2007 March | Way of the Mind

Monthly Archive for March, 2007Page 2 of 2

Christianity: "It makes no sense"

Published

on March 9, 2007

. 25 Comments

Quoting from Daylight Atheism (I made some text bold, though):

It makes no sense whatsoever that an infinite, omnipotent god would need to incarnate himself as a human and then subject himself to an agonizing and bloody death just so he could persuade himself to forgive us and save us from the cruel fate he created for us. It makes even less sense that the all-wise creator of the universe would manifest himself in an isolated corner of the world during a primitive age of its history, teach proverbs identical to those of the other belief systems of the day, promise to return quickly to destroy the world, and then vanish utterly for a span of time now going on two thousand years, leaving behind no trace except for a few hazy memories and anonymous writings that he had ever been here at all.

I don’t think I could have said it better myself.

FAQ: Atheism is just another religion!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 7, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and religion

. 3 Comments

That’s not really a question. Anyway, it can have several different meanings. One is the common “atheists worship science / Satan / Darwin / themselves”, which I’ll address a couple of FAQ answers from now.

Another meaning is that atheism is a religion, that is, it’s got a lot in common with one. That’s what this FAQ entry is about.

What defines a “religion”? Mostly, a religion is a belief system, which includes rules of behavior, rituals, and, in many cases, an element of the supernatural (e.g. miracles), some claims about the origin of the universe, why we are here, and what happens after we die. (note that I said “many cases”, not “all cases”: some religions don’t include supernatural / metaphysical elements at all).

Well, atheism is nothing like that. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods; there are no rules of conduct, no rituals, no claims about why we’re here or what we’re supposed to do. In fact, there’s not even such a thing as “atheistic beliefs”, since the only thing we have in common is that we don’t believe in something that many other people do. In fact, as someone said before, “atheist” shouldn’t even exist as a word, since we don’t have — or need — words for “people who don’t believe in astrology” or “people who don’t believe in Santa”.

While most religions tend to create some sort of homogeneity (because of a common holy book, a common set of beliefs, and so on), atheism isn’t like that at all. Some, but not all atheists are skeptics, and arrive at atheism simply because it’s the “default”; the existence of any gods has no evidence for it, so, until any such evidence appears, we go with the simpler explanation: the universe is natural. But, other than that, we may not have anything in common.

Do you think that “I don’t believe in unicorns” defines a person? I doubt it. Do you think such lack of belief in unicorns is a religion? Unlikely, to say the least.

Many theists, here, will say: “ah, but to say ‘there is no god’ you need as much faith as to say the opposite”. That’s the third possible meaning, which I’ll leave for the next FAQ answer.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

FAQ: If you don’t believe in God, why do you talk about him so much?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 6, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and religion

. 3 Comments

Well, I, like most atheist bloggers, rarely talk about “God”, and when I do so, it’s about the (fictional) character described in religious books such as the Bible. (comic book fans may talk about Spider-Man, but that doesn’t mean they believe he’s real!) What I write about, mostly, is religion, and what I think is wrong with it, the harm it causes, and so on.

Religion, unlike God, obviously exists. It’s around us, and affects us - even those of us who have none.

Why do I care about it so much? I have a previous, more detailed post about it, but, basically, I believe that the atrocities committed in the name of religion (such as religious terrorism, the Inquisition, the crusades, etc.), the anti-life and pro-bigotry teachings (such as “gays are an abomination”, “stem cell research is murder, but invading other countries is OK”, or “women should remain submissive”), and so on, are only part of the problem. Another part, which affects many more believers, is the crippling of the intellect that most religions preach. When blind faith — especially when there’s zero evidence for it — is preached as a virtue instead as an obvious example of wishful thinking (which is always to be avoided), then something is very wrong, and religion stops being just a “harmless, peculiar belief”.

So, I write about it, because I care about it. Precisely because I’m an atheist, I believe that this life is “it”; and the world is what we make of it. So I try my best to make it a better place, instead of waiting for some unseen, undefined “real thing” after death, where things will magically become better without any effort on my part.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

FAQ: How can you be an atheist? You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 5, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and logic

. 8 Comments

I can reply to that question in two ways, and either of them is enough.

1- I don’t have to.

You’ve probably heard the term “burden of proof” before. In this context, it works like this: when someone makes a new claim, it’s his responsibility to prove it, or at least provide some evidence for it, instead of someone else having to disprove it. In other words, the burden of proof is on the side of those who make the claim — especially if it’s a bold or uncommon one.

Imagine someone accuses you of being an alien disguised as a human. Would you feel that you have an obligation to prove that you’re a real human? Of course not. It’s the other person who has to provide evidence for their claims.

It works that way, too, for claims like “there is a god, and he’s exactly like I believe he is”. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. A question such as “can you prove that it didn’t happen?” only works in Ed Wood movies.

2- Can you prove X doesn’t exist, then?

Another way to counter the “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” claim is to ask the same question back at you. Can you prove Zeus doesn’t exist? Aphrodite? Odin? Thor? Allah? Kali? Nanabozho?

You’ll have to admit that you can’t. In fact, you could dedicate the rest of your life to proving that any of them doesn’t exist, and you’d fail miserably. I’ll assume, then, that you believe all of them are likely to exist, right?

No? Why not, then? Believing in one god because you can’t prove he doesn’t exist, but not applying the same logic to all the other gods, is a classic example of a double standard. But I bet that you’re applying the “you can’t prove he doesn’t exist” logic to your god only…

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

FAQ: Isn’t it better to believe, just in case? After all, if I’m wrong, then I don’t lose much, but if you’re wrong…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 2, 2007

in atheism and atheism faq

. 1 Comment

Your question is, in essence, what is known as Pascal’s Wager. It was first suggested by Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician, and keeps being repeated (over and over) by apologists, many of whom, apparently, believe that they are the first to come up with it…

At first glance, it seems to make sense. After all, a believer who’s wrong, apparently, doesn’t lose much, but an unbeliever who’s wrong goes to hell — infinite punishment, and, so, infinite loss. To “hedge one’s bets”, then, might make sense… right?

Not quite. Remember that Pascal suggested it about 350 years ago, a time when there was, basically, one single religion around him: Catholicism. It’s not exactly like that today… there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variants of Christianity, most of which say that they’re the only valid version, and the believers of every other version are damned. And that’s just Christianity; many other religions, such as Judaism (with all its variants) and Islam (with all its variants) also have similar exclusive claims. Precisely because they’re exclusive (and their gods are “jealous” - their own words!), you can’t pick several of them at the same time, for “safety”.

In fact, if you go by Pascal’s Wager, the chances of picking the wrong religion, and therefore be damned, with so many of them available, are above 99%, and not much different from the chances of going to hell if you’re an atheist (again, according to Pascal’s Wager).

Or, to put it more simply: say you are a Christian. Now, any Muslim will tell you that you’ll go to hell for not believing in Allah. Isn’t it safer to believe, just in case? By not worshipping Allah, aren’t you taking a huge gamble?

There are more problems with Pascal’s Wager. For instance, can you actually choose your beliefs? Could you decide, tomorrow, that, for safety reasons, you don’t believe in Yahweh anymore, and that you believe Allah is the true god? Would that belief be sincere? And if it wasn’t sincere, would any god worthy of that designation actually be fooled?

It’s also not necessarily true that a believer who’s wrong (that is, if it turns out that there is no god after all) doesn’t lose much.

For a more detailed discussion of Pascal’s Wager, please see this thread at the Way of the Mind Forum, especially posts #1 and #5.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

FAQ: Without God / religion / the Bible, how can people be moral?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 1, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and morality

. 0 Comments

(Note: this is not the same as the similar-sounding Without belief in an afterlife / fear of hell, how can people be moral?. That one is about behaving because of fear of punishment; this one is about the common belief by theists that people get their moral rules from God / religion / the Bible.)

It may come as a surprise to you, but if you’re a caring, loving person who makes people around you happy, you’re not getting that from religion. In fact, it’s much the opposite.

If your religion is simply “I believe God is like a loving father who wants us to be kind to each other”, then, while you’re much healthier than many other believers, you are making that religion up. You are inventing it, creating it. Or, else, your priest or pastor, who taught you about God and religion, did so.

Because “just be kind to one another” is a philosophy that finds no support in the Bible. That’s not what the Christian god — especially, but not only, in the Old Testament — is about. Not in the least.

According to the Bible — and, again, if you ignore it, you’re making up your own religion –, God really thinks women are inferior to men. He thinks slavery is OK. He thinks people who disobey many of his arbitrary rules should immediately be put to death by other believers. He thinks homosexuals, bankers, disobedient children, and people who eat shellfish should be killed. And he’s OK with genocide — putting entire countries to the sword, including women and children.

Most Christians, of course, are never told about most of the above. Many of those who do are mentally healthy enough to repudiate those beliefs (thus, again, creating their own “sanitized” religion). Those who aren’t healthy enough become fundamentalists: preachers (and agents) of intolerance, suffering and hate.

But my point is that, if you’re a kind, moral believer, you are that despite your religion, not because of it. In fact, you have to ignore much of your holy book, or else you’d probably be in prison already (say, for stoning your child to death because he arrived late from a party).

How can your morality come from religion if you have to ignore most of that religion’s teachings in order to not be a monster?

More about this: Picking and Choosing.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)