Think Science .

I think that you don’t have to consider “factors leading to non-religious stance”. Rather the opposite; Just consider the mere decline in opportunity to indoctrinate. If you grow up to about the age of ten without some influential significant adult having messed you up, then I think the window of opportunity is lost.

You need to get to the child before it develops critical faculties. I think that you also need to get to the child before it develops the concept of “fairy tales”. If the child is somewhat familiar with the genre, I think it takes many times times the effort to convince the child that, for no reason, this one particular story (which in shape and form is basically the same as all other stories) is supposed to be treated differently.

It is no accident that they lobby heavily to get access to the younger classes in school. Even though basic philosophy is only taught at university level, they want to start in first grade to

I visit local schools on behalf of Norwegian Humanist Association, and I don’t want younger than 10th graders. I educate, I don’t indoctrinate. I want to be challenged. I want a dialog.

Love has different dimensions and different levels of complexity. Sure there is love in animals too, but if you start talking about frogs and flies, that would be taking it a bit too far. All of them do not display the same kind or intensity of love.

In humans, in a male female relationship, sex only compliments love and not the thing itself
What is a lot more absurd is the assumption that it plays any role in animal love. Non mammals dont even have orgasm for hells sake.(same goes with most mammals esp females) Its it almost solely hormonal and can even be painful. In any case they cannot experience the pleasure in a human level, let alone make that an activity that compliments a relationship.

Man’s ancestors,the apes are divided in to chimpanzees,gibbons,gorillas and orangutans.
Male chimpanzees are polygamous and opportunistic-they tend to mate with which ever female comes in to season.

Gibbons ,how ever,establish a pair bond relationship that often lasts for life,they are familial and mutually supportive.
In a gorilla group,the silverback,the dominant male,has his pick of his females,though he may show special favour and develop a more lasting relationship with one or may be two.

Orangutans are solitary,or at most a unit consisting of a female and may be one or two children,to which group adults pay occasional visits.

I believe that,even evolved men and women are characterized in such different groups who has their own different instincts…one can not say its completely one genders fault in a non working relationship.

Its sad that Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is still banned in India. A must read for all atheists/agnostists. Although Rushdie’s theme of magical realism and historical fiction presents Rushdie’s twisted version of history, the concepts dealt with in the book does tackle reasons as to why theists believe in what they passionately believe in and why it is all justifiably falls when looked at by an atheist.

Concepts of angels and devils, use of religion by politicians(mullahs) to control the population and doubting that the Quran was in fact the revelations to Mohd. from ‘Angel Gariel’ are some of the highlights of the book.

Angel Gabriel! Remember?!?! The same ‘Angel’ that appeared to the Mother Mary of Bible fame to announce that she has miraculously got pregnant without having sex..with the world’s first test tube baby!!…what fun.

Looks like in the period around 0 BC and up until several hundred years into AD, Angel Gabriel has been a very popular character in the imagination on the people of the Middle East where all Abrahamic religions were born. And the Angel whose only role appears to be performing a Reuter’s like service in religious fiction passes on that role to the ‘Messenger’.

The reason why I mention this book here is because this book enabled me to shed the last of my ‘fears’ and doubts about the existence of God and come out in the open convinced that God IS MAN MADE. Yes, most potential atheists prefer the term agnostic which is what I used to called myself as it is so much convenient that takes so little courage.

I am an atheist and more importantly a humanist and proud of it. I intend no harm to anybody unlike several of my religious brothers and sisters who might be incensed by my belief.

Things are not automatically rational or irrational. The concept of god is an A rational one. Meaning, there is no means of disproving his existence, nor, be the nature of his construct, can his existence ever be proven.

This is why there is a call for Belief in such matters - when something can neither be proven nor disprove, the only way to handle such a concept is through faith, or the lack of it. And either way, it doesn’t seem to make a shred of difference to the reality of life. Given the universal nature of faith across even unconnected cultures, there must have been some evolutionary value to having a faith - it must have served as a social adhesive, a stress reducer, some sort of a booster for survival chances. By the way, this very universality of belief has been used by believers as PROOF that God exists - not only is such a conclusion pathetic, it is also bad science. (All humans see mirages, so are mirages “real”? All that can be said is that we all experience the same illusory phenomenon).

Finally, the above reason is why we must learn not to dismiss believers as deluded morons - there is a evenness to this phenomenon, which merits study - we will likely find remarkable neurological mechanisms that lead to belief and implicit faith, hopefully, we will learn what function such an adaption served.

I came up with this proofs after reading people’s response to some of my threads related to theology. So i decided to wrap it up on one blog post.

Ontological proof
Everything that is namable must be knowable. everything that is knowable must be being somewere. since there is a name god, it must be knowable and therefore should exists in being!

Casual proof
According to scientists life came from chemicals, but chemicals are inert and doesnt have conscious so chemicals cant create itself. it has to be created by something that is live and concious so god created us. since he is concious he dont need a creator!

Teleological proof
Everything should have a purpose so we couldnt have been created by accident we must have been made puposefully by a creator so god exists!

Design proof
The complexity of nature cant have occured by fluke. it certainly shows the hand of a superior intelligence. so it has to be God.

Moral proof
there should be morality so God should exists..

(err.. there was more but i couldn’t think of it now. If you know more then do let me know).