Hello world!

Definition of Atheism



The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”

What is an atheist? An atheist is a someone that does not believe in God (or gods) — but you already knew that. What you might not know is that most atheists don’t think that there is proof that God doesn’t exist. Moreover, most atheists hold that, in general, it isn’t possible to prove that something does not exist; it’s only possible to prove that something exists. How is atheism different than agnosticism? Agnostics don’t know if God exists. They either think that it is not knowable if God exists, or they simply reserve judgment until they have more evidence. Atheists believe that God does not exist based on the available evidence. So is atheism just a belief like theism (Judaism, Christianity, etc.)? That depends on the theist! There are many reasonable theists that believe that God exists but they also recognize that they could be wrong; they base their belief on the evidence they have and how compelling they judge the evidence to be. They are willing to reconsider given new evidence. On the other hand, there are many fundamentalist theists who claim that they are certain that God exists, even though they can’t produce any reasonable evidence. Rather than believing because of the evidence, these theists hold stubborn, irrational beliefs in spite of the evidence. That type of “belief”, which is more accurately labelled “blind faith”, is very different from atheists’ beliefs about science, and it is very different than any other rational belief, whether about God or anything else.

“…the exact meaning of ‘atheist’ varies between thinkers and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes. ”
Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods. However, it has been used through much of history to denote certain beliefs seen as heretical, particularly the belief that God does not intervene in the world. More recently, atheists have argued that atheism only denotes a lack of theistic belief, rather than the active denial or claims of certainty it is often associated with. This is held to follow from its etymology: it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,’without, not’, and ‘theos’, ‘God’. It is not clear, however, that this could not equally mean ‘godless’ in the earlier sense as meaning a heretical or immoral person.

The exact meaning of ‘atheist’ varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes. Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief. For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the ‘positive atheist’ need not have certainty that God doesn’t exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

The Statue of Atheism being destroyed and replaced with the Statue of Wisdom at the Festival of the Supreme Being, Paris 1794
The Statue of Atheism being destroyed and replaced with the Statue of Wisdom at the Festival of the Supreme Being, ‘Jardin National des Decorations’, Paris, 8th July 1794

Musee de la Ville de Paris, Musee Carnavalet, Paris, France/ Archives Charmet/ The Bridgeman Art Library’,

This understanding of atheism is fairly commonly accepted by other atheists, although some theists complain that ‘negative atheism’ is trivial or evasive. William Lane Craig argues that Martin is ‘redefining’ the term to argue for the presumption of atheism, and it is certainly clear that atheists involved in these debates tend to be positive atheists. As well as the claim that it represents the etymology of the term, atheists tend to favour this definition because it treats atheism as the ‘null hypothesis’, and seems to clearly put the burden of proof on the believer. Martin is clear that defence of negative atheism merely requires refutations of theistic argument, while defence of positive atheism requires reasons for disbelief to be given. One criticism of Martin’s definition is that it is not what is commonly understood by ‘atheism’, and may therefore be confusing and unhelpful. As well as Martin’s acknowledgement that dictionaries tend to define atheism positively, many surveys have shown that far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God. For example, Greeley’s 2003 survey found that 31% of Britons did not believe in God, but only 10% considered themselves ‘atheist’. Martin’s appeal to etymology does not necessarily make his definition more helpful if it is not how the word is understood: and his use of agnosticism to be a question of belief rather than knowledge sits uneasily with this etymological approach. Putting to one side the question of what atheism ‘should’ or ‘really’ means, the positive-negative distinction is certainly useful in philosophical discussions as a shorthand for different sorts of atheism.

Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as ‘Atheist’ or ‘Christian’ suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin’s ‘positive atheism’. Dawkins’ central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1: ‘Strong theist. 100% probability of God’ to the equivalent 7: ‘Strong atheist’. He doesn’t see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6: ‘Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist’. Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states ‘I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden’.

Dawkins divides agnosticism into TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice) and PAP (permanent agnosticism in principle), identifying the first as Sagan’s stance on alien life. All but 1 and 7 on his scale can be identified as TAP. The second, PAP, he rightly argues would not be on the scale at all, even in the middle, though it is not clear if this is not sometimes true for TAP as well: Sagan does not give a probabilistic response to the question of alien life. Dawkins reserves PAP for questions that can never be answered by science: and it is central to his thought that God can be shown to be incredibly improbable scientifically. As such, committed agnostics tend to be portrayed as obscurantist, and Dawkins attempts to claim that Huxley overlooked the question of probability, perhaps in an attempt to accommodate the religious to make his central points more effective. Whether this can be squared with Huxley’s references to Kant and his ‘pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble’ is another question. In any case, Dawkins’ reading of agnosticism makes a useful distinction and seems fairer to the etymology and common use of the term ‘agnostic’, and most agnostics can be helpfully placed in the TAP or PAP categories.

Another useful distinction can be made between a broad sense of atheism (positive or negative), according to which an atheist lacks a belief or positively disbelieves in any God or gods, and a narrow sense of atheism (positive or negative) according to which an atheist lacks a belief or positively disbelieves in the personal God believed in by members of the Abrahamic religions, or some other subset of gods. Certain thinkers are positive atheists about Abrahamic religion, but best described as agnostic (whether TAP or PAP) about a deist God, or some other possible sort of God.

In the current atheist debates the New Atheists generally deny that there are good reasons to believe in the sort of personal God believed in by members of the Abrahamic religions. This is because they perceive the great Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – as the greatest threat to the integrity of science and the rule of secular law. However, they also reject deism – the belief in a God that is not based on revelation but on evidence from nature and does not intervene in the world – polytheism (belief in many gods), and pantheism (belief that God is identical with nature). The last is described by Dawkins as ‘sexed-up atheism’, as he sees it as seeing the natural world in a spiritual way: probably very true for modern pantheists, though by no means universal amongst earlier pantheists, many of whom were more accurately panentheists, seeing the world as within God, rather than exhausting a description of him.

If we apply this distinction to the contemporary debates, the three chief public atheists, (Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) should probably be categorised as positive atheists in the broad sense. Dawkins, for example, denies not only of the personal God of the Abrahamic religions but also the more minimal deist God; he also dismisses the gods of the polytheistic religions, as well as the alleged pantheism of scientists such as Einstein, which he interprets as mere religious metaphor. The Abrahamic God is their primary target, but they broadly dismiss all other forms of belief in God as well.

Moreover, although this is not entailed by atheism in any of the abovementioned senses, avowed atheists tend also to disbelieve in supernatural entities of any kind (e.g., spirits, disembodied souls) and also in supernatural interventions of any kind in the course of nature or events inexplicable in terms of the best contemporary (orthodox) scientific understanding of the universe (for example, parapsychological occurrences).

It is noteworthy, however, that the strident atheist Sam Harris has signalled an openness towards the possibility of parapsychological events in nature.[10] This, of course, does not affect his status as an atheist, since the existence of phenomena such as telepathy and precognition is compatible with there being no God or gods. However, this puts him at odds with Dawkins and Dennett, for whom belief in such things is inextricably associated with the religious mentality.

The attitude to the term ‘atheist’ also varies, with some thinkers wishing to escape its negative connotations, or purely reactive definition. Sam Harris did not use the term in his first book, ‘The End of Faith’, and argued at a recent conference that ‘our use of this label is a mistake-and a mistake of some consequence’, objecting on both ‘philosophical and strategic’ grounds. Alternatives proposed or used include ‘free- thinker’, ‘rationalist’ and the controversial ‘Bright’.

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.”

-Don Hirschberg

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the non-existence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, “organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats“.

For the most part, immorality and morality are subjective. Every culture, civilization, belief system, family and individual has their own definition of what being moral means. There are however a few common ideas derived from natural laws that are considered immoral such as deceit, theft, murder any any other kind of caused suffering (see Humanism).

Statistically speaking; atheists make up a smaller percentage of the prison population than the general population and have a lower divorce rate than the major religions.+

There is no evidence that atheists are any less moral according to their society’s cultural beliefs than those of the society who subscribe to a religious doctrine. Most atheists consider themselves moral. Many atheists call themselves Secular Humanists; they adhere to a set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.


“Can Atheists be ethical?
The answer to this question is a definite, ‘Yes.’ …They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries). They have a sense of right and wrong. They must work with people and being unethical in society would not serve them very well. It is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior. Atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people.”

You Need To Consider The Possibility Your Religion Is Mythology


There are at least 4,200 religions in the world today, and countless more have been lost to history. It’s obvious there’s a 0% chance all of them are the true word of God. Some thinkers have speculated that each religion is at least a little divinely inspired and holds a piece of the puzzle left to us by God to put together. But the only way to come to that conclusion is to ignore huge tracts of doctrine in each religion. Ultimately, none of them are compatible. If any religion is true. Follow the link above for full article. 

praying-feb-19            Follow the link above.              

The Enlightenment Is Working.

Are the ideals of the Enlightenment too tepid to engage our animal spirits? Is the conquest of disease, famine, poverty, violence and ignorance … boring? Do people need to believe in magic, a father in the sky, a strong chief to protect the tribe, myths of heroic ancestors?

I don’t think so. Secular liberal democracies are the happiest and healthiest places on earth, and the favorite destinations of people who vote with their feet. And once you appreciate that the Enlightenment project of applying knowledge and sympathy to enhance human flourishing can succeed, it’s hard to imagine anything more heroic and glorious.

Steven Pinker .



Oligarchy & Ancient Genealogies: A Brief Where Did The Oligarchy Of Today Come From?

(i.e., most of the obscenely wealthy & the 1%)
(Roman Piso, 05-12-2016)
What does it take to do the kind of work with ancient genealogies that I and a few others have? It takes time and dedication, and intense focus. After many years of observation and actual reconstruction of various ancient genealogies, it has now become second-nature to me. I’ve trained myself to know, almost by instinct, how to get the answers to complete various ancient genealogies that others would have abandoned and simply given up on; and I have completed them in many instances, in only a few hours. I remember when I had no idea where to look or what to look for. So, I have come a very long way indeed.
There are several key items that I have learned that are essential to finding out just where an individual had belonged in terms of time, place and family. One of the main things that I had discovered is that all of these were left to be discovered, on purpose. That is, deliberately. They were made difficult, but not impossible. That is because the individuals who left these records, did so purposefully. Now, how and why would they do this, or even be able to? That is what anyone working with these genealogies should know before they even start.
Today, we are hearing a lot of talk about ‘oligarchy’. And many people today, imagine that it only really applies to certain wealthy families today; but they are not used to thinking of that in terms of our past history; at least not in a universal sense. But that is exactly what the case was. Who were the “us” and “them” of the past? Who were the “haves” and the “have nots”? Well, think about it. It was most certainly the royalty who were the “haves”, it was not the common people. It was royalty who were keeping track of not only their own ancestry, but also of their fellow royals.
To make the type of world in which ancient royalty needed in order to preserve what they had gained, that ‘edge’ over non-royals, wealth, privilege, and power, they needed to create an alternate reality for those who were not royal; in order to placate them and keep them in their place. That is, to prevent them from uprising and overthrowing them.
So, they made it appear that royals and other leaders of all kinds came from the general populace, that they could rise from the ranks, and that they, the royals, were not perpetually protecting the royal ‘right’ of their privileged families. And one way of doing that was to make it appear that those who were writing were of all walks of life, that there was not a monopoly on it by royalty; but that is exactly what was happening. Royalty were the only ones who were leaving us written records, while making it appear that this was not so. And, they were not writing about anonymous commoners, but about their own family and their fellow royals.
Now, once a researcher such as myself realizes this, we then understand that they also left both answers and clues to unravel just who they were. It was purposeful. They not only wrote the histories of their own families and left accounts of their individual actions, but they also made a point of protecting and preserving them; which is why so many of them have survived to this day. Granted, some were lost along the way, but one way that they got around this was to cross-reference much of their work. That is, they gave more than one account of various family members by making use of alias names for those individuals. Case in point, Arrius Calpurnius Piso. He and his family had created a number of alternate names for him. So many, in fact, that I doubt that even I yet know all of them.
When his family and descendants wrote about him, they wrote about him via his various alias names. He was written about as Arrius Antoninus, an ancestor of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. He was written about as Flavius Josephus, Apollonianus Of Tyana, and as grandfather of Herodes Atticus. He was the founder of the Annii Anicii, and the Annii Verii. So, various royal lines trace back to him via those and other lines. In fact, all of the Roman Emperors from Antoninus Pius on, all descended from Arrius Calpurnius Piso. And, since he was the main creator of Christianity, and the Christian Church, all of the popes up (at least) to near modern to modern times, also descended from him. This was not conspiracy, it was oligarchy on a grand scale. It had been in place since the earliest days of the creation of royalty many thousands of years ago. But was also actively innovated or ‘improved’ upon or refined, over the course of history.
Having the overview that I have gained over time, I can see what various members of the lines descending from Arrius Piso were working towards and sometimes, achieved. They did not always agree upon what they were doing or what course to take. But when they did, and were resolved to do something, they made certain to succeed. To understand much of what I have found one must have a very complex understanding of various individuals and what their plans were.
Constantine is one example of that. His concern was to improve upon what his ancestor Arrius Piso did regarding the creation of Christianity. But to do this, his idea was to destroy those whom he considered his enemies; the Jews. Arrius Piso and his family had set out to destroy the Jews, as they were witnesses to his creation of Christianity. And thus, could expose it as fraud. However, the Jews were not completely wiped out. Many had survived and were living in the East, in and around Persia. To Constantine, this presented a problem as he wanted to expand and ingrain Christianity within society.
To understand just why he wanted to do that, one must realize why Christianity was created in the first place. And that, is rather complex to explain fully as well. But basically, there had been a war going on. Originally, that war was between certain factions of the Jews themselves. But over time, it drew in certain Roman leaders as well, so that it became a war between certain Romans and certain Jews. It became a war between Arrius Piso (as well as his family and supporters), and the Pharisees and their supporters. And to better understand this, one must know just what was being fought over.
The Pharisees and their supporters were much like what we think of as humanists today. They were about basic human rights and an end to slavery. But those who wanted to preserve slavery and enjoy the wealthy, privileged lives that they were used to, did not want to lose the way of life that they were used to for hundreds of generations. The Pharisees were fighting for the common people; for their basic rights as human beings and for an end to slavery. That, is what the war was being fought over.
Christianity, was created as a means to give the common people an alternate reality to believe in, and to placate them and slaves; to make them not desire what the Pharisees were fighting to give them. It was also ‘loaded’ with what amounted to a “wish list” of things that the greedy royals wanted. And that, is why Constantine wanted to spread Christianity and rid the world of those who might expose it as fraud.
This is the reason that Constantine wanted to expand and fortify the Eastern regions of the Roman Empire and why he established another Roman capital city in the East, Constantinople. He had been working on a way to get rid of the remaining Jews in the East, who were living beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. And the way that he figured upon doing this was to create another religion that would cause the Arabs to kill the Jews for him. That religion was Islam. But it backfired and did not work out in the way that Constantine had imagined. Yes, Islam was not an original Eastern religion. It
was created by Romans – the descendants of those who had also created Christianity.
Now, the reason that I state this here is not to make a case or convince anyone of this, but because I want the reader to understand just what the true nature of ancient history and ancient genealogies actually is. That is, the context in which to understand them. I want you to understand the oligarchy and what actually went on behind the scenes within the Inner-Circle and which you would never learn by superficial readings of ancient texts.
The reason that this is important to know while working on these genealogies is because in order to do this as they did, they had to be in full control of everything that was being written. And they did. Again, not just anyone could become an author and write for public consumption; only royals could. And they kept it that way for thousands of years. This is why it was important for them to continue a united consolidation of royalty, or the preservation of the royal Inner-Circle. Constantine was doing what he did in order to achieve this. But it ended up being a royal blunder. From his point of view, he was doing what he thought he needed to do.
The idea for Islam came from Constantine, his family and relatives, but was not implemented until many years after his death. Another thing to know is, as I had mentioned earlier, all of the popes of that time were descendants of Arrius Piso – and therefore, relatives of Constantine. It is also important to know that there were families to the East who had close ties to the royal descendants of Arrius Piso in the West. For instance, there had always been an alliance there between the Roman Emperors and the royal families in Syria and Armenia, as well as other countries to the East.
For hundreds of years, the Pisos had been Roman governors of Syria and had intermarried with the royal Syrian and Armenian rulers. The proof of this, ironically, can be found in their genealogies. Anyway, such plans as the creation and promotion of religion, did not happen overnight. Thus, it took some time before Islam could be perfected for the purpose it was created for, and then actually implemented and promoted.
The idea, for instance, for Christianity, came from an idea for a new religion to replace Judaism. It was pieced together by ancestors of Arrius Piso and was nearly put to an end by Nero before Arrius Piso could make it into what he wanted. The beginning of the actual work on the new religion, later to be known of as Christianity, had begun with the creation of a committee to do so, in Tiberias, near the shores of the Sea Of Galilee, and was instituted by order of the emperor Tiberius at the request of the Herodian rulers in Judea (who were the leaders of the Sadducean sect of the Jews).
Again, the leaders of the royal Inner-Circle descendants of Arrius Piso felt that they needed to preserve and improve their grip of power upon the world. This is why when Charlemagne became emperor, he had the idea of creating a Holy Roman Empire. And that Empire or Reich, would last until Napoleon brought it down in 1806 (see my paper, ‘Napoleon & The Holy Roman Empire’). It rose again in 18711918. It was the actual cause of WWI and that 2nd Reich had ended in 1918 with the end of WWI. However, it rose yet again, as the 3rd Reich. And as we all know, ended in 1945 with the end of WWII.
After the end of WWII, royals lost that unification that they once had. However, they diversified and still existed to some extent. They are now the oligarchs that control most of our world’s wealth and resources, without the majority of them having royal titles or being in charge of certain regions of the world. Thus, it is now much more difficult to identify them, other than the huge amount of wealth that they possess. Though they may not still have royal titles, they still have genealogical ties to royalty, and can trace their descent from Arrius Piso.
Recently, a girl had done some work for a school project on the ancestry of the American Presidents. She found that all but one of them could trace their ancestry back to John Lackland, an ancestor of King James I of England. George Washington was offered the title of King, but refused it as he said that he did not want the United States to become a monarchy. But apparently, the Inner-Circle members who came to live in the United States still wanted their own in charge.

Three Major Religions Created By Ancient Royalty

(Roman Piso, 02-15-2015)

While so many people all over the world today still believe in various religions with all their hearts and minds, and wonder about, contemplate, and otherwise search for “God” and “spirituality”, and even believe in “miracles” and the paranormal; there are those of us who have known for a long time now that all religion is deliberate fraud. Our work was never meant to offend anyone, but to get at the truth.

So what did we find? First a little background on myself. I’ve always been an impartial and objective person with an open mind; and very observant. As I was growing up, I saw so many people who were consumed by their beliefs, beliefs that a) they could not prove, and b) that they actually never did do any kind of real research about. And, they were not impartial and objective as I was. In fact, in nearly all instances, these individuals simply believed in what their family had believed.

Whenever I asked any of them if they would change their mind about their beliefs if they were presented with facts and evidence that contradicted their beliefs, they answered most times, honestly and said that they were afraid to question their beliefs or even consider that they were incorrect. There was fear of retaliation by the God that they believed in and of losing any promise of heaven and a life after death. So, once they were believers, it would be very difficult to get them to see things realistically and as they really are. I knew that.

However, there were still others out there who were questioning and even researching, and others who were still young and not yet entrapped by religious belief. So, one of the first things that I saw in religion is how it closed off the minds of believers. And later on, I would also observe how when being debated on their religion and belief in it, they would deflect questions, ignore them, get angry, or perceive the questions in another context, or distort what was said completely, and bring up another subject so as to take the subject matter on a tangent. The reason? They had to do these things in order to preserve their belief. Otherwise, reason, sensibility and logic might seep in. They simply were unwilling to even entertain any idea that might bring them back to the point of reasoning that they had before they had become believers.

Unfortunately, we see this very same thing today in academia. There are many that enter into academia, not to learn, not to get at the truth, but in order to find whatever they can to support their religious beliefs. There are many illusions in religion. And one of those is the sense of “community”. Though there is community for the individual believer among others who believe the same thing, in the larger picture, religious belief divides us. It puts people into groups who at odds with others and for many religious people, their belief leads to fanaticism and even mental illness.

Today, we see many terrible things happening in the world, much of which originated or is based in the religious faith of individuals who are determined to see that their belief is the dominant belief. In essence, there are many religious people who are doing what they think they need to do in order to get others to believe as they do; even if it takes force and terrorism.

What most people never stop to think about is that ALL of these major world religions that have all caused their share of terror, torture and killing, originated in ancient times; when the world was still being ruled by kings and despots, and when there was no freedom for the average person. These religions do not belong to our time, they belong to the past. And should stay there. So, how can we free ourselves of them and move on so that we can advance to modern civilization? They need to be exposed as fraud once and for all.

When people say that they believe in “God”, they simply say “God” and expect others to know just what God they are referring to. And in most instances today, people imagine that to mean the God of the Bible, and not Zeus or some other ancient god. This is where we must start. What sources do we have for the God of the Bible? It is the Bible itself. And where in the Bible do we find the first mention of this God? In Genesis. So, Genesis holds the key to the validity of that God. Now, if the Bible itself is found to be deceptive in any way, then our trust in it must be diminished.

What did we find? We found a lot of things and so did many other people. One of the main things that people who have made a study of the validity of the Bible have found are the many contradictions in it. Now what is a person to think of a book or compilation of books that a) cannot talk straight and forthright to those who are expected to believe in that work, and b) contradicts itself?

When we looked at the archaeological findings, the dated material and followed the genealogical information back (comparing it to actual real-life history in the process), and calculated the average generation per individual in the Bible back to “Adam”, we arrived at a date for the biblical ‘Adam’ as the same time as the founder of the 12th dynasty in Egypt. And he happened to have been known by several names, including one that began with ‘Adam’ (Adamenemhept I, aka Amonemenhept I).*

And then we read in the works of Flavius Josephus, that Adam’s son ‘Seth’ was aka “Sesostris”,** the same name as that of the son of the individual that we have found to have been ‘Adam’. Thus, we have found who the author of Genesis was; who was a “god” to his people, the pharaoh who founded the 12th dynasty in Egypt. And it is HE, who is the “God” of the Jewish Bible. Mystery solved. It is fake.

So, we now know that there was no real omnipotent “God” of the Bible. It is like the Wizard Of Oz, an ordinary man, hiding behind a facade. That actually exposes both Judaism and Christianity, but as those who have followed our work know, we have many more answers for Christianity in addition to this. But for now, we will just be as brief as we can while touching upon these three major religions that are the topic of this paper.

What did Judaism and Christianity have in common? They were both created by the same royal family. That is, the descendants of the ‘Adam’ (God) of Judaism had also created Christianity. They were “religion creators”. And that is why we term them ‘The Biblical Dynasty’.***

The purpose of this paper is to present to other scholars, researchers and true academics that answers can and will be found to expose all religion as deliberate fraud and as that which has no place in a modern civilization or any society that has any hope of truly unifying itself towards any good and essential progress. Religion is one of several things that has been dividing humanity and pitting us against each other, and which is but a false, created illusion constructed for that very purpose.

If more proof is needed regarding Christianity as a fraud, then we have plenty of evidence for that, as one need only look to the work exposing the royal Piso family as the creators of the New Testament and Christianity. But as we have already presented evidence for Judaism and Christianity as deliberate fraud created by ancient royals of a royal line known to us as ‘The Biblical Dynasty’, we now begin to talk about Islam.

Islam too, was created by this very same royal family. This is why we find Jesus mentioned in the Koran, and well as other biblical figures and we find the same kind of angels and other elements and component parts of that religion as we do in the other two already mentioned. The authors of the Koran, were using the same techniques that were used previously by the creators of Judaism and Christianity. Islam, or the creation of the Koran, began in the West and was likely completed in Syria. After which, it was given to Arab communities to be absorbed into their culture. They envisioned it to be something entirely unique to them. It wasn’t. But they, the average non-royal believers, had no way of knowing that.

We know of many of the tricks that were used in the creation of Christianity, that we see in the creation of Islam. And, we also know of the methodology that has exposed Christianity as a fraud. So, it is just a matter of time before Islam is fully exposed. But for now, consider these few things.

One. What would the motive/s be for creating Islam in the first place? Something that had bothered the royal Romans since the Jewish Diaspora of 135 CE is that some of the Jewish leadership had survived and were living in Persia, being protected by the rulers there, where they were allowed to write their Talmud; which was giving information about the creation of Christianity. And there was virtually nothing that the Roman rulers could do about it. They knew that if left unchecked, the Jewish leadership would give a detailed account of how Christianity actually came to be.

So, a solution that they had been working on for perhaps hundreds of years, was being implemented step by step a little at a time. The Piso family had long had connections and even homes in Syria. And some of them even became very close to the Arabs (such as Philip The Arab). Remember that all of the Roman emperors from Antoninus Pius forward were descended from Arrius Piso and his family. Thus, they all knew the truth about Christianity and they wanted to destroy the remaining Jews if at all possible, as they were a threat to the continuation of Christianity.

The religion that the Arabs had was not a very strong one, it wasn’t really uniform either. It was basically a pagan form and many did not even bother with it. The “Jewish” religion by that time was not the same as it had been pre-70 CE, because the Sadducees no longer existed and as we had discussed elsewhere, the Essenes had disbanded in 6 CE, to become ‘Scribes’, who were passive helpers of the Pharisees. So, the Jewish religion had become more focused upon ethics and intellect instead of religious or superstitious beliefs. But that was to change again in later years.

The plan was to give the Arabs a religion of their own, one that was adverse to the Jews. That way, the royals and popes of the West would not have to send in any of their own people to deal with the Jews. But the plan backfired.

Islam had a duel purpose when it came to the Jews. It was supposed to set a variance between the Islamic believers and the Jews; but to also be used as a means to convert Jews to the religion given to the Arabs (Islam). Though Islam did cause some for the Jews in the Arab world, and some of the Jews were absorbed into Islam; the Jewish leaders knew what was happening and had planned for it. So, they did whatever was necessary to save their Talmudum and escape from the situation; many fled.

Another thing that Islam was supposed to do, was to make its believers accommodating for Catholicism, which is somewhat interesting (and telling) when one thinks about it. This was because Islam may have been thought of by its creators to have been something “temporary”. That is, its creators may have envisioned coming in later and converting the Muslims to Catholicism.

When we know our history and have an overall view of things, we can now view the establishment of Constantinople as an effort to bring something of the West to the Eastern territory. Another thing that we have not mentioned as much is that all of the popes too, on up to near modern times (at least) were also descendants of Arrius Piso and knew the truth about Christianity.

Though at this time, we cannot pin-point the exact individuals who were involved in the creation of Islam, we do know enough to say that it was the descendants of the same people who had created Judaism and Christianity. I would think that the royals in the West and in and around Syria and Constantinople, and those close to the papacy at the time had a hand in it. Remember, Islam too, had been created with the same elements and component parts as the other two religions and also requires a belief in the supernatural. And just as there have been fanatics and atrocities associated with Judaism and Christianity, the same is inherent with Islam.

Religion, any religion, is a created falsehood. A falsehood designed to keep believers in a perpetual state of delusion, whereby the perception of the believer is distorted to conform to what is dictated by that belief. It is time that we leave such things in the past, along with all of the violence and division that they cause. We can defuse all of the harm that is done in the name of these religions and the irresponsible, illogical attitude of their adherents, by exposing them for the frauds they are and clearly showing the harm that they have done and continue to do to Humanity.

* For those individuals listed in the bible from the time of Noah going back to Adam (antebellum), we discovered that the “years” that were given for their exceptionally long lives were actually fabrications, but also that they could be averaged by “Egyptian Years”, which were similar to what we now think of as “months”.

The Beginnings Of Christianity And The Evolution Of The Popes.

(Roman Piso, 01-17-2014) (Expanded, 01-26-2014, and 02-11-2015)

To be perfectly truthful with you, when I was deciding what title to give this article, so many things were going through my mind about the papacy and its various periods. And I began to wonder how it could be that I could possibly put some representative information in this article from each and still keep this only an article and not a book. I still don’t know, except that I know I will simply not be able to cover it all here.

The beginnings, of course, started with those who first created Christianity. And that means, Arrius Piso and Pliny The Younger, as well as their immediate family. At first there was Arrius Piso, as the ‘papa’ or father of the religion itself (see Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’). However, instead of the first bishops of Rome calling themselves ‘Pope’ or papa, they simply allowed that tradition dictates that the bishop of Rome was the main leader for the religion. The first bishop of Rome to publicly call himself ‘papa’ or Pope as a title (other than Arrius Piso), was Damscus I, Pope from 366 to 384 C.E.

It should be noted that even though Arrius Piso was the main author and creator of Christianity, the manuscripts that he used as its basis were the result of a Roman effort to create a new religion that was instituted during the reign of Tiberius. The place where this council or committee for the creation of a new “universal” (that is, actually what “Catholic” means) religion was named or renamed after Tiberius, as Tiberias, which was located in Galilee.

Those individuals involved in that project were ancestors of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Seneca was one member. He was Arrius Piso’s grand uncle (his maternal grandmother’s brother). There were several others, including Arrius Piso’s father, Gaius Piso. By the time of Nero, the Julian Caesars had abandoned the idea of making a new religion. Thus, Nero did not approve of it, and the Pisos and their allies then planned to assassinate Nero.

He (Nero) found out, and had many of those conspirators executed (such as Seneca, Gaius Piso, and Lucan The Poet, who was Seneca’s nephew). Though Lucius Piso, Gaius Piso’s brother, and Arrius Piso, were involved, Lucius Piso and Arrius Piso are spared by Nero. Professor Bruno Bauer of the University of Berlin, wrote ‘Christ and the Caesars’, which was published in the 1870’s. His work gives evidence of the Roman creation of Christianity, including Seneca’s involvement in it. This early council had created a manuscript called ‘Ur Marcus’, and probably another known as ‘Ur Mattheus’, or the prototype manuscripts for the gospels of Mark and Matthew. Though actual copies or even portions of these have never been found, they are known in classical and biblical scholarship as the ‘Q’ or Quella document/s.

The family that created Christianity, did not trust those who were not part of the immediate family to lead Christianity; therefore, all of the early popes were represented by the immediate family members who could be trusted. Sometimes, they were only leaders in name only, just to fill a space in the chronology. Such as with Julius Calpurnius Piso. He was Arrius Piso’s son, but he did not approve of Christianity. However, he went along with it because of a deal he had made with his father to allow him to write the ending – not only to the story of Christianity, but to Christianity itself; that being The Revelation. By the way, several people have wondered how it is that we have come to know so much about Arrius Piso and his family, as well as Pliny The Younger.

Credit the fact that so many primary source documents have survived, and the work which was done by Professor Ronald Syme. Syme wrote many extremely important papers on ancient Roman history and the individuals who lived then. His most important work came in the form of articles that he wrote which were published in The Journal Of Roman Studies, or JRS. He also wrote books, such as his well-known ‘Roman Papers’. Though Syme never wrote openly about what he actually knew about Arrius Piso and Pliny The Younger, he wrote things that indicated that he was an Inner Circle member; meaning that he knew that they had created Christianity.

The very early popes or bishops of Rome were named after names which could identify who they were (to the Inner Circle of royals of the time), but without revealing who they were to the public, in general. They gave hints and clues about who they were, without being too specific. They gave just enough information so that those in the know could discover just who they were. For one thing, those who knew who the creator of Christianity was, they would know automatically, that this person would be the very first bishop of Rome – St. Peter (aka Arrius Calpurnius Piso). Besides popes, saints and martyrs too, were actually created from within the family, their relatives and descendants.*

As time went on, the family branched out and formed various dynasties (such as the Annii Verii, the Annii Anicii, the Ulpii, etc.). There was a tradition, still in place among royals, from before Christianity was created, where they would hold councils and committees to make decisions about various things. These were times when representatives of the various branches came together to decide who would be pope. Long before Christianity was created, there was a tradition where the king’s first son would be in line to replace him when the time came, and the second son, would be the leader of the religion and would be known by different names when it came to different religions; but basically, acting in the same way as a High Priest (a practice seen used by the Pharaohs, for instance).

During the time when Emperors were ruling the Roman Empire, those emperors were descendants of Arrius Piso (see my list of the Roman Emperors and their family descent &/or relationship to Arrius Piso). And they, basically, chose the popes from within their own family or close relatives. When they created the illusion of the Roman Empire falling (it actually just moved to the East for a time, i.e. Constantinople), other branches of the family emerged on the scene. These were known in history as the Lombards, Visigoths, etc. They were closely related to the leaders of the Franks, who would become known as the Merovingian Kings of France. These leaders, could all trace back their ancestry to Arrius Piso. And of course, this included the Byzantine/Macedonian rulers who were later to become known as the Paleologian rulers.

So, down through time, when it came to choosing a pope and someone to replace or succeed him, the various branches of the family would decide by committee. At times, to save time, certain dynastic houses were chosen to make such choices. One of those later houses was known as Welf. Welf means ‘papal’. The Welfs, as known in history, were the leaders and rulers of Bavaria and associated lands. But many times the Welfs would allow various rulers to make these choices and simply approved them before the other royals of the time.

It appears that at least at times, some of the popes were chosen because they were a) of the right family (meaning a family that consisted of authors), and/or b) they either had become terminally ill, or were of such extreme age that it was assured that they would not be Pope for long. Unlike the emperors, many of the popes seem to have died of natural causes; except those that were both pope and emperor (see Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘From Ulpian to Constantine’).

Gradually, the power to make and bestow papal powers and authority was given up by the Welfs. This, for the most part was accomplished by intermarriages with the Welfs. Powerful branches of these families wanted their family members to rule as Pope. To show their relationship to each other as Pope and thereby show their authority to rule the papacy, they gave a family moniker or name such as ‘Orsini’, ‘Crescentii’, ‘Sforza’, ‘Medici’ and so forth. Once these families came to possess the papal powers, they seldom wanted that power to leave their family; as this was another means to gain vast wealth as well as power. And these families, would make saints of their close family members to give the illusion that they were ‘holy’, god-fearing people.

But, many times, the power simply went to their heads and they could not contain themselves or hide what they were actually doing, nor did they actually care to – because, who in their own time, could or would do anything about it? One of the worst of these “papal families” was the Borgias. Many people today can and have read about the Borgias and their lusts and depravity, and abuse of power. Remember, that while all of this was going on, down through history, all of these people and the rulers as well, were absolutely knowledgeable about their origins and the truth about Christianity. They were only making use of the institution, the religion, for their own gain. And, continued to hide just who they were, their relationship to each other; and of course, their descent from Arrius Piso.

Rulers who continued to rule as kings and popes were made from within, with no outsiders ever allowed into the Inner-Circle. And then came Napoleon. The Holy Roman Empire was founded by the sons and grandsons of the emperor Charlemagne and lasted, unchallenged, until the time of Napoleon. It was Napoleon who changed it all. He could not have brought down the Holy Roman Empire unless he knew just how to do it. And he did know this because he too, was a descendant of Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

The Inner-Circle knew Napoleon for who he was, but those who read only the outer world history of Napoleon did not. Napoleon was a nephew of popes and descendant of kings himself (including Constantine I and Charlemagne). But he was very much like his fore bearer Julius Calpurnius Piso, the son of Arrius Piso who wrote The Revelation as a way of giving out information about his father creating Christianity. This was chronicled in one of the books that I authored (‘The Inner Circle In The Outer World’).

For those of you who were not aware of it, the Holy Roman Empire was also known as The Reich. Even though Napoleon had destroyed the Holy Roman Empire (by about 1806) and gotten rid of many of the royal houses and kings, many more still existed and the Catholic Church was not destroyed. So, many rulers who were still kings and the Catholic Church still wanted to get back the power that they once had and they tried to revive ‘The Reich’ a second time beginning in about 1871. Before that attempt had ended, it had become World War I, and ended in 1918. But that “war to end all wars” did not put an end to an attempt to revive The Reich. Hitler came into power and established the ‘Third Reich’. Which, for those in the know, realized was actually a revival of the Holy Roman Empire that Napoleon had crushed. You should be able to find this out by a thorough reading of a) The Holy Roman Empire, and b) the beginnings and causes of World Wars I and II.

In more modern times, the actual origins and family ancestry of popes were being kept more and more confidential and generally, not given out to the public. Now, you are given very sketchy and vague ancestral information going back only a few generations. This is so that you will not discover any connections to royalty or other popes, and to further hide the fact that they too, were descendants of the creator of Christianity, Arrius Piso. Today, the last few popes, though through tradition were descendants of Arrius Piso, may not have actually known this themselves. That is, the popes of today, may very well be true believers of Christianity themselves. And that is basically how the papacy has changed since its very beginnings.

* Since the story of Christianity or the Christian story within the gospels were back-dated to an earlier time, it was also necessary to back-date the bishops of Rome to an earlier time than they had actually been in, at least until the point where they could be represented within the time in which they actually lived and were able to assume the title. This had been remedied by the time that the Roman Emperor, Antoninus Pius, became bishop of Rome as Pius I (140-154 CE). Also, I had worked out very precisely and in great detail, just who all of the early popes were. But that information was destroyed and I will have to work to restore as much of that information as possible. The first two were Arrius Piso as St. Peter, and Pliny The Younger as St. Paul, aka ‘Linus’. The next few were Arrius Piso’s sons and grandsons. See Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’.

In at least a couple of my books, and/or articles or essays, I had made mention that Pliny The Younger had went around the Roman Empire beginning about the year 98 CE through the early 100’s CE. What he was doing was converting certain of the altars (small Temples) and worship places for the old Roman gods & goddesses, into the first Christian Churches. Abelard Reuchlin also says this in his ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’. However, since at that time, the New Testament had not yet been completed, the early believers were somewhat skeptical. There was no early Church history written about yet either. So, it seemed to early prospects to have come out of nowhere. These were problems that still had to be worked out. The Jews too (consisting at that time of only Pharisees and their Scribes), were still around and they knew the truth about Christianity – some of which, appear to have been informing some of the early believers (and writing about it in the Talmud). In any case, initially, Christianity was a flop. Arrius Piso had tried testing it out much earlier, in certain communities where his family had property and land holdings. An example of this is Herculaneum and Pompeii. Only the gospels Mark and Matthew were finished by 73-75 CE (Common Era). And Mt Vesuvius erupted in 79 CE, burying those cities. So, they had to not only start over, but they had to wait until sometime after the reign of Domitian – as he had banished the Piso family from Rome, except for Pliny The Younger (who was Arrius Piso’s much younger foster brother). Domitian kept Arrius Piso, who was still serving in the military, far off from Rome in Pannonia. We can glean all of this from the histories of the time, as long as we know under what names they were listed in those histories, such as in the histories of Flavius Josephus (aka Arrius Piso), Tacitus, Pliny The Younger, and Suetonius.

One of the main reasons that the Jews had given up fighting Arrius Piso and his invention, Christianity, as well as his Emperor relatives, is because they could see that Christianity at that time, appeared to be going nowhere. And in truth, Christianity would not become a real and actual religion with many believers until after the time of Constantine I (c. 330 CE). Before that, no one was funding the necessary infrastructure, such as the church buildings, bishops and other clergy. Arrius and Pliny had thought that they could just convert the old altars and set up a bishop at each of the first seven ‘churches’ and that it would take off; it didn’t. They wanted to run it on a shoestring. By the time of Constantine, the family realized that it was going to take much more than that to get it going. So, before Constantine (and even during his time), the Christian Church existed primarily as a fictional story. But during that time (from Arrius Piso to Constantine), various of the family members were busy writing as ‘Church Fathers’ and others, to make it appear that Christianity HAD indeed existed and been an active religion for all those years (See Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘How Christianity Grew…’

The ‘popes’ prior to Constantine were virtually popes in name only. The very early churches which went extinct, did so because once the Piso family realized no one was attending their churches, they tried to lure them in with sex. They started to write sexualized or bawdy material (thinly disguised), having Pliny as Paul do most of it with his epistles (see my book ‘Piso Christ’). After getting church attendees “hot and bothered”, they would direct them to small sex rooms built into those early churches, where they had a choice of “helper” and were asked for a tithe or “donation”. This was simply a continuation of what they were already doing in Rome with “vestal virgins”, who were not virgins at all; but were Temple prostitutes who were play-acting as if they were inexperienced – because that is what a majority of their clientèle preferred (Read ‘The Rise, Decline, and Fall of the Roman Religion’ by James Ballantyne Hannay).They had been doing this in even earlier times and would do this again in later times as well. But once the people of the towns in which these churches were located realized what was going on there, they forcibly closed them down (Again, see the works of James Ballantyne Hannay on Roman Religion).

James Ballantyne Hannay, was a Professor at Oxford. He was one of the main contributors and consultants for the great work known as ‘The Encyclopedia Biblica’. He says of it, “For instance, the learned and reverend authors of the Encyc. Biblica have treated the Jesus miracles of walking on waters, feeding thousands, etc. as “childish” fables, and have declared that Peter and Paul were merely “pen” names, or lay figures on which the true authors of the New Testament, the Roman ecclesiastics, hung their religious disquisitions – in fact, that the while narrative is fiction. That was always my opinion. The artificial sources of the names Peter and Paul are very apparent.” Hannay is famous for saying; “The Bible is full of passages too gross for translation, and containing sex words connected with the Roman religion.” Hannay, too, also wrote about Paul’s travels and of those travels being to places that were known for vice (the sex trade). Hanny also knew about the archaeological discoveries of ancient church ruins wherein were found the little “sex rooms” which were built into those early churches. Lucian, writing at the time of Marcus Aurelius (circa 180 CE), said that (even) the temple in Jerusalem had 100 of these “sex cubicles” built into it. Hannay says of the early Christian churches, “The Christian or “New” Churches were simply “free trade” brothels like the “high places” of the O.T., where, however, all prostitutes had their fees…” (Hannay’s ‘The Rise, Decline, and Fall…’, pg 45).

Note: Further information regarding the little sex cubicles used within ancient temples and early churches can be found in Lucian’s ‘The Syrian Goddess’. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote as Lucian, circa 180 CE. He was a descendant of Arrius Piso through his son Justus Piso. By the way, the Piso family knew a great deal about what to use and what would work in terms of religion, as their family had experience with it for several hundred years. One thing about them that has hardly ever mentioned is that they had a long history as Roman governors of Syria. But they were also descendants of the ancient kings of Syria as well.

Because we have been studying ancient history, ancient texts and religion in the proper context, we have been able to discover many things that others have not. Case in point, we know who many of the early popes really were. This is our list of the first 10 popes and their true identities.


St. Peter: Arrius C. Piso, aka Arrius Antoninus, grandfather of Emp. Antoninus Pius.

St. Linus: Pliny The Younger, aka St. Paul, aka St. Ignatius, younger foster brother of Arrius Piso.

St. Cletus: Alexander C. Piso I, son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso (was killed by Domitian c. 96 CE).

St. Clement I of Rome: Julius C. Piso I, author of The Revelation, son of Arrius C. Piso.

St. Aristus: Proculus C. Piso, aka St. Polycarp, etc., son of Arrius C. Piso.

St. Alexander I: Alexander C. Piso II, son of Alexander C. Piso I (and so, grandson of Arrius Piso).

St. Sixtus I: Justus C. Piso, aka Justin Martyr, etc., son of Arrius C. Piso.

St. Telesphorus: Flavius Arrianus, aka Historians Appian & Ptolemy, grandson of Arrius Piso.

St. Hygenus: Silanus C. Piso, aka Herodes Atticus, son of Proculus C. Piso.

St. Pius I: Emp. Antoninus Pius, aka Suetonius, & Irenaeus, grandson of Arrius C. Piso.

Axiological Atheism: Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and secular humanism

Axiological Atheism: Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and secular humanism 

As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoned antitheism & antireligionism is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people. Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life.

You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science,and personal experience which too are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value driven life lived in this reality.

What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling?

Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness. Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture.

When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning.

Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way.

Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy. Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function.

Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings.
Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative).

The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value:
1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations
2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible)
3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles)

The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors.
1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas”
2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”.

The word “Axiological” (to the term “Axiological atheism” is meant to denote an atheistic “Value” rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings and in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity or universal ethical principles. The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions.

Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.

The axiological movement emerges from the phenomenological method. The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue against Kant, that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. They emphasize the extent to which it is through emotions and feelings that human beings discern values. The notion of right action is understood derivatively in terms of the values which emotions reveal. Evolutionary psychology seems to offer an account of the evolution of our “moral sense” (conscience) that dispenses with any reference to objective values. Its apparent elimination of objective values on the grounds of their being unneeded in explanation has led the skeptical writings of J.L. Mackie and Michael Ruse. By contrast, Robert Nozick has resisted this interpretation of evolution (1981) arguing that an evolutionary account of the moral sense can no more dispense with values than an evolutionary account of perception can dispense with perceptual objects objectively present in the world. Axiologists in contemporary ethics are Platonists such as Iris Murdoch and Neo-Kantian theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick.

Tenets of Secular Ethics

Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:
• Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
• Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
• Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form.

Many of these tenets are applied in the science of morality, the use of the scientific method to answer moral questions. Various thinkers have framed morality as questions of empirical truth to be explored in a scientific context. The science is related to ethical naturalism, a type of ethical realism.

The problems of axiology fall into four main groups, namely, those concerning (1) the nature of value, (2) the types of value, (3) the criterion of value, and (4) the metaphysical status of value.

(1) The nature of value experience. Is valuation fulfillment of desire (voluntarism: Spinoza, Ehrenfels), pleasure (hedonism: Epicurus, Bentham, Meinong), interest (Perry), preference (Martineau), pure rational will (formalism: Stoics, Kant, Royce), apprehension of tertiary qualities (Santayana), synoptic experience of the unity of personality (personalism: T. H. Green, Bowne), any experience that contributes to enhanced life (evolutionism: Nietzsche), or “the relation of things as means to the end or consequence actually reached” (pragmatism, instrumentalism: Dewey).

(2) The types of value. Most axiologists distinguish between intrinsic (consummatory) values (ends), prized for their own sake, and instrumental (contributory) values (means), which are causes (whether as economic goods or as natural events) of intrinsic values. Most intrinsic values are also instrumental to further value experience; some instrumental values are neutral or even disvalued intrinsically. A few recognized as intrinsic values are the (morally) good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy. Values of play, of work, of association, and of bodily well-being are also acknowledged. Some (with Montague) question whether the true is properly to be regarded as a value, since some truth is disvalued, some neutral; but love of truth, regardless of consequences, seems to establish the value of truth. There is disagreement about whether the holy (religious value) is a unique type (Schleiermacher, Otto), or an attitude toward other values (Kant, Höffding), or a combination of the two (Hocking). There is also disagreement about whether the variety of values is irreducible (pluralism) or whether all values are rationally related in a hierarchy or system (Plato, Hegel, Sorley), in which values interpenetrate or coalesce into a total experience.

(3) The criterion of value. The standard for testing values is influenced by both psychological and logical theory. Hedonists find the standard in the quantity of pleasure derived by the individual (Aristippus) or society (Bentham). Intuitionists appeal to an ultimate insight into preference (Martineau, Brentano). Some idealists recognize an objective system of rational norms or ideals as criterion (Plato, Windelband), while others lay more stress on rational wholeness and coherence (Hegel, Bosanquet, Paton) or inclusiveness (T. H. Green). Naturalists find biological survival or adjustment (Dewey) to be the standard. Despite differences, there is much in common in the results of the application of these criteria.

(4) The metaphysical status of value. What is the relation of values to the facts investigated by natural science (Koehler), of Sein to Sollen (Lotze, Rickert), of human experience of value to reality independent of man (Hegel, Pringle-Pattlson, Spaulding)? There are three main answers: subjectivism (value is entirely dependent on and relative to human experience of it: so most hedonists, naturalists, positivists); logical objectivism (values are logical essences or subsistences, independent of their being known, yet with no existential status or action in reality); metaphysical objectivism (values — or norms or ideals — are integral, objective, and active constituents of the metaphysically real: so theists, absolutists, and certain realists and naturalists like S. Alexander and Wieman).

Axiological atheism can be seen as antitheist and takes a very strong unsympathetic line by saying no being, of any sort, is worthy of the name of god and demanding worship a “moral obligation,” to his values alone which demonstrates an axiological disapproval of their value to be worshipped. No being deserves to be god because they have not provided irrefutable proof nor have done anything to prove separation from the natural world which all beings are part of.

Morality is a biological adaptation. It is likewise natural as fully detailed in the book “The Moral Lives of Animals” where morality or ethical conscience is an evolutionary persuasion seen in how wild elephants walking along a trail stop and spontaneously try to protect and assist a weak and dying fellow elephant. As well as in how laboratory rats, finding other rats caged nearby in distressing circumstances, proceed to rescue them. A chimpanzee in a zoo loses his own life trying to save an unrelated infant who has fallen into a watery moat. The examples above and many others, show that our fellow creatures have powerful impulses toward cooperation, generosity, and fairness. Yet, it is commonly held that we Homo sapiens are the only animals with a moral sense. This rigorous challenges that notion and shows the profound connections—the moral continuum—that link humans to many other species. Understanding the moral lives of animals offers new insight into our own.

Since the god concept in axiological atheism can only be likewise conceived as natural, it deserves no more value than a tree, human, or a black hole, if it was true. If the god concept is outside of nature, it has demonstrated no relevance or worth to the obviously natural world. If the god concept was outside of nature but found relevant over nature, it would be shown to be either willfully guilty for allowing harm or the direct creation of the harm. If the god concept was demonstrated as outsider to the natural world with no ability to manage harm in every stance, it would thus be valueless and undesirable to be given praise and actually shown contempt.

Beyond simply taking the stance that we know, as Atheists, gods do not exist; axiological atheism further strives from just evolution and shows that a creator and designer are not needed to explain life. Axiological atheism ethically critique, value judge analyze, and attack anything that we might be missing out on to remove belief that a god real or concept would be something of value seeing gods as oppressive moral monsters. Axiological atheism can also be seen as a form of antitheist and anti-religionist viewing the negative axiological difference that goddess/gods or religion’s existence makes in a world. Because “fact” symbolizes objectivity and “value” suggests subjectivity, the relationship of value to fact is of fundamental importance in developing any theory of the objectivity of axiological value and of value judgments understands “Axiological atheism” as axiological protest to existence of gods or supreme beings.

Axiological atheism is anti-theist challenging the slandered thinking that god gives or has morality or is a moral being, exposing instead that such a belief is wrongly based on a premise (a hypothesis) that does not stand up to testing. Axiological atheism is anti-religionist challenging the slandered thinking that religion gives or has morality, exposing instead that such a belief is wrongly based on a premise (a hypothesis) that does not stand up to testing.

Axiological atheism is a branch of atheism that is also called constructive atheism: looks to science, humanity, and nature as the only viable source of ethics, morals, and values. These axiological atheists say that humans know what is morally right or wrong, inherently due to evolution which can also be seen in lesser forms of animal life with cognitive abilities demonstrating the rational rejection that its existence is only attributed to the myths of gods or supreme beings creation. Axiological atheism value view goes beyond Nietzsche’s comment that “god is dead” with the ethical opinion that god deserved to die.

Therefore, axiological atheism’s stance on a being in most faiths and the actions claimed of the imaginary being can be attributed to such atrocities, unfairness, injustices, and selfish/self-serving distortion of values. If there were such beings as gods, they are deserving of a life sentence in prison, the death penalty, or at least to be rebuked and shunned as an anti-humanist.

Axiological atheism holds judgmental axiological attitudes towards the existence of gods if there was even such myths, that is to say between an interest in grounds for positioning the existence of god or a god concept as harmful and desires to expose the negative orientations or evaluative reason for believing in god and religion and why they should have no value but do deserve distain. For some unbelievers, an axiological atheism stance would be a drastic position because it sees little necessity of disproving a god’s existence. However, sees no value in a god at all, even if one was true, and devalues the concept so fully that the preference would be that it be non-existent. If one was found to be real, and would wish to do away with the very flawed god concept all together to remove its harm to humanity.

Axiological atheism makes sense mainly on the assumption that believers have a distorted or inadequate concept of god and the violations to a just caring ethical humanity such a concept would be. Axiological atheist inquiry focuses on what a person values, finds desirable, or concern themselves with how a god is wrongly perceived or conceived as positive. Axiology to the philosophy of disbelief asks whether the existence of god (conceived in a particular way) would be a good or a bad thing, welcome or unwelcome. The axiological attitudes toward a god’s existence such as axiological atheism that thinks a god’s existence to be a very bad thing and axiological agnosticism is the indifference toward a god’s existence

I see a quote from C.S. Lewis circulated quite a bit, and I’d like to give my response to the argument it presents.

I see a quote from C.S. Lewis circulated quite a bit, and I’d like to give my response to the argument it presents. Perhaps when I am done explaining what’s wrong with it, you will start to see why Lewis admitted later in life that:

Nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate.

Full article bellow. 



So Say the Gods.

SNAG-0000 26-03-2016 19.22.10 James1

So Say the Gods
22 MARCH 2016

ISIS has taken credit for the recent atrocity in Belgium. They’re begging for war and the USA (with perhaps a handful of others) is very probably going to give it to them.
Personally, I’m more concerned with the deeper problem of why ISIS wants this conflict than I am with the dubious merits of the war itself. On the surface they clearly hope to consolidate their power within an Arab Muslim world that’s united behind an all-out holy war with the West. But that power is not desired as an end to itself. It’s power for a purpose.
They wish to establish a world-wide Islamic Caliphate. They have already said as much.
And here is, I think, the key to understanding all of this. They see creating this scripturally directed organization as part of bringing about the End Times, and then eventually harmony and paradise for all mankind.
In other words, they’re ultimately good-intentioned. Imagine that.
This cuts to the very heart of what’s wrong here. Call it the problem behind the problem. The literalist bibliolaters of the world have perverted the very concept of goodness, rendering it only in terms of duty to the God of scripture. Why should this latest bombing in Brussels surprise any person with fundamentalist Jewish or Christian beliefs? After all, they too measure good ultimately by its accordance with a book in which a monster God murders the entire population of the earth (but for an incestuous handful), drowning pregnant mothers and little children and babes in arms.
Religiously motivated attacks and provocations, like mass beheadings and immolations, are in effect just copycat murders. God kills those who do not worship and obey Him. The Book tells us so.
Why shouldn’t we do the same?
The Torah, the Bible, the Qur’an contain marvelously descriptive mythology, rich in deep human truths. But they are not and never were the final arbiter of our moral truths. Until we recognize and respect that fact, we will continue to see this deplorable religious violence. Because the text-based religions in particular have within them no mechanism for the resolution of extra-textual disagreements.
If you and I disagree over the weight of a gold coin I’m offering in payment for a cow, we have a simple solution to our conflict. We weigh the coin. We submit to the genuine authority of empirical evidence. There is no comparable solution available when opposing scriptures come into conflict. There is only one way completely to settle matters.
Yes, parties can agree to disagree, and they do. For a while. But the irritating conflict remains there between them. Unresolved, it continues to rub until it blisters. And then sooner or later that blister bursts into bloodshed. For this reason violence is inherent to all faith-based systems grounded in holy books. When you divorce truth from evidence and claim your own particular text as the ultimate epistemic authority, you’ve left no other path open to settle matters with unbelievers.
So they must be cast out or killed, these unbelievers, lest their doubt lead to social turmoil and poison the well of faith. And all of us, every single one of us, is from some religious perspective an unbeliever. Thus we all deserve to die.
So say the books. So say the gods.
And all who listen to them.

The untruths and truths of religions evils.

Please join us in the resistance against religious influence on schools and government.
* Stop higher taxes because churches don’t pay them.
* Stop theists interfering with progress and violating people’s freedom and basic human rights.
* Stop creationism taught as a science.
* Place god with other imaginary creatures such as the Tooth Fairy, unicorns and Santa Claus.
Religious (mythology) belief is an insult to human intelligence and poisonous to mankind.
With all the evidence out there that confirms their imaginary god is a product of man’s imagination, they still choose to believe in it without a shred of evidence, suspending rational judgment.
There is zero evidence that jesus existed. His story is plagiarized from many others like him, fictional deities, who share many similar and even identical parallels. He is nothing more than just jewish mythology masquerading as reality. That fact that many believe it is true does not make it so.
Remember when studying history in school and we learned that once upon a time the entire world believed the world was flat and those who said it was round were ridiculed? It’s the same thing. Just because many believe deities are not imaginary does not make them any more real than Superman, Darth Vader or Yoda.
Christians only believe in god because they have been lied to.
Archaeological research indicates that there are NO writings outside of scripture (which are all mythological accounts), that document anything about jesus.
There were several writers during the first century who reported the current events of the time (political, social, natural disasters and artistic) and not one mentions anything about him. Additionally, if he was so famous, raising the dead, curing cripples, walking on water, turning water into wine and raising a ministry of hundreds of thousands and angered jews and Romans alike, there would be much reason to report something about him….. but there is silence.
There are not even any Roman court documents that mention him in spite of the fact that scripture suggests he was tried by Pilate himself. Keeping in mind, the Romans were meticulous at keeping records of everything they did to demonstrate to their superiors their hold on the people they conquered. Everything was accounted for. Yet still….. No evidence of any jesus.
One must also keep in mind that there are no birth records, death records, tax records (as the Romans taxed everyone in the region), rabbi records and there is not even any record or mention of a last name. There are simply no documentations or any real life accounts about him during his alleged existence.
He is basically another man-invented deity attached to allegorical stories like the rest of them: Thorr, Horus, Osiris, Zeus, Odin, Metzli, Xenu, etc…..
I constantly hear evangelists and apologists cite Josephus but it is irrelevant. Josephus was not a contemporary and NEVER wrote anything about him.
For a start, Josephus was born in the year 37 CE (Common Era) and the alleged crucifixion took place somewhere between 29 CE and 34 CE. In other words, he was not around to document or witness.
There is a paragraph where he is mentioned in a much later version of the Josephus writings copied by christian scribes under the influence of Eusebius (235-339 CE), who arbitrarily edited the text and added a small paragraph about christ in the middle of two paragraphs where it clearly does not reflect relevance. It is evident by the paragraphs that follow which show zero relevance.
Additionally, if christ was so famous and so important to the jews and early christians of the time period, why only such a short paragraph? And why only ONE, for that matter?
This has been determined by ALL scholars to be a forgery, especially since the passage does not appear anywhere in the earlier versions of the writings by Josephus, therefore, no writings of jesus exist outside of scripture. Therefore, it is all mythological.
The so called “eye witnesses” that christians claim as evidence were born long after 34 CE (common era), the estimated date of the alleged crucifixion. So how could they have been witnesses to the resurrection if they were not even yet born to witness it? Christians are notorious for misrepresenting the facts.
Here are the facts regarding the “eye-witnesses” that christians lie about: Flavius Josephus 37-100, Clement of Rome 38-102, Ignatius 35-107, Pliny 62-113, Suetonius 75-160, Tacitus 55-117, Polycarp 69-155, Justin Martyr 114-167, Lucian 125-180, Clement of Alexandria 150-211, Tertullian 155-230, Origen 185-254, Cyprian of Carthage 208-258, Eusebius 235-339.
These findings have been confirmed and verified, yet, they reject it.
The only sources we know of that document anything in detail about a jesus are the gospels and they are open to a multitude of interpretations, lack coherence, are overwhelmed with contradictions and read more like fantasy than reality.
Additionally, no one can confirm who wrote the gospels and carbon dating tests conclude that the earliest copy we have was written in the 7th decade of the first century which makes them inconclusive as a source since that is 4 to 5 decades after the alleged crucifixion. There is also evidence that they have been altered and mistranslated.
Of very important notice is that whoever wrote them used and borrowed from other gospels and some paragraphs are even copied word for word.
Not to mention, they do not qualify as evidence.
Sources: Oxford University Press, Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price and David Fitzgerald.
Muslims believe that the Qur’an contains a message from an all-powerful, all-knowing, infallible god. If this is true then it should not contain any errors or information that contradicts known facts about the universe. If even one error exists in the text of their holy book, then the claims of divine authorship and infallibility are not true. An objective evaluation of the Qur’an shows that it contains numerous scientific and historical errors and reflects a pre-scientific, 7th century view of the natural world.
Some apologists will contest those scientific errors in the Qur’an by appealing to metaphor, alternative meanings, or supernatural interpretations of the text. Even if we accept that alternative explanations were possible in every case, the wording and content of the verses often mimic the popular mythology and unscientific misconceptions of the time in which they were written. The author makes no clear or unambiguous statements that differentiate his understanding of the natural world from the common folklore of the people living in that era.
If the Qur’an was delivered by an all-powerful, all-knowing god, then he would have been able to foresee how such misleading statements would be understood by future generations and the doubts and confusions they have caused. This alone should be reason to reject any claims to divine authorship.
As for judeism, how interesting that jews named themselves “god’s chosen people” in a book that they wrote. It is amusing that a book of stories has been accepted as reality, masquerading as divine law. When examining the sources, it is very easy to conclude that they are inconsistent, inconclusive and in no way have any foundation in reality.
There is no evidence outside of scripture that Moses existed. No Egyptian records ever mention him nor a mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of jews and there is no archaeological evidence to corroborate that they were slaves and wandered through the desert for 40 years. That legend is a lie.
Jews have tried using the defense that the Egyptians never documented their losses or defeats but that is not true since their defeat and conquest by the Romans has been well documented as well as the burning of Alexandria and many other defeats.
Israelis now invade Palestinian territories claiming divine right and when Palestinians retaliate, they pull the “terrorists” card.
We urge everyone to speak to your local politicians about how we can stop our hard earned American dollars that the US sends each year to aid Israel. This is an outrage! Our tax dollars should be re-invested in America.
We find it preposterous that many believe and support Israel because of the biblical writing (which they authored) that says the land was promised to them by a god when that is entirely the work of the imagination. It is a ridiculous book written by many authors who had very little or no knowledge of the world and the universe and reflects a primitive social culture from the first century overwhelmed with contradictions and many errors and misrepresentations of the facts.
Many claim the bible is true and real but after objective reviews and examinations, using it to prove god or its very own authenticity is very much like using Star Wars to prove Yoda.
However, when demonstrating the evidence to believers, there is a social phenomenon of denial: they don’t want to know it, they reject science as just an “opinion” because they are closed to the reality that there is no god. In some cases it even feels like administering medication to a corpse.
It is so pathetic when christians come out with the weakest arguments to demonstrate as “evidence” for their imaginary god and they have no clue how stupid they sound.
One of their strongest claims is usually something like: “My friend was in a car accident and almost died and I prayed to jesus to save them and they lived”….
How is that evidence?
What about the babies who are born weak and premature and die in spite of desperate parents praying to their jesus to save them? What about those who pray and pray and do not get what they pray for?
They are simply forgetting basic math… The reality is that praying for something is the same as wishing for something and the reality with that is that the odds for anything are 50/50.
That is NOT evidence that their imaginary god is not imaginary.
Then we encounter the born again fanatics. Born again fanatics claim that their evidence for god is their own experience of “defeating the drug and alcohol demons”….. But that is substituting one brain stimulant for another. Drugs and alcohol are gateway drugs to christianity and the brainwashed completely ignore the evidence that christ never even existed.
A friend of ours stated it best with this:
“Trading one psychological dependency for a different one, all based on a misunderstanding of rather well understood neurological phenomena has always struck me as a person showing off a lifestyle of willful ignorance as if it were a badge of honor.”
However, as we talk about reality here, the fact remains, as indicated above, that there is evidence that jesus never even existed and archaeological evidence indicates that it was man, in all cultures, that invented god/s to interpret what he could not understand before we had science for valid, satisfactory answers.
We have had preachers aggressively approach us about becoming a christian and their tact is always terror. All he kept talking about was eternity in hell, sucking satan’s dick.
It is quite easy to see how weaker minded people will yield and accept the lies but it is all done using terror tactics. If their imaginary god is so loving, why do they need to resort to terror tactics to recruit followers into believing their lies? Their beliefs have no foundation in reality. When you do the research, the whole devil thing was invented to control people with fear. It has never been about truth because they do not have any.
Don’t forget how believers, through the ages, have always resorted to gargantuan violence to convert those who opposed them. If they had REAL evidence that their god is not imaginary, they wouldn’t need to resort to terror tactics or violence and they wouldn’t need faith.
Believers often criticize atheists about why we care to argue that there is no god and it seems they miss the point.
As atheists, it is a fight worth fighting if you value your freedom. It is always the theists, believers, who attempt to sneak their beliefs into our laws, government, schools and our currency. They think they have the right to dictate how everyone must live, even when it comes to the bedroom, which in essence, violates our human rights. Not to mention, if all churches paid taxes, the rest of us would be better off.
So the fight is on!
There must be separation of church and state.
There should not be any mention or endorsements of any mythological deities and/or organizations on any government buildings, public schools, public places, our pledge of allegiance and our currency anywhere.
Would christians like it if our tax dollars were used to fund schools that teach islamic beliefs?
Would christians like it if our court houses and police cars were tagged with the words “allah be praised”?
Would christians like it if their kids were forced to recite islamic prayers before a football game?
Would christians like it if politicians spoke of government adhering to islamic beliefs?
That would be quite a trespass upon you and a violation of your rights wouldn’t it?
Atheists and others with different beliefs live with this violation daily with christian influence in government.
Federal endorsement of a particular mythological belief or deity is a violation of the US constitution.
Theists have the most distorted view about atheism:
1. That we hate god (how does one hate something that does not exist?)
2. That we worship the devil, that we are satanists (we don’t believe in the devil either)
3. That we are bad people & have no morals (we don’t need a god to know right from wrong. Meanwhile 90% of the prison population is Christian).
4. That something horrible happened to us in order to abandon god. (ridiculous and arrogant presumption since our conclusions are rational).
5. That there is no love in us. (you are totally clueless)
6. That we are evil people. (not believing in your particular god does not make us bad people)
7. That we are angry people. (you mistake our efforts to have a rational world, where theists don’t interfere and violate the freedom of people, for anger)
8. That Atheism is a religion. (VERY stupid thing to say. It’s like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby)
9. That atheism is just an “opinion” when it is actually a conclusion based on scientific findings.
10. That we live without purpose. We are here to live, laugh and love.
Atheism inspires us to make the best out of life since it is not like the life of a theist, which they treat as a dress rehearsal for an afterlife which is not going to be there when they die.
When we die, time & consciousness ceases for us. It will be as the void before our birth. There will be nothing and we will not even be aware of it, as if we never even lived at all. Too bad we will not be able to point out to anyone in death: “you see, no god, no heaven & no afterlife” when they don’t get to the “heaven” they were promised all these years.
Evidence indicates that our personality & consciousness comes from the brain, therefore, when it is dead, it is likely that we cease. If you damage a part of the brain, a person’s personality changes, memories can be lost, abilities can be lost. Why would anyone think that when the brain decomposes the person remains intact?
God is fiction, a myth over-idolized with super-powers & overwhelmed with contradictions. Those who currently believe in a god/s do so because they have been lied to and have not had the initiative to question it. The fact remains that no believer can provide us with REAL evidence that their god is not imaginary.
The worst part is that theists are not at all interested in viewing the evidence that debunks their beliefs.
The problem with believers is that they cannot accept our atheism (they often feel threatened and they resort to insults and name-calling) because they feel they have “proof” to back up their claims in spite of evidence that debunks it all. The church controls gullible followers (who never question anything) with horror tactics, such as the threat of eternal burning hell.
When there is zero evidence to prove their imaginary god is real, that, within itself, is evidence he does not exist. What they consider evidence is NOT evidence at all.
Turning water into wine, a woman getting pregnant without a man’s sperm, walking on water, a talking snake, raising the dead, the building of an ark to shelter and feed two of each species for more than a year, a woman transforming into a pillar of salt, a man swallowed alive by a whale for several days, the world being only six thousand years old, and resurrection…… These outrageous, untrue and impossible claims are nothing more than story-telling myths and should be the very first clue that the bible is not a newspaper from the past and in no way evidence of a god.
This lacks coherence and doesn’t even touch the contradictions it is overwhelmed with!!!
In closing, our fight is to make sure theists stay out of government and pay taxes. They have gotten away with unfair tax exemptions for far too long. When you do the math, if they paid taxes, there would be enough money to go around for everyone to receive very much needed free health care and services for the less fortunate. I don’t care what they believe as long as they keep it out of government, laws, schools, our lives and do it on their dime….. not ours!
Please join our fight for freedom from mythological insanity! contact : www.atheists.org

~~ Damien Lee Thorr