My other projects include:

My side projects are:

Worldview and Science Examiner

Fitness Trends Examiner (wherein I review individual exercises and workout routines, diet and nutrition, supplements and healthy snacks)

My YouTube channel


The American Humanist Association New Ads, “No God? …No Problem!” Should Read, “No God? …No Business for the AHA!”

Interestingly enough, I opened my essay Another Atheist Charity – A Huge Success that I posted in the last holy month of November by stating, “This post comes to us from the “Here we go again” files:” in which case this post comes to us from the “Here we go again and again” files.

The recent ads by the American Humanist Association read:

No God? …No Problem!

Be good for goodness’ sake.

Humanism is the ideas that you can be good without a belief in God.

Oh, look: African Americans, Asian Americans and
Honky Americans agree—I bet that they
are all Christians, as per this snafu :o)

Two points to ponder:
1) The ads are mere propaganda that answers to an argument that no one has made. The claim is not that atheistic lack of morals but a lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.

2) These ads are being promulgated in the media as the “first-ever” such ads yet, this is merely a slightly edited version of their ads from last year: see here

Also, note that the Bible is realistic about morality and deals with morality in the real world not in an utopia where everyone wants to be good for goodness sake.

Simply stated, yet again; during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?

Meanwhile, atheist have built a multi-million dollar, top of the line, latest technology included “Atheist Station”:

Actually, according to a June 25, 2007 AD Barna study entitled, “Americans Are Misinformed About Poverty, But Widely Involved in Helping the Poor” (see my post Are Atheists Healthy, Happy, Moral, etc.?:
Atheists and agnostics emerged as the segment of people least likely to do anything in response to poverty. They were less likely to engage in eight of the nine specific responses measured, and were the faith segment least likely to participate in eight of the nine responses evaluated.

The “nine specific responses” are the following:
giving material resources (such as clothing or furniture) directly to poor peopledonating money to organizations that address povertygiving food directly to a poor person or familyspending a "significant amount of time" praying for poor people [with regards to “Atheists and agnostics” yeah, this is one is a given]donating time to personally serve needy people in the communityvisiting institutionalized elderly or sick people who are not family membersdonating money to organizations that address poverty in foreign countriesserving as a tutor or friend to an underprivileged childhelping to build or restore a house for a poor family

According to an April 14, 2008 AD Barna study entitled, “New Study Shows Trends in Tithing and Donating”; in 2007 AD evangelicals Christians (one of three subgroups of Christians under consideration) donated a mean of $4,260 to all non-profit entities while atheists and agnostics provided an average of $467.
According to an April 25, 2005 AD Barna study entitled, “Americans Donate Billions to Charity, But Giving to Churches Has Declined”; “In 2004…Barna’s national study found that the people least likely to donate any money at all were…atheists and agnostics…A quarter or more…failed to give away any money in 2004.”

Keep donating money for billboards and bus ads. We will feed, clothe and house the poor.

They also have wasted money on ads the read, “Millions are good without God.” At least, that is what they were meant to read as—and I do not endorse vandalism—some billboards have been creatively re-edited to read, “Millions are good with God”:

One was even vandalized in Moscow—wow, how far has Moscow come from being the center of atheist Communist murders by the hundreds of millions to affirming goodness through God.



    Some atheists are gentle and do not try to impose their atheism on anybody else. But there are millions of militant atheists who detest Christianity and want to de-Christianize the world. Militant atheists lie about everything (must be in their DNA so they cannot help themselves, ha ha). In this section, we will expose the atheists' biggest lies one at a time.
    Atheist Lie: America's Founding Fathers Did Not Pray

    But the Truth is: The Declaration of Independence was a Prayer and all 56 signers were men of faith.(Click here to read more)

  2. As an Atheist, I suppose I will have to have my word to say. First, I don't have any problems with ur beliefs. In fact, I'd simply like to clarify certain subjects, that are flawed in this article. It would be too long though, so I'll pick one subject: The morals. I'm glad u stated that we indeed have morals. Though, the question of ethos, is different. First I think the word "ethos" was not the most appropiate, if by that u meant a moral standard code. It is true, we do not have any kind of "stated rules" or writen rules and by the fact that we, humans, have no instinct, we dont have a predeterminated behavior. In fact, that's what makes us free, the fact that we behave following our reason and judgement. To know if something is either good or bad, one must examine the consequences of doing or not doing an X action. The problem then comes, "How do u know if the consequence is bad or not?". The chain of consequences might be long. That's why there's a need of an absulte bad and absolute good. For that, it's important to talk about human nature and situation. First, we know we exist and we tend to want so. We're kind of "stuck with existence", we never chose to exist or not, we simply do and live with it. Living beings tend to live bcuz they're "stuck with life" and the non-life simply would be the fact of not existing as a being (a dead body is not a being anymore, it's flesh) and thus, the unknown and a self-contradiction. -CONTINUES-

  3. All this leads to the answer that no existing is not good for the living being. Second, wether u like it or not, we're animals and one important animal characteristic is "pulsion" (tenacity could work). It's what makes us have a feeling towards a thing or situation. We can agree or refute. Agreement is simply a desire for what we find convenient. What we find convenient depends on our needs (Search for the Maslow Pyramid). We're able to recognize our behaviour towars those things that we refute. We know they're negative. That's why when we see that behavior in someone else, we tend to say they're doing something negative. BUT, it could also mean that what they refuted, could be negative aswell. Third, comes the famous law of "don't do to others what u don't want others to do to you". This one is more profound that u could imagine. It's a phrase of empathy, but its origines are in union. The fact that humans need to unite in groups. "Human beings are social animals", said Aristote. But...why? Well, this might sound strange, but it comes from natural selection. Let's take away the misconception of that term. It's more than what we call "social Darwinism", it's not the "survival of the fittest" neither. The good phrase would be "the survival of the most adecuate". By adequate we mean ALL what makes progress: Peace, reason, strenght, intelligence, ideas, a good political system. So, natural selection is not the strongest human destroying the weakest (as Hitler thought). -CONTINUES-

  4. It might seem to be that way, bcuz it's true that a strong man will survive over a weaker one. But that system itself, will not survive as a society. So we learnt that to survive, we needed to be unite as a group, even if it's for a "selfish need". In fact, that would simply state that the individualist side of human is strongly linked to it's comunitary side. Though, the individualist side tends to want to lead the group. So humans will tend to want to lead, but what if there's already a leader? We will want to take his place! If the hierarchic difference is too big, violence might happend, but violence dis-unites groups! Facing that situation, we learnt the importance of justice and making things fair, even if there are leaders. Each individual is ought to have individual rights.

    Well, that's a brief explaination of morality in human beings. I know not everyone thinks about it, even not atheists. It would be important to know how can we state an objective moral. Bcuz, let's be honest, a religious dogma is far from being objective. It's a fallacy to say that something is moral bcuz God said it. If it was that way, then, something like murder, cheating or rape could be commanded by God and...would it make it moral? Or would be call it "some strange commandment by God". In fact, it would make more sense to say that : God commands to do something bcuz it's moral. But we aware that by saying that, we would need to admit that God is not the objective authority of morality.

    I hope this helped
    -THE END-