What would you do if you were....

What would you do if you were Omnipotent?
What kind of universe would you create?
This requires some level of intellectual honesty and you have to have a broad understanding of infinity or near infinite perception.

What I mean by intellectual honesty is... "I would make it impossible to lie". Well.. idealogically that's a great concept... but do you really think that's the best? I mean, if you've ever lied before, or ever told a white lie, you'd know that sometimes it's not for malicious intent. The honesty of the scenario is to create the universe of your design to be the "perfect" universe for you, If your perfect universe consists of impossible to lie... then that's fine, but are you sure you want that?

What would you create? Would you allow war? Suffering? Destruction? Would you intentionally create wars? Intentionally create evil?

I wouldn't.
I would create a world that follows it's own laws and cause my existance to stop. I would ensure that these creatures live by their own creed live as I've created them... To exceed and excel to better themselves without my guidence. I don't want to be worshiped, I them to even have an inkling of me. I wouldn't create an evil that would permeate the existance of my creation. If they have created evil... they shall live with it.

How come this seems more like the reality of the world than what religion wants you to think?
How does your universe compare to what religion wants you to see it as.

What if.. I create a world, then create something that is directly destructive and with powers far greater than the weaker creatures. Then... I promise them great power and wealth if they worshiped me. But to those who don't, I'll hurt them forever. Or at the very least... toss them away from me.

... how vain is that?

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?

Why do I answer in the form of a question?

When I state that I'm an atheist, I get asked a lot of questions. Some quite vindictive and usually ad hominem.

Quite a few times, my usual retort consists of asking them a question in response analogous to a question they pitched at me. Often they would be offended or get frustrated and ask me why I pose a question instead of an answer. I haven’t given this much actual thought, it’s always seem to have been a reactionary response to a question.

Someone once responded to that with “The Socratic method?” I thought that was funny and used it quite often as the witty response.

An acquaintance of mine asked me to participate in her “company” selling herbal extracts. She asked, “Wouldn’t you want to invest in something that would make you and others healthier?” I responded with, “If you found out cyanide was good for you would you drink it or give to someone else?” She of course asked the question, “Why do you respond to my question with a question?”

The night ended with me poking a lot of holes in her sales pitch, and truthfully answering her original question with an actual answer this time; however it still had me thinking, why do I personally do this? As I observe my discussions with my friends I never see this “response in a form of a question”

Except when my friend asked me if I would like to grab a bite to eat with him after a long day of work and no breaks. I asked, “Do blue space monkeys like purple pineapples?!”

That gave me a pause… Coincidentally the answer is a YES by the way. The reason I never do this with my friends while we are having a discussion is they ask questions that I personally don’t feel is that obvious. But, when someone poses a no brainer, I automatically react with re-posing the question in a different perspective, without all the sugar coating. To me, in a serious debate, if an answer is so painstakingly obvious yet they ask the question, I automatically lose a little respect towards that person. I do however make room for ignorance, not much mind you, but when it’s an irrational question, or logical fallacy, I just can’t help but take a jab.

Sadly, I encounter this way too much, whether it’s a devout young earth creationist, or someone trying to sell me to a pyramid scheme.

Evolution does NOT explain the origins of life.

I hear the argument: "The theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of life".

I respond with: "Because you know how to drive a car, can you build one?"

I can't help but respond to a question such as this in such a crude manner. Any argument from pure ignorance who's answer is so blatantly obvious shouldn't be asked in such a serious tone.

The theory of evolution is a model that attempts to explain the divergence of species from a common ancestor. More details of evolution include survival of the fittest, simple life to complex life, inherited traits and behaviors, and so on...

Perhaps the argument shouldn't be addressed to evolution, since it is a phenomenon after the inception of life, but the point of inception itself, Abiogenisis.

Abiogenisis is the study of the inception of life from the inorganic to the organic.

Evolution is NOT Abiogenisis.

To my knowledge, unlike The theory of evolution, there is no generally accepted Theory of abiogenisis, though I personally do favor one over others.

Like the theory of evolution, abiogenisis is secular and does not directly affirm any particular belief of or rejection of any beliefs.

The conclusions being drawn is that the divine is not needed to produce organic materials from inorganic substance.

If I were Omnipotent, I'd kill myself.

A god who is both omnipotent and omnipresence is contradictory.

Sometimes this contradiction is hard to see, so let me show you a different way to understand it.

Think of "seeing the future" as if you were watching a VHS tape. Except, you're watching it in reverse.
Let's say it's a tape of a railroad trip.
You see yourself arrive at your San Francisco destination.
As the tape reverses, you see yourself get on the train.
After a few min, you board at San Jose.
As you approach the ticket stand, What do you think you said to the ticket vendor?
Would it matter if you said you wanted a ticket to Oakland?
No, it wouldn't matter, you know you will end up at San Francisco for one reason or another. You already know the destination despite the decision.

To "change the future" we'll have to look at a situation where we can see and change the actions dynamically, this is done by a domino rally pattern that forks into two.
However, there is a switch that only allows one of those forks to go on, the other goes in another direction. If you place a red piece at the end of the right fork, knowing it will be knocked down; you are basically seeing the future.

However, because you want to change the future, you switch it to the left position, when you set it off, the red one will NOT be knocked down, invalidating your red domino prediction. Therefore you did not see the actual future.

Some would argue, What if you switch the red domino to the left branch, it'd work. It's a short sighted argument. You really haven't changed the future, you've just stepped back to square one.

Some would argue, maybe omnipotence is knowing all possibilities of the future. Therefore it wouldn't be contradictory to choose one of those as it's actual event. Again, it is a short sighted argument. Once one of these possibilities is chosen, all other possibilities are false futures, and again you're back to square one.
There still is only one red domino.

If you can see the future, you can not change it.
If you can change the future, you haven't really seen the future.

Maybe your definition of omnipresence is that of the now, not of the future. Unfortunately, that's not very all-knowing.

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.