Accountable to Whom?

A young gentlemen I went to church with back in my high school years posted a facebook status stating, Atheism is “a poor excuse for not wanting to be accountable for your actions!” I naturally disagree. This young man and I exchanged a few comments.

Here is his and my correspondence:

Parsons: I exceedingly disagree with you. An atheist must bear his actions and the consequence thereof fully, without a scapegoat or one to divert the severity of foresaid actions. Atheists, if compared as a group to others, comprehend responsibility on a more individualistic level and only on that level can one reap as one sows. Nonetheless, religion testifies to the collective state and to its drawing power of anti-individualism in all men. Yet, you stated “to be accountable,” not “to be responsible”; however, accountable to whom? It sounds as if a politician declared this status;--that is, “We need more accountability on Wall Street.” Responsibility, pulling up its collar, divagates the icy streets alone. In this particular case, the government redirects and distracts the public’s attention, so no one stands bearing his responsibility for the actions did in his name; the same holds true, if instead of the government, a deity is placed. If one believes that it is a deity to whom accountability must be given over, one should expect the government to be more readily available than his absentee scapegoat.

Gentleman: My status describes the majority of aetheists. The rest are like yourself... you think way too much. Now, you're probably thinking, “this guy is ignorant and doesn't have an answer. It's not bad to think these things through.” But no one will ever understand God or how He works. Therefore, as Christians, we live by faith. Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Thinkers like yourself (and I know many more like you) try so hard, but you just can't fathom the thought of there being a God. It just seems impossible and our feeble minds just cannot grasp it. Therefore, many people try to disprove Him or in your case defend your theories and beliefs.

Please, understand I'm not trying to strike back at you either. I've read some of your blogs. I remember you and you're a good guy. You use to come to our church. I'm not sure what happened, but you'll definitely be in my prayers. God bless!

Parsons: Before commencing I doubt not you are a caring and good-hearted individual full of love for your friends and family, as well as bringing positive energy to many a situation, as I remember your parents doing so often. However, you and I discover ourselves at a fundamental, yet preponderant, divide of ideas and on approaches to life.

Firstly, to labor over the points you probably read in my blog posts is not my intension, so thusly such things as, we are all atheists to some opposing theology or what in the scriptures could not have been written by a man of that period and geographical location or the demarcation of faith (in the supernatural) and trust (in the nature) or the three basic claims of spiritual texts which must be examined--physical, historical, and moral--will not be discussed in my subsequent argument.

Secondly, how one can handicap oneself so readily? That is, man’s mental capacity is his only tool of survival, yet I heard many times as a child, “You think too much,” or some variance thereof. Whatever the variegation of such a declaration, however, it ensues still to this day by the members of my own family and fellow friends. I mind you, Christians possess not a monopoly on persecution.

Thirdly, it seems as if a man is fine with benefiting from the mental labors of his fellow, yet does naught to assist. Whilst that would be more fruitful, the man actually publicly obstructs his fellow and many a time limiting the positive correlation between he and his fellow in the advancements of society. Civilization presses forwards by the very few great minds, not by the numerous strong backs. With perspicaciousness, comprehensiveness, and consistency, these great minds with their self-interest and personal curiosities expand for us all the knowledge of the once tribe to the now celestial. These men are the movers of society and the motors of the world. (Not to steal too much from Ayn Randian lexicon.)

Finally, please, I ask in earnest, explain the following, from where does the contempt, if that is what was intended, in this statement come, “thinkers like yourself”? For without thinkers, where would mankind be as a race?

Gentleman: That's the problem. You stated earlier, “Atheists comprehend responsibility on a more individualistic level.” You also asked, “How can one handicap oneself so readily? That is, man's mental capacity is his only tool for survival.” If that was the case we'd all be screwed. The quicker we, as humans, find out we cannot do it alone the better off we'll be. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for the intelligent minds in the world. However, no one can handle that much pressure or responsibility. I guess, this is where you would call Jesus my scapegoat, but I thank God for His grace and His mercy. I sin everyday of my life and if I wouldn't KNOW that he still loves me and that he died for my sins I don't know where I would be. Probably dead! No one can live with that guilt. That is why we need a savior.

I have personally experienced God and there is nothing like it! Nothing anyone ever tells me will convince me that there is no God.

But to answer your question, as I stated earlier, I'm thankful for the “thinkers” to a certain extent. However, I have a problem when these brilliant men use the gift that God gave them to try and disprove their maker. To say that they figured the world out and that there is no higher being is arrogance in my opinion. Some people are more intelligent than others but NO ONE will ever figure out life. We can only truly know what God reveals to us. He allows men to make discoveries, but then they twist it and use it to try to disprove him. When I see these discoveries it just confirms how great my God really is that he created the world to work the way it does.


To engage in a point by point argument would take a while and the agreement to do so from both parties, yet I doubt he intended on sparking a corrspondence of this manner and I know I was not thinking of it on the day I replied. So, he and I, I gather, are leaving each in peace. This post turns into a glimpse inwardly of the young, modern Christian and the young, modern Atheist. Also, as I have pointed out before I find religion to be a collective state, same as national socialism. I also used my first reply as a beginning to the philosophical difference I view between accountability and responsibility.

Party Politics in the Mountain State

Just this amazing morning, I read this asinine Op-Ed Piece in the Marshall University campus newspaper, The Parthenon, claiming that Democrats in and from West Virginia have shown proven leadership.

Here is my reply:

Firstly, if one countenances the facts that West Virginia's state government doubled in size in the last fifteen years and her citizens see much less for this growth, that West Virginians' average incomes stand about 75% the national average, that while most states since 1965 nearly tripled their per capita income West Virginia did not even doubled hers, that West Virginia's ranking dropped consistently from 30th to 49th in the last 74 years (thank goodness for Mississippi), that West Virginia's economic freedom settles dead last in the Union, that we have the worst wealth equality in these United States, and that West Virginia ranks at the bottom of lists, such as, State Business Tax Climate Index, State Competitiveness Report, State Technology and Science Index, New Economy Index, State Liability Systems Ranking, then West Virginia's Democrats have led to those things which you approve.

Secondly, for one to believe that a West Virginia state democrat and a national-level democrat process a similar political philosophy, one mistakes sadly. Democrats in the mountain state are mostly big government and ever-reaching social controllers, if they belonged to the republican camp, they would be branded, as "Compassionate Conservatives"; the same as the current Administration, which so many love to decry. Our tragedy mounts the stage by our state politicians gallantly storming the set lacking the brain capacity to be what West Virginia needs most right now, pragmatists. No party has a monopoly on Freedom, Equality, Leadership; they all share, for the better or worse.

Finally, how is a truly concerned citizen of a state, as West Virginia, and a nation, as United States of America, to take what simpleton excrements that rest in this type of column and still stand against the grand slayers of a myriad of governments--the willful ignorance of facts and the myopia of the never-ceasing delusions in party politics?


I cannot stop single-handedly this stupidity, yet I continue onwards. Party loyalty ruins the ideas of the individual and strips him of his liberty and humanity, making him a slave to the collective.

How Far Does a Falling Object Fall

For all those of a curious temperament or whoever pondered a basic question in physics, "How far does a falling object fall?", I have your answer. Firstly, I state the question posed my professor and then I followed, directly, with my textbookish answer:

Here is my reply:

How does an object behave when it is launched horizontally? (Which hits first, the launched or the dropped ball?)

The acceleration due to gravity, noted as g, of said object remains the same whether dropped or thrown--upwards, downwards, or sideways. Thusly, g depends not on the horizontal throw.

The said object, when thrown horizontally, experiences velocity in two distinct directions, one horizontally and the other vertically. The horizontal velocity stays at a constant speed (taking for a moment that said object undergoes no recognizable resistance from the surrounding air) and the vertical occurs from the acceleration due to gravity acting on said object at 9.8 m/s2.

Ergo, if a ball--launched or dropped--befell from a given height, its lag time until it reaches the impact with the ground below would in both instances be matching, due solely to the g. Note that the horizontal acceleration affects not the g;--that is, the ball falls, nonetheless, despite its horizontal travel. More distance by the thrown ball, yes, is covered, yet the additional distance belongs entirely to course of the ball’s horizontal trajectory.

Succinctly, acceleration due to gravity g remains the equal on either the launched or the dropped ball, so the ball reaches the ground in the same allotted time given.


I feel this answer I am be redundant, yet I hope for forceful. It was for a classes on the physical universe. Not much else to say, but that I hope you learnt something or better yet you already ruminated the question to discover the truth of the matter.