Unity without Uniformity

I read somewhere, that all of our views can be tolerant of each other, without being the same kind of thinking. Or, "agree to disagree".
This applies to things of opinions and preferences, in cases where the truth of it is inconsequential or the preference of it is according to taste.
Such as, a red car is better than a blue car. You may agree with the statement, or disagree.
However, you can not argue that a red car does NOT get more speeding tickets than a blue car, simply because you are of the opinion that the red car is better.

When it comes to matters of knowledge and actual truth, agreeing to disagree is a joke.
Either you agree with the facts, or you don't.
The best way to demonstrate it is:
"A red car is good, a blue car is not as good."
"2+2=4 is correct, 2+2=5 is not as correct".

It becomes obvious that 2+2=5 isn't "not as correct", it simply is wrong. Where as a blue car is "not as good" is a matter of opinion.
However, if fundamentally, math was wrong, and 2+2=5 is correct, then we'd have to show and prove it to be so. In doing so, we must employ the scientific method.
I'm not saying disagreeing isn't something to do, The scientific discord is based on disagreement. It's this entire, middle luke warm ground that irritates me. If you agree with the facts, great... if you don't, prove to me why the facts are wrong and I'll gladly champion your cause with you.

For once, Christianity got it right.
Revelation 3:16
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
Being on the fence about facts should be rejected outright. However, the determination of which side of the fence is absolutely wrong when it comes to religion, they don't take reasoning or logic into account, but belief and faith.

 There is a final thing, if we do not personally possess the capacity to understand the information, facts or method upon which the claims are being made, we can not make a judgment. This form of "fence sitting" isn't considered lukewarmness in my book. This is the true fence sitting of any scientific method and logical deduction. This is the null stance that everyone should take when determining and understanding a concept.

It's all a conspiracy!

I've been met with a great deal many complaints about evolution.
That it is a giant conspiracy to suppress creationism, or to use evolution as a tool to further the cause of atheism.
Thus, the disproof of which is resisted and conspirators strive to cover up and propagate it's "lies" for the sake of going against god and the such.

Simply put, scientist are like anyone who else in the world. They seek fame and fortune. Even if not every scientist does, one must.
Now, imagine yourself one of these scientist. A creation scientist no less. You are then tasked to find evidence against evolution, or... for creation.
The moment you find this proof evolution is wrong, demonstrate it, and have your peers independently verify your experiment you would be herald as the person that heightened our understanding that much more.

I would be the first absolute person to admit evolution was wrong if I can review the details of the study that proves it wrong. The likely-hood of which is near insurmountable, but I assure you it can be done. To me it would be liken to telling me gravity isn't real, oddly "gravity" might not be real in the sense of what we understood it to be, but rather an illusion brought about by an interaction with the higgs fields, but that's mostly colloquial semantics.
But I digress.

The reality of it is, the person claiming that conspiracy to suppress creation must in it's core have the same beliefs they do, is absolutely false. I do not hold something so cherished of a belief that I would suppress another for their presented information. I follow where the facts lead, even if I don't like it. I would like to believe most scientist do that as well.
Records seem to show that most do, however, some do not.

Now, though that addresses the motivation, or rather the non-motivation, to suppress creationism, I now have to take one step further.
Has there been a time when a proposed theory was rejected and only later found out to be true?
Or more precisely a theory that was "suppressed" and later, with enough evidence inducted into the realm of fact?
The answer is definitively yes.
The proposed mitochondria as an invader and parasitic anomaly evolving into a structural symbiont, and now even integrated part of living cells, was in it's initial presentation absolutely rejected.
It took years and years to gather enough information and thousands of man hours of work to have it finally accepted as a fact. The implications of which is hugely exploited to the benefit of mankind at the moment.

Now, move on to a held belief that has been since rejected. The cosmological aether. It was widely accepted, coincidentally when the theory of evolution was first proposed, that the universe was made up of a medium called the aether. Like waves on a pond, everything was somehow immersed in it and everything flowed in relation to it.
Mainly this was thought up to explain the travel of light through a vacuum. Since light was observed to behave like a wave it had to flow within a medium like any wave. A beam of light then can not travel through a vacuum, yet.. it does.
The aether theory was believed and assumed by many scientist at the time. It wasn't till later they attempted to measure the travel of light through the medium of the aether that they discovered it's not there. Then there were offshoots of non-resistive aether, and non-stationary aether, and a few other theories that fell short. However, this does not give rise to the default victory of any other theories.
It wasn't until the proposed electromagnetic theory of light came about that the aether theory was finally put to utter rest. And yes, the electromagnetic theory met with stern and very very critical reviews.

So, the conspiracy you seek, doesn't exist. Simply put, the ideas put forward doesn't meet the standard bar of peer-review and testability to be inaugurated in the realm of science. Would scientists welcome something that expands their knowledge that much more, yes. Would scientists want to be the person to usher in a new paradigm shift, yes. Would scientists want fame/fortune and the nobel prize, yes. Would they like to do it by wedging information past the peer review process and undercut the standards of information, no.

Why atheists offend the faithful

This is only speculation on my part, but.. I can understand why someone would be offended when I say "I'm atheist".
When I say that to someone, especially when they're extremely devoted, they will take offense to it, or at the very least be somewhat taken back.
Essentually, when I say that I'm atheist, I'm saying:

"Everything you hold sacred and center your life around, I've rejected as truth."

Now, if you take this sentence and apply it to anything you've ever held dear or sacred, you too would be offended.

However, there is a major mistake being made from the offended. They assume that the atheists have dismissed their belief off-hand without investigation or without thought. This is, for the vast majority of the time, not the case at all.

But when someone replies with "I'm muslim" or "I'm hindu" or "I'm mormon" or "I'm Christian", it infers some level of acceptance of the divine. So, it's more along the lines of:

"I accept a form of your sacred truth, just not yours in particular"

Which is a bit easier to swallow. It could be thought of as misguided or incomplete.

I don't care what people think. I've investigated all my life and continue to investigate the question of the existance of god and the divine. I have found NO evidence that would lead me to think there is an inkling of a divine.
That does not mean there isn't one. However, I can as safely say that there is no god as safely as I can say there is no superman living among us.

Doubting my Atheism

All my life I've been a skeptic, but it wasn't until closer to my adult life that I take up the title of Atheist.

I hear Christians give talks,sermons, and/or speeches about doubting their faith. And of course, they teach not to doubt it. Normally, I don't care if you believe this, I don't care you believe in unicorns and one day doubt that. What I do care is that you preach ignorance. By preaching, your "recovery" from doubt, and encourage others to recover as well is absolute intellectual treason.

I digress.
Never once have I doubted my skepticism. Never have I wondered if I was wrong about doubting... That I should simply believe.
My Sunday school teachers always hated my questions. They never expect a 6 year old to ask, why. Or for a 7 year old to show the logical incoherence in a statement.
I suppose you really can't doubt your need to understand more than what has been presented to you.
Since I've officiated the title of atheist upon myself, I never once questioned if I was wrong in doing so. Though skepticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Most Atheists are skeptics, and skeptics are definitely atheists... "Agnostics" are actually atheist but don't understand the term correctly... They're just agnostic-atheists.
Perhaps my skepticism is preventing my questioning of my atheism, because any evidence that attempts to turn my atheism, must pass my skeptic test, or meet the burden of proof (my level of skepticism).
One thing is for sure, my atheism is not hindering my skepticism, in fact, it encourages it.
My atheism standards are; "Only believe in a god that can proven".
My skepticism standards are; "You must believe in claim that has met the burden of proof, all others must be held as unproven."
They go hand in hand. So no, I have never doubted either.

Which brings me to my point. Why is it that someone can even doubt atheism? Especially when it is a null stance. Especially it is the ONLY stance until the burden of proof ha been met.
Every time I hear someone who "de-converted" from atheism, I question if they were skeptics at all. I question religious people who claim to be skeptics.
I question why Theists doubt their faith, then shy away from pursuing the doubt to find out exactly why. Or to find the exact answer to why they began to doubt it in the first place. Or better yet, to actually try to find the answer to the doubt in question.
I've doubted a lot of things in the past. Sometimes, I don't find the answers of my doubts, That's OK... Really.. that's OK, you don't have to have the answer to everything. BUT, I don't continue as though the answer was correct in the first place. Sometimes I do find the answer, and it's not what I expected or even want to believe, but I HAVE to believe it; of course until there's contradictory evidence.

I've been approached at atheist who doubts their atheism... Do you know what I do?
I laugh at them. I make fun of them. I poke at their intellect. I poke at their reason to doubt. I ridicule them.
You might be thinking to yourself, "well.. that's not a way to encourage atheism".
And you would be right. I don't care to "convert" people to atheism.
If they haven't already decided to be a skeptic, there isn't a point to keeping them as an atheist.
If you've rejected your god because of a stupid personal reason, no reason at all, desire to break away or rebel, bla bla bla...
You deserve to be in the religion and I will laugh at you the same, even if you've "broken away", the stigma of it's ignorance still resides in your mind.
Chances are, once you've reconciled the issues, forgotten about the issue, or simply looked past it, you are likely to return to believing in a invisible sky father.

For myself, I demand the proof of burden is met. My guidelines of my belief are stringent and is a heavy demand. If someone chooses to believe something for their own reasons, I don't care. What I do care about is if it's justified. If it's rational. Their standards may not be a strict as mine, and that's their business. But, if they're irrational, it tends to rub off on others. It tends to be passed on to children. It tends to influence others who follow them. To me, that is the death of the future of human intellect. I want to stamp out ignorance.
So, you may accept that little green space men planted the DNA seed upon the earth, and use it to farm free roaming livestock for their consumption at a later time; However, I don't.
Oddly enough, this passes for a rational reason to believe the inception of life on earth, however, does not pass my personal reason to believe.
Of course this doesn't address the regression of actual abiogenisis, just life on earth.
The belief of a sky god who created everything and watches everything you do of every day of every moment of your life, who can do anything, and knows everything, and can not possibly be wrong; is absolutely irrational. I encourage the doubt, and instead of finding the "answers" in a circular reasoning holy book, find actual answers. Or keep the belief as unproven until you find sufficient evidence.

A little story.

Someone once told me a story. It went something like this:

One day this man found himself floating in the middle of the ocean. He prayed to god to help him.
A few moments later, a piece of wood floated by. He disregarded it, He's waiting for god to save him.
Another few min went by, he sees an abandoned boat, it too floats by and he floats awaiting god's help.
A few more min went by, the coast guard comes in their helicopter and offers him help. He replies, "No thank you, God is going to save me."
He never was saved, he died.
When he got to heaven, he was furious. He approached god and demanded why god didn't save him.
God replied, I sent you drift wood, a boat, I even sent you people to save you. You are the one that rejected my help.

This was in response to my comment, "God has never revealed himself to me personally".
I would have to say, driftwood is simply driftwood, it floats by all the time.
Boats get pulled out into the ocean all the time.
Coast guards are out there to save people.
How is any of these things tied to a god?

The moral of the story of course is, that we shouldn't look for god in expected ways, we should simply let god reveal things in his own way.

But I have an issue with this. First off, I am not "looking for god". In fact, I assume he doesn't exist. I assume I'm stuck in the middle of the ocean with no one to save me.
I am going to swim as hard as I can. If I happen to find driftwood, a boat, or the coast guard. I will take up on the offer to assist me to getting to shore. I will NOT attribute it to a god.
If I die, at least I know I tried my best to preserve my life.

Which brings me to my final questions. Why would you look for signs of a god? Isn't it a presumption to assume there is a god? Wouldn't "looking at evidence to dictate where the answers are" be a better approach?

Our Loving biblical father...

Modern Christians believe that our father in heaven, the creator of all things, created us in his likeness. He gave us a mortal body, and a soul.
And eventually one day, through our decisions, and free-will, we will eventually join with him in the graceful paradise of his home, heaven.
But, he has not left us without help. He has inspired and influenced many to write a book that contains everything we need to know and to direct us in the right path to be able to be with him. And because god is loving, Jesus was sent to carry the burden of sin we could not carry on our own.
And he as also given us prayer. In our time of need, we can pray to him or Jesus and ask him for help, even through the toughest of time. And if god willing, our prayers would be answered.
If we live a pious life, and accept him as our father and Jesus as our savior, and follow his commandments, we will be welcomed to join him in heaven. If we do not, we would be sent away from him forever, or worst, hell, depending on your specific belief.

Let's look at this from a more personal and realistic perspective.
Let's say my father threw me out on the streets when I was a newborn. "For my own good" so that I would learn to fend for myself and survive the elements.
And eventually one day when I am old enough, through my endeavors, I will be welcomed to join him in his mansion and we can live as a happy family.
But, he has not sent me away without help. He's personally typed up a book, through mixed quotes and inspirations from people. The book is called "How to survive in the streets of Los Angeles." The book seems to be direct copy of a few other books, and a summary of others. And my older brother was sent to inspire me, and give me direction for the life to be.
I have the address of my older brother and father, I can send my mail to if I ever need help, and he promises they'll respond if they're not busy.
Some of the kids in the same plight I am in, manage to find scraps of paper claiming it was their father's or older brother's letters, or bills blown to their doorsteps, claiming their family sent it to them. I would not be deluded enough to believe in such things. My father has never sent me any letters, and my brother who would save me is twiddling his thumbs somewhere else.
I can't truly remember if my father wrote the book or if I even have an older brother.
And when I've grown up into an adult, I go visit him. How dare he say that I am not worthy to enter his house because I have dirty shoes. How dare he say I am not worthy to be his son because I stopped writing to him after 10 years and never got a letter back. How dare he disown me because I have the audacity to call my foster father, "Dad".
And now, he has the nerve to drag me to prison and slap a restraining order for wanting to see him?
And my loving brother, oh my loving brother, who is supposed to save me and comfort me, all he says is "Told you so." and does not vouch for my great deeds in life, doesn't vouch for my passion for life, or love for my fellow human. He sticks to our father's decision like the puppet he is.

Forgive me for being a little bitter about the fact I was abandoned by a father who was not only capable of taking care of me but did it "for my own good". Forgive me for being a little bitter about the fact no contact was ever made, despite having full knowledge where I was.
Forgive me for being a little bitter towards my father for letting the world around me crumble, when all he had to do was give the word and it'd stop. Forgive me for not believing in a brother who was supposed to save me but never received a hug from him or even actually saw his face.
And when I'm on my deathbed, my father has the nerve to come to me after a full lifetime without him, to tell me He'd FORGIVE me, if only I'd call him "Dad".
I'd tell him to go fuck the burnt goat I sent to him when I was 12.

So, I don't have a god issue. I have a divine father issue. My biological father is loving, real, and will never desert me in my time of need, even if we hate each other at the moment. If I would worship anyone, it would be my parents. Even if my father never wanted me, he would have the human decency to respect his son. God does not.

If my younger brother murdered someone in cold blood, I would defend him ferociously, pay his fines, post his bail, hire the best lawyer I can find, but would be the first to turn him in, as much as it pains me to do so; and would never go to prison for his actions, or justify it's righteousness simply because he is my brother. Jesus does the very same, however, not because of murder, not because of actual evil, but the act of a thought crime. But in the victimless act of not believing, we are held in absolute accountability and unjustified punishment. Jesus, however, would gladly go to death row for someone who actually murdered someone, simply by invoking his name. How loving.