About Atheist Max

I am a middle aged man who loved being a Christian.

Raised in a loving Catholic home by a wonderful family, I was deeply thankful
for what I believed was Jesus’ Resurrection. I was happy, liberal minded and had every reason to believe I had the right religion – the right ideas about Jesus.
I raised my children in the church, baptized them and prayed with them often.

“God” seemed the right answer to many questions. Until one day it wasn’t.
Some things happened (“Oh my God..”)
And suddenly I no longer believed any of it.

September 11, 2001 was a day of doubts.
But my last day of faith happened in a flash in 2012 when I was 51.
The difference between having a little faith and no faith – is profound.

God’s disappearance hit me so completely
I had to pursue how religion had held me in its spell for so long.
So I began a journal.
This blog contains entries of that journal.

Now I think I understand. Religion is branded on us
before we can think; “he’s a Christian boy, she’s a Muslim girl” etc.

I’m not angry at my family
who loved me and taught me these things. But I don’t like
how religion played with my heart.

Religious claims demand so much, more than we might realize.
Religion robs us of our deepest integrity – for the tiniest return.

This blog is my attempt to share how it happened. The hard shocks – my religion unwound slowly one “Dangerous Thought” at a time.

Discovering our world is probably Godless
was to see it for the first time. It was scary at first but I insisted on finding
the honest answers instead of taking the ‘faith-based’ claims
which no longer worked.

I celebrate the separation of Church and State with new enthusiasm.
It is our best protection of our freedoms.
And I encourage positive atheism
as well as culture; literature, music, science and art as an alternative to religion.

I support freedom of religion. But I encourage non-believers
to face their Atheism and find the courage to admit doubt.
If you are on the fence, respect that doubt – it is your sanity knocking – let it in!
Explore the evidence in an unfettered way. Test the claims.

Religion is not harmless; it has serious consequences for the believer
as well as for the wider community.

Atheism is only non-belief in gods. It is not wisdom by itself.
But Atheism is a rational starting point.

October 1, 2014

“Question with boldness the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Advertisements

37 Responses to About Atheist Max

  1. Karissa says:

    HI Max.

    You’re a really great writer!

    I’m a Bible teacher, and I’m teaching through the book of Philippians in a few weeks. I’m wondering what you would have to say about having joy through suffering, or anything else that sticks out to you in that book.

    I know you probably think I’m barking up the wrong tree, but I also know that you’ve been given wisdom to understand Biblical truths.

    I hope you’re getting to adventure/learn something new today; I hope to as well 🙂
    Karissa

    Like

    • Atheist Max says:

      Well, Karissa,

      Thank you, but if you are a Bible Teacher you have a heavy burden.
      I don’t think I have been ‘given’ any wisdom. I don’t think there is any ‘biblical truth’ worthy of that term.

      I would suggest:

      1. Please don’t teach your students that Hell is real. There is no evidence for Hell and it is the most terrible part of religious teaching as it ruins children’s ability to think clearly.

      2. Please teach your students to think for themselves and to pursue all questions, especially those which come from authority.

      3. Tell them these Bible stories are only myths.

      Of course, none of my suggestions will be approved by your Church. Or you, probably.
      But then I do not believe that God is real. At least teach children that they already know how to be fair and good and that they should help each other in life.

      Like

    • Ray Rebeiro says:

      I’ve read much of what you have written. I have been a Roman Catholic and trained as a Jesuit. I am an Atheist. What I cannot understand is why you continue. Regardless of what you say the responses from others are typically nonsensical or lacking in thought or outright ignorance/lies/misrepresentations. You are essentially telling people that they are using crutches-which they do not need, but more so the crutches are dangerous. I’ve given up. Good luck with your mission.
      Ray

      Like

      • Atheist Max says:

        Thanks Ray,

        The reason I continue to argue with Christians is I care deeply about them. I don’t want them to destroy their children with nonsense about Hell. I don’t want them to abandon their gay children. I don’t want them to surrender to Creationism and Dominionism. Religion is sometimes harmless but mostly it is dangerous.

        I sorely wish Atheists had continued with me when I was a young Christian. I wish they had pounded the facts at me. Had they done so, I might not have wasted so many years as a Christian taking such things as prayer and church so seriously. Had the Atheists pushed me to ask questions, I might have rallied the courage to challenge the priests with boldness.

        Not enough people talk to Atheists. The world needs us to speak up. I’m doing my very small part.

        Like

        • 1 John 3 says:

          In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…(Genesis 1:1) God said let us make man in our image…(Genesis 1:26) He that believes in the Son has everlasting life…He that does not believe in the Son has God’s wrath abiding on him… (John 3:36)

          Like

  2. natebostian says:

    Dear Max,

    I would email this to you, but I can’t find a private link. So, here’s my comment. Sorry it’s public.

    I’ve been coming across your comments at Religion News Network for a while. And to be honest, 99% of your comments thus far have come across to me as a sanctimonious secular fundamentalist troll who is merely the mirror image of the kinds of religion you want to protest.

    And that was until today. Today you ended one of your comments with this: “In the meantime, I just love people very much and I care about them. that is all.”

    In the dozens or hundreds of comments I have endured by you, I have not once been interested in clicking through to go to your blog or finding out more about you. Until THAT comment.

    I hope you really mean that comment, because if you actually do, then we have a point of common contact. And I think that if you want people to care about what you think, lead with that. Lead with concern for people. Don’t proof text them to death. Tell them instead that you worry that the kind of religion they are embracing is making them less healthy, less loving, less human. Because in truth too much religion does that to too many people.

    And it’s not just religion. Any ideology that puts ideas before real flesh and blood people does that. Ideology kills. Ideology oppresses. Ideology enslaves and excludes. Compassion heals. Compassion includes. Compassion liberates.

    I hope the path you are on leads you to ever deepening compassion for others. I hope you meant what you said about loving people. Because ultimately that is the right Path to be on.

    And yes, we disagree on the God thing. I think that God is that Path of Love. But I also think that God doesn’t care so much about being recognized as God (or even being believed in) so long as we become the kind of people who can recognize and live in Love. If you can Love but you can’t accept God, then you are more my brother than if you accept God but can’t Love.

    And like your comments at RNS, you may be tempted to proof text me with contradictory Bible texts. Meh. A lot of the proof texts you use look like cut-and-pastes from Infidels.org. Some of them betray an ignorance of contexts between texts written hundreds of years apart by radically different authors for different purposes and different audiences (the perpetual problem with any proof texting, whether for or against religion).

    But more importantly, God– if God exists– is most certainly not bound by such texts. Such texts may offer great insights into the Divine, and they may record moments when ancient peoples had an authentic discovery of the Divine. But those same experiences are overlaid and interwoven with their cultural assumptions and the horizons of their worldview. So you have to discern a halting sort of trajectory toward the Divine in such texts, rather than piecing together a coherent system from their propositions. And if one is not tied to some irrational need to harmonize the partial and conflicting contents of a “Scripture” to develop a coherent understanding of God, then one is simply NOT bothered when you line up “gotcha” proof texts to show that Scripture is incoherent at points. Yes, Scripture has contradictions. So what? Love is still real. Compassion is still real. Justice is still real. Hope is still real.

    And if I want to posit the ontological reality of God as my grounding for pursuing Love and compassion and justice and hope, then great, so long as I actually pursue them. And if you want to deny the God of the Scriptures as your grounding for pursuing the same virtues, then great. So long as you actually pursue them.

    And I say all of this as someone with a graduate degree in theology and Biblical studies. I read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew daily. I teach it academically. I’m a former social worker and a current clergy person. I’ve seen the best and worst religion can do to people. I’ve been with people in psyche wards, hospitals, and gravesides for things too awful to name. Still I’ve been naive enough to maintain the hope that compassion can and will heal all things.

    So, best wishes on your path Max. If you keep writing, lead with Love and compassion. Resist the urge to troll people with proof texts. You might just become more interesting than you could imagine.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Atheist Max says:

      I understand.
      But…I am pointedly challenging the violence endemic to religion precisely because of my own compassion for victims.

      If a claim in a Holy Text is not true, and it simultaneously threatens people’s lives
      would you not consider it most compassionate and caring to at least stand up to challenge the claim?
      And to point out the needless harm it inspires?

      If someone claims that their hatred of Gays or their violence against another religion is supported by a religious text shouldn’t we take their word for it?

      If a holy text told tribe members to throw little children into a volcano, and you saw the tribe doing this – wouldn’t you want to challenge the claims in this text? Isn’t that the place to start? Wouldn’t you want to save children’s lives?

      It is crystal clear that preaching Hell to children endangers their health. It silences critical thinking and presses upon them the idea of all-knowing, invisible, judgmental supervisor.

      I don’t know what else to tell you except that I care about children very much and strongly discourage the teaching of Hell. I have every right to that opinion and it is supported with evidence. OUR problem is that religion, instead of defending the substance of its preachments, stands ready to cry foul and dehumanize people whenever its ‘sanctity’ is challenged.

      Like

      • Dan Amo says:

        Given your philosophy to expose violence – where are your comments and citations against the Qu’ran, Hadiths, Sunna, and Islamic ideology?!!! Remember, it’s “blasphemy” to criticize their book or their founder in any way – punishable by death. Also, converting out of Islam (as you have done your original faith) is equally punishable by death. Sems a worse enemy than the one you’ve targeted.

        Like

        • Ryan Matthew says:

          Most thinking people see the violent tendencies among Muslims and their ideology. Christianity is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Many people even uninterested in Christianity think it’s a harmless religion. Between hell, lack of thinking/investigating/questioning, wasteful legislation, and a world view that keeps us in the stone ages… Christianity needs to be revealed for the BS that it is… GREAT WEBSITE MAX!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Atheist Max says:

          Dan, I don’t see any evidence for a real god of any kind.
          Not Allah, not Yahweh, not Jesus, no Zeus….does that make you feel better?
          I’m Atheist with respect to all gods.

          I ‘target’ nobody. I suppose as more Christians abandon their religion it may eventually help Muslims abandon theirs. But you don’t seem to appreciate how widespread the problem of religion really is.

          Like

    • 1 John 3 says:

      God is Love!!!!!!! God is Love!!!! He that abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16)

      Like

  3. Samuel Johnston says:

    Hi Max,
    Nice site, much better than getting your story all piecemeal. I might do a site myself, except it looks like a whole lot of work.
    best wishes,
    Sam

    Liked by 1 person

  4. acortes1776 says:

    Hi, Max Diaz from Lujan, Argentina, you think you can hide from me but you can’t! From devout Catholic Christian to Militant Atheist, that is so sad Max! Come back to the faith Max, that woman your with or use to be with completely brain washed you! I hope you read the books I recommended?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Atheist Max says:

      Which books?
      I’m not a militant atheist.
      I just think religion does more harm than good.

      Like

      • acortes1776 says:

        The Language of GOD by Francis Collins, who worked in the Human Genome Project. Also Proofs for the existence of GOD: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer! If you would have bothered reading this books as well as the famous debate between Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins, I’m sure you would have arrived at a theistic conclusion. There is no way to concretely prove the existence of GOD but one can create a much stronger argument for the belief of a GOD vs a GODless scenario!

        I’m sorry to inform you Max Diaz but you do sound like a militant atheist. As far as your statement of religion doing more harm than good, is completely false. If it weren’t for the Catholic Christian religion we wouldn’t have Universities, since the first Universities were founded by Catholic Religious orders in Europe. Also hospitals and the red cross were founded the Catholics. Relief and aids to foreign countries were initially and continue to be brought about by the Catholic Church. So again, you my friend are absolutely wrong in what you say. If anything the world wouldn’t be a better place if it weren’t for religion in the form of the Catholic Church. How could you possibly not know these things? It’s a very sad situation you’re in Max!

        Like

      • 1 John 3 says:

        As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (1 Kings 11:4 NIV)

        Samson and Delilah: Judges 16

        Like

  5. acortes1776 says:

    Your blog site and name should be Agnostic Max since you posted yourself in About Atheist Max that there probably isn’t a GOD. For someone to say such a thing, you definitely have your doubts about atheism which qualifies you as an agnostic instead of an atheist! Just saying pal! Lol,hahah,hahaha!

    Like

    • Atheist Max says:

      Atheism means: I do not believe in a god
      Agnostic means: I do not know if there is a god.

      I neither know nor Believe – that means I am agnostic about whether god exists.

      And I am Atheist because I do not believe.

      Don’t confuse me with someone
      Who says God does not exist – i never said that.

      I do not know if god exists or not.
      I do not believe that a god exists.

      I hope this clears up any confusion.
      I am an Atheist.

      Like

  6. acortes1776 says:

    The Language of GOD by Francis Collins, who worked in the Human Genome Project. Also Proofs for the existence of GOD: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer! If you would have bothered reading this books as well as the famous debate between Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins, I’m sure you would have arrived at a theistic conclusion. There is no way to concretely prove the existence of GOD but one can create a much stronger argument for the belief of a GOD vs a GODless scenario!

    I’m sorry to inform you Max Diaz but you do sound like a militant atheist. As far as your statement of religion doing more harm than good, is completely false. If it weren’t for the Catholic Christian religion we wouldn’t have Universities, since the first Universities were founded by Catholic Religious orders in Europe. Also hospitals and the red cross were founded the Catholics. Relief and aids to foreign countries were initially and continue to be brought about by the Catholic Church. So again, you my friend are absolutely wrong in what you say. If anything the world wouldn’t be a better place if it weren’t for religion in the form of the Catholic Church. How could you possibly not know these things? It’s a very sad situation you’re in Max!

    Like

  7. natebostian says:

    Max,

    I appreciate the way your comments at RNS have evolved over time. You are less shrill, more interesting, and lay out your arguments better over the last few months. I still disagree with how you caricature religions and religious traditions as if they are a monolithically conservative and exclusionary whole. There are many religious people, especially clergy like myself, who would lay the same critiques that you do at the feet of fundamentalist and extremist religion.

    You obviously have a strong moral commitment and sense of social justice which animates your social critique. Have you delved deeply into the epistemic and metaphysical underpinnings of your moral commitments?

    For instance, if I am to guess, it seems you strongly value altruistic love, empathy, inclusion and a distributive sense of social justice (i.e. a just society will seek to distribute goods in such a way that everyone has access to the means of full human flourishing). And if I am to guess, it seems you possess an inherent aversion to exclusion, prejudice, elitism, and majorities who use their power position in society to oppress people who are “other” in terms of sex, gender, culture, race, age, religion, etc.

    In other words, you seem to have a strong sense of the “oughtness” of something like altruism and justice and the “ought-not-ness” of something like selfishness and cruelty.

    From what source do you derive your ought?

    It seems problematic to derive one’s sense of “ought” solely from observing what “is” in nature. Sure, there are notable instances of altruism in nature: Bonobos, ants, and parents who sacrifice for their offspring. But there are also instances of predation, of cruelty, of selfish consumption, of “nature red in tooth and claw”. Choosing altruism over selfishness, IF nature is our only criteria for choosing, becomes merely arbitrary subjective preference for one observable phenomena over another.

    One can also seek to invoke species survival for the source of our oughtness. Altruism and justice does tend to help our species survive and thrive, while selfishness and cruelty doesn’t. But this presupposes that the human species ought to be preserved: That there is something of inherent value in our species. But seen from a cosmic scale, we are merely blips on the screen that will perish like all other species do. And some might even argue that since we poison the environment and actually make it harder for a large diversity of species to survive, the sooner the human race dies out, the better. Again, this is to say that IF observing nature is our only criteria for moral choice, then even valuing the human race (or life in general) seems to devolve into merely personal preference. You have a life wish. I have a death wish. Both are equal value and equally valid, IF nature is our only criteria.

    But your moral stance is admirably universal: You demand altruism and justice from people as an objective moral value even if they don’t agree with you. You condemn selfishness and cruelty regardless of people’s preferences. In short, you claim universal validity, knowability and accountability before a set of moral values.

    From whence do you gather such moral gumption? Do you have a way of observing mere nature unalloyed by metaphysics, and deriving a universal ought that is not apparent to me (and which does not come from the back door importation of metaphysical moral values without acknowledging it)? Do you have a metaphysical system that posits universal moral values without thereby turning that metaphysical reality into a personal God? Do you join with Nietszche in staring into the Abyss of nothingness and asserting universal moral values despite the fact they are ultimately meaningless?

    Admittedly, this sounds like a gotcha question. As if I am trying to back you into a corner and say “You believe in universal moral values? Bazinga! You actually believe in [insert name of Deity here]!”

    Not quite. I admire your moral stance. I think you are onto something Real (of course I do: I think the Moral Real is an Ultimate Reality of Universal Love that is labelled as “God” in many traditions). But more than that, I am interested in how this moral stance you have has led you to become markedly less troll-like in your online comments, and has actually steered you to take moral stands I wholly agree with (even if I don’t agree with your theory of religion that is behind them). It takes a strong moral compass to make someone NOT act like a troll when they are constantly getting trolled by religious people in the name of God. After all, how many folks at RNS have told you that you are going to hell (or the equivalent)? It takes moral commitment not to hit back when hit.

    So, from a standpoint of admiration and not condemnation nor condescension, I ask as a matter of real human interest: From whence do you derive the strong and universal moral “ought” which animates your critiques? Can you describe the source of your moral ought without either (a) making it sound like just another personal preference, or (b) making it sound suspiciously like something a religious person might affirm as “God”?

    I hope this is a more interesting question than some others you have gotten recently. I’m interested in dialogue and not debate. And I’m not trying to (re)convert you. As far as I am concerned, God loves you as much as me and isn’t going to send you to hell anyway, so I’m not trying to get my or your heaven ticket punched either. Capisce?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Atheist Max says:

    Nate,

    Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

    I’ll try to give them the attention they deserve. I may not know enough or be wise enough to ‘answer’ them but I shall attempt to.
    Philosophy is new to me, I didn’t pay attention to epistemology until God vanished a couple of years ago. But I’ve worked hard to get up to speed on these matters.

    Here is your first question as you fleshed it out:
    “From what source do you derive your ought?”
    “It seems problematic to derive one’s sense of “ought” solely from observing what “is” in nature. …there are notable instances of altruism in nature: Bonobos, ants, and parents who sacrifice for their offspring. But there are also instances of predation, of cruelty, of selfish consumption, of “nature red in tooth and claw”. Choosing altruism over selfishness, IF nature is our only criteria for choosing, becomes merely arbitrary subjective preference for one observable phenomena over another.”

    “source of ought” – It is a very important, challenging question.
    I don’t fully know the answer, yet. But nature has given me some equipment:
    1. As far as I can tell, I am a natural animal. I appear to be an animal like any other species. DNA, evolution, carbon, etc – our shared components and billion years of history are scientifically conclusive.
    2. I can’t find any evidence that our species is anything more than natural or material. Everything we think of, dream up, imagine is created by material brains. We know from stroke victims and alzhiemers patients that loss of sections of our brains results in complete alterations of who we are and what we value.
    So we enter this world extremely fragile – each born with an expiration date which we don’t know.

    FRAGILITY OF HUMANS – So we humans are fragile. Not only am I fragile – but those who are important to me – my mother, my father, friends, siblings, wife, children, aunts, my doctor, my cousins and their children, friends and their respective families by extension – to recognize my own fragility is to recognize theirs.
    EMPATHY – being aware of this fragility naturally forces me to be sensitive to those I care about. We could easily lose each other if we are not careful. It is in my natural interest to see them as healthy and strong for as long as possible.
    MORALITY – I am therefore naturally deeply concerned for their well-being.
    HAPPINESS – My happiness to some degree depends on how well they are all doing.

    The average person seems to have these sensitive traits. We are born with them. Scientists explain this as the evolution of social biology. People with these sensitivity traits tended to outlive those who did not have them, we were favored to survive – and so the majority of us have these traits.
    But there is a small percentage of humans who do not have these abilities of empathy and they are often a danger to society.

    YOU ALSO SAID:
    “One can also seek to invoke species survival for the source of our oughtness. Altruism and justice does tend to help our species survive and thrive, while selfishness and cruelty doesn’t.”

    But this is not exactly correct.
    selfishness is part of why we are empathetic. We selfishly want our wives to survive and be healthy because we love them and we want them around for as long as possible, for example. As for cruelty – this also helps us survive if by cruelty we mean ‘wiping out that which attacks us’.
    Humans have been very cruel to the smallpox virus. We almost wiped it out. We are very cruel to bacteria when it invades our children – we pump them up with antibiotics to wipe out the entire community of bacteria in our children. The un-negotiable invader is vital threat.
    Is it cruel to destroy someone like Osama Bin Laden by crushing his skull with 3 bullets? Yes, but Not really. The un-negotiable killer must be stopped.

    When you think more carefully about what is ‘selfish’ and ‘cruel’ you will find that we cannot be so doctrinaire about what those words mean.
    Life is interested in survival, this is not a negative drive but a spectacularly positive one.

    YOU SAID:
    “But this presupposes that the human species ought to be preserved: That there is something of inherent value in our species. But seen from a cosmic scale, we are merely blips on the screen that will perish like all other species do.”

    We do care about our species. And it appears this is selfish of us. But take heart!
    We need fishermen to catch our fish, farmers and bakers to make our bread, doctors to fix our cancer, researchers to invent better medicines – it is very selfish of us to want everyone to succeed but this seems to be a mutual bargain and I can’t find a reason to object to it.
    I don’t want to be alone as the only human on earth – aside from the loneliness I don’t think I could survive without them.
    If we do not care for the earth and our environment we will destroy ourselves.
    The selfishness of over fishing bumps up against the selfish interest of wanting the fish stocks recover adequately. The solution is not to eliminate selfishness, but to educate people on the science of overfishing.

    You, again,
    “And some might even argue that since we poison the environment and actually make it harder for a large diversity of species to survive, the sooner the human race dies out, the better. Again, this is to say that IF observing nature is our only criteria for moral choice, then even valuing the human race (or life in general) seems to devolve into merely personal preference. You have a life wish. I have a death wish. Both are equal value and equally valid, IF nature is our only criteria.”

    I don’t think ‘personal preference’ directs these matters. I have a profound drive to survive. I want to live. And I want the people in my life to live. I seem to have no choice in this since the alternative is unconscionable.
    And as I pointed out – I CARE about the well being of others for natural reasons which science explains.
    There are natural limits to the world’s resources – indeed they are dictated by nature itself. The more we learn about those limits the better we can treat the earth and prepare each other to care for each other.

    You again,
    “From whence do you gather such moral gumption? Do you have a way of observing mere nature unalloyed by metaphysics, and deriving a universal ought that is not apparent to me (and which does not come from the back door importation of metaphysical moral values without acknowledging it)? Do you have a metaphysical system that posits universal moral values without thereby turning that metaphysical reality into a personal God? Do you join with Nietszche in staring into the Abyss of nothingness and asserting universal moral values despite the fact they are ultimately meaningless?”

    I disagree with many Atheists on finer points – which does not mean the alternative is to believe in a god. That would be a false dichotomy.
    Some think Atheism is about nothingness and meaninglessness. Not me. I think Theism adds up to meaninglessness even more-so.
    I think life should be what we make it.
    Most of our drives are not personal preferences. Nature forces them on us: sex, food, shelter, love of kin… it adds up to the drive to survive.
    Wisdom is the search for knowing how to best balance these drives.
    Curiosity, culture, art, poetry, philosophy, education and science can help us determine where these partitions are.
    “The will to survive” is a very positive drive. It includes being empathetic and compassionate as I’ve demonstrated.

    I agree with Dan Barker, the former preacher turned Atheist activist:
    “There is no meaning to life. But there is much meaning IN life.”

    You said:
    “From whence do you derive the strong and universal moral “ought” which animates your critiques? Can you describe the source of your moral ought without either (a) making it sound like just another personal preference, or (b) making it sound suspiciously like something a religious person might affirm as “God”?”

    I hope I have addressed this and avoided your (a) and (b) options.
    (a) I do not think most of our choices are personal preferences.
    (b)I do not think there is a god tinkering behind the scenes.

    If there were any evidence that we ‘need’ a god, that itself would be evidence of the god.
    Yet – it isn’t there.

    Religion appears to be a faulty, man made invention – a yearning – a manifestation of the natural, biological DRIVE to survive. We simply cannot grasp the meaning of death. That is the ‘staring at the Abyss’ you referred to.
    It is why so many people still seize on religion. Belief in a god is a natural yearning
    – a deep expression of our relentless biological drive to survive even past death.

    But we must do better than religion and start listening to our biology instead.

    Life is biology – an unrelenting drive to survive against every obstacle. Life is not optional. It takes no prisoners.
    We have existed for a million years on earth for that reason alone.
    We can continue to survive, and be happy doing so, if we can understand better those things which threaten our existence.

    Like

  9. makagutu says:

    Interesting about page and comments.
    Keep it up Max.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Dianna says:

    Hey Max, I have question/input. While you writing definitely reads very well, I feel such a heavy heart. I have read your blog, your comments/responses, and all I can do is shake my head. Not in a condemning way, but in a way that makes me have several burning questions for you. First, why is it that you feel is necessary to focus so heavily on attacking/disproving christianity? Second, why do you compare catholicism and christianity as if they are remotely the same (MAJOR differences)? Is there something that specifically happened to you, in your life, where you feel as though God had forsaken you to such an extent that you would completely abandon and rebuttal his word? Also, you teach AGAINST religion, yet atheism is a structured form anti-religion, which in it’s own paradox is technically a religion. How do you respond to that?

    I am curious because as a believer, I have had my moments of doubt. I have sinned to a point where I felt that grace could never cover that debt. The great thing about Jesus is that NO debt is too large. How awesome is that? I think it’s pretty sweet.

    I also read your replies on a website in regards to banning conversion therapy of homosexuals. While I personally do not favor “conversion” therapy – someone who is a homosexual is clearly a sinner. But no more than I am for getting angry at the person who cut me off in traffic. I found it rather comical at times how heavily you use scripture to contradict what someone is saying. As if this will make them “open their eyes”. A true christian takes your pretty words with a grain of salt. They know the truth, they know the intent and purpose of god’s word whether spoken directly or through apostles, pharisees or the son of god himself. I am just so eager to know why you would not use your own logical defenses and evidence in an argument. I’d figure you could be a little bit more original.

    Lastly, I want to touch point on your comment praising barack obama. I think the great progressive shift of society has someone gotten you do conform and not be able to think for yourself. Just a little FYI – MSNBC, CNN, etc. They have that same mindset that this man who came from nowhere is some reincarnation sent to rescue our country. So they tend to distort information in regards to economics and the truth that surrounds it. They are too busy documenting “free the titty” rallies and secretly funding baltimore protesters (ok, I threw in a little crude humor there.) So, my point is – If you look at an unbiased FACTUAL source, one that does not cater to your liberal views, you will see that our economy only APPEARS to getting better. But in actually, the threat of having to pay employees $15/hr to flip burgers is putting small mom and pop places out of businesses, but I assume they don’t deserve to have their own business. Isn’t it sad when a small store can go out of business because it doesn’t get enough customers, but adult shops thrive? I’m sorry, I see a little issue here. Nonetheless, my point is that the economy is not as great as you think it is. We have had more terrorist threats under the obama administration, and gas prices were at their HIGHEST under his presidency. The housing market collapsed almost immediately after he took office, and there has never been more racial divide in our country (with the exception of the civil rights movement). Is that an accomplishment? I sincerely pray to the lord that you are not that disillusioned. You are loved, and please remember grace is free. While you may have turned your back on him, Jesus will never turn his back on you.

    PS – There are THOUSANDS upon thousands of documents that can provide historical timeline proof to Jesus, the kings of his time, crucifixion, the apostles, etc. And if at any point you were as spiritual as you claim, I am sure you know of the scripture referring to those who are blessed that believe without seeing. Are you also saying dinosaurs never existed? My personal suggestion is you do a little less bitching, and a little more digging. I mean, c’mon. You have a whole site dedicated to this. Is your life that uneventful? Live your life to fullest, because I GUARANTEE you are not as happy as you claim. Plus, the devil is extremely deceitful in his ways to make you believe you are content. But, alas – all I can do is say my peace and be the voice for Christ.

    Peace be with you.

    Like

    • Atheist Max says:

      Dianna,

      I don’t think Obama is what you are really asking about.

      You’ve asked some questions. And you’ve made a bunch of claims.
      How do you know your claims are true?

      Let me be clear.
      Being an Atheist only means I don’t believe God is a real thing. Of course, a God might exist and like other Atheists, I’m happy to consider whatever evidence you might have to show that God is real. I’ve never seen any.

      The “thousands of documents about Jesus” are not much use. Most of these are replicas of the same handful of documents, many of which are considered forgeries or tampered.

      I’m a very happy guy. And a very happy Atheist. I love being Atheist.

      The reason I write so much about religion is because too many Christians have decided to put Christianity into our Laws. I can’t sit by and let that happen without making an argument.

      I don’t mind speaking up against Christianity. I don’t believe religion is good for people. I am an empathetic person and I want to be like those Atheists who spoke honestly and asked questions of me when I was a Christian – the tough questions which make people think.

      For example you said homosexuality is wrong. Why? It is clear that 10% of every population everywhere in the world is determined to only be interested in the same sex!
      It is consistent in every population – and doctors are saying that it is a natural condition for people. So 10% of humanity is wrong about their sexuality? Sorry – it makes no sense. Homosexuality is as normal as baldness or flat-footedness – it is natural.
      Obviously primitive people didn’t like things that didn’t conform to the tribes. So homosexuality was discouraged. But in modern times we don’t need to act so foolishly. Religion is doing a lot of damage to gay people. And I don’t think God exists, so all their suffering is for nothing.

      Religion makes normal people do and say stupid things. For that reason it is useless.
      I’m against it. And I’m very happy.

      Like

  11. Dianna says:

    Yes. I have read about how happy you truly are several times now. It appears you enjoy that word. Either that, or you are mistaken about it’s true meaning. This is my opinion though, and I Dont expect you to take it to heart. You continue to say there is no evidence, but there are documents (artifacts) that are sitting in various countries. There are architectural artifacts referenced throughout the bible. Many theologians, regardless of their religion, have proven the existense of almost every names prophet/person in the bible. Many of these people are doctors, scholars, and highly educated individuals. How do you argue this? Also, I do know what atheism is. But if you look up religion, or even cult, you will see that atheism can technically befall either of these categories. Just as Christianity. If you want to not believe in a god, you are entitled. But shouting “I’m an atheist!” Over and over again gets tiring. No insult intended.

    As far as us Christians (as I will try and speak on our behalf) pushing our religion into law – you are damn straight. Our country was founded on Christianity, and while other countries maintained sub-par living and economies, we thrived. Excuse me if this is out of line, but since you have said you were a catholic for 40 some odd years, I assume you can remember the good old days when if something wasn’t broken, you didn’t fix it. Catch my drift here? We progressed as a nation of Christianity, and the more “melting pot” we became, we introduced variations of Christianity and new ideologies. That’s the nature of the game I suppose, but what is so wrong with placing your hand on the bible when you tell the truth? Also, why do homosexuals need to get married? It is a union of two becoming one in the eyes of, who? GOD. Its a fundamentally religious thing. Why is it necessary to desecrate it? They can live and love peaceably, but why do they NEED marriage? And Dont for a second pigeon hole all Christians. Most new age modern Christians are OK with desecrating the word of god to please leftists. I on the other hand, refuse to let MY eternity be questioned because I did not follow gods word.

    I do also have one more burning question , since you were so kind to get back to me quickly. If you do not believe in god, what is your reference for good and evil? Who in your life determines what is right and wrong? I mean, that came from someone. And please Dont say you, because we both know that isn’t true. If it wasn’t god who deemed the moral code, then it is OK to kill your child while it sleeps, as long as I believe it OK – right? Of course not. But look at ISIS, or other radical, dictated and socialist religion? If you begin to allow one thing, where does it stop?

    Maybe religion turns into anarchy. My point is, what is it hurting? Honestly? The 10%?

    Last I checked, there were conflicting articles about whether you can be “born” gay. I mean, no one is BORN a rapist or a pedophile. I also studied some psychology early in college. And according to Freud, sexuality is not developed until later years. So that throws the entire theory out the window.

    Also, remember when I said homosexuality is no different than road rage? Or murder…or lying…or stealing. Sin is sin. And we are all guilty of it. Repentance is your only hope. I can’t speak for others, but I am not trying to convert one person or another. Gay or straight. Homosexuality is not natural. You cannot procreate, and that right there should be case closed without even opening the bible.

    Law, morality, ethics, etc- all godly. Just saying.

    And I mean what I said about Obama. You brought it up, and I thought I’d give you my two cents.

    Like

    • Atheist Max says:

      Dianna,
      You asked, “Where do you get your morals from?”

      In 500BCE there was a God named Aphrodite (pronounced Afro-die-tee).

      The Greeks believed Aphrodite was the God of love, romance, sex and all things beautiful.
      Please understand – The Greeks had absolute proof Aphrodite was real. They looked around at all the beautiful things and at their own desire for sex and that confirmed Aphrodite was real.
      They would ask a doubter, “where would we get all this beauty and love from if Aphrodite didn’t exist!?”

      I hope you see the flaw in that logic.

      If you cannot prove a certain God exists, you cannot prove anything about that god. Nobody can show a direct connection from something beautiful to a God called Aphrodite or any other god.

      Even though the Greeks believed in Aphrodite for thousands of years, eventually that God stopped being worshipped and people invented new Gods as wars brought new cultures and new gods.

      If it were possible to connect morality to Yahweh God, it would also be possible to prove that Yahweh God exists beyond any doubt.

      Now look at your God Yahweh’s morality:

      Yahweh says – “CUT OFF YOUR WIFE’S HAND IF SHE TOUCHES ANOTHER MAN’S PENIS.”

      “If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and SEIZING HIS GENITALS, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.” – DEUT. 25:11

      Cut off your wife’s hand? Show no pity?
      Yet Jesus agrees (JOHN 1:17), (Mark 10:19)

      I don’t know if God exists. I don’t say it is impossible.
      But this God is not likely to be the source of our morals.

      If you wanted to discuss science I could point out to you that many animals behave with morality toward each other – reciprocity is common in the animal kingdom.

      Since humans are a kind of animal (like it or not) we have the same traits of other animals – including reciprocity, kindness toward kin and clan, support of partners and comrades. It is about survival. And it works.

      Like

  12. Pingback: THE CURTAIN OF RELIGION | Atheist Max – God to Godless

  13. Mitesh Thanki says:

    Have you read ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins? For me, reading that was the turning point from just being a closet atheist to actually telling people that I’m an atheist. It answered a few questions for me.

    In one chapter, Dawkins lays out the case for teaching of religion to children as a form of child abuse. This certainly got me thinking. My upbringing was not heavily religious but I was kind of expected to believe in God. As I grew older I had the freedom to question certain aspects of my beliefs, and eventually decided that I was an atheist. For many people this avenue is not available because they are indoctrinated into their religion and even threatened by the people who claim to love them! So in that sense I do agree with Dawkins.

    What is your view on this topic? Also is there a link between terrorism and religious indoctrination?

    Like

    • Atheist Max says:

      Hi Mitesh,
      Yes – I have read the God Delusion. And yes, we must let people know we are Atheists so long as it is safe to do so. Religion is not to be outlawed but rather argued and challenged until believers see the truth themselves.
      I think terrorism is comforted by religion though I don’t know if religion is its primary source – if you know what I mean.
      What do you think?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s