Why Don't Some People Believe In Science?
Some people don't believe in vaccines or climate change or other scientifically proven things. Why not? Why don't people trust evidence? Socrates: The Father...

Please take the time to watch this video, especially if it is speaking about you.

Many important facts in our world are not being accepted by a portion of the public because they are not taking in the evidence, do not believe the evidence/experts, and flat out make up their minds to go directly against reason and logic. This includes topics such as the validity of religion, climate change, vaccines, space travel, and more.

In case you were not aware, some people still argue the Earth is flat!! I’m not joking. I’m seriously not trying to be degrading, but religion and climate denying are in the same boat as a flat Earth. There is no valid evidence to support them, yet millions believe in these things. Don’t believe me? Send me your best arguments.

This is incredibly damaging to our society. If large numbers of voters are uninformed, and cultured to stay uninformed on serious issues, then it is impossible for us as a society to make the best decisions. Climate Change is a prime example. The evidence is full proof and people do not believe. They sight ridiculous observations such as snow as proof of the contrary. (If you do not understand why snow is not evidence that Climate Change is false then you have not done any research, but message me and I’ll explain it for you.) Many of our leaders are extremely biased and unwilling to objectively research topics and that is appalling in a democracy. Climate Change can and will literally kill us all, there is no room for arguing. Equally, the fight over which religion is correct has cost billions of lives. The truth is that they fight for nothing because no religion is true. That is the most deeply saddening truth in all of human history.

What can you do about this?

Make the effort to be a person who does not make snap judgement decisions, even if it challenges your current opinions, the opinions of people around you, and especially if it makes you uncomfortable. Do the research! Remember that an opinion without evidence is meaningless. Be logical in your daily life. Don’t do what you know is harmful or pointless. Don’t buy products because of what the tv commercial said. Evaluate the world around you. And ask WHY more often! Get curious and motivated to satisfy that desire.

What is really needed is a wide spread change in culture. We need to promote the act of thinking critically, evaluating objectively, and following evidence. We need to remember that our emotional response is not a truth, it is a reaction.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to message me. I am very friendly. If you have questions about climate change, religion, or other issues just ask!

Neitzsche's Dilemma

Friedrich Neitzsche said that because God had “died” in the 19th century, two things would happen in the 20th century, and he was right on both of them.

1. The 20th century would become the bloodiest century in history.
2. A universal madness would break out.

20th century warfare killed more than the previous 19 centuries combined. Violence, not God, has become the absolute, and hate has become common. Violence is the absolute solution to everything we do now.

Nietzsche himself spent the last 13 years of his life insane. He swung between moments of clarity and moments of obscurity.

What has atheism or godlessness really achieved? Is logic, reason, rationality, and science alone really best suited for making humanity better? I would venture to say no, it fails to understand the condition of the human heart, and the great evil it is capable of.

Dear Everyone (Part 2)

Whether black, white, yellow, red, or fuckin’ polka dot,

discriminating or stereotyping based on someone’s skin color is wrong.

Whether straight, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual,

discriminating or stereotyping based on someone’s sexuality is wrong.

Whether Christian, Muslim, or atheist,

discriminating or stereotyping based on someone’s beliefs (or lack of) is wrong.

Whether man, woman, or some other gender,

discriminating or stereotyping based on someone’s gender identity is wrong.

Whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent,

discriminating or stereotyping based on someone’s political views is wrong.

No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule if politics is subject to ridicule, if science, if sex, if everything else in the world is subject to ridicule as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn’t religion?
—  Lawrence Krauss
BBC brands ex-Muslims as Islamophobic

The hashtag #ExMuslimBecause began trending worldwide on Twitter last week. Many of those brave enough to speak out about Islamic apostasy taboos via the hashtag risked threats, intimidation and even violence. Yet the BBC chose to defend Islamists and attack the hashtag as “hateful”, “Islamophobic” and “bad timing” due to the Paris attacks.

There are no less than thirteen Muslim majority nations on earth where apostasy and atheism are punishable by death. And in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and Mohammed, atheists are classed are terrorists.

Those lucky to escape with their lives face lashings, imprisonment and exclusion from the job market. Even ex-Muslims in the West face being disowned from their families, ostracised from their communities and even murdered by their own families in “honour killings.”

“Tell us why you gave up being Muslim. Go to #ExMuslimBecause. It’s an encouraging, uplifting hashtag to read. Maybe there’s hope”, tweeted biologist and famous atheist Richard Dawkins.

“#ExMuslimBecause we reject dogma, superstitions, notions of omnipotent sky tyrants, flying horses, talking snakes/ants, concept of hell etc”, tweeted the Ex-Muslim Forum, the group who started the hashtag.

“We never expected [the hashtag] to start trending in this way… it really shows just how much people needed to express themselves”, explained Maryam Namazie, founded of the Ex-Muslim Forum, to the BBC.

The BBC’s program featured presenter Anne-Marie Tomchak talking with two male Muslim “community experts”, almost exclusively about how the hashtag was “problematic” and “hateful”. The words “Ex-Muslim” were put in quotation marks, as if to suggest ex-Muslims did not really exist, and there was little discussion about the bravery of the participants and the positive message behind the campaign.

The presenter said Mrs. Namazie was adopting a “strident tone”. BBC journalist Mobeen Azhar said she was “uncompromising” and said some people think of her as an “opportunist”.

“I think in terms of Maryam’s tone, it might make Muslims feel attacked again”, he said. However, Mrs. Namazie had already explained that, “being ex-Muslim is not being anti-Muslim. It’s just criticising an idea.” Plus, there is zero evidence of atheist ex-Muslims physically attacking Muslims, just their ideas.

The presenter also asked Mr. Namazie: “Can you speak is one thing. When you speak is another. And if you look at the recent new events—say for example what happened in Paris, lets look at the refugee crisis around Europe—did it occur to you that this is possibly not the time to put out a hashtag like this?”

Maryam responded by explaining that killings and persecutions have been going on in the Muslim world for centuries, and to view this whole debate through the prism of the recent Paris attack is wrong.

In reference to the point about timing, Mrs. Namazie also explained in a blog post later:

“Whilst we mourn our dead in Paris, we must not forget the countless others killed by ISIS and Islamists, including this very month in Lebanon, Nigeria, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan… as well as those executed perfectly legally via Sharia laws in Iran, Saudi Arabia… The refugee crisis is in large part due to this unbridled brutality.

“In fact, if there ever was a “right” time to challenge Islam and Islamism, it is now”.

Ms. Tomchak and her “community experts” also attacked her use of the word “Islamist”, which signifies those committed to political Islam, who might be prepared to kill in the name of their religion.

Ms. Tomchak said: “Quite a strident tone coming from Maryam Namazie and the way she uses the term Islamists”. Mr. Azhar added: “it’s quite uncompromising since there are many shades of grey amongst Islamists; lumping Islamists together is not going to be most helpful”.

In her blog post, Mrs. Namazie responded to the BBC’s deliberate conflation of the terms:

“By doing so, they intentionally blurred the distinction between the criticism of Islam (an idea) and Islamism (a far-Right political movement) with bigotry against Muslims. For far too long, apologists like the BBC have conflated the three in order to silence critics by deeming any criticism of Islam and Islamism as bigotry against people.”

“Community expert” Mobeen Azhar appeared to think that the real victims of the Paris attacks were in fact Muslims. “To see Islam as the victim in the Allahu-Akbaring of 130 mostly non-Muslim Parisians is vile”, Tweeted Canadian ex-Muslim Ali A. Rizvi at the BBC journalist.

“People are saying #ExMuslimBecause is “hateful”. How can telling people why you left a religion be “hate”? By what bizarrely twisted logic?” Tweeted Richard Dawkins.

Ex-Muslim blogger ‘Atheist in a Headscarf’ wrote:

“The BBC should really be ashamed of for further silencing us by promoting the idea that somehow, SIMPLY STATING we are Ex Muslim and why is tantamount to Islamophobia, and for overwhelmingly interviewing Muslims on a show about Ex Muslims.

“Imagine the outrage if a show on Islam and the challenges Muslims face was dominated by Ex Muslims. Or Christians. Or Jews. Or non Muslims in general.”

I am very aware that my beliefs, and my openness to hearing those of others, will cost me followers. I didn’t start sharing my thoughts here to be popular. I started sharing them here in hopes I would open other people up. Even if it’s just a small amount. We can’t embark on the journey towards peace as a species if we refuse to leave the homes we’ve barricaded ourselves in. We must come to terms with the fact that eventually someone will propose something that will make us question our beliefs. Don’t let cognitive dissonance take hold. The greatest minds in human history were open-minded people. They didn’t fear the opinions of others because they knew they could either refute them after pondering them, or that they were wrong, and eager to be right. Eager to Learn. People aren’t naturally evil. They aren’t born with hatred in their hearts and minds. They develop those attitudes and beliefs due to life experience. If we can offer these people a different experience rather than shut them out, they will change.

I will not block or unfriend people because I disagree with them. I will try my best to change their minds instead.