On December 26th, I ventured into unfamiliar territory, engaging in a live on-air conversation with Daniel, a relatively new yet amicable acquaintance. Typically steering clear of on-air discussions, my aversion stems from a profound distaste for the resonance of my own voice and a tendency to become scattered-brained, often losing track of my thoughts.

For over a decade, I've proudly identified as an atheist. During this time, I've not only penned a comprehensive book on atheism but also initiated and maintained this blog. Throughout the years, my perspectives have undergone several transformations, with one notable shift being a complete paradigm change in how I perceive and apply atheism. I am, without reservation, an atheist in the philosophical sense—I firmly hold the belief that no gods exist.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently stirred controversy by announcing her departure from atheism and embracing Christianity. This revelation has ignited fervent discussions among atheists and Christians alike. In this discussion, I aim to scrutinize not just the act of adoption but, more importantly, the rationale Mrs. Ali provides for this significant shift.

Those acquainted with my persona recognize my avid appreciation for a stimulating debate. I relish engaging in a robust interchange of ideas, recognizing it as the lifeblood of intellectual currency. Delving into profound contemplation of philosophical quandaries and subsequently pitting those musings against others serves as the cornerstone for expanding the collective knowledge of those participating, and notably, for the broader audience. Yet, an issue plagues this discourse—a problem not novel but steadily gaining prominence, exacerbated by the prevailing culture of internet debates.

In the preceding discussion, we delved into the inquiry of whether atheists, particularly secular humanists, derive their moral principles from Christianity. Our exploration involved scrutinizing what is universally acknowledged as the paramount commandment within Christendom. Now, we pivot to the flip side of the argument – investigating the antithesis. We aim to uncover what is deemed the most egregious sin, juxtaposed against the widely held belief regarding the gravest moral transgression one can perpetrate against an individual. It is crucial to underscore that our focus here is on transgressions against the individual. Wrongs may escalate in severity based on the number of people affected, whereas the pinnacle of sin can only be committed against a deity. Brace yourself for this intriguing exploration.

A recurring assertion made by Christians in conversations with atheists is the claim that non-believers derive their morals and values from Christianity, insinuating that without appealing to the Christian god, non-believers lack a foundation for their values. Putting aside this false dichotomy, the fundamental essence of these Christian values warrants examination in this discourse. In this discussion, our aim is to undertake a comprehensive exploration, delving into the core of these values. We'll investigate their nature, evaluate their alignment with personal values.

In the quiet recesses of contemplation, amid the ever-turning gears of philosophical inquiry, there emerges a spark—an idea that resonates with profound implications. This entry is born of such a moment, where the shadows of semantics cast light upon the timeless conceptions of God, goodness, and evil. What lies before us is an intellectual journey that challenges the very bedrock of theological thought: the necessity of God. At its heart, this is a discourse firmly grounded in the common definitions of God as espoused by theistic philosophers, where we dare to question the seemingly unquestionable. Join us as we venture into the intricate tapestry of language and meaning, where the absence of a single word can reverberate through the corridors of theology, prompting us to rethink the very essence of the divine.

In 1637, while writing “Meditations on First Philosophy” the renowned French philosopher René Descartes articulated a notion that would leave an indelible mark on the intellects of philosophers for centuries: "Cogito, Ergo Sum" — "I think, therefore I am." My contemplation of the cogito and its profound ramifications has been all-consuming. I firmly assert that we can harness this principle as the bedrock upon which to construct the edifice of epistemology, the existence of knowledge, and even the very nature of reality itself.

Every atheist who has engaged in a discussion about the existence of God has encountered the recurring epistemological question: "What would convince you that a God exists?" I believe it's beneficial to address this question in the most sincere and reflective manner. By doing so, not only do I equip myself with a ready response for future discussions, but I also hope that if my fellow atheists resonate with my perspective shared in this entry, they too can use it as a reference.

Introduction:

Here we are, back at this topic. This entry is set to be an engaging one, especially from my perspective. We'll not only delve into a rewrite but also offer an updated take on atheism. We aim to clarify what atheism truly represents, how it's perceived, and most importantly, rectify a slew of misconceptions tied to atheism and atheists. It's crucial to address these, as the internal disagreements among atheists and the debates with theists about what atheism is often cloud more meaningful dialogue we could be engaging in. Honestly, these endless debates and misunderstandings can be quite exhausting. Let's dive in and unravel this together.

Welcome to the latest installment of our rewrite series, concluding our discussion on morality. In this piece, we will delve into the final two chapters concerning the moral perspectives of the Abrahamic God and address the commonly presented arguments associating morality with the existence of a deity. Our prior entries established my stance on morality, emphasizing its subjective nature—understandings that are crucial for the ensuing discussion. Join me as we navigate this intriguing topic together.

“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards  what they think is good... Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow  the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better  place.” - Pope Francis.

This entry marks the beginning of a series in which I'll be rewriting and refining my book, "Shadow of the Dead God." This endeavor is motivated by a desire to enhance and improve upon my published work, as I believe I can do better. To kickstart this project, we'll delve into my favorite philosophical subject: ethics. I sincerely hope you enjoy accompanying me on this journey and find value in the exploration and evolution of these ideas. This first entry will primarily focus on refining and rewriting chapter six, titled "Morality I," from "Shadow of the Dead God.

One of the most frequently cited justifications for why a divine being might permit the existence of "evil" or certain unfavorable circumstances is the notion of free will. When people raise the free will argument, it often leads to a nonchalant acceptance by many philosophers and atheists, who simply shrug and move on. However, upon closer examination, the concept of free will reveals itself to be nothing more than an escape hatch, failing to truly resolve the underlying issues. In this discussion, we will delve into the complexities surrounding the idea of free will and its limitations as an explanation for the existence of evil and suffering. Please be aware that the upcoming exploration will tackle profoundly heavy themes that could potentially trigger emotional responses in some readers.

Let's delve into the topic of beliefs. Not our own beliefs, but beliefs themselves, particularly in relation to "lack of belief" atheists. This discussion aims to explore how these atheists perceive beliefs, without any intention of attacking them. This entry seeks to address the intriguing dynamics that exist between certain atheists and beliefs.

From a sociological and psychological standpoint, it becomes evident that the relationship between the Abrahamic God, particularly the Christian representation, and its followers can be characterized as an abusive and toxic dynamic. In the following analysis, I will approach this topic under the assumption that the Christian God exists. Consequently, a significant portion of this discussion will consist of an internal critique of the broader Christian worldview. However, it is crucial to explore the dynamics of this relationship and shed light on the underlying toxicity and abuse. If you identify as a Christian and think you may find this discussion offensive, you may prefer to skip this entry.

I understand that the following entry may come across as whiny and childish, but it is essential to address this issue. Recently, my meticulously nurtured account, which I had been cultivating for years, was unjustly and permanently suspended by Twitter for allegedly violating their terms of service. More specifically, they claimed that my account contained violent speech. However, it is crucial to examine the complete context surrounding this incident. Although I acknowledge that some may consider this matter trivial, it extends far beyond the realm of Twitter. It serves as a poignant illustration of the incredibly tense circumstances in which Americans currently find themselves. It serves as a forewarning of the potential ramifications should these fervent Trump supporters succeed in reinstating their messianic-like leader to the Presidency.

I usually avoid engaging in political discussions as it is not an area of interest for me and tends to be highly polarizing, making productive conversations nearly impossible. However, there are moments when politics and religion intersect, and this has become especially prominent in recent years within the United States. We have witnessed the emergence of a cult of personality that surpasses anything we have previously experienced, with Trump transcending the realm of mere politician to become a messiah-like figure in conservative Christian circles. In this entry, I will delve into the rise of this phenomenon and examine how we arrived at this peculiar and perilous juncture in American history.

I sincerely apologize for the recent lack of entries in my blog. Over the past several weeks, numerous events and obligations have occurred in my life, causing me to prioritize other matters. One particular entry I've been working on revolves around the themes of necessity and reality. However, to ensure its quality, it necessitates more time and additional research on my part. Although I am still in the process of developing that entry, I firmly believe that I owe it to myself and the dedicated readers of my blog to approach it with utmost diligence and care. That being said, I am aware of the importance of maintaining regular content. I understand that it would be unfair to keep this blog devoid of entries for an extended period. Consequently, recent events have prompted me to contemplate the essence of life, and I felt compelled to share some personal anecdotes with all of you. By doing so, I hope to foster a deeper connection and offer a glimpse into my experiences.

The question of why God allows suffering is one of the most enduring and complex theological issues. Many people struggle to reconcile the idea of a loving, all-powerful God with the reality of pain, suffering, and evil in the world. Despite centuries of debate and discussion, there is no easy answer to this question. However, there are several arguments that attempt to address this issue from different perspectives. In this entry, we will explore what I think are the three of the strongest, and most common arguments for why God allows suffering: free will, soul-building, and the greater good.

This entry diverges from most others here because it's deeply personal. We often hear the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes," suggesting that in dire circumstances, everyone cries out to a deity. From my experience, this isn't true. Such a claim isn't deeply philosophical. It's rooted in personal testimony and anecdotal evidence. While I recognize that many might pray or seek divine intervention during hardships, it's essential to note that not everyone will.

        The relationship between the mind and the brain has been a topic of debate for centuries, with some arguing that the mind is separate from the brain and others contending that the mind is dependent on the brain. In recent years, scientific research has provided compelling evidence that supports the idea that the mind is, in fact, dependent on the brain. In this entry, we will explore this argument by examining the premises that mental events are

Abrahamic religious scriptures, such as the Quran, Bible, and Torah, present a significant challenge: the need for interpretation. Much of theological literature addresses how to interpret these scriptures, and many beliefs derive from particular interpretations. The diverse interpretations among Christian denominations underscore this point.

At the risk of alienating myself from a broader community of non-theists, we need to address “New Atheism” the problems that surround new atheists, and this community. It’s odd, I was wildly ignorant about a lot of things when I wrote Shadow of the Dead God. I addressed part of that ignorance in a previous post, and this is somewhat a follow up to that. I used to be perplexed when I heard the term new atheism, and angered when I heard the term internet atheist. After spending far more time interacting with lack-theists, theists, agnostics, and atheists, I now understand what people mean by those terms. I also tend to agree with the more philosophically minded people about those terms now.

I am going to start this post being really blunt, and simplifying things. This entire back and forth of what makes a mind, consciousness, thinking, rationality et; al is overplayed, over complicated and profoundly abused in philosophy. Let me be clear, philosophy of the mind is useful for psychology, studying the personality, mental states, emotions, cognition, free will, and our capacity to reason. The importance there cannot be ignored or overstated. Where it is not useful, is how the mind relates to the physical. I am wishy washy and mostly undecided on my stances regarding materialism…but when it comes to the mind, I am a physicalist. This is because Dualism is a dead concept, and everything we learn about the brain adds another shovel full of dirt to it’s grave. I think we collectively give Chalmers’ hard problem of consciousness far too much credence, instead of objectively looking at what empirical data and evidence tells us. Read on to find out how dare I, a dime-store philosophical hack says that. For the purposes of this post, when I say mind or "the mental", it is a collective bin for thoughts, memories, consciousness, and everything else associated with the mental. There will be a lot of resources cited at the end of this entry.

This post is going to be a bit different than usual, as it is a series of emails that’s a pseudo-debate between myself and a friend, Rob. This was not a debate in that we are trying to get points or win anything. We were both hoping to just exchange ideas and learn something. This is also going to be a long post, as some of these replies got lengthy. I am not going to add commentary to any of this, but rather just copy and paste the emails here after this brief introduction.

I have said before that that one must be intellectually honest if they value their character and want to have honest discourse. Part of being intellectually honest is to understand epistemic risks of any positions and acknowledge that one can be incorrect. Along with the possibility of being incorrect, one must be able to admit when they are, and revise their positions on whatever it is that they were wrong about. That is where this entry comes in, and it is a difficult one for me. I have a huge ego, but my love of philosophy, and urge to be as intellectually honest and open minded as possible forces me to put that ego in the backseat. the core of my views, MY atheism has not changed. What has changed, and what I was wrong about is some of the nuanced precise positions. This entire thing started with a brief conversation with the philosopher that I respect more than any other, Dr. Graham Oppy, who flatly and unbelievably politely told me I was mistaken about a few things. I did not have the chance to get too in depth about it with Dr. Oppy, so as anyone who wants to be considered intellectually honest, I had to start looking into things more. I worked on Shadow of the Dead god for ten years and have an MBA…research is nothing new to me.

Christian theology teaches that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. According to most theologians, it is the act of attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil/Satan. Why then, are the religious so quick to blaspheme against humanity? 

The verses from the Book of Romans, specifically 1:20-21, serve as a foundation for presuppositional apologetics. Many believers argue that these verses confirm everyone inherently knows of God's existence, and denial stems from suppressing the truth. This often allows Christians to dismiss objections to their theology. Instead of dismissing the verses, I aim to disprove this idea by exploring the verses and presenting real-world contradictions.

Throughout human history, we've been wary of the unknown. I'm not referring to a simple fear of darkness but rather a profound fear of life's absence—death. Death represents the most significant shift any living being will experience: the transition from life to nonexistence. But why is humanity so collectively terrified of this concept? In this post, we'll explore this question. While I won't dive into the intricacies of dualism and consciousness just yet, I'll delve into general beliefs about death. Although I'm an atheist and will share my perspectives, I aim not to judge but to understand various viewpoints.

Hey all, Sorry about the absence. Family obligations, a career change, and the holidays occupied most of the time I had over the last two months.

 How much energy does it take to respond to a concept of god that directly relates to energy having mental states? More than I originally thought would be needed, north of 7,500 words and getting into some esoteric weeds of an “interesting” conceptualization of god. I posted my first blog entry, a reply to Rational Pantheism’ “Proof of god” in late August of 2022. Rational Pantheism replied to me in turn, in August. However, they strangely did so in silence as I was not aware of the reply until I went looking around their blogspace/Website. It was an interesting reply, but if not for the fact of their blatant dishonesty would not have merited another response, yet here we are.

An often uttered line of reasoning from apologists and theological philosophers is that under atheism, there is no meaning, and nothing matters. Atheism leads to nihilism, and there is no meaning in life. While It is true that without a god, there lacks any meaning directed by the divine. Without a god, there is no ultimate underlying meaning to the universe, or to us. However, that does not mean we have no meaning, or that nothing matters. I want to introduce a new concept into the fold, and that is cosmic nihilism. Cosmic nihilism is what was already said. At the cosmic level, there is no ultimate meaning, there is no ultimate purpose. Cosmic nihilism applies at the cosmic level and universal scale. This post will explore why is foolishness to assume there is no meaning at all.

My journey from belief in the Abrahamic deity to atheism has been a profound one. For most of my life, I was a devout believer. However, in my mid-twenties, I had to confront the fact that I no longer held these beliefs. Ironically, at seventeen, I undertook the task of memorizing the Bible, much like Muslims do with the Qur’an. This endeavor, initiated as a show of faith to my friends and church members, would be the first step in reshaping my spiritual beliefs.

After a semi-viral tweet in which I asserted that that all god concepts I have encountered are are either Logically impossible, Incoherent, or demonstrably false. An organization that goes by "Rational Pantheism" linked me to their blog, and "proof of their god concept", challenging me to show how their concept falls into one of my three mentioned categories. This is my reply to them.