Re: Defining Atheism

An extraction from the book, Adeology

From the section: Unapologetics

I am an ardent, anti-theistic atheist, dear reader, but I’m more than that—I am an adeist. Indeed, debating theology with believers can occasionally help liberate them from the shackles of their mind-made-belief. But, it is the opinion of this author that we need to do more than just attack religious ideology, we need to attack the belief in god—hence, adeology.

It is why, if you haven’t noticed by now, that I haven’t quoted and will not quote a single holy book in this book. I will not help them spread their message. You won’t find me narrating holy books aloud to anyone. They aren’t going to turn me into their street-preacher. I will not proselytize for them.

It is one of the most frustrating things to witness in this debate, an atheist quoting the bibles or the quran to believers, trying to convince them that their faith doesn’t make any sense. Because, if the believers would just read their own book, they should be able to see themselves out of the delusion. And, if they can't, then reading their holy book to them is certainly not going to help.

Let me be clear: we need atheism, and we need atheists—I am one—theocracy is well on the rise. But you won’t find me publicly debating the validity of any religious practice other than those that cause direct harm to children or people in general. For example: the jewish practice of sucking the freshly circumcised and bleeding penises of baby boys—in the name of god; or the muslim practice of cutting the labia off of little girls—in the name of god; or the christian practice of child sexual abuse and young daughters wedding their fathers—in the name of god: or the dali lama having children suck his tongue—all in the name of god. How can anyone consider themselves moral while being a part of these religions? Indeed, we need to debate the idea of religious practices, but most importantly, we need to debate the very belief that allows for such heinous actions.