Options
TEZT
braddick
Posts: 23,112 ✭✭✭✭✭
What if all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops?
Oh, what a rain that would be!
Standing outside with my mouth open wide,
Ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh!
What if all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops?
Oh, what a rain that would be!
What if all the snowflakes were icecream and milkshakes?
Oh, what a snow that would be!
Standing outside with my mouth open wide,
Ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh!
What if all the snowflakes were ice cream and milkshakes?
Oh what a snow that would be!
religion
I know that on my death, the atoms that have been my body and brain, and created my mind, will return to the universe.
They'll stay around on Earth for millions of years, inhabiting the bodies of countless people and other organisms, but eventually, aeons from now, they will return to the great engines of creation that formed them. The stars.
When the earth is a sterile, charred rock,
my body will be part of stars, planets, comets' tails
and brightly shining nebulae.
Some of me will briefly fuel a distant sun and be burnt into energy,
and the photons that were once me will skim the edges of the universe,
spiral into black holes,
and maybe illuminate the face of a child looking at the night sky for the very first time.
This is immortality.
This is life and this is death.
This is me.
Speaking as a former (SDA) Christian with some knowledge of the subject(s), I think that like most religions Christianity has set itself up as having definite beliefs. These are probably best defined in the Nicene Creed and similar creeds. As such, if one takes a reductionistic approach, that eliminates Mor-men and such, including Unitarians. Interestingly Adventists DO fit under the Nicene Creed, as near as I can tell.
If one takes a more open approach than the Creeds, then Mormen and UU would probably slide in under the defintion of Christian, albeit VERY loosely. I would add however that, again from an outsiders view, both Christianity and Mormonism have wacky beliefs and it is like tyring to pick between wacky and wackier, which isn't much of a choice, of course. Wacky is wacky. To the outsider, watching the infighting is like watching two teenagers beat the hell outta each other over who owns a stray cat that long since walked away. One teenager is bigger, the other teenager seems to be mentally deficient, but I'd pay to watch.
Lastly, I have said it before and will again. A cult plus 2000 years is a religion. The mormen have only had a tenth of that, they will get there. They are the fastest growing religion in the world. Someday Scientology and Mormonism will be as normal as Christianity, maybe more so. Things change
10. MIRACLES
The Bible is full of them. So is the Koran. Moses parting the Red Sea, Lazarus coming back from the dead, Jesus walking on water, Jonah surviving a stint in the belly of a whale, Lot’s wife turning ]into a pillar of salt, illiterate Mohammed suddenly being able to read. It seems like those ancient desert folk could barely breathe without tripping over a miracle. Where are our miracles? Why has God gotten so shy all of a sudden? Now that his three “great” monotheistic religions have permeated into every corner of the globe, now that the human race has made a right mess of everything, now that we need him more than ever, why has he gotten the worst case of stage fright ever known to man?
Come on God, just one. Just one miracle is all I ask. It doesn’t have to be a big one like getting pregnant despite the fact I haven’t had sex since Kevin Rudd won the election, but an teency, weency, little one would do. Like not getting fat even though I’ve eaten white bread every day for two weeks. By the way, I am typing this with my right hand only as I fondle my own newly arrived love handles with my left.
9. OVERWHELMING LACK OF EVIDENCE.
Jews believe the Old Testament is the word of God because the OT says it is the word of God.
Christians weren’t happy with the OT on its own so they added the New Testament and believe that is the final word of God because the NT says it is the final word of God.
Mohammed was rather pissed off that Arabs were left out of the equation so he came up with the Koran and Muslims believe that is the final, final word of God because the Koran says it is the final, final word of God.
But you know, if we could find just a tiny shred, a scrap, a wee little crumb of evidence anywhere that any of the events in those books happened the way they say it happened, they will have me. I will be sold. I will believe.
Anyone? Anywhere? Anything?
8. REASON FORCES ME NOT TO.
Sorry Winston, but I did tell I was going to steal that line one day didn’t I? For Winston’s excellent post on atheism click on this Really Long Link
How can I, an adult, educated and, I would like to believe, reasonably intelligent woman believe that a perfect deity created me from the rib of another human being? For no reason other than he felt like it? How am I to believe that this happened only a few thousand years ago? And that I, as a woman am still paying the price for the sins of another woman that was supposedly committed all those years ago?
And how am I to believe that this deity is watching me. Everyday. Every little thing I do. Watching, keeping track so that one day He may judge me and cast me into the eternal pit of hell and damnation for committing the very sins which he created me to commit.
I can’t. And that’s all there is to it. I just can’t. Because it makes absolutely no sense at all. It requires more than faith or suspension of disbelief- it requires self-delusion.
7. HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF
How can Mary be “ever-virgin” when the Bible says Jesus had four brothers as well as an undisclosed amount of sisters (Matthew 13:55-57)?
If Jesus was so loving and forgiving then why did he rudely tell a Caananite woman who pleaded with him for an exorcism that he would not waste his time helping a non-Jew (Matthew 15 21-28)?
Is he a “God of peace” (Romans 15:33) or a “God of war” (Exodus 15:3)?
Is Joseph the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)?
Is God “good to all: his tender mercies are over all his works. (Psalms 145:1) or does He “dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them”. (Jer 13:14)?
Is Jesus the equal of God as in “I and my Father are one (John 10:30) or does Jesus “go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I”. (John 14:28).
Yes, there are many, many more, but quite frankly I don’t think I have the time and patience to list them nor, I suspect, do you to read them.
6. CAIN AND ABEL
The Bible and Koran both say that all humankind is directly delineated from Adam and Eve. Upon being booted out of Eden, Eve bore many children, her two eldest being Cain and Abel. According to these books, after killing his brother Abel in a fit of jealous rage, Cain wandered into the wilderness and magically found himself a wife. But where did she come from? She is not one of Adam and Eve’s children. SO WHERE DID SHE COME FROM?
This is not a trivial point ladies and gentlemen. If Cain’s wife was not the offspring of Adam and Eve, then it means that not all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve which means the whole concept of the Garden of Eden, the fall from grace, the inheritance of original sin is a total crock. The idea that the human race are all natural born sinners, the notion that all our suffering is born out of the fact that Adam and Eve betrayed God is complete and utter rubbish. IT NEVER HAPPENED.
5. BERTRAND RUSSELL’S CELESTIAL TEAPOT AND THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
Theists often seem to be of the opinion that they hold some sort of trump card when they gloat, “Well you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, so nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah”. Whilst my first reaction to this infantile argument is an overwhelming desire to punch them in their smug little mouths, I do try to retain some sort of decorum and tell them, “Well we can’t really prove that anything doesn’t exist can we?”
One of my favourite atheists, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. came up with the Teapot Hypothesis, which like the God Hypothesis, cannot actually be disproved:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time”.
In the same vein, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a present day deity first brought to our attention by American student Bobby Henderson in 2005. Bobby was alarmed that the Kansas School Board was considering approving the teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution and wrote them an open letter requesting the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, as it was the basis of his own belief system. Bobby concludes:
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence”
.
The Kansas School Board nixed the teaching of Intelligent Design. Thank the FSM’s noodly appendage for Bobby Henderson everybody!
For a good read on The Flying Spaghetti Monster visit Morgan Bell’s blog via this Really Long Link
4. SMARTER PEOPLE THAN I
Here is a selection of quotes regarding God and religion from some of the most brilliant minds that ever were:
Albert Einstein: “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”.
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve”
Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is not my book. Nor Christianity my religion”.
Bertrand Russell: “I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world”.
“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence”.
Frederich Nietzsche: “Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?”
“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”
‘
Pierre Simon LaPlace: I have no need of that hypothesis”.
Seneca the Younger: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful”.
Marie Curie: “Pierre belonged to no religion and I did not practice any”.
3. THE ENCYCLPAEDIA BRITANNICA
When I was growing up we, like every self-respecting wog family in the country, had the full 28 volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Plus the atlas and two(!) volume dictionary. It was proudly displayed in the living room wall unit, much to my mother’s consternation, as it meant she had to relegate her collection of non-stick, Margaret Fulton-approved, Bessemer pots and pans to the much smaller and decidedly less impressive cabinet in the un-renovated kitchen.
I grew up in a fairly religious Muslim family. My father tried to instil in us a good knowledge not only of Islam but also Christianity and Judaism (ah those intolerant Muslims huh?). One way in which he chose to do this was to gather the family around the telly every year when Cecile B DeMille’s The Ten Commandments would be polluting, I mean gracing, the airwaves. Growing up, I accepted the story as fact. But that was before the Encyclopaedia Britannica entered our lives. After watching the movie one particular year, I decided to see what it had to say on the matter of the parting of the Red Sea.
Well, according to this tome, Moses did not lead the Israelites to safety by parting the Red Sea, but by ushering them through the much more hospitable marshes known as The Sea of Reeds. Of course, this conflicts with the Biblical and Koranic versions. I read both, many times. I scratched my head. I lay awake in bed at night. I thought. I pondered. I wondered.
At the end of the day, I just decided that The Encyclopaedia made more sense.
I was 12 years old.
2. DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION
Now I’m not going to bore you all with any kind of analysis of one of the most enlightening essays and theories in the history of mankind. I’m pretty sure most of you, and hope that all of you, are familiar with Darwin’s amazing discovery. Suffice it say, it is not “just a theory”, it has been observed and no more thorough explanation for the origin of the human race has ever, ever, EVER been out forward. Now, it may well be that Darwin and pretty much every scientist worth their salt since, was wrong about evolution. But until someone comes up with a more reasonable, logical and observable explanation, I’m holding onto this one thanks.
1. HE HATES WOMEN
But don’t take my word for it. Let the man, sorry ‘God’, speak for himself:
From the Bible:
"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"
(I Timothy 2:11-14).
"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).
"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).
"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' …and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).
From the Koran:
4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females,
4:15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.
24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands.
2:222 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
Proving your God exists
( From Defending Atheism )
It is not up to me or to you as an atheist to demonstrate that a god does not exist. It is up to us to say to the religionist, ""You have made an assertion. It is your responsibility to demonstrate the truth of that assertion. If your claims hold up, then you are rational. If your claims do not hold up and you continue to believe as you do, then you are irrational."
An atheist will encounter many and varied claims for the existence of a particular deity. It only seems reasonable to ask for some sort of tangible evidence to back up these claims, does it not? After all, if I ran into the room and shouted "I have just seen a UFO! I was this close to being abducted!", you might not immediately take my word for it. You might well ask for some evidence, such as a photograph (autographed if possible), or strange alien artifact. You might go to the location where I claim to have seen the spaceship, and inspect it for yourself. You could probably think up a number of alternative explanations for what I said I saw. If I fail to support my claims, why on earth should you take my word for it?
Many of the more common claims that are made to demonstrate the existence of a god seem to be fatally flawed. If you've chatted with theists on the internet, your doorstep, or whereever, you may be familiar with these :
"Look around you! How can you witness the beauty of God-X's Creation and still disbelieve. Look at the trees, the birds, the bunnies!"
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Many other religions make exactly the same claim. Why is your one special? Surely the trees, bunnies etc. are therefore equally valid proof of the existence of hundreds of other gods? One supernatural explanation is just as valid as any other.
* Unfortunately, everything you describe can also be explained in mundane, rational, scientific terms, without the need to invoke a Creator.
* What about the nasty things in life? Guinea worms, anthrax, mosquitoes; all the blood-sucking, parasitical, disease-bearing, poisonous beasties that kill us and each other in horrific ways? Watched any nature programmes recently?
"Six hundred million people follow my religion. They can't all be wrong - there must be something in it."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Nine hundred million people follow religion Z. Are they all wrong? Truth is not democratic - you can't vote for objective reality.
* Maybe they are right. Maybe their god exists as well as your god?
* If they're wrong, couldn't you also be wrong? After all, they seem to believe at least as strongly and sincerely as you do, and for many of the same reasons...
"I have personally witnessed a miracle. I can trust my senses."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Lots of people have personally witnessed Elvis working at the Drive-Thru. Should I believe them also? Without any sort of evidence, personal subjective testimony is not very convincing.
* Many people from other religions claim to have witnessed miracles. Does this mean that their God also exists? Just how many Gods are there?
* Are you positive that Divine Intervention is the only possible explanation for what you saw?
"My God is a living God. All those other ones are just ancient myths."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Those gods were "living Gods" to the people who believed in them. Zeuss, Odin and Jupiter once had followers every bit as devout as you.
* Many of the "ancient" religions still have active, devout, sincere followers. Just like you. Why should I accept your claims over theirs identical ones?
* How many people claim to worship dead gods?
"We are God's Chosen People."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* So why doesn't he look after you a bit better? How many of his followers have suffered or died recently? Statistically, are you any better off than followers of other religions?
* Again, the same claim is made by other religions. How do I know they aren't the Chosen Ones?
* So what are the rest of us here for? What about the ones living in remote villages who will live their entire lives without even hearing of your god?
"If the probability of something happening is less than about 1e-15 (or 0.000000000000001) it is considered to be impossible. The probability of life occuring 'by accident' is far less than this, therefore it must be a miracle caused by God.."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* It ignores the size of the universe. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, any of which might have planets capable of supporting life. Even an "impossibly improbable" event is almost a certainty (and we already know of one planet that supports life).
* Statistics are fun, aren't they? Shuffle a deck of playing cards, and lay them out on a table. The probability of the sequence you see appearing is 1/52 for the first card, 1/52 x 1/51 at the second card, 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 by the third card and so on. The probability that you produced the sequence you just did is 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50......x 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1 ( more simply, 1/(52!) ), or 1.2398e-68 (which is an incredible 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012398). How can this be?!? Maybe you are hallucinating and it did not actually occur?
You have just done something statistically impossible, trillions of times more unlikely than the formation of life (some say 1e-50 is the "impossibility threshold" instead, but we've beaten that as well). You could even do it six times before breakfast every day!
(Try it yourself: if your calculator can do factorials use that, otherwise here's the
Oh, what a rain that would be!
Standing outside with my mouth open wide,
Ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh!
What if all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops?
Oh, what a rain that would be!
What if all the snowflakes were icecream and milkshakes?
Oh, what a snow that would be!
Standing outside with my mouth open wide,
Ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh-ahh!
What if all the snowflakes were ice cream and milkshakes?
Oh what a snow that would be!
religion
I know that on my death, the atoms that have been my body and brain, and created my mind, will return to the universe.
They'll stay around on Earth for millions of years, inhabiting the bodies of countless people and other organisms, but eventually, aeons from now, they will return to the great engines of creation that formed them. The stars.
When the earth is a sterile, charred rock,
my body will be part of stars, planets, comets' tails
and brightly shining nebulae.
Some of me will briefly fuel a distant sun and be burnt into energy,
and the photons that were once me will skim the edges of the universe,
spiral into black holes,
and maybe illuminate the face of a child looking at the night sky for the very first time.
This is immortality.
This is life and this is death.
This is me.
Speaking as a former (SDA) Christian with some knowledge of the subject(s), I think that like most religions Christianity has set itself up as having definite beliefs. These are probably best defined in the Nicene Creed and similar creeds. As such, if one takes a reductionistic approach, that eliminates Mor-men and such, including Unitarians. Interestingly Adventists DO fit under the Nicene Creed, as near as I can tell.
If one takes a more open approach than the Creeds, then Mormen and UU would probably slide in under the defintion of Christian, albeit VERY loosely. I would add however that, again from an outsiders view, both Christianity and Mormonism have wacky beliefs and it is like tyring to pick between wacky and wackier, which isn't much of a choice, of course. Wacky is wacky. To the outsider, watching the infighting is like watching two teenagers beat the hell outta each other over who owns a stray cat that long since walked away. One teenager is bigger, the other teenager seems to be mentally deficient, but I'd pay to watch.
Lastly, I have said it before and will again. A cult plus 2000 years is a religion. The mormen have only had a tenth of that, they will get there. They are the fastest growing religion in the world. Someday Scientology and Mormonism will be as normal as Christianity, maybe more so. Things change
10. MIRACLES
The Bible is full of them. So is the Koran. Moses parting the Red Sea, Lazarus coming back from the dead, Jesus walking on water, Jonah surviving a stint in the belly of a whale, Lot’s wife turning ]into a pillar of salt, illiterate Mohammed suddenly being able to read. It seems like those ancient desert folk could barely breathe without tripping over a miracle. Where are our miracles? Why has God gotten so shy all of a sudden? Now that his three “great” monotheistic religions have permeated into every corner of the globe, now that the human race has made a right mess of everything, now that we need him more than ever, why has he gotten the worst case of stage fright ever known to man?
Come on God, just one. Just one miracle is all I ask. It doesn’t have to be a big one like getting pregnant despite the fact I haven’t had sex since Kevin Rudd won the election, but an teency, weency, little one would do. Like not getting fat even though I’ve eaten white bread every day for two weeks. By the way, I am typing this with my right hand only as I fondle my own newly arrived love handles with my left.
9. OVERWHELMING LACK OF EVIDENCE.
Jews believe the Old Testament is the word of God because the OT says it is the word of God.
Christians weren’t happy with the OT on its own so they added the New Testament and believe that is the final word of God because the NT says it is the final word of God.
Mohammed was rather pissed off that Arabs were left out of the equation so he came up with the Koran and Muslims believe that is the final, final word of God because the Koran says it is the final, final word of God.
But you know, if we could find just a tiny shred, a scrap, a wee little crumb of evidence anywhere that any of the events in those books happened the way they say it happened, they will have me. I will be sold. I will believe.
Anyone? Anywhere? Anything?
8. REASON FORCES ME NOT TO.
Sorry Winston, but I did tell I was going to steal that line one day didn’t I? For Winston’s excellent post on atheism click on this Really Long Link
How can I, an adult, educated and, I would like to believe, reasonably intelligent woman believe that a perfect deity created me from the rib of another human being? For no reason other than he felt like it? How am I to believe that this happened only a few thousand years ago? And that I, as a woman am still paying the price for the sins of another woman that was supposedly committed all those years ago?
And how am I to believe that this deity is watching me. Everyday. Every little thing I do. Watching, keeping track so that one day He may judge me and cast me into the eternal pit of hell and damnation for committing the very sins which he created me to commit.
I can’t. And that’s all there is to it. I just can’t. Because it makes absolutely no sense at all. It requires more than faith or suspension of disbelief- it requires self-delusion.
7. HE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF
How can Mary be “ever-virgin” when the Bible says Jesus had four brothers as well as an undisclosed amount of sisters (Matthew 13:55-57)?
If Jesus was so loving and forgiving then why did he rudely tell a Caananite woman who pleaded with him for an exorcism that he would not waste his time helping a non-Jew (Matthew 15 21-28)?
Is he a “God of peace” (Romans 15:33) or a “God of war” (Exodus 15:3)?
Is Joseph the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)?
Is God “good to all: his tender mercies are over all his works. (Psalms 145:1) or does He “dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them”. (Jer 13:14)?
Is Jesus the equal of God as in “I and my Father are one (John 10:30) or does Jesus “go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I”. (John 14:28).
Yes, there are many, many more, but quite frankly I don’t think I have the time and patience to list them nor, I suspect, do you to read them.
6. CAIN AND ABEL
The Bible and Koran both say that all humankind is directly delineated from Adam and Eve. Upon being booted out of Eden, Eve bore many children, her two eldest being Cain and Abel. According to these books, after killing his brother Abel in a fit of jealous rage, Cain wandered into the wilderness and magically found himself a wife. But where did she come from? She is not one of Adam and Eve’s children. SO WHERE DID SHE COME FROM?
This is not a trivial point ladies and gentlemen. If Cain’s wife was not the offspring of Adam and Eve, then it means that not all humans are descendents of Adam and Eve which means the whole concept of the Garden of Eden, the fall from grace, the inheritance of original sin is a total crock. The idea that the human race are all natural born sinners, the notion that all our suffering is born out of the fact that Adam and Eve betrayed God is complete and utter rubbish. IT NEVER HAPPENED.
5. BERTRAND RUSSELL’S CELESTIAL TEAPOT AND THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
Theists often seem to be of the opinion that they hold some sort of trump card when they gloat, “Well you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, so nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah”. Whilst my first reaction to this infantile argument is an overwhelming desire to punch them in their smug little mouths, I do try to retain some sort of decorum and tell them, “Well we can’t really prove that anything doesn’t exist can we?”
One of my favourite atheists, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. came up with the Teapot Hypothesis, which like the God Hypothesis, cannot actually be disproved:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time”.
In the same vein, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a present day deity first brought to our attention by American student Bobby Henderson in 2005. Bobby was alarmed that the Kansas School Board was considering approving the teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution and wrote them an open letter requesting the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, as it was the basis of his own belief system. Bobby concludes:
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence”
.
The Kansas School Board nixed the teaching of Intelligent Design. Thank the FSM’s noodly appendage for Bobby Henderson everybody!
For a good read on The Flying Spaghetti Monster visit Morgan Bell’s blog via this Really Long Link
4. SMARTER PEOPLE THAN I
Here is a selection of quotes regarding God and religion from some of the most brilliant minds that ever were:
Albert Einstein: “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”.
“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve”
Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is not my book. Nor Christianity my religion”.
Bertrand Russell: “I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world”.
“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence”.
Frederich Nietzsche: “Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?”
“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”
‘
Pierre Simon LaPlace: I have no need of that hypothesis”.
Seneca the Younger: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful”.
Marie Curie: “Pierre belonged to no religion and I did not practice any”.
3. THE ENCYCLPAEDIA BRITANNICA
When I was growing up we, like every self-respecting wog family in the country, had the full 28 volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Plus the atlas and two(!) volume dictionary. It was proudly displayed in the living room wall unit, much to my mother’s consternation, as it meant she had to relegate her collection of non-stick, Margaret Fulton-approved, Bessemer pots and pans to the much smaller and decidedly less impressive cabinet in the un-renovated kitchen.
I grew up in a fairly religious Muslim family. My father tried to instil in us a good knowledge not only of Islam but also Christianity and Judaism (ah those intolerant Muslims huh?). One way in which he chose to do this was to gather the family around the telly every year when Cecile B DeMille’s The Ten Commandments would be polluting, I mean gracing, the airwaves. Growing up, I accepted the story as fact. But that was before the Encyclopaedia Britannica entered our lives. After watching the movie one particular year, I decided to see what it had to say on the matter of the parting of the Red Sea.
Well, according to this tome, Moses did not lead the Israelites to safety by parting the Red Sea, but by ushering them through the much more hospitable marshes known as The Sea of Reeds. Of course, this conflicts with the Biblical and Koranic versions. I read both, many times. I scratched my head. I lay awake in bed at night. I thought. I pondered. I wondered.
At the end of the day, I just decided that The Encyclopaedia made more sense.
I was 12 years old.
2. DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION
Now I’m not going to bore you all with any kind of analysis of one of the most enlightening essays and theories in the history of mankind. I’m pretty sure most of you, and hope that all of you, are familiar with Darwin’s amazing discovery. Suffice it say, it is not “just a theory”, it has been observed and no more thorough explanation for the origin of the human race has ever, ever, EVER been out forward. Now, it may well be that Darwin and pretty much every scientist worth their salt since, was wrong about evolution. But until someone comes up with a more reasonable, logical and observable explanation, I’m holding onto this one thanks.
1. HE HATES WOMEN
But don’t take my word for it. Let the man, sorry ‘God’, speak for himself:
From the Bible:
"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"
(I Timothy 2:11-14).
"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).
"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).
"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' …and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).
From the Koran:
4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females,
4:15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.
24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands.
2:222 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
Proving your God exists
( From Defending Atheism )
It is not up to me or to you as an atheist to demonstrate that a god does not exist. It is up to us to say to the religionist, ""You have made an assertion. It is your responsibility to demonstrate the truth of that assertion. If your claims hold up, then you are rational. If your claims do not hold up and you continue to believe as you do, then you are irrational."
An atheist will encounter many and varied claims for the existence of a particular deity. It only seems reasonable to ask for some sort of tangible evidence to back up these claims, does it not? After all, if I ran into the room and shouted "I have just seen a UFO! I was this close to being abducted!", you might not immediately take my word for it. You might well ask for some evidence, such as a photograph (autographed if possible), or strange alien artifact. You might go to the location where I claim to have seen the spaceship, and inspect it for yourself. You could probably think up a number of alternative explanations for what I said I saw. If I fail to support my claims, why on earth should you take my word for it?
Many of the more common claims that are made to demonstrate the existence of a god seem to be fatally flawed. If you've chatted with theists on the internet, your doorstep, or whereever, you may be familiar with these :
"Look around you! How can you witness the beauty of God-X's Creation and still disbelieve. Look at the trees, the birds, the bunnies!"
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Many other religions make exactly the same claim. Why is your one special? Surely the trees, bunnies etc. are therefore equally valid proof of the existence of hundreds of other gods? One supernatural explanation is just as valid as any other.
* Unfortunately, everything you describe can also be explained in mundane, rational, scientific terms, without the need to invoke a Creator.
* What about the nasty things in life? Guinea worms, anthrax, mosquitoes; all the blood-sucking, parasitical, disease-bearing, poisonous beasties that kill us and each other in horrific ways? Watched any nature programmes recently?
"Six hundred million people follow my religion. They can't all be wrong - there must be something in it."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Nine hundred million people follow religion Z. Are they all wrong? Truth is not democratic - you can't vote for objective reality.
* Maybe they are right. Maybe their god exists as well as your god?
* If they're wrong, couldn't you also be wrong? After all, they seem to believe at least as strongly and sincerely as you do, and for many of the same reasons...
"I have personally witnessed a miracle. I can trust my senses."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Lots of people have personally witnessed Elvis working at the Drive-Thru. Should I believe them also? Without any sort of evidence, personal subjective testimony is not very convincing.
* Many people from other religions claim to have witnessed miracles. Does this mean that their God also exists? Just how many Gods are there?
* Are you positive that Divine Intervention is the only possible explanation for what you saw?
"My God is a living God. All those other ones are just ancient myths."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* Those gods were "living Gods" to the people who believed in them. Zeuss, Odin and Jupiter once had followers every bit as devout as you.
* Many of the "ancient" religions still have active, devout, sincere followers. Just like you. Why should I accept your claims over theirs identical ones?
* How many people claim to worship dead gods?
"We are God's Chosen People."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* So why doesn't he look after you a bit better? How many of his followers have suffered or died recently? Statistically, are you any better off than followers of other religions?
* Again, the same claim is made by other religions. How do I know they aren't the Chosen Ones?
* So what are the rest of us here for? What about the ones living in remote villages who will live their entire lives without even hearing of your god?
"If the probability of something happening is less than about 1e-15 (or 0.000000000000001) it is considered to be impossible. The probability of life occuring 'by accident' is far less than this, therefore it must be a miracle caused by God.."
What's wrong with this? Several things:
* It ignores the size of the universe. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, any of which might have planets capable of supporting life. Even an "impossibly improbable" event is almost a certainty (and we already know of one planet that supports life).
* Statistics are fun, aren't they? Shuffle a deck of playing cards, and lay them out on a table. The probability of the sequence you see appearing is 1/52 for the first card, 1/52 x 1/51 at the second card, 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 by the third card and so on. The probability that you produced the sequence you just did is 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50......x 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1 ( more simply, 1/(52!) ), or 1.2398e-68 (which is an incredible 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012398). How can this be?!? Maybe you are hallucinating and it did not actually occur?
You have just done something statistically impossible, trillions of times more unlikely than the formation of life (some say 1e-50 is the "impossibility threshold" instead, but we've beaten that as well). You could even do it six times before breakfast every day!
(Try it yourself: if your calculator can do factorials use that, otherwise here's the
peacockcoins
0
Comments
. . . . . .
Have you ever applied skepticism or critical thinking to these beliefs?
No, I don't criticise God's Word. To do so would mean I knew more than God, which would be grossly arrogant on my part. Yes I try to gain a greater understanding of what the Bible says, but I don't doubt that what it says actually happened.
Do you just accept everything at face value, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence?
I don't see the evidence as contradictory, I see it as supporting the Bible account.
. . . . . .
Tell a young child that the sky is blue because it reflects the colour of the sea, or that air is very slightly blue, or that God likes the colour, and they'll probably believe you. As a child, you rely on grown-ups to advise you, and you generally trust them implicitly. Mummy and Daddy wouldn't lie to you, would they?
Unfortunately, Mummy and Daddy often don't know what they're talking about. Ignorance can be passed on to children in the same way that bigotry can. If little Jimmy asks why the sky is blue and Dad doesn't really know, he might make something up, or make a guess, or repeat what he was told when he asked that question. People don't want to say "Gee, I dunno" and look stupid in front of their kids.
This is wrong. If you don't know something, say so. Explain why. Maybe even take the trouble to find out, or at least get a vague idea of the subject. (The sky is blue due to blue light being scattered out high in the atmosphere. Take a big glass of water, put a small amount of milk in it, to make it cloudy, shine a powerful torch through it. Looked at from the other side, the torchlight becomes red as the shorter wavelengths get scattered out in all directions. If you look closely, you can even see the blue tint from the sides. This is called Raleigh Scattering, and is why the sky is blue and sunsets are red.)
I know a woman who is a vegetarian. I once offered her a cup of coffee, and asked if she would like sugar in it. She said yes, but only brown sugar. Why not white, I asked? It has whale fat in it to make it white, she replied, quite matter-of-factly. My mind boggled. Here was a normal, level-headed, intelligent woman who seriously believed that white sugar was white because it had whale fat in it! (Sugar is white for the same reason that salt, snow and ground glass appear white - the transparent crystals scatter all wavelengths of light at all angles.)
I can only assume that someone told her this when she was a child - either as a joke, or because they believed it, or they simply made it up because they didn't know and didn't want a child pestering them with daft questions. Unfortunately, she believed it, never thought to question it, and grew up still believing it (she's about 32).
Basically, kids will believe any old guff you care to fill their little heads with. This is why honesty is the best policy. If you don't know something, say so. Don't make something up that they might still believe when they're adults.
How does all this relate to religion? Well, which is easier to explain to a child, and which is the child therefore more likely to believe?
A kindly old man with a beard made all the world, and loves and looks after us all;
or
The planet formed billions of years ago, and all sorts of horrendously complex forces and chemical reactions shaped it until we see it as it is today?
Which is nicer and more comforting?
Granny died because the Little Baby Jesus loves her so much and wants her to be with him in Heaven, where she'll be happy forever and you'll meet her again;
or
Granny brain ceased working, and the personality that you knew and loved has simply been snuffed out of existence forever.
People take the easy option, and children trust that they're telling the truth. The non-religious option seems cold, hard, callous, uncaring. Naturally people take the easy, warm, fuzzy route.
I consider myself to be an open-minded skeptic (you may have other opinions
As a Fortean, I recognise that there are more than two sides to every story. It is unwise to dismiss something out of hand simply because you don't like the sound of it. Also, I realise that science does not know everything (yet), and scientists can often make mistakes or let their personal beliefs influence their work (this is why we have peer-review - something that religions could do with). However, I also know that there is always a rational explanation for even the most outlandish claims. Yes, it could be an evil spirit causing it, or an unknown type of energy, but isn't it much more likely to be something quite mundane?
That is not to say that all claims of the supernatural should be arbitrarily dismissed. Science does not know everything yet, and maybe never will. Things do happen that current science cannot explain. However, just because science cannot explain them today, does not mean that they are paranormal or supernatural. It might take 500 years, but science just might get there in the end. Then the supernatural becomes the natural. Heck, maybe Poltergeist Dynamos will one day be an invaluable energy source! Maybe Psychic Telepathy Machines will become a quick and cheap alternative to the telephone!
Things that are claimed to be "supernatural" can be divided into three categories:
* The truly supernatural - ghosts, gods, miracles etc. (no good evidence to support this, I'm afraid).
* The natural, that science has yet to fully explain - origin of universe, structure of matter etc.
* Hoaxes / misinterpretations / hallucinations (ghosts, gods and miracles again...).
When confronted with something apparently supernatural, you should always use the "Which is more likely" test:
example:
A medium claims to contact the dead, to pass messages on to comfort the loved ones left behind.
Which is more likely?
* She has some mystical super-power, and actually is in touch with the spirits of dead people, who are always peaceful and at rest now, and don't want the bereaved to worry, but can only talk for a few minutes and can never remember more than the first initial of anyone's name? ("I'm getting an A, does the letter A mean anything to anyone here?")
* She takes people's money and tells them what they want to hear because it makes them feel better whether it's true or not - meaningless reassurances, and vague references to family members?
This is critical thinking. It is a very quick way of detecting bogosity (spiritualists are a well-known source of bogons). If you clear away all the new-age, hippy, mystical, magical nonsense you might actually find out what is going on. If the only thing left is mystical nonsense, either there is nothing there at all or you can claim the next Nobel Prize and James Randi's million dollar award.
Skepticism is not about debunking beliefs or proving something to be false - merely asking the person making the claim to demonstrate that what they say is true, or to provide objective, unambiguous evidence to support the claim. If a thing cannot be demonstrated as being true, there is no need to attempt to prove it false.
You should, at the very least, suspend judgement if the person asking you to believe something cannot give a reasonable answer to the simple question "Really? How does that work, then?"
If the answer includes such vague terms as Energies, Vibrations, Auras, Spirits or Balance, you can move on to "Really? What does that mean, then?" (and expect a sudden change of subject).
Religion and mysticism provide quick and easy answers to hard questions. But are they the correct answers? They tend to be difficult, if not impossible, to verify or test. Science tends to provide deeply complicated answers that are difficult to understand, hard to explain and can take years to learn in detail. Saying "God did it" to someone with little knowledge of science explains everything from dishwashers to supernovae.
You'd be surprised at how many people will accept it without thinking.
___________________________________________________________
They're not Christians.
Islam is a good historical parallel.
But because the Mormons are not 'foreign', because they grew out of 19th-century Protestantism and still use Christian lingo and otherwise blend into Anglo-American culture, most non-Mormons don't know they're not.
Which is fine with the Mormons. They like to give that impression - not exactly lying but not telling you the whole truth.
But they claim they're Christians. THE Christians. By that they mean they claim they hold the true faith of Jesus Christ before the Council of Nicæa, that is, those commonly called Christians to this day, got it all wrong by coming up with belief in the Trinity.
Mormons are polytheists.
To be specific, henotheists. Mormons worship only one God. But believe in many.
A good Mormon man is promised that when he dies he and his wife (wives - they stopped doing that so their colony could become a US state but it's still in their doctrine) get to populate a whole planet of people to literally worship him (he and the wives beget the people's souls).
Which is what they think the God they worship is: an evolved man.
Which on top of other issues is why Mormonism makes no sense to me: no prime mover! Something obviously had to make the man who is now their God.
Mormonism came out of the same Restorationist religious revival in early-1800s America as the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ, the Churches of Christ and the Seventh-Day Adventism. I don't know how many of these groups were directly related. Its original name was 'the Church of Christ'. Joseph Smith changed his mind a few times, starting out as a Protestant Christian like those groups but ending up outside of Christianity.
(As has been discussed aboard the Ship, besides the fundamentalist offshoots of the Mormons that still practise polygamy and hold all other Mormon doctrine, there are small breakaway churches dating from the 1800s that include as scripture the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants but not the Pearl of Great Price, which I think is non-Christian, but interpret them in a Christian way. They are Christians. The Community of Christ, until 2001 the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is the biggest.)
I once asked somebody who used to work for the Quakers if Quakers are Christians and the answer is like the one given here: they're non-credal but not specifically anti-trinitarian or polytheist so yes, they were founded as Christian.
http://atheistblogger.com/2008/02/15/101-atheist-quotes/
101 quotes
quotes
herding cats
peacockcoins
This I Believe
Contributor: Penn Jillette
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: United States of America
Series: Contemporary
Listen to this essay
There is No God
As heard on NPR's Morning Edition, November 21, 2005.
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
photos
The same coin used in the text.
I'd like to write a bit about something that bothers me quite a lot: the argument from improbability. Given that this is my account, and not yours, I really am going to write it.
The argument from improbability basically states that the world in which we live, the circumstances which we see, life itself, are all too complex to have happened by chance. I believe Christian apologists (I love that term - they have to call themselves apologists because there's just so much for which to apologize!!) have "calculated" that the probability of everything happening exactly the way it has happened by chance is 1:[more atoms than exist in the universe] against, so there must be something guiding everything. Sounds pretty daunting, doesn't it? Even leaving aside the fact - yes, I said fact, for fact it is - that evolution is not random because many, many people have written on the subject, the argument from improbability is conceptually flawed.
Imagine, if you would, a coin. Better still, go get one, as I have. Ooh, look, a South Carolina commemorative quarter, 2000. Take your coin and flip it once. I don't care how you do it, just add the element of random(ish) motion. What did you get? I got tails. There was a 50% chance, or a probability of .5, that I was going to get heads, and a probability of .5 to get tails. It seems like I had a 1:2 against chance of getting tails and just happened to really get tails, but we now know that I did get tails. There is not a 1:2 chance I did get tails, it happened and I documented it. Now another flip... heads this time. 1:2 chance of that on a single toss, 1:4 that I would get exactly one tails and then one heads, but that is what I got. Another toss, another heads, and if I were to try to predict that the next three coin tosses would be exactly "tails, heads, heads" I would give that a probability of 1:8. A fourth toss reveals tails, 1:16 to repeat, but it did happen
The issue, the application to the argument from improbability, is that it is meaningless to attempt to determine the precise probability of events that really did happen, except to determine how probably it would be for said events to happen again (independent incidence of life in another part of the universe, for example). The probability of our sun having formed exactly the way it did, or the moon being exactly where it is is useless: that is the way it happened, and if it had happened differently then it would be different! We don't live in some magical universe which was finely tuned for our habitation - of no more than a minuscule particle of the whole - we adapted to our tiny shred because we live in a universe in which our form of life can come about under the circumstances that really did just happen to be there. If those circumstances had been different, then we likely would not be here to mourn that fact. If the universe was "tuned" differently, sans Strong Force, for example, there might be no variety of atoms and no life ever. It doesn't matter, because we do live in this universe. It did happen.
Life might not happen again - so be careful with those bloody nukes, please! - but in an infinite universe it is possible that it might. Life has never needed a god to make things happen, and it never will.
peacockcoins