Below is a series of blasphemous entries that each have one basic focal point that argues the purpose of religion and the existence of God and all that other hogwash that I will be trying to disprove on this page:
If you're going to spend your entire life thanking God for your very existence, why live at all? Billions of people live to please God and live their lives for no one else but him, but none of these people stop to consider living their own lives. What's so wrong about being an individual? Live your life for yourself, because life is the only thing you're ever going to do. Why waste that on someone whose tangible existence can be questioned?
Everywhere I go, I see things that tell me to worship God. "Praise the Lord," they say. Those who do 'praise the lord' are not seeing the bigger picture. Take the word "worship." Worshipping something requires total devotion, total loyalty and a positively sick amount of personal servitude towards the worshipee. It's very similar to European monarchies and even the most malevolent of dictatorships that are maintained by force. These kinds of people are worshipped because those who worshipped them feared for their lives if they didn't. The only difference between that and religion is that people are all worried about their afterlife and how it will turn out. If there was no other motive, religion wouldn't exist. Royalty and nobility often hire servants who also, to a certain degree, worship the master of the house. I can't believe that people will voluntarily be servants to God and sacrifice their entire lives to the organized church.
Naturally, not all of those who believe in God are hopeless devotees to their religion. Not everyone is a righteous Christian who goes to church every Sunday. However, every time that someone kneels down by their bed at night to pray, they should stop to think that what they're doing is simply another sign of individual weakness and not necessary at all. Every religious action is another step towards being victimized by the church.
Most people agree that as a collective civilization, human beings have gotten at least a little bit smarter over the course of history. When religion was first created, I speculate that atheism did not exist--antitheism, maybe, but not atheism. It seems logical that when people began asking questions regarding things like the origin of the species, others came up with some opinionative answers. Now, at the time, the amount of provable science was greatly outweighed by theoretical philosophy and since science had no way of explaining the origin of the species, it was up to the philosophers to come up with a solution. That was the birth of religion. I can't prove that of course; I wasn't around when it happened, but this is my speculation and whether you agree or not, the rest of this article is based on that being factual.
Alright, so the philosophers develop a seemingly flawless solution to how we came about and spread the message to as many people as possible. It was a simple solution with no present-day science that could possibly prove it wrong. So the religion began to grow and more and more stories about God and what not began to emerge, with nothing to disprove any of it. Over the course of many many years, after religion has established a solid level of control over everyone, science finally makes sufficient advancements to disprove at least one of the religious truths having been developed by the early philosophers. Immediately, there is doubt in the veracity of the religion. And not long after, it is likely the scientists who were the first atheists.
Atheism at the time was probably not very widespread and still well over 95% of all people were firm believers in the religion that has lasted so long. People often decide that if enough people believe in something, it must be true. This is the only reason that religion still exists today. However, over hundreds and hundreds of years, science has begun to be able to disprove more and more religious content and because of this, more people are doubting the spiritual origin of the species. Today, there is more atheism than ever before because science is more advanced than it ever has been before. In the future, science will continue to advance and as more and more provable information becomes available to the world, the amount of atheism will increase. Eventually, I give it a few hundred years, religion will have virtually disappeared and atheism won't be called atheism because that name refers to the existence of other religions. As science advances, so will the level of atheism and as long as humans continue to get smarter over time, religion will eventually be no more.
I've noticed that many people are gravely mistaken about what atheism really is. Often when someone finds out that I am an atheist, they immediately make the assumption that I am depressed, unhappy and unfulfilled with my life. They assume I am a dark, cold-hearted, emotionless human being. No! Get it straight, people! Atheism is completely neutral. It is nothing more than having no belief is any god or supreme power whatsoever. There's nothing more to it, it's very simple. Atheism does not reflect one's lifestyle, unlike some other religions I can think of. Not every atheist lives their life the same way and there isn't some big atheist church where we all gather together and celebrate believing in nothing. We don't have any special holidays or rituals or certain ways of doing things. Atheism is not an organized belief in God, it's an unorganized disbelief in God. Atheists aren't evil people on a general level. I'm sure there are some evil atheists and some good atheists, just like there are short atheists, bald atheists, black atheists, etc. The very best defintion of an atheist is a "person." That's all. The only thing atheists have in common with one another is a disbelief in a higher power. Everything else are just coincidental variations that occur between all people.
Also, don't confuse atheism with antitheism, because they are two very different things. This coincides with the common belief that all atheists are depressed and unfulfilled. You see, antitheism, unlike atheism, is a form of religion. Antitheists are those who believe in God, but are against him. Satanism is a good example of this because while its followers do believe in God, their entire religion is pitted against "Him." Antitheist religions are generally fairly dark and don't search for utopian life as many theist religions do. Atheism, as I said before, is not a religion and supports no other types of religions, including antitheism. Atheists are just as much disbelievers of antitheism as they are of theism. However, because it is so widely believed that atheism is dark and unfulfilling, some antitheists believe that atheism is exactly the same thing and therefore consider themselves atheists. When they bring this information out publicly, people get confused: "I am an atheist! Hail Satan!" Confusing, very confusing. This is just a misguided perception of the general public. Because antitheism is generally a dark path, and because atheism is generally considered a dark way of life, antitheists confuse their very own beliefs with that of atheism, which has no beliefs to begin with.
Atheism is not a dark way of life. It's not a way of life at all. I am an atheist and I'm not unhappy and unfulfilled with the way I live my life. I'm actually quite a happy person with a lot of cynical things to say because there is so much to be cynical about.
I had a conversation with a religious individual online several days ago and the question only jumped to religious beliefs when she said "I don't understand atheism AT ALL." How can this be? That is a closed mind, to not even be able to understand it. How could you not understand an atheistic way of life? I understand religion. I understand its purpose and I understand why someone would want to follow it, Religion is a system of beliefs just for the sake of believing in something because that's what people like to do. They like to hold on to something completely unfathomable and unproveable because no matter how things turn out, religion can be blamed for praise or otherwise. I understand what religion is and I understand why people use it. How can someone not understand atheism? Can you not see why someone wouldn't want to believe in God? It's rather simple. Most theists are willing to admit that most real tangible evidence in the world points toward atheism, but they all insist that their beliefs are not about evidence, it's about faith. I will never understand this. What is faith supposed to mean? Faith in what? "Faith in God, of course!" But the whole reason you believe in God is because of faith? How does that make sense? You can't believe in God because you have faith in God! The only justification for such a belief is to have "faith," as they call it, in your very own logic. If you actually think it's logical to believe in God, fine, that makes sense. But if you're believing in God simply because you "have faith," there's a problem. That's not a real belief; that's just something that all the theists say. When one of you stands up and says, "I believe in God because I have faith," why are you saying that? Where does this faith come from? "It comes from God," they would say. "But why do you believe in God?" "Because I have faith." "But where does this faith come from?" "It comes from God." Does anybody else see the problem with this? It's a cyclical process, assuming the hypothetical theist I have quoted doesn't quickly realize his flaw.
I quite frequently run into people who refute my arguments by asking a question like, "then how did we get here?" A common belief of the atheist lot follows Stephen Hawking's tremendously misunderstood Big Bang theory. A lot of people claim to follow that theory but most people have never even read the book on it. But who in today's torpescent society is going to read a book just so they have some grounds to justify their disbelief in God against some starched, half-educated Christian convert. Most people should agree that everyone spends far too much time thinking about where we came from and the origin of the universe and what not, especially since there is no way to find out, and even if there was, what does this knowledge bring us? We're not getting anywhere by knowing, we can't change anything. In my humble opinion, everyone should just drop the subject and talk about something of some relevance. The entire theme has undergone massive overkill in everyday conversation and it's just getting irksome.
However, because I have built my little house of disbelief so strongly, I am forced to come up with something that has more grounds for theist vs. atheist argument than "who cares, too many people talk about that!" So I was sitting down one day, coincidentally at the computer and coincidentally in a philosophical online debate when I whimsically came up with the Infinite Universe Theory. Most of the basic principles are things that I had always believed subconsciously but not until then had I been able to put any real thought into it and tack on some tangible ideas that I could really bring up in an argument. Since it is sort of applicable to the content of this page, here I am to explain my take on "how the universe began," or in this case, how it didn't.
The Infinite Universe Theory follows the basic principle that the universe as a whole never did begin and never will end. Its history is a boundless perpetuity of an incalculable amount of actions, reactions and unhindered events. The same principle applies to the physical nature of the universe; it is infinitely vast in space leaving no room for terminal boundaries of any kind. When it comes to the physical existence of the universe, space is without limits. The concept of boundaries to the universe is fallible beyond reasoning. The existence of boundaries means that people can get out of them. I once read a novel that applied a different example in support of a boundless universe whereby the author described the universe as "a sphere with an infinite radius." This, of course, is completely unfathomable by everyone in our three-dimensional world just as we are unable to comprehend a four-dimensional square. Unfortunately, accordance with the Infinite Universe theory requires that comprehension be stretched past a typical innate sense of dialectics. Reading the two succinct basic principles of this theory is entirely credulous at first glance, but there are certain conditions affixed to these principles that need to be taken into consideration, and many of them will often turn people away from this variation on the theoretical archetype.
Concept: Physically, the universe is infinitely large and is an immeasurable embodiment of boundless freedom.
Conditions:
As can be expected, this is easily the most debatable concept tying in with the theory as a whole. When someone can come to terms with the above being factual, then any other quiproquos of the Infinite Universe Theory should be understandable. That is a relatively non-specific summary of my take on the whole topic. Do with it what you please.
