On other issues first. In the last few days there have been posts by culture monk where he states among several things that atheism has led to the decline of the western culture and elsewhere that atheism offers no hope. He has received several responses from atheists. I am adding my two cents to the debate.
The substantive question is has non belief anything to offer? I will answer in the affirmative and qualify this answer. First atheism as I have said repeatedly answers to a single question only. But atheism is professed by human beings who have aspirations, dreams and desires. Writing from personal experience- and don’t tell me personal experience is not evidence- from the moment I finally realized I could no longer identify with any deity, the whole wide world was opened up to me in a new light. I had a chance to re-examine most if not all my beliefs. Things that had hitherto been taken for granted were to be given a new take.
The other most important thing that happened with the death of gods was the realization that this life here and right now is what we got. It became clear that it all depended on us[me] to make things better. That if anything is to matter, then it must matter to those that I can hurt or hurt me but not any supposed gods and spirits.
In some way, I have a feeling we get a raw deal in school. I have written elsewhere that education as currently constituted in many places is not geared towards the making of citizens but of creating men and women for the job market. As a side effect of my becoming godless, a desire was born in me to understand my world. I have tried to compensate for the failures of my teachers. I have learnt, through the help of many friends to be very critical. Am trying to be both a philosopher and a man.
Has non belief anything to offer? Yes. Many non believers are tolerant of others which is a positive contribution to society. Non believers will act not pray for things to change. It is most likely the non believer is educated. Such a person is likely to make a bigger impact to the formulation of policy towards better educational practice.
Atheism in and of itself has nothing to offer. Same way “off ” has nothing to offer. But a TV is still useful. You can watch a movie when you switch it on. An atheist is first and foremost a person. Their lack of belief is such a small component of their life that it is only an imbecile who would think they make no contributions to society.
On revelation
The believer wants us to believe, on the threat of hell, that his book of silly stories is a revelation from god. They say divinely inspired. Rational men must ask is there anything in it that man couldn’t have arrived at through the use of reason? The answer is in the negative. Is what in the said revelation really useful to us? I bet not the majority. To impugn the divinity with such shoddy work in my view is what is blasphemous.
On miracles
Why would truth need a miracle to support it? If the bible were true that god made the world and that said god is immutable, a miracle would be a contradiction. By subverting the laws of nature to effect a miracle, it would simply mean there was something wrong with divine constitution in the first instance. We have no way to divine the supernatural. We have no sense with which to understand the workings of things unnatural.
On atonement/ original sin
Christianity has its basis in the belief that the mistakes of one man can be inherited by all men. Somewhere in the new testament, the author tells us through one man sin came into the world and so similarly through one man, salvation. To believe such an impossible thing is what Christians have done throughout the ages and still do. No way does the book say righteousness can be inherited. What type of being would punish a people for a mistake they didn’t participate in? And how would the sacrifice of another take responsibility of the mistakes of all men. To claim this is revelation and the greatest is to believe in the most abhorrent of philosophies ever imagined by man.
On prophecy
To be considered prophecy, the said thing must be definite, clear and have a set time of when it will occur. To write
and one said unto the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, how long shall it be to the end of these wonders? and I heard the man clothed in linen which was upon the waters of the river , when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swear by him that liveth forever that it should be for an time, times and an half [what the fuck is half a time][ Daniel 12:6-7]
is to tell us nothing. Who believes such crazy stuff?
On trinity
The believers says there are three essences in the trinity, to wit; the father, the son and the ghost and these three essences are one. There is but one god but that the father is god, the son is god and the ghost is god. What type of mushed brain sees three as one and one as three and sees no contradiction?
Christianity and by extension any religion based on revelation is absurd. It is an affront to right reason to think a god inspired some men to write holy[sic] books and has since stopped to inspire men. It is the belief of fools and of sheep. I encourage believers who visit this spot to every once in their lives use their reason to evaluate the claims of the holy books. The Christian should ask herself why did the great god need to inspire Mohammed with new revelation if the first was perfect. The Muslim should ask themselves the same question. And all of them should ask why after the great Brahma having inspired man to write did he have to inspire others with inspiration that in many cases contradicts the other. I hope someday men will be reasonable.
Random thoughts 