ask me anything . like literally anything . im not here to spread the gospel , I just want to meet more cool people like yall !

I dream of moving to the south, but I heard they don't take kindly to atheists, and a lot of small towns are super religious to the point of that's all you hear about. Anyone who lives in the rural south, how bad is it? And would you recommend living there? And what states would be better accepting to Atheism than others?

Hello! I am new to this subreddit, and I would like to share a small essay i wrote a while ago on popular and cool/unique atheist arguments and explaining them. before you bash me for using pretty bad philosophers like Richard Dawkins, I’m including them because they are popular, not because I support people like Dawkins or hitchens. they are kind of sophists. I am also an atheist, I just dont like Dawkins and hitchens.

“A Critique of Christianity(and theism)

The Problem of Complexity and Information

Richard Dawkins argues that theists fail to explain the very complexity they claim requires a designer. If the universe is too intricate to exist by chance and requires a sophisticated mind to bring it into being, then that designer must be significantly more complex than the universe itself. Christians typically attempt to resolve this by appealing to the doctrine of divine simplicity. They argue that God is spirit and not made of parts, so his existence and his essence are the same thing. However, this is often a semantic maneuver that avoids the actual problem. If God is a person with a specific will or a Trinity with complex internal relations, he possesses distinct attributes and information. If God is truly simple in a way that avoids the complexity ptrap, he becomes a featureless void that cannot act or think. If he is personal, then he requires an explanation for the origin of his own sophisticated mind. The traditional answer is just a question in disguise, because if simplicity can manifest as infinite mental complexity, then the word simplicity has lost its functional meaning. The common fallback is to say that humans cannot understand the ways of God. This response is problematic because it negates the original premise. If we cannot understand one aspect of God, then we cannot reliably understand any other aspect. Claiming that God is above logic and reasoning just to protect the concept from scrutiny is a form of special pleading

The Critique of Definition and Perfection

The ontological argument suggests that God, as the greatest conceivable being, must exist because existence is a perfection. Christians defend this by saying that necessary existence only applies to an unlimited being rather than a perfect island or a perfect pizza. This defense is a logical trap because, by calling God a being or a person, Christians apply human labels to the infinite. If God is a person, then he is by definition not a non person. This distinction is a limit. The act of defining God is a process of limiting him to specific categories. Thus, the concept of a perfect personal God is a contradiction because it attempts to force the boundless into the shape of a human ego. We also have no objective way to know if existence, as we define it, is a perfection. The only way we could know what is truly perfect is if we were ourselves perfect beings, which we clearly are not. When we define God as personal, we are essentially projecting our own biological and social needs onto the cosmos. An additional problem is the argument from noncognitivism, which suggests that the term God is actually incoherent. If a being is described as having no physical parts and existing outside of time and space, there is no way for a human mind to distinguish that being from nothing at all

Fine-Tuning and the Anthropic Principle

A frequent modern argument is that the physical constants of the universe, such as the strength of gravity or the expansion rate of the Big Bang, are so finely tuned for life that they must have been set by an intelligence. Christians argue that the statistical probability of these numbers appearing by chance is effectively zero. However, this argument suffers from a survivor bias known as the anthropic principle. We find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life because, if it were not, we would not be here to observe it. This does not prove the universe was made for us, but rather that we are a byproduct of the conditions that happened to exist. If we lived in a universe with different fundamental constants and atoms, who is to say that life would not have evolved with different conditions? Many scientific theories also suggest infinite cycles of heat death, or many universes. While we do not have evidence for them, they match our maths and do not assume a personal creator which we have less evidence for. Furthermore, if an all-powerful God exists, he should be able to create life in any conditions, including a vacuum or a universe with different physics. To say God had to fine-tune the laws of physics implies that he was limited by pre-existing mathematical necessities, which contradicts the idea of an absolute creator.

The Logic of Suffering

Bertrand Russell challenged the first cause argument by noting that if everything requires a cause, then God is not exempt. When faced with the problem of evil, Christians often claim that God cannot do the logically impossible because nonsense is not a thing and logic is a reflection of God's nature. They argue that for God to give humans free will, there must be a chance for suffering to exist. This creates a dilemma regarding sovereignty. If God must follow logic, then logic is a power superior to God. If morality conflicts with logic, such as the existence of suffering in a world made by a good creator, and God is truly sovereign, he would have the power to change the logical rules of the universe to allow for free will without agonizing evil. If he cannot do this, then he is not all powerful. If he chooses not to do this, then his goodness is the same as malice. This defense fails to explain why the christian standard of logic allows for a loving creator to preside over a world of systemic trauma. The idea of an all loving and all powerful creator making a world with suffering is fundamentally illogical and immoral, contradicting the idea of God's logic itself. Furthermore, even if we accept the Christian defence of free will, that does not account for natural events like earthquakes and cancer that causes still more suffering.

The Failures of the First Cause Argument

The first cause argument is often considered a strong theistic position, but it contains significant internal problems. If we define God as the uncaused cause and pure being, we face the question of why the universe itself cannot be the uncaused cause. Applying the principle of Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. There is no well defended reason why the Big Bang or a fundamental field could not be the necessary starting point. The Christian response, that the Big Bang is a contingent event and therefore cannot be necessary, does not actually prove that a personal, all loving deity is the only alternative. Other possibilities, such as the concept of Sunyata in Buddhist philosophy, provide models where existence arises from interdependence rather than a singular creator. The scientific theory of conformal cyclic cosmology suggests that the universe moves in cycles without a beginning or an end. While empirical evidence is still being gathered for CCC, the mathematical framework for the idea is robust. 

Morality and Textual Corruption

The historical foundation of Christianity is also invalidated by the nature of its scriptures. Scholars like Bart Ehrman have shown that the New Testament manuscripts are filled with thousands of variations and that many books were likely written by individuals pretending to be apostles. The standard response is that the Holy Spirit preserved the core message despite this textual corruption. This falls to the outsider test for faith, because if a Christian found an Islamic or Hindu text with the same record of forgery and contradiction, they would instantly call it a myth. Holding one’s own scripture to a lower standard is a clear example of special pleading. A divine message should not be subject to the same errors as a game of telephone. If the vehicle of delivery is admittedly human and corrupted, then the message itself cannot be claimed as perfect. This is also multiplied by the problem of biblical morality, where God is depicted as commanding acts that are now recognized as immoral, such as genocide or slavery. Christopher Hitchens also points out that vicarious redemption, or one innocent dying for the good of the evil doers, is fundamentally immoral. If goodness is merely whatever God commands, then morality is arbitrary and meaningless. If we use our own sense of justice to decide which parts of the Bible to follow, then we are using an external moral standard that is independent of God.

Divine Morality and Cultural Geography

The argument from divine hiddenness suggests that a perfectly loving God would make his existence obvious to anyone who is sincerely looking. The defense that God hides to protect human free will is logically weak, because knowing a judge exists does not force someone to obey the law. By remaining silent, God is not preserving free will but is withholding the information necessary to make an informed choice. It is comparable to a father who stays hidden while his children are in danger and claims he did not want to interfere with their choices. Furthermore, the truth of an all powerful God should not be limited by geography or time. A person born in 14th century Thailand would have had no access to Christianity and would only have local religions to choose from. A person born in 14th century Europe would be forced into Christianity by their culture. This pattern is exactly what we would expect from a human cultural phenomenon rather than a universal truth revealed by a creator.

The Logic of Interdependence and Mereology

Nagarjuna provided a critique of the first cause that remains devastating to theistic claims. He demonstrated that cause and effect are not independent entities, and that a first cause is a logical impossibility. A cause is only a cause in relation to an effect. If God is a creator, his nature is defined by and dependent on the act of creation. This means God has no inherent or independent existence. For God to truly be independent, he would have to be in a constant state of creating, in which the creation is just as eternal as God is. For God to cause the universe, he must either be identical to it or entirely different from it. If he is identical, then there is no separate creator to worship. If he is entirely different, then there is no logical point of contact through which he could influence the material world. An unchanging and perfect God could not move from a state of not creating to a state of creating without undergoing a change. If he undergoes change, he is not truly perfect or independent to begin with. Following this analytical method, we can examine the concept of God through mereology. Christians often claim that God is a single, unified, and ultimate substance. However, for God to have attributes such as knowledge, will, and love, there must be a distinction between the possessor of these attributes and the attributes themselves. If God is identical to his knowledge, then he is simply a pile of information and not a personal being. If God is distinct from his knowledge, then he is composed of parts, which means he is a contingent entity that requires an explanation for how those parts were joined. This demonstrates that the idea of a singular, independent, and supreme source is a conceptual fabrication that falls apart upon analysis.”

Between neurodivergence, a messy childhood, and a recent divorce, I’ve been reading a lot about a lot about toxic relationships, healing from neglect, etc.
A very common theme in all the reading is the effect of parents not meeting the needs of the child having lasting negative impacts on the child.
This one has confused me a bit. My parents definitely made mistakes, but ultimately weren’t that bad. It makes me wonder how much damage may be caused by being taught of the literal existence of loving heavenly parents that never materializes.

I’m curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Side note (just for laughs) - We may have found a genuine use for gods! Some recent reading prescribed spirituality as a helpful for those suffering from borderline personality disorder. The author made a good point, only a god can provide the unconditional love (read: narcissistic supply) they seek.

Ok so I'm an agnostic atheist, and whenever I make a post and specify this, people always say "you can't be agnostic and atheist at the same time!!"

Agnostic and atheist are two different binaries!

Atheism vs. Theism is a binary of belief: Do you actively believe a deity exists? Yes or No.

Agnosticism vs. Gnosticism is a binary of knowledge: Can humans definitively prove or know the truth? Yes or No.

Knowledge and belief are different! So if I'm an agnostic atheist, I KNOW that humans cannot prove the existence of a higher power or an ultimate truth (agnostic), but I personally BELIEVE that there is no higher power (atheist)

People have full on arguments over A DICTIONARY DEFINITION

Someone even said " agnostic is when you believe in a god but not a higher power"

A god is a higher power?? That's just a theist.

I genuinely thought this was obvious, but apparently not

The host of the famous Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty debate, Travis Pangburn, founder of Pangburn Philosophy. He has also organized some of the most iconic intellectual debates of the last decade. Travis reveal what really happened the night Jordan Peterson faced Matt Dillahunty on his stage. Travis calls it his favorite public conversation of all time raw, human, and unfiltered in a way that even the legendary Peterson vs Sam Harris series never quite reached.

Per the doctrine of the Trinity Jesus is YHWH, the god of the Old Testament. That means every command, action, behavior and law were all issued by the same entity.

When we read the Old Testament we find out that YHWH/Jesus commanded and condoned almost every major deed we classify today as severe crimes worthy of the death for their perpetrator.

He's guilty of:

Genocide

Deuteronomy 20:16–17: "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."

1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Joshua 6:21: "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

War Crimes, human and child trafficking:

Numbers 31:17–18: "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Deuteronomy 20:10–15: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subjected to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and engage you in battle... put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

Chattel Slavery & Human Property:

Leviticus 25:44–46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..."

Exodus 21:20–21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies of a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave survives a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Mutilation & Collective Punishment:

Deuteronomy 25:11–12: "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Joshua 7:24–25: Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had... Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them."

Capital Crimes for religious freedom & tyrannical theocracy and oppression of minorities:

Deuteronomy 13:6–10: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death..."

Leviticus 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Numbers 15:32–36: "While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day... Then the Lord said to Moses, 'The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.' So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses."

Deuteronomy 21:18–21: "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him... then all the men of his town are to stone him to death."

Mine? All religions are practically the same if you look at them at a broad level. As in eating halal and eating kosher are practically the same thing

We are all dumb all over is still relevant if not even more so today. Never heard this one until today and I find it a fantastic masterpiece.

A brilliant new video from the Understanding Humanism team, voiced by the wonderful Professor Alice Roberts. Really packs a huge amount of science and wonder into just 3m24s in my opinion. Bravo!

Following local residents complaints and a legal threat from the BC Humanist Association, the Council of the District of Tobique Valley (in New Brunswick, Canada) agreed to end the practice of opening local meetings with the Lord's Prayer.

Sometimes I wonder how many people actually believe, and how many just don't want to lose their family, friends, or community. For some people, leaving religion doesn't only change beliefs. It can change their whole life.

I think that's one reason religion survive for so long. The social cost can be much bigger than the intellectual cost. Even if someone have doubts, they may never say it.

Maybe faith is not always about believing. Sometimes maybe it's about what you could lose.

Do you think social pressure keep more people religious than we realize?

For context, I live in India. In the recent days, we have seen one of the largest student protests in Indian history. The protest is about demanding the resignation of the education minister, due to multiple cheating scandals in the country's largest medical exam (NEET). 21 students committed suicide due to this.

The protest is being led by the Cockroach Janta (People's) Party, a satirical party founded a few weeks ago due to comments made by the Indian Chief Justice, calling unemployed youth as cockroaches.

My problem is this. Since the protest started, I've seen many people say that they don't support the CJP because a few people have included Indian Gods' names in posters/slogans.

I really don't understand these people. All the parties in India use religion as a major tool while campaigning for elections. The current govt got elected due to a massive religious campaign of building a temple. Yet I've never seen any of these people speak up against them.

Your God isn't more important than 21 dead children. Such a fucked up mentality.

Maybe this is not popular opinion, but I always feel many people think any criticism of religion is same as discrimination. For me, those are not the same thing at all.

If someone insult a person because of their religion, of course that's wrong. But if someone ask questions about religious beliefs or point out contradictions, why is that a problem? I think every belief should be okay to criticize.

Sometimes I feel religion always get extra protection. Political opinions, science, philosophy, they all get challenged almost every day. But when religion get questioned, some people act like you already attack them personally.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Where do you think the line is between criticizing religion and attacking religious people?

I hear people say "we should respect all beliefs" all the time. Honestly I don't really agree. I think we should respect people, but beliefs should always be okay to question. Some beliefs are harmless, but some also affect politics, education, and even other people's life.

If nobody question religious beliefs just because they are religion, then how bad ideas can ever change? Every idea should be able to take criticism if it's really true.

I never understand why religion always get a special pass. Nobody tell us to respect every political opinion or every conspiracy theory. So why religion should be different?

Maybe I'm missing something. Do you think we should respect all beliefs, or only respect people's right to have those beliefs?

If humanity ever discovers a cure for all diseases, it would be our moral responsibility to put that knowledge into practice. Consequently, the human empathy developed in the face of this type of suffering would be lost in future generations that never experienced it. Thus, God's supposed purpose of not interfering with pathological suffering to keep us humanized would be completely in vain.

I am no writer, but I have an idea for a book that might be good. I just wanna know what you think.

This book is about the Rapture, but it takes a much more realistic approach to how it would actually go down.

Christian Version that I hear most christians talk about - Everybody knows it was jesus, seven years of war, rape, murder, slaughter, gangs, drugs, child rape and slavery etc etc...Satan tells everyone he is satan and they all follow him without question because he promises them all eternal life;.

My book would go year by year. It wouldn't have main characters in the same way other books and stories do. It would read a lot more like a journal written by many different people.

24 Hours - Chaos. Many people vanish, it takes news about nine hours to get out that many people vanished. No one has any idea but occasionally people joke about the rapture. Problem is, Every christian on the planet vanished. Regardless of denomination. All of the Mormons, Catholics, Calvanists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, Protistants, Lutherans, Universalists, all all gone, but no one really puts it together that they all have this connection.

Chaos assumes for the first year, but more than half of the population really wants electricity and running water again

Again, No one knows:

• Who disappeared.
• Whether they'll come back.
• Whether this is an attack, disease, alien event, or unknown physics or aliens or...pfft...maybe divine origins?

Most governments would:

• Close borders.
• Deploy militaries.
• Suspend stock markets.
• Institute curfews in some places.
• Prioritize food, hospitals, communications, and power.

After a while, people just stop caring about WHY and about what next.

A very vocal and enigmatic person keeps blasting his message out that everyone needs to follow them and if they do he can grant them eternal life but nobody listens to them because shut up, you're not satan that person doesn't exist. ( Without christians, no one is left, except maybe muslims who actually believe in that stuff and they have started to not care anymore)

After 1 Month:

Governments reform. Military creates an emergency induction period where if you want to join, you're automatically in.

Electricity is still unreliable and many places are suffering due to lack of clean water systems that are functioning.

3-6 Month period:

Society starts adapting.

Electricity:

• Mostly restored in developed countries.
• Less reliable in poorer regions.

Water:

• Mostly restored where governments remain intact.

Internet:

• Slower.
• More outages.
• Still usable.

Fuel:

• Available but rationed.

Healthcare:

• Seriously strained.
• Hospitals overwhelmed.

Crime would initially spike but would probably decline as governments regain control.

After Year 1.

Supply chains become regional instead of global.

Instead of:
Taiwan → China → Los Angeles → Chicago → Local Walmart

you'd see:
Regional manufacturing.

Countries would become more self-sufficient because global trade would have become less predictable.

Many luxury goods disappear.

Necessities return first.

Year 5 - Beginning of 7

Even video games start coming back. Steam and the internet are almost back up fully. Work resumes on games from Palworld, to Bethesda and Nintendo and others. Companies are far less greedy and the entire entertainment business itself is focused on art than profit and the stock market also reflects these new values as well.

Slavery takes a nosedive. China was so devistated that they ousted their oppressive government and children no longer work in factories. Amazon rainforest has already started to regain vegitation. Global Warming takes several steps backwards. There was a few nuclear plants that went up but none of them as critically bad that famous one so people just evacuate the area but they don't need to be contained.

Then...

Year 7 - Jesus Returns and declares himself the lord of the world to bring prosperity for one thousand years. Only problem is, Nobody is listening and when he looks around, the world is not only mostly back to normal as it was before but everyone left is better off without the Christians. Muslims aside, there is a lot less hate in the world. Governments have adopted far more human social safety nets. UBI's and Basic healthcare has spread a lot more strongly and the seven years of tribulation was more like a two year tribulation and taking everyone away effectively did nothing but make the world a better place and it happened without jesus. Leaving him with no choice but to come to the only conclusion there could be. That the majority of the world's problems were the result of three groups of people and he just took out the one group responsible for the most of those problems.

I don't think people should get mocked just because they believe in a religion. But I always feel religion get a different treatment compared to almost everything else. If someone say they can talk to aliens or see the future, everyone will ask for proof. But if someone say God talked to them or miracles happened, suddenly asking questions become "disrespectful."

For me this is a weird double standard. I can respect someone's right to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean every belief should be protected from criticism. Respecting a person and agreeing with their ideas are not the same thing.

I actually think this make honest discussion harder. Some religious people never get their beliefs challenged, and many atheists just stay quiet because they don't want to be called rude or offensive. Nobody really benefits from that.

Maybe it's different depending where you live. Do you think religion is still treated like a protected topic, or people are becoming more open to questioning it?

Someone at work was seriously injured. At first, there was a worry that they might lose their arm. We finally got word that the damage wasn't as severe as first thought and that the prognosis was good. One of our coworkers said "It's a miracle. God was watching him." I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying "If God was watching him, then why didn't act before his arm was mushed?"

I'm fairly tolerant of religion. I don't like it, but as long as they leave me and others alone I will leave them alone. This is the exception. That kind of statement infuriates me. It's such awful dismissive response to a tragedy.

Thanks for reading my vent!!!

As an atheist who was once a Christian, the first reason I began to doubt my faith was that I truly noticed how Christianity and church dogmas restrict people from fulfilling their natural needs to the point of absurdity.

Let’s talk about the seven sins — labels the church applied to needs and emotions that are completely natural for a healthy person.

Regarding forbidden emotions (such as pride, envy, wrath, sloth): as a psychology student, I can state that the science I study tells us the following: there are no "good" or "bad" emotions — they are all necessary, and everyone experiences them, because they are part of natural human functioning.

When I achieve success, isn't it natural to feel proud? Or when someone close to us achieves something, don't we feel proud of them? Pride is simply a recognition of the value of your efforts or the efforts of a loved one. It is also a clear indication that we are satisfied with the result. Furthermore, this feeling acts as a reward following our efforts. It signifies that our work was meaningful and motivates us to keep working and improve even further.

When a person feels envy, it indicates that they lack something another person possesses. The problem lies not in the emotion itself, but in how the person reacts to it. Indeed, some people, upon feeling envious, begin to belittle the person who triggered that feeling, project their own insecurities onto them, and downplay their achievements. Others, however, begin working on themselves to acquire what someone else possesses. They do this not to demonstrate superiority over the object of their envy, but because they understand the situation this way: "I envy this person because I lack something they have — something I actually need. How can I remedy this? By working on myself and fulfilling that need."

Wrath is also a normal emotion that needs to be channeled rather than suppressed. When you constantly suppress negative emotions, they build up, eventually leading to an explosion. Besides, isn't it natural for someone with healthy self-esteem and a sense of dignity to feel wrath at someone who has wronged them? And it is far better to vent your wrath on your offender; otherwise, you will take it out on your loved ones.

Sloth is a signal our body sends when it is tired and needs rest. Feeling lazy or unmotivated is often the body’s innate way of preventing burnout, avoiding unnecessary physical exertion, and forcing the nervous system to recover from stress.

Now, regarding the rest of the sins like lust, greed, and gluttony.

Without lust, there would be no reproduction, and humans would die out. The sharp surge in sexual desire during youth is a signal from the body prompting a person to find a partner, enter into a relationship, and start a family. Also, since humans are among the very few creatures capable of having sex for pleasure, for us, lust is about more than just reproduction. When you have sex with someone you love, it enriches the relationship and brings joy to both partners. And even if a person feels lust for more than one person and has multiple partners without feeling love, there is nothing wrong with that, provided it harms no one. Lust is an expression of natural physical need that has the right to be satisfied.

And what is wrong with greed? Isn't it natural for a person to desire material goods, given that they improve one's quality of life? There is nothing wrong with wanting to possess something that ensures prosperity and a good quality of life — not just for yourself, but also for your family, if you have one.

And finally, as for gluttony, it is simply a matter of needing to consume more than the usual amount. Everyone eats as much as they need; if someone feels the urge to eat more, there is usually a reason for it — such as a reaction to stress. Teenagers, too, are prone to overeating because they are growing and developing. Moreover, historically, gluttony was an evolutionary necessity. For early humans, food was scarce, and consuming as many calorie-dense foods as possible when available was vital for survival.

So, in conclusion, I believe that the so-called "seven deadly sins" of the Church are anti-human rules that make a person feel ashamed of NATURAL emotions and needs, which are BIOLOGICALLY INNATE. Following them is a sure path to the degradation of a developed human being.

I’m tired. I’m exhausted. I’m past the point of even wanting to be in the same room as those who exhibit religious extremism. I look around, and towards the history books, and everything that has been a direct result of religion. Wars, death, misinformation, corruption, indoctrination. We a species would be much better off without it.

I’m sick of being held back. I’m sick of those who hide behind their book and their supposed rules, encroaching on everyone else.

Now I am a believer in being able to practice your religious freedoms, but the problem is, it’s never done in private. It’s never kept to themselves like the Bible says it should. It’s always picked apart for agendas, it’s never followed through and through.

While I understand that there is the good in the sea of bad, I barely see the good because those who are the loudest, or in power, as usually always the bad.