Giving god attributes you want, is blasphemy to the *real* god, should it actually exist.

*YOU* are giving attributes to the god creature that is in your brain, the instant you give some finite quality to god, you bring god plummeting down from the realms of the unknown, you bring god up from the depths of the infinite, *you* make god into a finite entity by giving it qualities that you want.

god loves and/or hates such and such? you belittle god with your assumptions.

by admitting that "yes there could be a god", you are open to the possibility of god existing, but then by saying that "you don't know what god is", you are giving it the greatest of all respect.

Non-belief is not blasphemy, BELIEF is blasphemy.

And even if non-belief *is* blasphemy to the "real" god, giving god the *wrong* attributes, via your assumptions, is that not worse?

Let me bring this concept down to a mortal level.

Imagine there are two persons, who haven't met you, but are somehow aware of your existence. Maybe they read your profile on myspaz?

the first person, makes an erroneous assumption about you, and speaks on your behalf.

the second person, refrains from making any assumptions about you, until they know you better, so therefore, they won't speak on your behalf, because they don't know what you would actually say.

of these two people, who do you think you will get along with better?

WHO would you at least respect more?

now apply this concept to god....

the first person is a religious person, who makes assumptions about god, and says things that they "know" about god, thus erroneously speaking on its behalf...

the second is a non-believer, leaving things as an unknown until facts are made available, and since there are no facts about god, does not attempt to make up shit about god, or rather, doesn't make up shit about god and *expect* other people to believe the same thing.

of these two people, who do you think god will let into heaven?

WHO would be more likely to NOT be fatally struck down?

exactly who is going to piss god off the most?

the first person making incorrect assumptions about god and/or speaking on god's behalf; or

the second person, who politely refrains from making any assumptions at all?

WHO shows more respect to god?

god is a personal thing, attaching your petty man made attributes to it, e.g. religion, is an insult to god. #atheism #christian

the religious should not read these blogs, they *will* be offended

these are my rantings about religion - i speak fluent sarcasm - know this when you are reading and it will save you some heartache.