defining our terms

atheism/atheist
"Atheism" is literally "an absence of belief in a god or gods". An atheist is one who takes such a position of absence of belief. In this respect, all monotheists (such as Christians, Jews and Muslims) are at least partly atheists, since they have an absence of belief in the other "gods" claimed to exist, such as Zeus, Vishnu or Osiris.

The term "atheist" has been used as a pejorative by theists, often in conjunction with words like "communist", "humanist" or "godless". This is largely due to ignorance as to the correct definition of the term, as well as an attempt to portray atheists as being ethically inferior to theists (or at least to their particular sect). In fact, many atheists have demonstrated that they have very high ethics, from Albert Einstein to Bertrand Russell.

There is much confusion between the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism". An atheist has no belief in gods, an agnostic asserts that it is simply not possible to know for certain whether or not gods exist. In this respect, agnostics are atheists as well, since they lack a belief in gods. In truth, people who consider themselves "agnostics" are more accurately considered "weak atheists", since they assert that - although they have no belief in gods, that it is impossible to disprove the existence of gods. So-called "strong atheists" assert that one may indeed disprove the existence of any given god, if provided with enough information about it.

When a theist is considering the relative merits of their religion versus atheism, it is useful for them to ask themselves these two questions: "why do I accept the supernatural claims of my particular religion but dismiss the supernatural claims of all other religions?" -- and "What standard is reliable for accepting one supernatural claim but disbelieving others?"

child-free
For thousands of years, the practice of conceiving children has been sacrosanct - even more venerated and protected than owning one's own home or having wealth. That is largely due to the fact that for thousands of years, one's children were the closest thing there was to a support system in one's old age or infirmity. If a couple had children, they would be protected and cared for in their old age. In that way, children were nearly equivalent to wealth. Since the survival rate was low and birth control was rare and unreliable, it was common for a woman to give birth ten or more times in her life, until well into the 19th century.

In some respects, things have greatly improved in the last hundred or so years. Thanks to improvements in medicine the survival rate is much higher, birth control is broadly available and effective, and social welfare plans help provide for the elderly in much of the world. So why has the earth's human population doubled in the past 40 years? There are three basic reasons. First, the aforementioned improvements in health care have meant that people are surviving much longer than before. Second, there are certain groups who refuse to use birth control, because of misplaced machismo or religious superstition. Third, many people refuse to acknowledge the clear link between having children and harming others.

Nearly every problem on earth is related to overpopulation, from pollution to crime to traffic congestion. Overpopulation is caused - surprise! - by having children. To elect to not have children is a decision that should be encouraged and rewarded.

ethics
The words "ethics" and "ethical" are often confused with "morals" and "moral". In fact, they are quite different. Morals are usually the product of a belief system and therefore are subjective. Every culture has its own specific "morals", and they may differ widely between different cultures. For example, according to the Catholic faith, it is immoral to use birth control methods; to the Hindu faith it is not. According to the Hindu faith it is immoral to eat the flesh of cattle; to the Catholic faith it is not. Morals have more to do with cultural judgments than with "right" or "wrong".

Ethics, on the other hand, are more universal and objective. They may be defined as the values that are held to identify virtuous behavior. Most people, regardless of their culture, will agree that showing kindness to a stranger in need, abstaining from stealing, and not trying to deceive for personal gain are evidence of "good ethics". Good ethics are much more important to the global community than are good morals. Indeed, morals and dogma (which are closely related) have been responsible for incalculable oppression and bloodshed.

hedonism
"Hedonism" is a term whose definition is correctly understood by most people. That has not stopped it from being used in a negative way by those who believe that it is only practiced by bad people. Hedonism, "lustfulness", "sinfulness" - these are all often lumped together as being part of the world of the flesh. Of course, to consider these words to be indicative of something bad requires one to hold an ascetic position.

Hedonism might be thought of as a "lust for life" - an abiding desire for its sensual pleasures. In the views of many monotheists, we should only have sex to procreate, eat to stave off starvation, and wear clothes to survive the elements. The notion that we might have sex, eat or dress for pleasure is considered a threat to the "reward of heaven", a distraction from duty and an enticement to all manner of evil acts.

Lust was branded a "deadly sin" by the Catholic Church, and no doubt that view is shared by many spouses who fear that its presence in their husband or wife will cost them their exclusive sexual "rights". But a life without lust is dull indeed. Lust is an inherent component of the human psyche; evolving over millennia. And lust for the person one loves - whether their spouse or not - is a powerful and positive force, and one to be cultivated, rather than repressed. In today's world, where so many otherwise intelligent people spend their days hunched in their cubicles and nights slouched on the sofa, a renewal of hedonism - or "lust for life" - could only be a good thing.

objectivity
Objectivity is the ideal of avoiding illusions. The tools used to approach this goal include empirical investigation, logic, debate and rational thought. The term means to examine the object itself, rather than to accept the claims or beliefs for the object from other sources. One might think of objectivity as being the opposites of received opinion and superstition. Objectivity is an integral part of the scientific method and the best process humans have yet developed for determining what is "true" or "false".

philosophy
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. This begs the question as to the nature of "wisdom", a difficult word to pin down. It is often useful to examine the opposite of a concept in order to understand the concept itself. The antonym for "wisdom" is "foolishness". Foolishness, or foolish notions -- no matter how appealing or well protected -- are the opposite of wisdom. Beliefs are made up of smaller elements, which may include received opinions, folklore, superstitions or faith. If any one of these things can be demonstrated to be foolish, it is by nature unwise, thus contrary to philosophy.

It was once believed that future events could be predicted by examining the entrails of birds. The ancient Greeks called this practice "augury". We now understand that the entrails of birds have no predictive powers, so such a belief can be accurately and conclusively demonstrated to be foolish. Consequently, we now know that augury is contrary to philosophy.

As with many words, the term "philosophy" has become diluted over time to the point where it is now commonly used as a synonym for "belief" or "faith". This is a perversion of the worst sort, as "philosophy" is one thing that should be maintained as an absolute, a standard by which to measure our understanding of life and the world around us.

"Wisdom" and "fact" are not quite the same, and our grasp of reality evolves as our tools and ability to use them improves. To the humans of 10,000 years ago, it was a considered a "wise belief" that the earth was flat, and that the sun and moon passed overhead. As our ability to examine reality improved, our understanding of the difference between assumptions and facts improved as well.

superiority
The word "superior" has undergone a strange mutation of meaning. Until relatively recently, it was used to mean "the best" or "the highest". Today, it is used more often to condemn or criticize a person, as in "they think they're so superior". Perhaps that is because the antonym for "superior" is "inferior", and it is considered ill mannered to address any individual or group as "inferior".

That turn of events is unfortunate. "Superior" is not only a useful adjective, it is (or was) a standard by which one could measure one's actions. If used with objectivity, it is one of the best ways to determine courses of action. For example, most people would agree that the practice of recycling refuse is superior to the practice of putting recyclable refuse into landfill. So, recycling is superior to not recycling. In general, if a practice requires something from an individual that benefits another person or group, without a personally beneficial result, it is a superior practice.

Many of one's actions can be evaluated in this way. Some actions are more complex, but most can be broken down into small enough parts to be analyzed and allow an overall evaluation to be performed. Recycling is superior. Decreasing pollution by car-pooling, taking public transportation or walking is superior. Of course, these things are contrary to the laissez-faire, self-centered mentality prevalent today, and no doubt most people dislike being labeled "inferior". They only have themselves to blame.

utopia
Most people have their own vision of a utopia. For some, it might be Hawaii or Tahiti. For others, the South of France or an Alpine village would be paradise. From time to time, people have tried to create their utopia and, occasionally, it has worked. Utopias are by nature fragile. They can be lost when the founder dies, if the money runs out or if political climates change. Few have survived more than a half century.

Much could be said about why human society, for all its knowledge, tools and resources, has created a dystopia rather than a utopia, but the basic reason is because it only takes a few greedy, unethical people to ruin it for everyone else. It simply isn't possible to get everyone to agree to work together if some of their neighbors are stealing from them rather than working alongside them.

Perhaps the only way that utopias can work - for now - is if they are decentralized. Maybe there can be a sort of "virtual utopia" that connects like-minded people for the purpose of creating a positive and peaceful community. We have the ability to do so today. What we seem to be lacking is agreement on how to go forward.

vegan
Often confused with "vegetarian", the term "vegan" (pronounced "VEE-gun") was created about 75 years ago in Great Britain. The term "vegetarian" is still misunderstood, as may be seen from the many people who think that vegetarians still eat fish (as if fish were not living animals). A vegetarian does not eat any animal flesh, including fish. So-called "strict vegetarians" also eschew eating eggs, dairy products and perhaps even animal foods such as honey or gelatin. These dietary positions are often due to health or religious positions.

Veganism, however, is fundamentally an ethical position. Vegans assert that it is unethical for humans to exploit animals. Most vegans are not only strict vegetarians but also avoid leather, silk, wool and any other animal products. They usually support some form of animal rights and oppose anything that causes suffering or death to animals -- human or otherwise.