There is a great new organization set up to support non-theistic candidates for public office. If you are a non-theist and need assistance running for a political office, consider contacting EnlightenTheVote.com
I hope to see them promoting non-theist candidates on their site and helping the growing majority of non theists in America have a prominent political voice. Atheists are now at 15% of the total American population, more than Jews, Gays, and many other much smaller total populations with large voices in American politics. Stay informed and sign up for their email alerts.
Today you can learn how to do just about anything by using the internet, even how to become Atheist. On WikiHow, you can DIY yourself to Atheism by challenging your superstious notions.
To introduce the topic, WikiHow provides an excellent explanation of what an Atheist is. Clarified here is the true meaning of atheism, which is a basic rejection of god-claims. Some atheists take this a step further and claim definitely that “there is no god or gods”. I fall somewhere in between. I reject the claims about gods, and given the body of evidence in nature, science and my own experiences I am more confident that there are no gods than I am that there might be gods. In the same way that I cannot disprove the claim that Leprechauns exist, I cannot disprove the claim that god exists. However, the likelihood of god existing is on par with the likelihood of Leprechauns existing. I am willing to change my position if provable, repeatable evidence was provided for a supernatural entity.
Fry brilliantly notes that living as a humanist/naturalist, he is compelled to live a fulfilled and vibrant life. Without the promise or wish for another life after this one, the naturalist and atheist strives ernestly to do the best they can in the here and now.
“Debates over faith often leave non-believers holding the bag: look like a jerk or leave the debate unfinished and apparently concede defeat.
The only thing that would make atheism a true article of faith would be if atheists said, “Nothing you could possibly say, nothing I could possibly see or experience, no evidence you could possibly provide me, could ever convince me that my atheism was wrong. My belief in the non-existence of God is an a priori assumption; it is unshakable, as constant as the Northern Star.” And I have yet to encounter an atheist who says that.
Finally—and maybe most crucially of all:
When we speak out in any way about our atheism—and when we continue to organize, and to make ourselves and our ideas more visible and vocal, and to generally turn ourselves into a serious movement for social change—we are accused of being hostile, fanatical, rude, evangelical, bigoted and extremist.
But if we don’t speak out, if we don’t organize, if we don’t forge ourselves into a powerful and visible movement…then the bigotry and misinformation and discrimination against us will continue unabated.
Why this is untrue and unfair: We really can’t win on this one. Even the most mild forms of atheist activism and visibility result in believers accusing us of disrespect, intolerance and forcing our beliefs on others. If we do something as mild and unthreatening as putting up bus ads saying “You can be good without God” or “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” you can bet good money that plenty of believers will get worked up about how those terrible atheists are insulting Christians and other believers. The purest act of visibility—the simple act of standing up and saying out loud, “Atheists exist and are good people”—is treated as another example of the offensive, dogmatic, in-your-face extremism of the atheist movement.”
Since Haiti was hit by the earthquake I have been patiently waiting for any religious person I know to excuse god for the disaster and blame “mother nature”. I didn’t have to wait very long. Haiti’s misfortune brings up the blaring inconsistency in religion, especially the monotheistic religions: the problem of good and evil.
Pat Robertson, Christian TV evangelist was so disabled by this conundrum that he publicly claimed the reason Haiti suffered such great misfortune was because they had “made a pact with the devil”. For Pat, this was a sufficient explanation for the recent Tsunami, Hurricane and now Earthquake that has brought this country to its most desperate hour.
Haiti serves as a prime example of the problem of “good and evil”.
Naturalists point out that if a god who is claimed to be omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) controls the universe, by definition such a god must take credit for EVERYTHING that happens, not just the good stuff. Such a god would know that an earthquake was about to happen and have the power to prevent it from happening. With this information about the omnipotent, omniscient god, we must conclude at least one of the following:
1. Such a god is intrinsically evil by allowing the disaster to hit
2. Such a god does not exist (omnipotent, omniscient)
A theist will disagree here and say that god does not control the evils in the world because Adam and Eve sinned and the rest of humanity must suffer because of their sin. This leads us to conclude that the omnipotent, omniscient god has no sense of what constitutes a “just” punishment for the “sin” of two humans. We must also consider that if the theist’s argument that “evils like Tsunami’s are not god’s fault” rests on the existence of two storybook characters in Genesis the argument falls apart. We begin to doubt the historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story because it is embedded in a creation myth that sets the earth at 10,000 years old, having been fashioned in 7 days by a sky-god.
But most importantly, the counter argument to those who say “evil is the devil’s doing, not god’s” places the omni-god in a position of NOT being omnipotent. If the omni-god is not in control of nature, this by definition deems him not omnipotent. This leaves us to conclude that the omni-god is either:
1. Not actually omnipotent or
2. Unjust in dealing out his punishments and hence, if he be doing the punishing for Adam’s sin, he IS responsible for earthquakes and natural disasters (omnipotent)
This past weekend I listened to a Catholic homily by a deacon who was trying to help his congregation understand how to reconcile god with the Haiti earthquake. His best shot was to tell a little story about a mother in Haiti who dug her children out of the rubble of her home and saved their lives. All three of her children lived (after extensive medical surgury and the science of medicine). She told reporters that “now she knew that god loved her”. The deacon pointed out that good can come of such atrocities like this women who finally knew that god loved her. He failed to bring up all the other thousands who perished or the other mothers whose children were crushed and killed. Did ‘god’ love them? It was perhaps the weakest argument of the century. What a fickle god Christians daily defend.
for public office. If you are a non-theist and need assistance running for a political office, consider contacting EnlightenTheVote.com 
Faith
would be if atheists said, “Nothing you could possibly say, nothing I could possibly see or experience, no evidence you could possibly provide me, could ever convince me that my atheism was wrong. My belief in the non-existence of God is an a priori assumption; it is unshakable, as constant as the Northern Star.” And I have yet to encounter an atheist who says that.
“mother nature”. I didn’t have to wait very long. Haiti’s misfortune brings up the blaring inconsistency in religion, especially the monotheistic religions: the problem of good and evil.
Follow: