I Am An Atheist

All of life is a representation of science as we know it; therefore, the scientific method ought to
be applied to all aspects of life, to the extent possible.
Scientific method: Observation, propose an explanation, test your expectations, and
record/analyze your results. A conclusion cannot always be formed, but future testing allows
accuracy of perspective.
On karma:
Serving as the underlying energy that regulates and maintains all of life, As the source of all life
and especially the mind, Karma is usually not considered an entity, but rather a certain shared
driving energy. However, this energy can easily be given the name of Our universal creator and
if looked at as a comparison of the Christian, Moslem, and/or Jewish, Our universal creator could
be seen as more fair because like the universal creator of these other religions karma is always
with the being who has accumulated it, but it is entirely based on the actions of each individual
whereas, in certain sects of Christianity and Islam beings are sometime reprimanded or
considered to have sinned purely based on their thoughts. Yet the declaration from Our Universal
Creator as not interfering with freedom of will, would surely contradict such punishment.
Generally, karma can be good, bad, or neutral in its origins. A few brief examples will illustrate
this point best.
Good Karma:
1) You’re standing on the road in front of your house and a car parks next to where you are
standing on the road.
a) the man has a tail light out. If you tell him and he takes action to avoid a ticket in the future
there is no precise way of calculating the benefit of saved time.
b) the man litters on your lawn then drives away. You could either get upset and call the cops
reporting the man for littering assuming that you recorded his license plate or you might pick it
up and just let things be that are. The first action would not necessarily produce bad karma, in
fact, the man may be a criminal and by reporting him to the police perhaps you may save a life in
the process. For it cannot be denied that the world works in mysterious ways. All that can be
expected is that we do what we feel is necessary in the moment. More likely than not the second
action would be better, but is potentially inconvenient
2) Bad karma: to kill, waste, or maliciously act is part of life, However, to do these things when
it is not necessary or when done to excess is to accumulate bad karma.
3) Neutral karma: In life there is much that is neither good nor bad. An example would be
driving to work. The pollution of your car might be bad, yet the need to go to work in order to
survive cancels the potential bad of pollution and so the act becomes neutral. Here what is
necessary must be in the eyes of the beholder.
There are those who find that they must believe in a higher power in order to be calm in their
hearts. The nature of this higher power, although indiscernible, has been personified, in order to
stress that entity’s human characteristics and to emphasis any connection that may exist between
this entity and humans. Could we argue that the effect of personifying an entity was motivated
by a desire for money? Could the personification of a higher power really just be
anthropomorphism?
On reincarnation:
There are those who would argue that after death one's soul either ascends to heaven of descends
to hell. Instead imagine that if one has accumulated enough bad karma they will be reincarnated
as an orphan or if enough bad karma (ex. Hitler) as a rock, required to start the journey over;

must have missed something. Or if one has accumulated enough good karma is reincarnated as a
billionaire or the next stage of life. Does this mean OUC is the highest form of life?
On Our Universal Creator (OUC):
As there is no absolute/irrefutable proof that Our Universal Creator does or does not exist, there
need not be belief in one direction or the other. If there is a higher power though, to call that
entity by a name, when the intention of a name is to provide a description, is disrespectful.
Instead one is more accurate in describing such an entity in the only way we might comprehend,
through an idea. If one must refer to this possible higher power, we suggest the term Our
Universal Creator/ universal life force or simply, earth. Of course, this is still labeling something
beyond comprehension. It is just as likely we are creating a director for something that has never
had direction and then the exercise is pointless; so, decide for yourself and don’t let anyone
undermine your belief(s); other than yourself.
On the earth:
The existence of a personified entity that created and watches over this world is not the most
relevant issue. Rather, how we can best foster a connection with that entity whether that entity
exists or not must be considered our most important purpose. Since the only thing we have by
which to attempt to understand this potential entity, is that which was created, what should take
precedence must be to cherish any connection that might still exist to our creator through caring
for the earth. For it is through observing the earth that we can best see the presence of a higher
power, if it exists.
On gender:
When it comes to the differences between women and men, simple reason can easily be applied.
Women should be treated with equal respect to men because the only inferior qualities that exist
between the two sexes are the result of biological differences and are mostly bodily/physical
capability in origin anyway; the ability to reason proves the equality of the sexes. In fact, because
women live longer than men, perhaps men should take some lifestyle tips from women, the
remaining unequal treatment that women suffer is, unfortunately, the residual result of the
patriarchal system that has been present in the world and is still present in the world. Again,
inopportunely, the only way that the patriarchal tendencies of our flawed system will be righted
is through the continued advocacy and success driven gains of women everywhere. However,
there needs to be room for women to choose to do whatever is necessary in situations that call for
personal preference.
Men and women find each other difficult to understand. The reason for this may be simple. Men,
generally, think in terms of logic and reason, which is not to say that men are necessarily right in
their logic and/or reason. Women, generally, think in terms of empathy and reason, the added
combination of emotion makes men, who typically internalize their emotions, jumpy. This is
why gay people could be seen as expanding human consciousness because they are attempting to
equalize and reassign gender roles to both men and women. From this perspective they would be
honored for their service to the betterment of humanity.
Anything with the ability to reason should be considered equal. Reasoning itself is too rare to
justify any other action. Likewise, love is too rare to merit the constraint of others. If two
members of the same sex should fall in love, Is it any less beautiful or productive than any other
union? Further is there any reason why gay/lesbian or bisexual people shouldn’t go through the
trials of marriage or lifelong partnership like their straight counterparts do, for reason would say
everyone should have to endure the duplicity that is marriage. Additionally, if considered from a

logical approach homosexuality is inevitable based on gender percentages; it is also an
interesting form of population control.
For example, Samael’s own genetic code is that of a Bodhisattva (one that has reached
enlightenment) by which is meant that it contains all the genetic codes of every organism (s)he
has ever been. One to three of those, depending how you look at it, past lives, are/were of a
species known as Cannabis. Therefore, in theory, Samael’s DNA allows the production of THC
and thus it is immoral for a drug test to include THC, at least according to NYS law.
The seven phenotypic genders: Throughout the species of humankind, there is much deviation.
The presence of genders/phenotypically different people has been largely glossed over, When
gender identities were first organized somehow variations were simplified as only being binary
(Male/female). Despite the accuracy of this oversimplification, the view of all people only being
one or the other has resulted, in the other 5 types of phenotypic genders being
denied/disapproved of and/or being labelled as unnatural. Shame! Is it alright that human society
has omitted a large portion of reality? Below are all 7 put as simply as possible.
1. male 1 male torso male waist
2. Male 2 male waste, female torso
3. female 1 female waist female torso
4. female 2 female waist male torso
Androgynous features are best described as things like having high cheek bones but a masculine
jaw or vice versa or having a female’s derrière but a football players’ shoulders, no visible adams
apple, but a feminine yet mid-deep voice. Imagine it as best you can.
5. Androgynous male beta - so the male form of androgyny is ultimately that the dominant
expression is a male body structure, but with breasts and feminine like curves, yet a penis that if
properly aroused extends to reveal a vagina, at its base.
This is extremely uncommon.
Female androgynous Alpha - The female body structure has a vagina that when adequately
aroused would protrude to be a phallus the vagina as its base clit held to the body by it.
So beautiful!
only happens and is never heard of/ only referred to.
androgynous Alpha male 3 - This is what some might call undepictable, but here goes. a male
form androgyny with a phallus that has a vagina permanently at its base. the combination of the
most attractive female features you could imagine with male dominant body structure,
personality role somewhat both perspectives, both genitalia combined, and an enlightenment
mentality.
Unheard of then only “heard” of
Samael read the book about it, but the details have partially faded, there may have been a female
androgynous beta, plus what would “he” have been? Does gay and straight as labels even exist
given these varieties?
On women:
Body image/self-esteem and confidence:
When it comes to the protection of women, the female form and body image. It is best to avoid
television completely; given the graphic nature of advertising. Therefore, at most antenna only;
advertising is noticeably less graphic. Why pay for something you shouldn’t be using?
The depiction of an unrealistic, mostly unattainable body image in all forms of media,
entertainment and even sports, victimizes the young more noticeable girls than boys from their
own self-appreciation of their body and self-esteem. How then might this be alleviated/corrected.
for? The recognition and accurate portrayal of the impracticability of “society’s” depiction of
woman/ the ideal body image, might call attention to that pattern enough that it would change the
pattern, and/or the skill of pattern recognition will improve every individual’s life overall.
Decent clothing:
Here there is a wide range in religious views.
Christianity- has a concept of the sacred feminine but seems to stress the concept of sexual
identity as very prominent in that image. The representation of Jesus’ “wife” as a prostitute,
perhaps suggests why the image of women is celebrated to the extent of near-nudity, most
noticeably in Western “1st?” world nations. It might also be America/capitalism’s influence on
Christianity that has gotten it to this point.
Islam- Though Samael only has an outsider’s perspective on the sacred feminine in Islam.
Evidence shows that Muslims have extreme respect for the image of the mother Mary. Perhaps
their reverence of the motherly form, might explain the lengths taken to protect the female
image/form even from view. The effect that this has on body image and self-esteem is probably
profound. Telling every female, they are so precious that others aren’t allowed to even see their
beauty; that it must be protected. Though extreme would likely encourage attitudes of self-worth
and preservation.
Another insight might derive from that the Prophet Muhammad married a 7-year-old. While this
might be considered pedophilia now, they were not living together until she was age appropriate
according to the time period in which they were. The level of protection Muhammad needed to
provide to a seven-year-old became the standard by which all women/the female form, modesty,
should be treated and held to. Is this best then? Most recent at least.
Though very little is known of Aisha, they are an eternal match. There is only one like Aisha just
like there is only one like Muhammad. Aisha might be considered a polymorph in that her image
especially her face looks(ed) different from different angles and in some lightings or just based
on angle of sunlight such that it may shift during sunlight hours. A less objective interpretation
might just be that she could be anyone so all women must be protected? Or that only a woman’s
husband should have the right to view their full beauty.
Any way the covering of Aisha’s face, and all women's’ faces might have been to protect
her/them a) from the expectations of others and b) from negative energy when an
observer(implied as male) might see her/them as one of her/their other appearances.
This is something that so rarely comes together. That the female life-force that was the first
female to reach enlightenment would be reincarnated into the same space, and time as the life-
force into which the first male to be enlightened was reincarnated; instead DGID for life?!
Samael also only has an outsider’s perspective on Judaism. However, since in the old testament,
a sloppy translation of the Jewish version, Man removed half his ribs to create woman. The
implication of this origin story suggests that man is the creator of woman and suggests an
inherent sense of superiority for men over women. This initial perspective is also applicable to
Christianity and Islam.
Regardless, Judaism being the oldest of the three religions/traditions, might have culminated in
the most complete attitude toward, protection of, and mutual responsibility with women. The
transition of women to independent beings in Christianity has taken 2000 years to get to its state
in this millennium. Is it more understandable than that Islam being only 1400 years old has a
very similar view/attitude of/toward women as Christianity did when it was only 1400 years old?
Therefore, Judaism being
Climate:

In hypothesizing the influence of all potential factors on a religion’s/belief system’s
development and depiction of morality, the female, and accepted behavior it is necessary to
consider the effect differences in environment might have had on each. Both Judaism and Islam
seem to have originated and mostly developed in the Mesopotamian region of the earth. The
impact of a more hospitable climate may have resulted in a stricter interpretation of individual
behavior, given potential exposure to the substances of the equatorial area of the planet and the
behavior that might be associated with those substances.
In the equatorial region one would expect a warmer climate allowed woman to be more scantily
clad, maybe year-round. Therefore, the development of a public appreciation of that image might
have resulted in the requirement of protecting the female form; from men, whenever in public?
Christianity, which also originated in the Mesopotamian region did not find a “home” there.
Jesus was Jewish, FYI. Christianity then seems to have evolved a behavioral expectation that
was influenced by environmental limitations that decreased humans’ outdoor activities. Harsh
winters, likely resulted in more heavily dressed women only being able to be appreciate in the
warmth of the indoors. This almost certainly resulted in indoor procreation, influencing the view
of women toward the female’s beauty in private. The addition of alcohol as a very present
substance in Europe where Christianity spread first, suggests an altered perception of that form.
The proverbial “beer goggles”. Did this potentially result in a protection for a coming reward
approach?
On Sex:
We must, as a species, realize that we are one of the only organisms granted the blessing of
deriving pleasure from the act of procreation. We are also the only organism that can stop this
from resulting in a child. This too is a blessing, yet instead of reveling in the blessings we have
been given, we are taught to shun to the point of celebration of the idea, the act of sex.
When, in reality, sex is one of the most beautiful and satisfying actions in which two humans can
engage. Since the institution of marriage was originally a civil institution, there is no reason to
subscribe to the tradition as it is in its religious form. Likewise, only civic codes should apply to
the core foundations of marriage. Only consenting parties and those 16 and half or older should
engage in sex, (preferably in their same year/age; with peers). There will always be those who
take it upon themselves to have sex earlier. That is their choice, yet it is dangerous and
sometimes criminal, so it is not recommended.
On governance: (optional)
Government only exists to provide society with the direction, order and structure it needs to
function efficiently, yet if order deteriorates then it is the government that is to blame, so
government should not be answered to in the event of breakdown. For when the government fails
its citizens, the citizenry no longer owe the government anything other than military funding to
protect us, which one would hope wouldn’t be necessary, and/or whatever fees are required to
provide education, health care, etc. It is for this reason that one would argue that in times of
economic crisis government should scale back its police force and stop controlling people’s
actions when it has no right to do so in the first place. For life is the greatest experiment of all.
• Federal bribery: Perhaps the reader has noticed that the American Federal
Government uses bribery I.E. tying compliance with established/newly established
federal law to money/funding. Yet when it comes time to pay up, the funds are often
much reduced, late, and/or tied to further compliance. How is this permitted if bribery is
illegal. We as a people must fix this.