Unlike some people, I never "became" an atheist. I was born without religion, raised without religion, and it wasn't until I was older that I had a word for it. I had a very "live and let live" attitude towards religion, though I was frustrated with attempts to quash science in its name. That persisted even when close family members of mine became more religious and concerned with the alleged fate of my soul. I've found it at once interesting and disturbing that I've become more militant in my views as time goes on.

I am an atheist. I will likely always be an atheist. There is very little that would convince me of the existence of a literal, personal god that created the universe, and that said god is Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or Indra. Yet, I realized today that I am not entirely nonreligious.

The Times online article, 2007, a Bad Year for God Squadders, is filled with pious nonsense.

Now that I have your attention, allow me to explain.

Let's start up with an example. Take a look at the comments on this Pharyngula article.

When I got about halfway down I found myself appalled that a self-proclaimed enlightened minority became just as involved in petty bickering and cheap insults as other communities. It really does appear that the Internet is a slum where the repressed, the angry, and the cruel come to wreak havoc with other people's self-esteem.

On Pharyngula I found this nifty test to determine what kind of atheist you are. As it turns out, I'm a Spiritual Atheist. Which makes sense, because I don't consider myself quite an atheist. But I'm not quite not one either. The funny thing, though, is that Spiritual Atheist is close to the one title I thought of using to describe what I am, which is "Atheistic Spiritualist." Slightly different inflection, I suppose.

I just watched this debate between Ray Comfort and the Rational Response Squad on whether or not there is a god. Obviously, I'm on the atheistic end of things, given that by god they mean Adonai Eloim Jehova (who is neither Adonai or Eloim to me). However, I didn't really see a good rebuttal to Ray Comfort's argument of the implied artist.

It was late Firiday night and I'd just come home from seeing 300 with a friend. It was a problematic movie, but by not taking it seriously I managed to enjoy it and found my imagination sparked by the imagery of the film. I sat down at my computer and typed out, stream-of-consciousness, the ideas about art that were percipitating in my mind. I was in a creative groove: my mind was like a deep river flowing through the universe. I felt truly connected to myself: thought and expression gelled in a truly marvelous way.

Last night I watched Bill O'Riely's interview with Richard Dawkins regarding his book The God Delusion. I was disappointed, needless to say. It wasn't so much an "interview" as Bill O'Riely doing his "good ol' smackdown" while Dawkins tried to get a word in edgewise. Dawkin's composure was good, but nonetheless I'd hoped that he would walk all over O'Riely.

No doubt you have heard of the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. It is a sad tale, and I do hope that everyone involved has the chance to mourn well and deep and rise stronger than they were before. I also hope that the motivations of Cho Seung-Hui are brought to light. I have heard of materials, including a manifesto, that he sent to NBC, however I have not been able to find head nor tail of this information, leading me to conclude that it is, in fact, an amoeba. Tasteless jokes aside, I shall probably share my thoughts on these events once I have more information.