Questions for an Atheist Answered by Andrew the Atheist
I recently got an iPod, and pod casts are my new thing. If you have a pod cast and want me to listen to it, I probably will. But be warned, I may also turn it into a blog.
So there’s A Christian and an Atheist pod cast. The one I downloaded was, “Questions for the Atheist”. I was a bit disappointed in the atheist host’s answers. First, though, I want to address something that came up a few times in the pod cast:
Christian: Atheism and Christianity are equally defensible because there is no objective way to determine if either is true.
Atheist: Do you discount all other religions?
C: No.
A: Will you meet other religions in heaven?
C: No, because what makes religion work for me is…. Reality is irreducibly subjective. What is is it is not complexly objective. Perception is reality. As perceptions vary, so does reality, so what I believe can become real to me and there is no objective way to prove otherwise just because.
A: Is that a case for agnosictism?
C: No.
A: Then how can you stand firmly on one side or the other?
C: You make a choice. It’s real for me, and that’s as real as you get.
The atheist goes off into a moral tangent, and never addresses the “it’s real for me” bs.
See, I don’t understand how anything can be real for you, and not for anyone else, and it actually be real. How real is the unicorn poking my ass? I believe it is there, and just so you know, I’ve placed a magical condom on its horn. Ooh it feels great. It’s too bad that this unicorn is not perceivable by anyone else. Who wouldn’t want to experience pokey here? Why would anyone not just tell me I’m delusional and that the unicorn is imaginary?
There certainly is an objective way to determine if Christianity is true or not. It is the same manner in which we prove that a particular person, place or thing exists. Is there evidence for the existence of this noun? If there is evidence that the noun exists, we have an objective way of determining if the claim of the noun’s existence has weight. If not, then there is no reason to believe that the noun exists, until such time that evidence is presented that it does. I cannot choose to believe the noun exists and will it into reality. That is delusion.
Here are the questions, the Atheist host’s answer, and mine.
Question 1: What make you sure that the difference between the Christian and the atheist can be legitimately characterized as the difference between what is rational and irrational?
Atheist Host’s answer: Well, some parts of Christianity are rational, but some important tenants are not. An example would be the idea that we can have free will and never sin.
From here, the Christian and atheist go back and forth really more over the definition of sin rather than the rationality of belief or non-belief. We find the Christian is probably the most moderate believers I have ever heard, as he describes sin not as crimes against god, but “bad habits”. The atheist never asked how one determines a good habit from a bad one, and the only concrete example ever given is addition is a bad habit. But I would say I am addicted to air, and that is a good thing. So someone needs to re-define for me this addiction thing. Anyhow, I really don’t feel the original question was even addressed, so here goes.
Andrew the Atheist’s answer: It is certainly legitimate to reduce the difference between belief and non-belief to what is rational and what is not. Rational belief is based on observable evidence. Irrational belief is based on faith. If the belief is based on faith, it is not rational. If the belief is held without evidence, or in lieu of contradictory evidence, then it is not rational; it is irrational. That is the difference.
Question 2: Does the fact that religion have no value in your life necessarily mean that it has no positive value in anyone else’s life?
Atheist host’s answer: Well, if Christians left it at just what was enjoyable to them, there would be no problem, but most Christians are not able or willing to do so. If Christians said this works for me and it MAY work for you, that’d be great. What I see is Christians saying this works for me and it MUST work for you, or you go to hell.
Andrew the Atheist’s answer: Whether or not religion has positive value has no relevancy to the truth iof it’s claims. The fact is that religion could be the most beneficial thing ever ( and I would argue that it is not) but that has no relevancy if we are talking about if the claims of the religion are or are not true.
In the same way, if atheism was the most destructive thing ever, as many believers would try to convince you, that would also have no bearing whether or not a god exists. If you want to make the argument that believers are more generous than atheists, please show me an act of kindness performed by believers that an atheist cannot do. Would charity done for the sake of charity and not to score points with an imaginary god be less charitable?
Now the host did eventually touch on this after a while using the placebo effect as an example. Actually it was a very good illustration, but I would have used this alone, as I find it the only relevant answer to the question.
Question 3: We seem to be able to separate the principles of science from the erroneous claims scientists may make from time to time. Why can’t we do that with Christians and separate the good underlying principles form the often irrational behavior they exhibit from time to time?
Atheist’s host answer: When Christianity makes claims if irrerrancy, it sets itself up for more scrutiny than science. With little scrutiny we can see all kinds of errors in the bible.
This again is the most moderate christain I have ever heard, as he goes on to explain that the reason so much of the bible is metaphor, like the Adam and Eve story, is so that it can be relative for all time. To interpret the bible literally, he says, is to miss the point of the book. While I would agree with him, that really makes the bible little more than a collection of ancient fables, a description I’m sure would anger many believers, but I rather like. I doubt we’d be trying to pass laws based on Grimm’s fairy tales or the fables of the bible.
Andrew the Atheist’s answer: I’m glad to see we are now admitting that the Christian exhibits irrational behavior. The difference in separating the erroneous scientist and the irrational Christian is that the scientist would welcome being wrong as it means we have learned something new. The Christian, if proven wrong, would see their entire world view destroyed. In other words, errors enhance the scientist’s world view; they destroy the believer’s.
Question 4: What if the atheist took the approach to Christianity looking for what value there is rather than looking for reasons to condemn it? What you find in the bible depends very much on what you are looking for.
AH: How do ever discount anything then?
C: Well, I dunno. I certainly don’t do this for Hinduism, but I think people should be open to doing so.
AH: like the benefit of the doubt?
C: Well, what benefit people find in it is the whole point.
AH: The problem for most atheists is that they have done that. Many atheists, including myself, are ex-believers. I find Christianity lacking in value.
Andrew’s answer: This is the only answer that the host gives that I like. I would re-iterate, however, that whatever benefit believers may find in their religion, it has no relevance to if the claims of their religion is true.
Overall, I like this pod cast, though I did feel the urge to re-answer all the questions. I will definitely listen more, as this particular believer has me very interested.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Is the Moderate Christian Moderately Delusional?
Most people I know are moderates. Moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, moderate believers. I’ve even met moderate atheists. These people subscribe to many of the conventional stances of the group, but not all. Some hold to the basic tenants, some to the fringe. For this blog, I’m defining a Moderate Believer as someone show calls themselves a believer, but doesn’t follow all the tenants of Christianity. By that, I mean, the Moderate Believer understands and accepts evolution, supports equal rights for gays, opposes bans on abortion and abortion coverage by insurance companies, supports comprehensive sex education, and goes to church from 2-3 time per month. Have I described any REAL people? I hope I have.
Actually, I’d say I’ve described a lot of people. Most of the religious blogs I read that are not by the usual few but the random dude transcribing his own thoughts are written by people like this. It leaves you with the question why they call themselves believers. I’d say the answer is community, companionship, and camaraderie.
Now, in my experience, these are the last people to engage in religious discussion. Most don’t understand or want to understand fully how they have been duped into this delusion. They are comfortable here and don’t argue to be right but argue to maintain comfort. This, I think, is why so many arguments with moderate believers end with insults and anger. This is why they think I attack them on a personal level. I’m attacking their comfort. It isn’t the pillow they want; it’s the soft place for their head.
This makes the moderate believer such a mystery. They don’t know the argument for or against their position, and they don’t care. They don’t know why they believe, or why they feel guilty when they miss church or why they don’t like questioning delusion, they just know it’s uncomfortable. Worse, many have been led to believe that outside this comfort zone is nothing but despair, anguish and pain.
Moderate belief is the goal of religion. Fundamentalists are nuts. Everyone knows and recognizes the Westboro Baptist nuts as a hate group. Yet they have the bible more on their side than the moderates do. No, the fundies are not what clergy want. They want people who believe and don’t know why. They want people who obey because they feel guilty when they don’t, but they don’t know why. They want people who will run from logical argument rather than stand and debate. These are the people who will lend support when asked, so long as the petition is “In Jesus’ Name, Amen.”
You’d think the moderate would grow weary of the never-ending abuse from the religion of their choice. They do not, because they are told this abuse is from god, and it means he’s watching you and he loves you. Since they are not in the habit of questioning the word of god, they accept it.
You’d thing the moderate would tire of always having to accept more and more on faith. They do not. They have been told to do so makes one more righteous, and since god has sent some punishment our way recently (shit always seems to happen, after all), we need to be more righteous in any way we can.
You’d think the moderate would eventually figure out all this bullshit is bunk. If they do, they simply stop going to church, but still call themselves believers.
So, if you are a moderate, let me ask this:
If you are convinced the religion you call yourself is wrong most of the time, what has convinced you of this? What has convinced you they were right on anything else? Are you really convinced they weren’t wrong ALL the time?
I tried, I REALLY tried to remain Christian after I left Catholicism. I really wanted SOMETHING to have been true. But what I want to be true and what is true cannot be made the same with faith.
Actually, I’d say I’ve described a lot of people. Most of the religious blogs I read that are not by the usual few but the random dude transcribing his own thoughts are written by people like this. It leaves you with the question why they call themselves believers. I’d say the answer is community, companionship, and camaraderie.
Now, in my experience, these are the last people to engage in religious discussion. Most don’t understand or want to understand fully how they have been duped into this delusion. They are comfortable here and don’t argue to be right but argue to maintain comfort. This, I think, is why so many arguments with moderate believers end with insults and anger. This is why they think I attack them on a personal level. I’m attacking their comfort. It isn’t the pillow they want; it’s the soft place for their head.
This makes the moderate believer such a mystery. They don’t know the argument for or against their position, and they don’t care. They don’t know why they believe, or why they feel guilty when they miss church or why they don’t like questioning delusion, they just know it’s uncomfortable. Worse, many have been led to believe that outside this comfort zone is nothing but despair, anguish and pain.
Moderate belief is the goal of religion. Fundamentalists are nuts. Everyone knows and recognizes the Westboro Baptist nuts as a hate group. Yet they have the bible more on their side than the moderates do. No, the fundies are not what clergy want. They want people who believe and don’t know why. They want people who obey because they feel guilty when they don’t, but they don’t know why. They want people who will run from logical argument rather than stand and debate. These are the people who will lend support when asked, so long as the petition is “In Jesus’ Name, Amen.”
You’d think the moderate would grow weary of the never-ending abuse from the religion of their choice. They do not, because they are told this abuse is from god, and it means he’s watching you and he loves you. Since they are not in the habit of questioning the word of god, they accept it.
You’d thing the moderate would tire of always having to accept more and more on faith. They do not. They have been told to do so makes one more righteous, and since god has sent some punishment our way recently (shit always seems to happen, after all), we need to be more righteous in any way we can.
You’d think the moderate would eventually figure out all this bullshit is bunk. If they do, they simply stop going to church, but still call themselves believers.
So, if you are a moderate, let me ask this:
If you are convinced the religion you call yourself is wrong most of the time, what has convinced you of this? What has convinced you they were right on anything else? Are you really convinced they weren’t wrong ALL the time?
I tried, I REALLY tried to remain Christian after I left Catholicism. I really wanted SOMETHING to have been true. But what I want to be true and what is true cannot be made the same with faith.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
How I KNOW god does not exist
How I KNOW god does not exist
Every time I ask a believer why they believe or why they have faith or what evidence they have for the existence of god, they eventually give me some personal experience report. Sure, they may begin with creation or the bible, but these things are actually refutable, so they move on fairly quickly. What reaaly gets them is the personal experience they are just dying to tell me. The story almost always goes something like this:
Once I was a horrible person. I just sucked. My life sucked really, really bad, I had a bad relationship with the opposite sex, my parents, my job, etc. Everything just plain sucked. Then, I found the lord and things got better. Maybe not all at once, but slowly, they got better. Now, things are better than ever, and I have the good graces of god to thank for it. People in my life are happier, healthier, and wealthier. I amd happier, healthier and wealthier. I stopped doing drugs/alcohol, and/or all sorts of other bad things and now use that energy to worship god. It’s flipping fantastic.
Good for you. How does that prove god exists?
Look, don’t get me wrong. I’m glad your life no longer sucks the way it used to. That’s just dandy. But if your experience is supposed to convince me that there was some supernatural force driving all this good feeling into your life, well, you fail. Good things happen, and bad things happen too. It can’t rain all the time. And what if I told you the opposite story? Say I have a story that goes like this:
Once, I was a horrible person. I just sucked. I thought I had all the answers and no one else had a stinking clue. I told friends, neighbors and people who really wanted to help me to shove it, because I didn’t think I needed their help. I knew what god said. I knew how god wanted me to be and that was that. I had no problem telling people they were damning themselves to hell for sinful behavior or thoughts. I enjoyed watching people squirm uncomfortably when I described in detail the nature of god’s wrath and vengeance. Then, I found reason. I turned logic loose on my beliefs and watched in horror as they fell apart. All the answers I thought I knew evaporated as quickly as the morning dew. Devastated, I tried to salvage the remains of my religion, but to no avail. Eventually, I figured out how much simpler life is without the delusion of religious beliefs. Now I am happier, healthier, and wealthier than I ever was. It’s flipping fantastic.
For every conversion story, there is a story of apostasy. And neither prove anything other than people can change their minds. Which I suppose is promising to all of us.
If you think your story of salvation is convincing, what do you think of my story of apostasy? Did I not tell an equally compelling tale? Oh, and here’s another thing….
When I left religion behind, I left a place of comfort, familiarity, and reassurance for tribulation, trial, and turmoil. I thought I had the answers. I thought things were great. This is where the atheist begins the journey to reason. So many conversion stories I hear begin differently. I was sad, depressed and anxious. I was alone and scared. This is where the believer begins his journey to delusion. I find that interesting.
Every time I ask a believer why they believe or why they have faith or what evidence they have for the existence of god, they eventually give me some personal experience report. Sure, they may begin with creation or the bible, but these things are actually refutable, so they move on fairly quickly. What reaaly gets them is the personal experience they are just dying to tell me. The story almost always goes something like this:
Once I was a horrible person. I just sucked. My life sucked really, really bad, I had a bad relationship with the opposite sex, my parents, my job, etc. Everything just plain sucked. Then, I found the lord and things got better. Maybe not all at once, but slowly, they got better. Now, things are better than ever, and I have the good graces of god to thank for it. People in my life are happier, healthier, and wealthier. I amd happier, healthier and wealthier. I stopped doing drugs/alcohol, and/or all sorts of other bad things and now use that energy to worship god. It’s flipping fantastic.
Good for you. How does that prove god exists?
Look, don’t get me wrong. I’m glad your life no longer sucks the way it used to. That’s just dandy. But if your experience is supposed to convince me that there was some supernatural force driving all this good feeling into your life, well, you fail. Good things happen, and bad things happen too. It can’t rain all the time. And what if I told you the opposite story? Say I have a story that goes like this:
Once, I was a horrible person. I just sucked. I thought I had all the answers and no one else had a stinking clue. I told friends, neighbors and people who really wanted to help me to shove it, because I didn’t think I needed their help. I knew what god said. I knew how god wanted me to be and that was that. I had no problem telling people they were damning themselves to hell for sinful behavior or thoughts. I enjoyed watching people squirm uncomfortably when I described in detail the nature of god’s wrath and vengeance. Then, I found reason. I turned logic loose on my beliefs and watched in horror as they fell apart. All the answers I thought I knew evaporated as quickly as the morning dew. Devastated, I tried to salvage the remains of my religion, but to no avail. Eventually, I figured out how much simpler life is without the delusion of religious beliefs. Now I am happier, healthier, and wealthier than I ever was. It’s flipping fantastic.
For every conversion story, there is a story of apostasy. And neither prove anything other than people can change their minds. Which I suppose is promising to all of us.
If you think your story of salvation is convincing, what do you think of my story of apostasy? Did I not tell an equally compelling tale? Oh, and here’s another thing….
When I left religion behind, I left a place of comfort, familiarity, and reassurance for tribulation, trial, and turmoil. I thought I had the answers. I thought things were great. This is where the atheist begins the journey to reason. So many conversion stories I hear begin differently. I was sad, depressed and anxious. I was alone and scared. This is where the believer begins his journey to delusion. I find that interesting.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Best....Delusion....EVER!!
Best Delusion EVER
Sometimes, a believer will tell me that christianity or whatever their particular favorite flavor of delusion is, has benefited humans beyond comprehension. They will tell me islam is made for peace, that christianity invented science, that faith-based missions help thousands of people. I will hear of how people like mother Teresa or the pope have spread good deeds and hope to millions. I shout BULLSHIT and smile at their stunned faces.
Oh, I take that back. For now. Let's say I conceded that the Crusades never happened, the Holocaust wasn't religiously inspired, and the Inquisistion was a terrible misunderstanding. I'll concede for now that 9-11 is a cover story to frame the peace-loving muslim nations. Sure. Why not.
So what? So it's the best delusion ever. How does that make it not a delusion? Are there more delusions that I may find helpful? Should I give homeopathy a try? Psychic surgery? Will the tarot become more accurate? Hmm. My horoscope says I'll be an asshole today. This shit WORKS!!
I've been told that even if belief is a delusion, it is helpful. We have to fool ourselves into thinking god is real, or we become monsters. Right. Because atheists have an organization with endless funding to hide, obscure, inhibit and defend child abusers. Because atheists fight to defeat civil liberty and freedom. Yep. It's helpful alright.
And I don't really concede religion is helpful at all. You knew that, right? I suppose I could shout bullshit again, but now it's no fun.
If religion really wanted to be helpful, then missions would feed hungry people and not shove faith down their throats along with the cheesburgers. If religion really wanted to be a boon to society, it'd keep it's damn mouth shut. If we could know who the christians are by actions, and not their voices, we'd never know what a christian was. All we'd see would be people helping each other because it is the right thing to do. And nothing more. Then god wouldn't be needed, because we'd be there.
Sometimes, a believer will tell me that christianity or whatever their particular favorite flavor of delusion is, has benefited humans beyond comprehension. They will tell me islam is made for peace, that christianity invented science, that faith-based missions help thousands of people. I will hear of how people like mother Teresa or the pope have spread good deeds and hope to millions. I shout BULLSHIT and smile at their stunned faces.
Oh, I take that back. For now. Let's say I conceded that the Crusades never happened, the Holocaust wasn't religiously inspired, and the Inquisistion was a terrible misunderstanding. I'll concede for now that 9-11 is a cover story to frame the peace-loving muslim nations. Sure. Why not.
So what? So it's the best delusion ever. How does that make it not a delusion? Are there more delusions that I may find helpful? Should I give homeopathy a try? Psychic surgery? Will the tarot become more accurate? Hmm. My horoscope says I'll be an asshole today. This shit WORKS!!
I've been told that even if belief is a delusion, it is helpful. We have to fool ourselves into thinking god is real, or we become monsters. Right. Because atheists have an organization with endless funding to hide, obscure, inhibit and defend child abusers. Because atheists fight to defeat civil liberty and freedom. Yep. It's helpful alright.
And I don't really concede religion is helpful at all. You knew that, right? I suppose I could shout bullshit again, but now it's no fun.
If religion really wanted to be helpful, then missions would feed hungry people and not shove faith down their throats along with the cheesburgers. If religion really wanted to be a boon to society, it'd keep it's damn mouth shut. If we could know who the christians are by actions, and not their voices, we'd never know what a christian was. All we'd see would be people helping each other because it is the right thing to do. And nothing more. Then god wouldn't be needed, because we'd be there.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Rotten Biblical Fruit
Rotten Biblical Fruit
Someone told me that the bible is a great way to know if you are living a good life. They told me that contained within the bible is a lifestyle that is guaranteed to make your life better. I asked if killing non-believers and their children would make them happy and they told me that is not in the bible. I lack the memory to recall the verses, but it’s in there. I asked if incest was going to make me happy and they told me that I was taking the bible out of context. I asked how I was supposed to know what context to take the bible, and they told me I needed to study the bible.
For an instruction manual, this book sucks. Apparently, the instruction manual needs an instruction manual. Imagine a cookbook that told you to measure a half cup of flour, but if you are homosexual, you should not use flour, and if it is the Sabbath day (whatever that is) you should use ¾ cup of flour. Then, later, the cookbook says to ignore the cup completely and said to use the metric system instead. It also told you there is only one way to bake this bread, and if you get it wrong, it will kill you. A best seller in the making, I’m sure.
It seems to me that this “biblical study” crap is an exercise in mental aerobics. This is the class where you get to stretch your logic to the breaking point and back. Here you learn that the bible doesn’t mean what it says; no, it means the opposite. Slavery is bad, the bible says so, if you read it properly and twist the context into something completely different than what is written.
Any cookbook that tells you there is only one recipe for anything is full of shit. The bible wants us to eats a candy-coated, batter-dipped, deep fried dog turd and ask for seconds. No, thanks. It still tastes like crap to me. How anyone can swallow that with a straight face is beyond me. Must be an acquired taste.
Someone told me that the bible is a great way to know if you are living a good life. They told me that contained within the bible is a lifestyle that is guaranteed to make your life better. I asked if killing non-believers and their children would make them happy and they told me that is not in the bible. I lack the memory to recall the verses, but it’s in there. I asked if incest was going to make me happy and they told me that I was taking the bible out of context. I asked how I was supposed to know what context to take the bible, and they told me I needed to study the bible.
For an instruction manual, this book sucks. Apparently, the instruction manual needs an instruction manual. Imagine a cookbook that told you to measure a half cup of flour, but if you are homosexual, you should not use flour, and if it is the Sabbath day (whatever that is) you should use ¾ cup of flour. Then, later, the cookbook says to ignore the cup completely and said to use the metric system instead. It also told you there is only one way to bake this bread, and if you get it wrong, it will kill you. A best seller in the making, I’m sure.
It seems to me that this “biblical study” crap is an exercise in mental aerobics. This is the class where you get to stretch your logic to the breaking point and back. Here you learn that the bible doesn’t mean what it says; no, it means the opposite. Slavery is bad, the bible says so, if you read it properly and twist the context into something completely different than what is written.
Any cookbook that tells you there is only one recipe for anything is full of shit. The bible wants us to eats a candy-coated, batter-dipped, deep fried dog turd and ask for seconds. No, thanks. It still tastes like crap to me. How anyone can swallow that with a straight face is beyond me. Must be an acquired taste.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Absolute Failure of Absolute Moral Standards
The Absolute Failure of Absolute Moral Standards
Every so often, a believer will tell me that god exists because he is the source of the absolute moral standard. They will tell me that absolute moral standards exist because if I am to say that something is good or evil, that is a judgment. To make that judgment, I must be able to compare something to a perfect good or evil standard. If perfect good exists, god is its source and therefore, god exists. A facepalm always follows.
To start, I need no perfect example to know rape is evil. None is required to know feeding starving people is good. These seem self-evident to me, but for the sake of argument, I’ll find something to make a comparison. Is rape more evil than not raping? Is feeding the hungry more good than not? Hmm. I think I’m done comparing. But is rape the ultimate evil? Is torture more evil than rape? Is there a form of torture that could be considered to be more evil? Like say, hell? Oh, I’m getting ahead of myself.
It seems perfect examples are not necessary for these judgments. How then, do we make moral judgments? How can we know we make the right choice?
It seems to me our moral judgments should keep us up at night. Was that the best thing to do? Could I have done it differently or better? Constant review and re-review is needed and we must commit ourselves to this massive undertaking.
So why do believers always bring the myth of absolute moral standards to the table? I think it is clear. First, religion is a tool for control, not morality. It is designed to force certain actions and inactions that promote the religion. If you think this will make you a better person, why wouldn’t you follow it? If you are guaranteed a code of ethics that has god’s seal of approval, why would you need to look any further? So what if innocent people die when you crash that airplane into a building? God says it is okay, so it is.
Not that I don’t think there are no moral standards. I just don’t think they are absolute in any way. Once people thought slavery was okay. It still carries god’s approval. But we know slavery is wrong. One day, the people who say gay marriage is an abomination to god will be trying to convince us they supported love the whole time. Won’t that be a great day?
Even if I were to accept the existence of absolute moral standards, I could not accept god as the source. God has but one punishment and one reward. Though I thought the movie sucked, Obi Wan said it best when he told Anikin, “Only a Sith thinks in terms of black and white.” Evil demands obedience, or death. Good allows for the morally gray. If any absolutes do exist, god would be the source of evil. If hell has multiple levels, it recognizes the morally gray, and therefore is good.
But it’s all bullshit. Absolute moral standards are as real as flying poop monsters. We have to own our morality, and make it work for us. God isn’t here, we are.
Every so often, a believer will tell me that god exists because he is the source of the absolute moral standard. They will tell me that absolute moral standards exist because if I am to say that something is good or evil, that is a judgment. To make that judgment, I must be able to compare something to a perfect good or evil standard. If perfect good exists, god is its source and therefore, god exists. A facepalm always follows.
To start, I need no perfect example to know rape is evil. None is required to know feeding starving people is good. These seem self-evident to me, but for the sake of argument, I’ll find something to make a comparison. Is rape more evil than not raping? Is feeding the hungry more good than not? Hmm. I think I’m done comparing. But is rape the ultimate evil? Is torture more evil than rape? Is there a form of torture that could be considered to be more evil? Like say, hell? Oh, I’m getting ahead of myself.
It seems perfect examples are not necessary for these judgments. How then, do we make moral judgments? How can we know we make the right choice?
It seems to me our moral judgments should keep us up at night. Was that the best thing to do? Could I have done it differently or better? Constant review and re-review is needed and we must commit ourselves to this massive undertaking.
So why do believers always bring the myth of absolute moral standards to the table? I think it is clear. First, religion is a tool for control, not morality. It is designed to force certain actions and inactions that promote the religion. If you think this will make you a better person, why wouldn’t you follow it? If you are guaranteed a code of ethics that has god’s seal of approval, why would you need to look any further? So what if innocent people die when you crash that airplane into a building? God says it is okay, so it is.
Not that I don’t think there are no moral standards. I just don’t think they are absolute in any way. Once people thought slavery was okay. It still carries god’s approval. But we know slavery is wrong. One day, the people who say gay marriage is an abomination to god will be trying to convince us they supported love the whole time. Won’t that be a great day?
Even if I were to accept the existence of absolute moral standards, I could not accept god as the source. God has but one punishment and one reward. Though I thought the movie sucked, Obi Wan said it best when he told Anikin, “Only a Sith thinks in terms of black and white.” Evil demands obedience, or death. Good allows for the morally gray. If any absolutes do exist, god would be the source of evil. If hell has multiple levels, it recognizes the morally gray, and therefore is good.
But it’s all bullshit. Absolute moral standards are as real as flying poop monsters. We have to own our morality, and make it work for us. God isn’t here, we are.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
I’m too sexy for your god!
I’m too sexy for your god!
A common argument I hear is that atheism is arrogant. I’m always reminded of that preacher dude who came to my door in the dead of winter. I was surprised; they almost always come by on nice sunny days. When I told him I was an atheist, he asked how I thought the world began. I said I didn’t know how the world began, but I saw no reason to think it began with a god. He told me that if I couldn’t explain how the world began, that blew my atheism “out of the water”. No, it doesn’t. Yes, it does. No, it doesn’t. This continued until I decided he was warm enough and let him back into the cold and snow.
There seems to be this idea that if you’re an atheist, you’ve replaced the “god answer” with some “atheist answer”. But the truth is, the believer never really understood the question in the first place. Deep Thought would agree with me.
For some reason, believers think that since they believe the universe began with god, the Big Bang Theory must be a “god replacement”. Or since they believe god created the earth in 6 days, the theory of evolution must be a “god replacement”. I hear over and over again the deejay on the Christian radio refer to colleges and universities as the “lion’s den”. He seems to think that science and education are “god replacements”.
I don’t have a god replacement. Don’t need one. I once thought I did, but I don’t. I tried to replace my catholic religion with all sorts of other religions. I even made up my own. But in the end it was like trying on a series of straight-jackets looking for one that fit comfortably. Atheism has allowed me the freedom of streaking.
I don’t think I have the answers; I just know the wrong answers when I see them. I see no need to have a replacement. So I wonder, why do I so often hear people say atheism is arrogant?
I think the answer is that many believers know deep down that their beliefs are ridiculous. But they remain believers because of its comfort. They wish they could have the same comfort without silly superstitions, but don’t think it is possible. The atheist has accomplished this. It seems when the believer asks the atheist why the atheist feels superior to the believer, this is a projection of the believer’s desire to be free of delusion. But I could be wrong.
A common argument I hear is that atheism is arrogant. I’m always reminded of that preacher dude who came to my door in the dead of winter. I was surprised; they almost always come by on nice sunny days. When I told him I was an atheist, he asked how I thought the world began. I said I didn’t know how the world began, but I saw no reason to think it began with a god. He told me that if I couldn’t explain how the world began, that blew my atheism “out of the water”. No, it doesn’t. Yes, it does. No, it doesn’t. This continued until I decided he was warm enough and let him back into the cold and snow.
There seems to be this idea that if you’re an atheist, you’ve replaced the “god answer” with some “atheist answer”. But the truth is, the believer never really understood the question in the first place. Deep Thought would agree with me.
For some reason, believers think that since they believe the universe began with god, the Big Bang Theory must be a “god replacement”. Or since they believe god created the earth in 6 days, the theory of evolution must be a “god replacement”. I hear over and over again the deejay on the Christian radio refer to colleges and universities as the “lion’s den”. He seems to think that science and education are “god replacements”.
I don’t have a god replacement. Don’t need one. I once thought I did, but I don’t. I tried to replace my catholic religion with all sorts of other religions. I even made up my own. But in the end it was like trying on a series of straight-jackets looking for one that fit comfortably. Atheism has allowed me the freedom of streaking.
I don’t think I have the answers; I just know the wrong answers when I see them. I see no need to have a replacement. So I wonder, why do I so often hear people say atheism is arrogant?
I think the answer is that many believers know deep down that their beliefs are ridiculous. But they remain believers because of its comfort. They wish they could have the same comfort without silly superstitions, but don’t think it is possible. The atheist has accomplished this. It seems when the believer asks the atheist why the atheist feels superior to the believer, this is a projection of the believer’s desire to be free of delusion. But I could be wrong.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Falsifiable Evidence: A continuing story of apostasy.
Falsifiable Evidence: A continuing story of apostasy.
I’ve been asked what made me give up faith. What was the first thing that took me from the religious faith to the atheist reason I have today. How did it all begin? I’ve posted portions of my journey to apostasy in my blog, but I’ve never addressed this question.
When I was a senior in high school (remember I attended a private Catholic high school), I started having questions about what I believed and why. I thought I’d just missed something in my religious classes, so I began to attend extra classes outside my regular schooling. Here, I learned about the order of angels, the levels of hell, and other bits of catholic dogma. One evening, the topic turned to abortion and birth control. At the time, I was the most pro-life, anti-abortion person I knew, second only to my mother.
The instructor made a fatal error: he made a statement that I could research myself. You see, I cannot refute the order of angels. I cannot find evidence of the levels of hell. There is no way to discover these things, as they are not based on evidence but faith. But then I learned, “The earth is NOT overpopulated. In fact, the entire population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas and have an acre per person!!”
See, now I can research this. I can find the population of the earth is and I can find the size of Texas. I can do the math and find this is WRONG!! I’ll not do it for you; do it yourself and see what answer you reach. Before you do, though, let me finish what I was learning.
The instructor, if you can call him that, got his information from the Population Research Institute. Check out the founder and see how this came up in a Catholic class. Notice the agenda. This was clearly spelled out in the class I attended. We must be clear that overpopulation is a myth, and we have a responsibility to reproduce as many children as god (not us) sees fit.
Once I realized the only bit if falsifiable information I had ever gained from a catholic class was in fact false, I had a hard time swallowing the rest. If someone was willing to lie to be about facts I could research, what was to stop them from lying about “facts” I could not? How can I be sure ANYTHING I had been taught about my religion was not instead a part of another agenda? Could I see how a story might have been constructed simply to further an ulterior agenda? I mean, today I have the means to research and validate claims. In the time the bible was written the internet did not exist. I know the gospels were not written by actual eyewitnesses, so what stopped them from lying? Of course, they had Paul’s writings from which they could concoct a story, and if each wrote a gospel to further a separate ulterior agenda, the differences among them would make perfect sense. See, I HAD been paying attention in a few classes.
So, what have you found in your research of the world’s population and the size of Texas? I went to www.wikipedia.com for all my data. The population is roughly 6.8 billion (6,800,000,000). The area of Texas is 286,820 sq mi. A square mile is the equivalent of 640 acres. So:
286,820 sq mi X 640 acres/sq mi = 183,564,800 acres
183,564,800 acres / 6,800,000,000 people = 0.027 acres/person.
I guess it’s not bad for people who think pi = 3.
I’ve been asked what made me give up faith. What was the first thing that took me from the religious faith to the atheist reason I have today. How did it all begin? I’ve posted portions of my journey to apostasy in my blog, but I’ve never addressed this question.
When I was a senior in high school (remember I attended a private Catholic high school), I started having questions about what I believed and why. I thought I’d just missed something in my religious classes, so I began to attend extra classes outside my regular schooling. Here, I learned about the order of angels, the levels of hell, and other bits of catholic dogma. One evening, the topic turned to abortion and birth control. At the time, I was the most pro-life, anti-abortion person I knew, second only to my mother.
The instructor made a fatal error: he made a statement that I could research myself. You see, I cannot refute the order of angels. I cannot find evidence of the levels of hell. There is no way to discover these things, as they are not based on evidence but faith. But then I learned, “The earth is NOT overpopulated. In fact, the entire population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas and have an acre per person!!”
See, now I can research this. I can find the population of the earth is and I can find the size of Texas. I can do the math and find this is WRONG!! I’ll not do it for you; do it yourself and see what answer you reach. Before you do, though, let me finish what I was learning.
The instructor, if you can call him that, got his information from the Population Research Institute. Check out the founder and see how this came up in a Catholic class. Notice the agenda. This was clearly spelled out in the class I attended. We must be clear that overpopulation is a myth, and we have a responsibility to reproduce as many children as god (not us) sees fit.
Once I realized the only bit if falsifiable information I had ever gained from a catholic class was in fact false, I had a hard time swallowing the rest. If someone was willing to lie to be about facts I could research, what was to stop them from lying about “facts” I could not? How can I be sure ANYTHING I had been taught about my religion was not instead a part of another agenda? Could I see how a story might have been constructed simply to further an ulterior agenda? I mean, today I have the means to research and validate claims. In the time the bible was written the internet did not exist. I know the gospels were not written by actual eyewitnesses, so what stopped them from lying? Of course, they had Paul’s writings from which they could concoct a story, and if each wrote a gospel to further a separate ulterior agenda, the differences among them would make perfect sense. See, I HAD been paying attention in a few classes.
So, what have you found in your research of the world’s population and the size of Texas? I went to www.wikipedia.com for all my data. The population is roughly 6.8 billion (6,800,000,000). The area of Texas is 286,820 sq mi. A square mile is the equivalent of 640 acres. So:
286,820 sq mi X 640 acres/sq mi = 183,564,800 acres
183,564,800 acres / 6,800,000,000 people = 0.027 acres/person.
I guess it’s not bad for people who think pi = 3.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Gilded Cage of Belief
The gilded cage of belief
The preacher dude was going over the story of Genesis. You know the one with Adam, Eve, a walking, talking snake and a tree with really tasty fruit that you can’t eat. He was making a lot of crappy points that I could dissect, but I’m only going to talk about the reason he gave for placing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden in the first place.
Of course, my atheist friends will be familiar with the old argument that if god is all knowing, then he knew what would happen if he put the tree in the garden, and he chose to do so anyway. So if you believe this story, it seems the human race was set up to fail, by the all-knowing, all-loving deity. The preacher dude apparently had heard this too, and wanted to address it.
You see, god wants to give us freedom, and that means he has to restrict us. I know, that sounds like a contradiction, but since those don’t exist in the bible, we’ll have to look harder to find how this works. Think of a football game. Without rules, there is no game. You need a baseline, sidelines, and other rules of play. That’s how a game forms. Without these rules, you’d have chaos. Players would try to run into the parking lot looking for a touchdown.
God, likewise, gives us rules so that we can live free lives. Well, you have all the freedom god’s rules allow. You certainly can’t go outside what god wants you to do, or satan’s gonna getcha. Basically, as long as you do exactly what god says to do, when he says it, in the manner he wants you to do it, you have complete freedom. That’s how freedom works.
Are all religious folks so institutionalized by religion that they don’t recognize freedom anymore? Does faith remove from you the ability to see the gilded cage? The most beautiful prison is still a prison, and no freedom is permitted in prison.
The rules in sports do not make a game. The players make the game. The rules allow for the competition to be done in a sportsman-like manner. The term, “good sportsmanship” does not refer to how well the player obeyed the rules of the game, but how well the player related to his opponent.
Ever play Monopoly? There are “house rules” that are so common; they are included in many electronic versions of the game. The “official rules” do not reward a player for landing on “Free Parking”, but so common is this house rule, that the instructions in the game often refer to it. Imagine you had never played the game. Imagine you play with the “Free Parking” rule at one house, and then go to another. The players in the second game only play by the official rules. Which is more of a game? Which will you enjoy more? Which will you win?
Games are not a contest of who can obey the most rules. Games are played for the enjoyment of the players. Some can also be enjoyed by spectators. In my younger years I played many role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. The first rule of these games was, “Have fun. If you don’t like a rule, change it. Ignore any rule you dislike. Make up some of your own. This is a game.”
In life, we make our own rules. We have to be able to change, create and ignore any rule that does not encourage the enjoyment for all. If a law prevents the pursuit of happiness, it must be changed. We cannot hold to a rule simply because it comes from an imaginary god. God isn’t here, we are.
The preacher dude was going over the story of Genesis. You know the one with Adam, Eve, a walking, talking snake and a tree with really tasty fruit that you can’t eat. He was making a lot of crappy points that I could dissect, but I’m only going to talk about the reason he gave for placing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden in the first place.
Of course, my atheist friends will be familiar with the old argument that if god is all knowing, then he knew what would happen if he put the tree in the garden, and he chose to do so anyway. So if you believe this story, it seems the human race was set up to fail, by the all-knowing, all-loving deity. The preacher dude apparently had heard this too, and wanted to address it.
You see, god wants to give us freedom, and that means he has to restrict us. I know, that sounds like a contradiction, but since those don’t exist in the bible, we’ll have to look harder to find how this works. Think of a football game. Without rules, there is no game. You need a baseline, sidelines, and other rules of play. That’s how a game forms. Without these rules, you’d have chaos. Players would try to run into the parking lot looking for a touchdown.
God, likewise, gives us rules so that we can live free lives. Well, you have all the freedom god’s rules allow. You certainly can’t go outside what god wants you to do, or satan’s gonna getcha. Basically, as long as you do exactly what god says to do, when he says it, in the manner he wants you to do it, you have complete freedom. That’s how freedom works.
Are all religious folks so institutionalized by religion that they don’t recognize freedom anymore? Does faith remove from you the ability to see the gilded cage? The most beautiful prison is still a prison, and no freedom is permitted in prison.
The rules in sports do not make a game. The players make the game. The rules allow for the competition to be done in a sportsman-like manner. The term, “good sportsmanship” does not refer to how well the player obeyed the rules of the game, but how well the player related to his opponent.
Ever play Monopoly? There are “house rules” that are so common; they are included in many electronic versions of the game. The “official rules” do not reward a player for landing on “Free Parking”, but so common is this house rule, that the instructions in the game often refer to it. Imagine you had never played the game. Imagine you play with the “Free Parking” rule at one house, and then go to another. The players in the second game only play by the official rules. Which is more of a game? Which will you enjoy more? Which will you win?
Games are not a contest of who can obey the most rules. Games are played for the enjoyment of the players. Some can also be enjoyed by spectators. In my younger years I played many role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. The first rule of these games was, “Have fun. If you don’t like a rule, change it. Ignore any rule you dislike. Make up some of your own. This is a game.”
In life, we make our own rules. We have to be able to change, create and ignore any rule that does not encourage the enjoyment for all. If a law prevents the pursuit of happiness, it must be changed. We cannot hold to a rule simply because it comes from an imaginary god. God isn’t here, we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)