7 Reasons To Be an Atheist

1. Metaphysical naturalism is true.

The first reason to be an atheist is all the evidence we have so far, about us and the world, is best explained by Metaphysical Naturalism. Naturalism is therefore probably true, and that means there is no god. For there are no miracles, no infallible scriptures, but instead only a blind, mechanical universe.

Likewise, the truths of Metaphysical Naturalism, as supported by the facts, render invalid or unpersuasive every logical argument for belief in a god: what theologians call the Transcendental Argument is effectively refuted by the facts and arguments presented here http://pastebin.com/0VYSUyRF; the Argument from Religious Experience, here http://pastebin.com/J4nwc5Yp; the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments, here http://pastebin.com/XGfzNagT; the Argument to Design, here http://pastebin.com/H49qPTdx; the Arguments from Miracles and Holy Scripture, here http://pastebin.com/j7RyPHiw; and the Moral Argument, here http://pastebin.com/4u6ibgnP.

Beyond that, the same conclusion can be reached by several other independent lines of observation. For instance, as shown here http://pastebin.com/GxHsN9ap, there are no minds without complex physical brains, therefore there can be no divine mind, since there is clearly no gigantic brain for it. On the other hand, if God can have a mind without a physical brain, it is inexplicable why we need them. It is far more probable that such a god would create beings with minds like His, minds that could not be damaged or destroyed, rather than minds needlessly dependent on something so fragile as a brain.

Or since natural explanations of the origin of the universe, and of life and ourselves, are altogether more plausible than theistic ones, it is likely there is just nature, and no god at all. There is no plausible reason why an Almighty would need billions of years and trillions of galaxies to accomplish his ends through long, deterministic causal processes. But that is exactly what we should expect if there is no god, but only nature.

Thus, since the facts strongly fit Metaphysical Naturalism more than any popular kind of theism, we should be Naturalists, and therefore atheists. Certainly, some new evidence could turn up one day to change all this. But until then, the best bet is Naturalism. In various ways, all the remaining arguments expand on this one. But they also stand on their own, on independent evidence, without being part of an entirely naturalistic worldview. These represent seven independent lines of observation that converge on the same conclusion: there is no god. This means they converge from the same evidence to another conclusion: Metaphysical Naturalism is true.


2. The Religious Landscape is Confused and Mundane

Another argument for atheism is that god-beliefs have not been produced by the actual existence of a god, but by interests and circumstances unrelated to solid evidence and sound argument. And that implies a god does not exist except as a false belief, for two reasons. First, if a compassionate god exists, he would not allow people to damn or kill or deceive themselves in this way, but would nurtureand guide them and steer them to the truth. Like any good person, he would correct us when we err, mediate between groups when our disagreements get out of hand, and make sure to supply the reasoning power he gave us with clear and convincing evidence.

I would do this, and surely I cannot be better intentioned and more compassionate than God. On the other hand, if God is not compassionate, he is unworthy of worship anyway. But even then his complete disinterest in setting his subjects straight still remains inexplicable. Meanwhile, most god-beliefs are of a compassionate god, which certainly entails observations contrary to what we actually see, so those beliefs are probably false. Religions are endlessly fragmented in disagreement about the most important things about our salvation and our welfare, things no caring god would let us be without.

Second, if half the world falsely believes in Allah while the other half correctly believes in Christ, how do we know it isn’t the other way around? How can we even be sure any of the Big Religions are right? Maybe the Jews are right. Or the Zoroastrians for that matter. Or the Taoists or Deists...or the atheists! We should be able to tell by observing which religion has shown clear divine aid and inspiration—that is, which religion’s success is not explicable due to normal human cultural diffusion, but only due to divine inspiration or intervention, or the unassailable truth of the evidence for the divine. But when we look for this evidence, we are sorely disappointed. No religion shows any special heavenly support (see http://pastebin.com/J4nwc5Yp). To the contrary, all the largest theistic religions exhibit signs of a memetic virus rather than a healthy conquest of truth, as we shall see. And smaller religions certainly can’t claim anything special over their vastly more successful competitors. So if the Big Religions are unaided by God, so are all others. This supports atheism, which holds that there is no divine aid to be had. This claim requires a much deeper examination of the facts before moving on. Please see my sub-points here http://pastebin.com/xadu2Zr2

3. The Universe is a Moron

So confusion and mundanity is the second reason to be an atheist. Now for the third. The nature of the world is manifestly dispassionate and blind, exhibiting no value-laden behavior or message of any kind. It is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly uncomprehending of itself or others. This is exactly what we should expect if it was not created and governed by a benevolent deity, while it is hardly explicable on the theory that there is such a being. Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out my butt is sufficient reason to believe there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else.

But the point is even stronger. All the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. Never once have we confirmed the existence of any other kind of cause. And that is most strange if there is a god, but not strange at all if there isn’t. This is the basis for what I call a teleological argument for atheism. “Teleology” is the study of goals, of designs with intended ends. A teleological process is something goal-oriented, aiming at a final purpose, ever-correcting itself toward it. The Teleological Argument for God is that the universe exhibits teleology, teleology entails a mind (since only minds have desires or intentions), therefore a mind must lie behind the universe, and that would be God. This argument fails twice: teleology doesn’t entail a mind, and the universe doesn’t exhibit any sort of teleology distinctive of a mind (http://pastebin.com/H49qPTdx and http://pastebin.com/XGfzNagT and http://pastebin.com/0VYSUyRF)

One particular way to put this is that there is no high teleology anywhere in the organization of the universe. By that I mean the sort of intention or goal one can only expect from a conscious being like us, as opposed to the sort of goals exhibited by, say, a flat worm or a computer game or an ant colony. The most teleological force we observe in nature, apart from the goals and intentions of animals—whose cause we already understand to be evolution by natural selection—is that of natural selection itself, which shows no more intelligence than an ant hill or, more to the point, a desktop computer, which we know even today can model the entire process, and from a simple set of rules can spontaneously produce organisms just as surprising and complex as humans, especially given the same ridiculous lengths of time nature has clearly needed to get so far. Any dumb process can exhibit a blind teleology, winnowing behaviors or outcomes away, leaving only those few that satisfy the particular criteria of survival.

In contrast, even a cold-hearted superintelligence would not be so stupid as to take billions of years of meandering and disastrously catastrophic trial and error to figure out how to make a human. It would just make humans. But the evidence does not pan out that way—that is not what happened. Instead, a moronic teleological process did the work, sloppy and slow. That is incredible if God exists. But it makes perfect sense if he doesn’t.

On the other hand, a superintelligence would certainly design a universe with very abstract goals built in. For example, if I were to make a universe, and cared how the people in it felt—whether they suffered or were happy—I would make it a law of the universe that the more good a person really was the more invulnerable they would be to harm or illness; and the more evil, the weaker and more ill. Obviously, such a law would not be possible unless the universe “knew” what good and evil was, and cared about the one flourishing rather than the other. And unlike mere survival (which does its own choosing through the accidents of nature), to have something other than mere survival as an end, but a highly abstract good instead, would be inconceivable without a higher mind capable of grasping all these deep abstract principles, and caring about them (as we know humans do and the universe does not). So this sort of law would indeed have been a very strong proof that the universe was created by an intelligence and a benevolent one at that!

That’s just one example. I can think of dozens of possible teleological laws that could have been built into the very fabric of the universe, which would not be possible unless a mind with highly abstract goals put them there. But we have found no such laws. None at all. That is exceedingly strange for a universe supposedly designed by a caring superintelligence. And if what we would expect on the assumption of a superintelligent creator is not found, there probably is no such creator. And since what we would expect on the assumption of a mindless, uncreated natural universe is what we find, and nothing else, the most reasonable conclusion is that such a universe is all there is.

This need not be limited to the fabric of the universe itself. Any obvious divine activity would be a very strong proof. According to old Creationism, God is a great miracle worker, who flooded worlds, stopped suns, parted seas and raised the dead—in short, someone who left no one mistaken that he existed. How could any Hebrew reasonably doubt there was a God, and a God on his side no less, after watching events like these? Even I can see that if the earth flooded entire in just forty days after a voice warned me to build a boat to survive it, the sun stopped moving for a few hours without harm to anything on earth, the sea parted so I could cross it to escape an oppressor, and dry bones filled with flesh and the person whose bones they were came alive again before my eyes, there could not possibly be any sane or rational doubt that God exists, or something like him. If millions of Jews got to see such things all the time, but I don’t get to see anything of the sort, God can hardly blame me for being an unbeliever. He would have a good case against unbelievers among the witnesses of those events, but I am not one of them. All I see is a universe that is nothing but a great big moron, stupidly doing its business with no awareness or care for anyone.

The existence of a divine creator driven by a mission to save humankind entails certain things should be the case about his Creation. For instance, if I were omnipotent, whenever I got fed up with all the killing I would just snap my fingers and turn all guns into flowers. Such a worldwide miracle would be undeniable proof not only that I existed, but that I am a very compassionate being who is merciful and kind. Likewise, if I wanted people to know which church was teaching the right way to salvation, I would protect all such churches with mysterious energy fields so they would be invulnerable to harm, and its preachers would be able to work great acts of mercy, such as regenerating lost limbs, and its bibles would glow in the dark so they could always be read, and they would be indestructible, immune to any attempt to mark or burn or tear them, or change what they said. Indeed, I would regard it as my moral obligation to do things like this, so my children would not be in the dark about who I was and what I was about, and what was truly good for their happiness (see http://pastebin.com/4u6ibgnP).

But since the universe exhibits no miraculous activities or value-laden design features, much less doing so in any way indicative of the values of a compassionate being, and this is improbable if God exists, but inevitable if he doesn’t, atheism is the only reasonable view to take.

4. The Idea of God Doesn’t Make Any Sense

The fourth reason to be an atheist is that most god-concepts are illogical. To be fair, most arguments from Incoherence, as they are called, are often frivolous. A typical example is the taunt “If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big even he can’t lift it?” This is supposed to prove that omnipotence is illogical and therefore God (who is supposed to be omnipotent) doesn’t exist. There are many arguments like that. But I don’t buy them. These are generally not valid, since any definition of god (or his properties) that is illogical can just be revised to be logical. So in effect, Arguments from Incoherence aren’t really arguments for atheism, but for the reform of theology. For instance, if we define omnipotence (like many do) as “having all the power that exists” or “being able to do everything that can ever be done” then we avoid silly objections like the impossible rock. Likewise, we can define omniscience as “knowing everything there is to know or that can be known” and omnibenevolence as “loving all things with the most profound compassion possible.”

But in a few cases, the theological reforms that would be required to avoid defeat at the hands of an Argument from Incoherence are reforms that fly in the face of all popular beliefs about God. For example, it is obvious that a perfect being, by any definition, could not and would not create an imperfect universe, yet the universe is imperfect, therefore God cannot be perfect. This does not prove there is no God, but it does prove that, given the way the universe plainly is, if any God exists, he is imperfect. We can know this with almost absolute certainty—the evidence is that overwhelming, far more overwhelming than any evidence to the contrary.

After all, the design of man, and nature generally, is wasteful and messy, inefficient and full of needless vulnerabilities and imperfections, pitfalls and limitations. There is no logical ground, much less any need, for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being to create us and this universe as we are. Rather, such a being would have made a universe where there was no need of rape and murder and all other forms of natural suffering among animals, where death and killing was not required for any creature’s survival, where injury could never be permanent or traumatizing, where there is no disease, where human minds were all very intelligent and reliable, and education available to all, and where there were no natural disasters. Even a heartless deity would at least make his creation less messy and chaotic, unless mess and chaos were the very things he wanted. And no matter what, a perfect god by definition could only ever produce perfect worlds—for even the capacity, much less the tendency, to make what is imperfect would itself be an imperfection in the creator. So whether he’s kind or cruel, we can be quite sure that if there is a God, he isn’t perfect.

This also entails something more, refuting all popular conceptions of God: it entails that any God who promises to take us to heaven cannot exist. For if such a God existed, we would already be in heaven. For there would never be any need for this world—nor could anyone say our present world was the best God could make, unless heaven is no better (and if it wasn’t, then heaven would be pointless). We cannot say the present world is a test, for example, since God already knows everything, so he has no need of tests. And he made us, so we can’t be any better than we already are anyway. And if someone wanted to lamely argue that this world exists so we can choose between good or evil even to God’s surprise, we would still have that freedom to turn to evil in heaven, so God would gain nothing by putting us here that he would not automatically and unavoidably have by just putting us in heaven in the first place. So putting us down here serves no purpose at all, even on that ridiculous argument. So if God exists, there cannot be a heaven—or if heaven exists, there is no God who wants us there—unless God is enfeebled, or God didn’t create the universe, or we accept some other astonishing rejection of popular notions.

This is just one type of incoherence argument that is not frivolous. It leaves us with an inexplicable god-concept, proving that there just isn’t any way God can make sense to us, unless we adopt an idea of God wholly alien to anything anyone has ever found believable or comforting. There are other incoherence arguments just as damning, mainly refuting attempts to explain away other arguments for atheism, so I will return to those incoherent notions later, in argument number seven.

5. Too Much Needless Cruelty and Misery

The same points made already also combine to make their own argument against the existence of a caring God, a fifth reason to be an atheist. As I’ve said already, the inherent role of violence, injustice and cruelty in the operation of nature, bringing about the pointless suffering of animals as well as humans, is inexplicable as the creation of a kind being, but entirely to be expected as the outcome of a blind process of natural selection in a mindless universe.

Even from a design perspective, there is no moral justification for disease or predation, for example. In fact, there is no way to deny that it is a truly bad design to create a world with limited resources—not enough food or water or space to satisfy every creature’s needs, much less its happiness, forcing everything to viciously compete, suffer, and have millions of babies that must die so only a few may live—that is, if I wanted to minimize suffering and maximize love and happiness. So, if this universe was made by a god, he must either be really bad at designing universes, or sorely limited in ability, or (even worse) not care about minimizing suffering and maximizing love and happiness. None of these is acceptable to anyone holding to a popular conception of God. And if we retreat into an unpopular conception, we are left with no reason to believe such a being exists in the first place.

The list of needless horrors is endless. Consider the abundance of poisonous and diseased food and water sources, as well as infertile or inhospitable land. No considerate civil engineer would include such things in any city he was building. Indeed, if he did so, he would have to be a villain with a very perverted sense of humor. And if he did so by some accident or limitation, he would hardly be worthy of the title “God.” Just imagine God telling you, as you walk into heaven asking what the hell was up with all that crap, “Oops! I didn’t think of that! Sorry. Couldn’t be helped. Did my best! No. No way to fix it now. My budget ran out!” What sort of God is that?

So incompetent or perverse would this engineer have to be that the very acts of compassion he supposedly encourages in us—like selflessly defeating disease and hunger in Third World countries by eating the expense of billions of dollars of free shipments of food and vaccines every year—end up causing profound misery far worse than we were trying to alleviate in the first place. For such an “act of mercy” causes populations to skyrocket out of control, now that disease and starvation are no longer killing enough people off (two population control mechanisms already more worthy of a Mengele than a God), leading to massive poverty, overcrowding, misery, and an ever-spiraling increase in demand for more food and vaccines, not to mention the inevitable outcome of inspiring desperate people to turn to radical, suicidally violent movements like Islamic Jihad, or the support of dictators and thugs.

It is easy to see how this perversion of the way things are supposed to be could not possibly happen in a world well-designed and well-managed. For it would be no trouble to simply permit, by divine act of will, only enough conceptions to occur every year as can be sustained. Indeed, since we know that people raised by good, loving parents are always better off, and more morally and mentally stable, God could simply allow only good, loving parents to conceive children. There is certainly no logical need for bad, heartless parents to do so. And this, again, could have been a law of nature, not even requiring God’s attention.

We can frame this argument in three distinct ways that all converge on the same conclusion: First, if any one of us had the power, we would immediately alleviate all needless suffering. For this is exactly what we already do: with drugs and surgery and therapy. No one says “Stop getting better at alleviating suffering! Don’t open too many hospitals!” Of course not. Every decent, compassionate person asks, even labors, for exactly the opposite: more hospitals, affordable to more people, with more drugs and techniques, better drugs and techniques. We can’t throw enough money at it or complete our research fast enough to satisfy the loving hearts among us humans. So why isn’t God joining in? If we are this compassionate, if we can see it is obviously our moral obligation to end all needless suffering through the perfection of medical means, it plainly follows that if a god exists, he is not compassionate at all. For he does nothing, despite being able to do so much more, while we do everything, under the withering strain of limited time, resources, knowledge, and ability. Thus, either God does not exist, or he is a heartless demon.

Second, if any one of us had the power, we would immediately enforce true justice everywhere. For this is exactly what we already do: with the pursuit of forensic techniques and the use of identity cards and police and juries and judges and prisons and on and on. No one says “Stop getting better at catching criminals! Stop improving your ability to reform them! Stop making so many correct judgments upon people!” Of course not. Every decent, compassionate person asks, even labors, for exactly the opposite: less error in the justice system, more ways to catch criminals and thwart crime, more success in turning criminals around. Again, we can’t throw enough money at it or complete our trials and investigations fast enough to satisfy the loving hearts among us humans. So why isn’t God joining in? If we are this compassionate, if we can see it is obviously our moral obligation to enforce a more perfect justice by getting better at solving crimes, and judging and reforming criminals, it plainly follows that if a god exists, he is not compassionate at all. For he does nothing, despite being able to do so much more, while we do everything, under the withering strain of limited time, resources, knowledge, and ability. Thus, either God does not exist, or he is a heartless demon.

Third, if any one of us had the power, we would immediately intervene to prevent all natural disasters—maybe even inadvertent manmade ones, too. For this is exactly what we already do: with the development and improvement of 911 emergency response, suicide hotlines, building and workplace safety codes, the Red Cross, rescue teams and vehicles and equipment. No one says “Stop saving people in distress! Stop preventing floods! Stop making buildings impervious to earthquakes!” Of course not. Every decent, compassionate person asks, even labors, for exactly the opposite: better, stronger, safer buildings and civil resources, more firemen and ambulances, more rescue boats and helicopters, more, and more skilled, 911 dispatchers. As with medicine and justice, we can’t throw enough money at it or be in enough places or complete our research and develop and enforce new standards and materials fast enough to satisfy the loving hearts among us humans. So why isn’t God joining in? If we are this compassionate, if we can see it is obviously our moral obligation to prevent more tragedy by building safer and getting trained people with the right equipment and support in the right places at the right times, it plainly follows that if a god exists, he is not compassionate at all. For he does nothing, despite being able to do so much more, while we do everything, under the withering strain of limited time, resources, knowledge, and ability. Thus, either God does not exist, or he is a heartless demon.

It is not even the point that God doesn’t do enough. It is that he does nothing whatsoever. Even if God did too little, if he at least did something, we would be justified in believing he existed, leaving us to debate only about his character or limitations or whether we ought to love or worship him. But we don’t even get that. Someone is contemplating suicide. Is God there to counsel them? Someone is drowning. Does God throw them a life-jacket? A gunman is about to walk into a church and kill thirty children. Does God warn the children? Does he try to talk to the gunman and help him work out his problems instead? Or persuade him to put down the gun? Does he turn the bullets into popcorn? It goes even deeper, to the fundamental nature of the universe itself. Why design a planet that has earthquakes in the first place? Why a universe that can produce gunpowder? It simply makes no sense at all. Unless there is no god. Then it makes perfect sense.

6. Not Enough Good from God

A sixth reason follows: not only should there be less pointless suffering if there is a God, there should be more benefits from such a God as well. Yet there are none. God is supposed to be your bud, your pal. He is a shepherd, a father, a mother, a friend. Yet he does none of the things such people do. You cannot deny that God would act like a friend and a parent if he really were one. After all, it is only “by their fruits that ye may know them.” You cannot say whether someone is good or evil or indifferent if you never see them doing anything, by which their character can be known. And unless God is tied up and stuck in a box somewhere and unable to chew his way out, he would surely make a regular appearance in our lives, well beyond the vague emotional illusions and contradictory revelations people claim to be from God.

The mistaken interpretation of spiritual emotions and sensations, and hallucinatory altered states of consciousness, are natural and solely personal phenomena, not communications from outside your own mind (see http://pastebin.com/J4nwc5Yp). But even if they were believable, they are not indicative of any real friendship or love, unless God is so powerless and numbed of mind that he can barely even communicate to us with ambiguous impressions and random symbols.

As a friend, I would think it shameful if I didn’t give clear, honest advice to my friends when asked, or offer comfort when they are in misery or misfortune. I loan them money when they need it, help them move, keep them company when they are lonely, introduce them to new things I think they’ll like, look out for them. God does none of these things for anyone. Thus he is a friend to none. A man who calls himself a friend but who never speaks plainly to you and is never around when you need him is no friend at all. And it won’t do to say God’s with only some people, speaking to and comforting and helping them out, because this means he doesn’t really love all beings, and is therefore not all-loving, which would make him less decent than even some humans I know. And it’s sickeningly patronizing to say in the midst of misery or loneliness or need that “God’s with you in spirit,” that he pats you on the head and says “There! There!” (though not even in so many words as that). A friend who did so little for us, despite having every resource and ability to do more, and nothing to lose by using them, would be ridiculing us with his disdain. Thus, we cannot rescue the idea of God as Friend to All. The evidence flatly refutes the existence of any such creature.

Likewise, as a loving parent, I would think it a horrible failure on my part if I didn’t educate my children well, and supervise them kindly, teaching them how to live safe and well and warning them of unknown or unexpected dangers. If they asked me to butt out I would. But if they didn’t, it would be unconscionable to ignore them, to offer them no comfort or protection or advice. Indeed, society would deem me fit for prison if I did. It would be felony criminal neglect. Yet that is God. An absentee mom, who lets kids get kidnapped and murdered or run over by cars, who does nothing to teach them what they need to know, who never sits down like a loving parent to have an honest chat with them, who would let them starve if someone else didn’t intervene. As this is unconscionable, almost any idea of a god that fits the actual evidence of the world is unconscionable.

And such a line of reasoning is not limited to good gods. It would be most bizarre to have no evidence of any divine activity or consistent communication even from an evil or disinterested god. I am reminded of the God Torak in the Belgariad of David and Leigh Eddings. A rather spiteful, evil being. Yet because of that fact he was ever-present among his chosen people, communicating with them, appearing by their side to fight battles with them. At the time, he left no doubt of his existence. Or think of the insane creator-god conceived by H.P. Lovecraft, the Mad Azathoth who created the universe around him in a fit of mad genius, while later whiling away his time listening to alien flutes at the center of it, with not a care for any of the creatures that arose in the world he made. Even he could be seen: he and his attending flute players occupied a physical swirling mass at the center of the universe, within the range of a strong enough telescope. And even he would talk to people who figured out how to reach him. It would be sad indeed if there was a god and he was like one of these characters—though there is no more reason to deny that than to believe the opposite. But it is just as improbable, since even such gods as these would leave some clue, engage the world in some observable way.

What evidence could convert me to some religion, giving a convincing argument a god existed? Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol also comes to mind. Here is a perfect example of God doing something good: showing a bad man how his badness is caused by his ignorance, and then enlightening him, so that with this new knowledge he realizes how pointless and wrong being bad was. In a single night the nastiest of fellows is transformed by very real visitations. He is hardly lectured at, nor forced into much, but simply shown the sequence of facts that he needed in order to learn, to understand.

No one would say this was wrong. That the conversion of Mr. Scrooge was an unqualified good for him, for his whole community, for everyone, is undeniable. I dare anyone to come up with some ridiculous, harebrained argument that God shouldn’t have done that. Yet this is only fiction. No ghosts have ever sought to educate any evil man. Nothing of the kind happens in this universe. And that is all but impossible for a universe with a god in it. If such ghosts visited me tonight, and took me around, showing me what’s right and true, I would believe and be saved. Isn’t that what God would want? Since he clearly hasn’t done it, he clearly doesn’t exist.

7. Anything Defended with Such Absurdities Must be False

Last but not least is the coup de gras. The surest reason of all to be an atheist is the simple fact that the only things people can come up with to make excuses for God, in their desperate attempt to explain away all six arguments above, are things so absurd (not to mention wholly ad hoc), that it is equally absurd to give belief any credit whatever. No fact that people need such ridiculous contrivances to defend is ever likely to be true. If it were true, the facts would speak to it. You would not need to resort to the absurd. But this is just what everyone does. The most common “I can’t believe you’re saying that!” excuses for God are as follows. All lead to irreconcilable contradictions and are thus plainly false:

1. Free will - http://pastebin.com/r407sbC0

2. Arrogance - http://pastebin.com/Q8wbhXpZ

3. Mystery - http://pastebin.com/BfJrGE3x