I'm not the Antichrist, I'm just anti-Christ

If this is what you expect from atheists, prepare to be proven wrong.

1. Who is this guy?
   • Call me Kobra.
   • I don't believe in god.
   • Outspoken, but not obnoxious.
2. What does he believe?
   • Religion is bullshit.
   • Supernatural evidence does not exist.
   • Science is imperfect, but reliable.
3. Why does he wear the title, "Atheist?"
   • The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
   • What Atheism does and does not mean.
4. Where does he stand on the political spectrum?
   • Nonpartisanship.
   • Opinions on Controversial issues.
     • LGBT rights.
     • Abortion.
     • Separation of Church and State.
     • Education.
     • Parenting.
     • The American economy.
     • Death penalty.
5. What does he believe, philosophically?
   • Morality exists outside of religion.
   • Honesty is the only acceptable policy.
   • Nothing is certain; rules can be ignored.
   • Morality as a mathematical theorem.
6. If he's such a genius, why doesn't he try studying rocket science?
7. Further Reading
   • References
   • Internal Links
   • External Links
   • Book Recommendations

• Call me Kobra. [top]

  If you've never heard of me before, I'll be brief: I go by the alias "Kobra" on the internet, and many of my views are too unique to be effectively labeled or categorized. For the past three years, I have been posting my thoughts, ideas, and opinions on my personal website, Kobra's Corner. I've noticed that while a lot of people disagree with me, most can follow my train of thought and understand how I reached the conclusion (what ever it may be). Then, you have the complete morons.

• I don't believe in god. [top]

  If the title of this essay didn't deter you from reading on, and the image didn't cause you to brandish your torch and pitchfork, I shouldn't have to say this: The fact that I don't believe in god (or in gods) does not make me evil. "Atheism is immoral," is an unrealistic myth spread on religious pamphlets. I will cover this topic in depth in later sections if you don't believe me.

• Outspoken, but not obnoxious. [top]

  Before you read on, let me forewarn you: I refuse to bullshit you. I use profanity where I deem appropriate. I don't care about anyone else's opinion, unless they're trying to point out errors in the facts or logic I provide (which isn't really opining). I will refrain from using an obnoxious tone, but I will not bite my tongue on any issue. If you can't handle blunt honesty, or you're a little Nancy boy who doesn't have a tolerance for profanity, I would recommend that you don't read this without a testosterone injection.

• Religion is bullshit. [top]

  A religion is a collection of beliefs, practices, rituals, and traditions that makes supernatural claims and attempts to instill a sense of lawful morality on its followers. Fundamentalism is best described as the unquestioning belief in a religious idea, no matter how ridiculous.

  There is a difference between a "religion" and a "belief system." I can't honestly say that every single belief system is bullshit, but I can for every single religion. What's the difference? The supernatural claims.

• Supernatural evidence does not exist. [top]

  Anyone who claims to have supernatural evidence is lying. Evidence, by definition, is anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.^{[1] [2]} If it's supernatural, it cannot be reproducible in a laboratory setting (which disqualifies the evidence part). If it can be reproducible in a laboratory setting, it must be within the confines of natural laws (which disqualifies the supernatural part).

  "Supernatural evidence" is a fallacy. Its very definition eradicates any possibility of its existence. And you can't prove the supernatural based on natural evidence because natural evidence only indicates natural causes. What legs do religions have left to stand on? Speculation and assumption.

  An example of attempting to use speculation as evidence is, "We don't know what causes this to be the way it is, so is it not possible that god did it?" An example of attempting to use assumption as evidence is very simply, "We don't know, so god had to do it."

  Does that sound like a dependable basis for making a decision? Could you imagine an attorney using this logic in a court room?

  Attorney: "Is it not possible, Mr. Anderson, that you harbored a grudge against the victim since you last saw him twenty years ago in grade school?"
  Mr. Anderson: "From a purely logical standpoint, it's not impossible, but-"
  Attorney: "Then we have our motive. The defendant is obviously guilty. I rest my case!"

  How atrocious would that be if guilt was determined on arguments so illogical and fallacious that it sounds silly to even hear them?

  The logic behind determining the guilt of a defendant in a murder trial is not so different from the scientific method, and neither are far removed from basic critical thinking skills.

• Science is imperfect, but reliable. [top]

  Without fail, at some point during a heated conversation between a believer and an atheist, the words, "Well science doesn't have all the answers either!" will be exclaimed form the former. Let's look at this rationally:

  Science's greatest feature, in my opinion, is that it adapts to new information. For example, if we were to spontaneously discover and conclusively prove that so-called "dark matter" was simply normal matter that distorts space-time away instead of distorting it inward, causing light to move around the particle, not a single scientist would object to incorporating this information into accepted scientific theory.

  If science was as dogmatic as religion, you would have the Higgs Bosonians and the Gravitonians arguing over whose model of the universe was correct. The new data would be rejected, criticized, censored, and completely ignored.

  No scientist with more than enough brain cells to maintain a regular heartbeat will ever claim that science has "all the answers." However, science does have "all the important questions based on our current knowledge." What does religion have? Ancient scripture based on outdated "morality" that has been warped, rewritten, and misinterpreted thousands of times?

• The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism. [top]

  Prof. Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion:

  I'll begin by distinguishing between two kinds of agnosticism: TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it... but there is also a deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting, which I shall call PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle).^[3]

  What Prof. Dawkins referred to as Temporary Agnosticism in Practice is the stance of a person who has looked at all of the evidence and decided that we can't disprove a negative, but has not considered the sheer improbability of the existence of a creator. I have considered the improbability, so I'm not a TAP.

  Additionally, when you describe yourself as an agnostic, the odds are in favor of the person you're talking to assuming you are the second kind of agnostic: Permanent Agnostic in Principle. PAPs believe that we will never know if there is a god or not. Not only do PAPs not consider probability, but they don't even have the balls to say, "We don't know, but we MIGHT some day." To a PAP, the existence of a creator is forever unknowable and indeterminate, so I'm not a PAP.

  Because of the oversight of TAPs and the presumptuousness of theists to associate all agnosticism with PAP, I describe myself as an atheist... mostly for the sake of being brief. The longer version would be, "Temporary Agnostic in Practice/Probabilistic Atheist," but that's unnecessary.

  Agnosticism is no good as it comes with too much excess baggage. So why would I label myself as one? Let's take a look at atheism.

• What Atheism does and does not mean. [top]

  Like with agnosticism, there are two possible meanings one can infer from the word atheist. The first definition comes straight from popular belief: "One who believes 100% that there is no God and claims she can prove it." The second definition comes from my experience with atheist forums: "One who believes there is almost certainly no god." Sounds a little like my TAP/PA from earlier, doesn't it?

  Atheism is nothing more or less than the latter definition mentioned above. There exists a minority of atheists who claim that there is zero percent chance of a creator. However, I'm a generous guy, so I'll say there is an infinitely small chance of there being a creator. (Sounds nicer doesn't it? One over infinity doesn't equal zero. However, it is practical to consider an infinitely small number as zero (or the limit of one divided by infinity is approaching zero, if you're feeling pedantic) when used in mathematical formulas. I learned this in Pre-Calculus class during my Junior year of High School. If this concept is hard to grasp, just say zero because, in practice, they're essentially the same thing.)

  Most atheists (excluding the select few who claim "zero probability" for reasons other than the sake of practicality) could be described as TAP/PA. They don't disbelieve in god because they can prove that there is no god, but rather because the probability is so incredibly low. Allow me to demonstrate:

  • All of the evidence (Cosmic Background Radiation, observed trajectories of galaxies and stars, etc.) we have gathered indicates that our universe was extremely hot, dense, and tiny about 13,700,000,000 years ago.
  • All of the evidence (fossils, genetic studies, etc.) we have gathered indicate that species change over time.
  • There is strong evidence in favor of Abiogenesis^[4]-- the theory that life came into existence by natural inorganic chemistry.

  Based on the evidence mentioned above, I could describe the creation of the universe as purely a natural phenomenon. There is no evidence in favor of a creator, nor is there any logical requirement for one.^[5]

  The probability of the existence of a creator is one of the topics discussed in Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. (He has a whole chapter titled, "Why there is almost certainly no god." Check it out. You might learn something.)

• Nonpartisanship [top]

  I live in the United States of America-- a country with a political system that was not designed with the intention of having "political parties."^[6] As a result, I don't stick to the policies or ideas of any particular political party; I pick and choose what makes sense from a logical standpoint.

• Opinions on controversial issues. [top]

  LGBT Rights. [top]

  I wish I could call this a non-issue, but some people refuse to let it go. They make all kinds of fallacious arguments that, in their own minds, justify treating another person like a second class citizen because of who they go to bed with.

  It's absurd to think that there are people who actually think, "I am not gay, so therefore gays should not have the same rights as people who aren't gay." Replace "gay" with "black" and you have a textbook example of racism. Unsurprisingly, a majority of the American people who oppose gay marriage are religious fundamentalists.

  I could go on, but all that needs to be said is this: If you do not support gay marriage, then don't have a gay marriage. It's not your place to tell other American citizens-- consenting adults-- that their love is not equal to your love just because you (and your ancient religious textbook) disagree with it. This is the land of the free, not the land of the oppressive.

  Abortion. [top]

  I don't think I could have said it any better than George Carlin did:

  "Now, speaking of consistency, Catholics, which I was until I reached the age of reason, Catholics and other Christians are against abortions, and they're against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?! Leave these fucking people alone, for Christ sakes! Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion! And the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside! You'd think they'd make natural allies. Go look for consistency in religion. And speaking of my friends the Catholics, when John Cardinal O'Connor of New York and some of these other Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they've raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I'll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion." - George Carlin

  The only reasonable argument that can be mounted against abortion comes in two forms:

  • When is it okay to terminate the pregnancy?
  • Abortion as a means of birth control.

  The first point has an obvious answer, and the second point assumes there will be a snowball effect (a claim to which I've yet to see any supporting evidence). When do you terminate the pregnancy? Before the fetus develops a nervous system. Unless you can prove that there is an immaterial "soul" that somehow affects matter, your fears of causing the child to suffer is entirely irrational. No nervous system? No pain.

  Separation of Church and State. [top]

  I've made some statements regarding Separation of Church and State that were misinterpreted by theists.^[i] I fully support exercising the Separation of Church and State clause where ever applicable, but I think it is important to preserve historical artifacts. What does this mean? Does it means keep the "10 Commandments" monuments in courthouses? No. Does it mean tear them down and destroy them? Of course not. The easiest solution is to move the monuments into museums so that structures of historical value aren't lost, and declare it unconstitutional for future monuments to be built in courthouses, jails, etc.

  What about the issues? The "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance issue is easy: If you're forced to recite it, protest! If you're not, you can tune the bullshit out. You don't have the right to be not offended, but you do have the right to remain silent. I've said it before: "Unless your rights are being stepped on, shut the fuck up!"

  Education. [top]

  Having recently graduated high school, my view of the public school system is cynical at best. I'm convinced that schools don't actually teach us anything other than obedience.

  Think about it: We go to school and sit there from six to seven hours per day. That's a lot of time. With six to seven hours a day, I could probably learn the material for an entire college freshman computer course in under a week.

  The problem arises with the fact that we sit there for several hours, so our educators spend less time teaching and more time babysitting. I didn't learn a fucking thing after my first two weeks of American Government class, but the assignments kept on coming. That's another problem: Homework.

  I've said it before: homework is pointless. If a child is spending several hours per day at school "learning," why in the hell do the teachers need to assign homework? Why even force the kid to do so many assignments in the first place? If they know the material, drill them to make sure they know it, and move on.

  Homework exists for the same reason standardized testing exists: To take up time and put more grades in the grade-book so numbskulls have more of a chance to pass the class. Sounds like a good idea, right?

  What happens when you have a brilliant student who understands the material and spends his/her off-time LEARNING instead of wasting time on fulfilling a frivolous requirement placed onto the teachers by the local School Board? They fail, that's what happens.

  How do we fix this? The solution I offered is to allow students to opt-in to a second-tier grading program that works differently than the traditional semester grading program: Instead of 40% of the grade coming from the first quarter of the semester, 40% of the grade coming from the second quarter of the semester, and 20% coming from the final exam-- make the ratio 25% to 25% to 50%. Kids who opt into this program would be allowed breathing room to study and learn the material without having to stress over bullshit assignments. It's not the ONLY viable solution, and it's not perfect, but I don't hear the politicians coming up with anything; do you?

  Parenting.[top]

  I don't have a lot of experience with the subject of parenting, seeing as I'm only 18 years old (at the time of this writing. July 2008). However, I learned a lot from my parents and from observing the behavior of other parents and the impact their actions had on their kids. This is what I noticed:

  Stupid people are typically bred by bad parenting. Children are naturally curious, and when parents tell their kids, "This is the way it is because I said so," it causes irreparable damage to the child's mental development. You should never be afraid to tell your child not to do something, but you should always be able to answer the "why" and "how" questions.

  "Why" and "how" are powerful questions, and every question that goes unasked is knowledge that the inquirer will not obtain. Over time, this leads to willful ignorance, stupidity, and the inability to think critically and analyze a situation from all sides.

  I also believe that it's not the society's job to raise your kids. They're YOUR kids, not ours. You breed 'em, you feed 'em. They were brought into this world because of YOU [and whoever you had sex with]. You could have either used a condom, taken a birth control pill, or had an abortion.

  The American economy. [top]

  Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, anyone with a brain larger than my fist would agree that Trickle Down Theory (the theory that states, "if the top income earners invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals."^[7]) doesn't work in practice. Why? Because rich people aren't famous for spending and investing their money. You don't get rich by writing checks (unless you're moving money into a high-interest savings account). Some rich people might "hoard" their money (the more that do, the less trickles down).

  Another problem for the American economy is the influx of illegal immigrants who send their money to relatives in their home country. A lot of these Illegals don't even try to apply for U.S. Citizenship, either. That's a problem (but far from the most pressing one). We need to build a thick concrete wall on the border between the United States and Mexico. At the same time, we need to reform our immigration policies to prevent hard-working people who want to migrate legally from getting the thumbs down. It would also help if we stopped arresting and deporting Illegals who are already in this country on their way to apply for citizenship.

  There are also more obvious solutions, such as "Get the hell out of Iraq!" The majority of "terrorists" in Iraq are the result of US occupation. To hell with the surge; let's try the vacuum.

  Death penalty. [top]

  I find it strange that we sentence people to death all the time, but we rarely use the death penalty. If you're going to have it, use it. If you're not going to use it, then don't have it. This fence-sitting bullshit has to stop.

  As for me, I'm all for the death penalty. If someone commits a crime grave enough for a judge, jury, and appellate court to decide they need to die, and all of the forensic evidence indicates their guilt, then we need to kill them. It doesn't get more transparent than that.

• Morality exists outside of religion. [top]

  I'll be brief on this, as all that needs to be said has been said on numerous occasions by more prestigious atheists. While I don't label myself by it, I like the philosophies of secular humanism.^[8]

  I hold the philosophy that this life is the only life we have, and we should live it to the fullest while helping others live it to the fullest. Morality need not be derived from "the great spy-camera in the sky."^[9]

  It bothers me when people assume that atheists like myself are immoral, unhappy people. That couldn't be further from the truth. An illogical, anthropomorphic, all-knowing, overly-complex creator makes some people appreciate life, which is fine until they assume that non-believers are incapable of doing the same. Just because life isn't sacred, doesn't mean it's not beautiful. I, as an atheist, appreciate my life by the sheer improbability of being here right now (and I'm not about to throw it away so I can kill a few members of another religion in the process like some Muslims do). My life is part of a billion-year, unbroken chain of evolving life-- organisms that lived long enough to produce offspring. That really puts things into perspective.

• Honesty is the only acceptable policy. [top]

  You know how sometimes you'll lie to a distressed friend or family member to comfort them? Yeah, fuck that! Not only is blunt honesty an acceptable policy, but it's the only one that liberates you from the hours of tedious societal bullshit every day.

  You think the dress your wife is trying on makes her look fat? Say so. You don't give a fuck either way? Say so. Eventually, people will realize you won't play into the proverbial game of tag I call "Bullshitting each other."

• Nothing is certain; rules can be ignored. [top]

  Strictly enforcing a rule is pointless. There are times when a rule must be broken for the sake of morality and circumstance. If you have to kill a person to save the lives of your children, should you be arrested? You just killed him. Doesn't that just reek of injustice?

  No matter what the rule is, someone creative smart-ass will inevitably think of a situation where it does not fairly apply. In those situations, we must use our human judgment. (Hey, it's kept our species alive for how long?)

• Morality as a mathematical theorem. [top]

  While there is no math involved, this concept takes the form of a mathematical theorem. It comes in two parts: Morality and Immorality.

  Morality

  IFF...
    an act positively affects society and does not infringe upon the rights of any individual,
  THEN...
    it is moral.

  Still with me? All this is saying is that in order to be truly moral, it has to be good for everyone and anyone.

  Immorality

  IFF...
    an act negatively affects society and infringes upon the rights of any individual,
  THEN...
    it is immoral.

  So far we've established that good, moral acts are good for everyone and anyone and bad, immoral acts are bad for everyone and anyone.

  If it's not moral or immoral, it's amoral. Amoral covers a lot of ground, so to speak. Following the logic provided in this theorem (of which nobody has provided me with a legitimate counter-example yet), most forms of practiced religion fall under amoral.^[i] Society is also largely amoral. Atheism cannot be judged on the morality-immorality scale because one person's atheism has no noticeable impact on society or anyone else's freedoms. (Though, if you tested it on a large scale, it would probably lean more towards the moral side.)

I close with a nasty argument I've heard from the religious every time I've spelled out my beliefs: It always begins with "If you're so smart," and goes downhill towards fallacy at a great velocity from there.

I suppose the premise behind this oft-heard phrase is the logic that, "If Kobra has no credible qualifications, then I can discount everything he says." It's perfectly fine if you want to discredit everything I say because I don't presently have a fancy piece of paper that says I'm certified to talk about "big issues," but time is against you.

As of this writing, I have only completed my High School career (2.94 weighted GPA; damned homework!). I plan on attending Edison University for at least two years, and then transferring to a college that has a Computer Engineering program. I don't expect to see my name in scientific journals any time soon, but I have a few good ideas I'd like to test. And when it boils down to it, that's all that really matters: Having ideas, goals, dreams, reliable friendships, and a strong sense of the world around you.

• References [top]

  [1] Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  [2] Understanding Scientific Evidence
  [3] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
  [4] Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  [5] Big Bounce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  [6] Founding Fathers: Political party affiliations
  [7] Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  [8] Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
  [9] Christianity and the Rebirth of Civilization
  

• Internal Links [top]

  A Proposal to End All Religious Arguments
  Religion is Amoral
  

• External Links [top]
  • Richard Dawkins' Web Site - A professor at Oxford University that specializes in evolutionary biology and considers religion a delusion.
  • CT Valley Atheists - A forum I frequent.
  • God is Man Made - A portal into the world of atheism.
• Book Recommendations [top]
  • Anything by Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan. Seriously.
  • His Dark Materials (Golden Compass, etc.) by Phillip Pullman. This book is a masterpiece of atheist fantasy.
  • Three Times Carlin: An Orgy of George by George Carlin, if you like comedy.