Archive for the ‘atheism’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 2): the immaturity of religious arguments

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

Hitchens and Dennett

 

Like before, just click on the picture above to go to the source, download or watch the 2-hour video, and so on.

Also like before, I’m going to post and comment on one of my favorite parts of the discussion between the “four horsemen of atheism”.

Daniel Dennett: Right. And you know this, what you just said Christopher, actually, I think, strikes terror, it strikes anxiety, in a lot of religious hearts. Because it just hasn’t been brought home to them that this move of theirs is just off-limits. It’s not the game. You can’t do that. And they’ve been taught all their lives that you can do that – this is a legitimate way of conducting a discussion. And here, suddenly we’re just telling them “I’m sorry, that is not a move in this game”. In fact it is a disqualifying move.

[..]

Christopher Hitchens: Adumbrate the move for me a bit, if you would, or for us. Perhaps only for me. Say what you think that move is.

Dennett: Somebody plays the faith card.

Hitchens: Yes.

Dennett: They say look, I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that’s it. At which point, I guess the polite way of saying it is well, okay, if that’s true you’ll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you’ve declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. Now…

Hitchens: That’s what I hoped. That’s what I hoped you were saying.

Dennett: …if you really can’t defend your view, then sorry, you can’t put it forward. We’re not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine. But because it says it in the holy book, that just doesn’t cut any ice at all. And if you think it does, that’s just arrogant. It is a bullying move and we’re just not going to accept it.

Sam Harris: And it’s a move that they don’t accept when done in the name of another faith.

Dennett: Exactly.

In other words: saying “we just have to believe it and that’s it” is not a rational argument, or a grown-up argument. Nor is saying “it is true, because it says so in my holy book”. Those are appeals to emotion or to authority, which are childish arguments that have no place in an adult, rational discussion… and which believers wouldn’t accept from believers of other faiths, anyway. Those arguments are the equivalent of a child’s “but I wannaaaaaa!!!!”. They only “work” because religion and religious beliefs are still unnaturally and unjustifiably respected.

Incidentally, Dennett’s “Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine” reminds me of Barack Obama’s “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”.

In other words — and even though Obama is himself a Christian — both are saying that childish arguments, such as appeals to authority or emotions, just won’t do in real life. This is probably shocking to many believers, who are used to, and comfortable with, their immaturity of beliefs and arguments. It probably explains why Christians cry “we’re being oppressed!” merely for not being allowed to oppress others anymore… after all, they’re suddenly losing a right privilege they’ve had for centuries, when they were so powerful that they were able to act like spoiled children, both in terms of arguments and of actions. Suddenly being told to grow up and act like adults — for the first time in centuries — probably feels like “oppression” to them…

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in atheism, christianity, logic, religion, the bible | 1 Comment »

Atheism, Stalin, and "without God anything goes"

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

A couple of days ago, I was reading the comments to a post on The Frame Problem which, like one of mine, included this comic:

The replies, over there, were a little more like those I had expected here.

First, there came the usual “Stalin / Hitler did this, so atheism is even worse” argument, a.k.a. “I completely missed the point of the comic”. The point is that the comic’s panels suggest several hypothetic (and completely non-existent) atrocities actually made in the name of atheism — and whose equivalents were, in real life, made in the name of religion. That’s completely different from atrocities made by believers or atheists but not in the name of (or because of) their religion or atheism.

When someone pointed out that there’s no relation between Stalin’s atheism and his atrocities (Hitler was a Catholic), then this little gem came up:

They decided that there was no god and realized that they were therefore permitted to do anything they wanted

And this is where I believe all discussion with that person should end. Because he or she, at that point, has gone between a mere logical confusion (going from “atheists did this” to “atheism causes this”) to actual immorality. That person doesn’t see any reason for not “doing anything they want” other than fear of being spanked by the sky daddy. No reason to help and care for other human beings, except that God supposedly commanded so. No reason for not going into a killing spree, except that they don’t want to go to hell.

This, ladies and gents, is absolutely sickening — not to mention worrying (what if they ever lose their faith? no one in the vicinity would be safe…). And they don’t even get that.

I’d like to suggest to fellow nonbelievers that, when told that “atheism leads to evil (because without god anything goes”), or confronted yet again with the Stalin argument (which really amounts to the same: “they killed people because they didn’t fear divine punishment”), they reply with something like the following:

You have just stated that you, yourself, see no reason not to commit mass murder, other than fear of going to hell. Therefore, you have shown yourself to be a psychopathic monster, and I am not interested in continuing a discussion with the likes of you.

I know I’ll be using it in the future, because, sure as hell, believers will continue to compare my morality (or, in their eyes, lack thereof) to Stalin’s.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in atheism, morality, religion | 6 Comments »

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 1): belief and emotional investment

Friday, February 29th, 2008

fourhoursemen2 

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject, I want to share — and comment on — some of the best parts (IMO) of the conversation between the “four hoursemen”, which I still recommend that you watch in full (just click on the image above and download the files, if possible, or at least follow the YouTube links). Since there’s too much to comment on, I’ll divide it among several posts; here’s the first.

Daniel Dennett: Yeah, well I’m amused by it [the accusation that they are "strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill"], because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn’t do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realize that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

Nowhere else, from my experience, does something like this happen. “I think you’re wrong” is not an insult or a personal offense… except in religion. I think this is a very important point.

And why is it? Harris and Dennett provide the answer:

Sam Harris: I mean, this is just not the way rational minds operate when they’re really trying to get at what’s true in the world. And religions purport to be representing reality. And yet there’s this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous, reflexive response to having these ideas challenged. I think we’re pointing to the total liability of that fact.

Dennett: Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody…

Harris: You’ve wasted your life!

Dennett: …do you realize you’ve wasted your life? Do you realize that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered – even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

Again, this is pretty important. It’s something I’ve noticed when discussing these matters with less skeptical friends (and it wasn’t even about religion, but astrology, mysticism, “energies”, and so on): if you refute their arguments one by one, they invariably reach a point where they’re visibly emotionally affected — almost near panic — and, if you keep going on past that point, they get really offended, angry, and aggressive with you. Why? Because their beliefs aren’t just a matter of whether the methods (e.g. prayer, horoscopes, etc.) “work” or whether the propositions are “true”. These people have an emotional investment in those beliefs. A huge one. And, in a way, you’re telling them that they may have lost all of that investment. That, as Harris and Dennett say, they’ve wasted their life. A form of the sunk cost fallacy comes into effect — deep inside, the person may realize that their belief isn’t based on reality, but they’ve invested too much time, energy, and emotions into it to ever admit the fact. And anyone who insists on making them “look hard” at it is “hurting” them, is attacking them personally, is “offending” them.

I guess that, in many cases, there’s nothing that can be done. It takes a special kind of courage and honesty to admit something like “I’ve wasted most of my life”. In many cases, it’s probably hopeless to try to get them do do it — and it can cost friendships, in fact.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in atheism, feelings, religion | 8 Comments »

2 Hours with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

This is not very new (it’s from December 2007), but I only found the time today to watch it, and I found it intellectually delicious. Four brilliant minds (who don’t agree in many ways) having a fascinating (and polite!) discussion about religion and atheism.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Please, watch it. Really. Just click on the image above. I suggest downloading the files first and watching them in the best available quality, instead of using YouTube.

For believers, it may surprise you to find out how “strident”, “shrill” and “fanatical” these four bestselling authors really are. :)

For non-believers, don’t pass this by because you expect it be just “preaching to the choir”. As I said, the discussion is, in my opinion, fascinating and absolutely stimulating, and it will sure get you thinking about stuff you hadn’t considered before.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in atheism, religion | 2 Comments »

Obama on religion

Thursday, February 21st, 2008

[...] given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.

But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham.

Source: ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address, 2006

More than good enough for me. Pity I’m not American, or I would, for the first time in my life, vote for a guy and be proud of it. (I’m assuming he’ll beat Hillary, by the way, which seems increasingly likely, according to the latest results.)

Contrast this with Mike “rewrite the Constitution so it conforms to the Bible” Huckabee, Mitt “secularism is a religion” Romney (yes, I realize he’s out), or John “Roe v. Wade should be overturned” McCain.

(To be fair, McCain seems to be by far the lesser evil amongst Republicans (which admittedly isn’t saying much, given who his current main opponent is), and would certainly be an improvement over Bush… but, then again, who wouldn’t? :) Unless an oddly convenient “terrorist” attack allows Bush to institute martial law and remain in power, things are sure to improve — not just for the U.S., but for the entire world — after November, regardless who wins the election.)

EDIT: removed the bold font emphasis on the original text. Sorry about that. ;)

Posted in atheism, politics, religion | 16 Comments »

90 day Jane

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Like Hemant and Shnakepup, I am convinced that the latest idiocy, “90 day Jane“, is nothing but another dishonest attempt by the religious to fight the “rise of eeeeevil atheism”.

Consider her description:

I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It’s simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I’m not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose. My generation has had no great depression, no great war and our biggest obstacle is beating Halo 3.

“… as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose”? Gee, that sounds just like what theists love to say about atheists… and what atheists either don’t say, or say literally; in other words, the lack of a “greater” purpose just means that we don’t have someone telling us what to do, so we have to (responsibility! scary!) decide for ourselves, come up with a purpose on our own.

Quoting Shnakepup:

Expect “Jane” to start laying the nihilism and hedonism on thick, all the while spouting off about how pointless it all is. Then, closer to the due date, we’ll see more and more posts featuring Jane reconsidering her godless, wasteful existence , and pondering if maybe there’s something more. Cue religious friend who sets her straight on the lie of atheism, and who tells her all the church has to offer in it’s place. Instead of killing herself on Day 90, we’ll see her changing her mind and deciding to live her life with Jesus! Warm fuzzy music plays and everybody learns a valuable lesson.

Indeed. Now, I wonder… as an atheist, I would never do something like this (say, “faking” a deconversion). Why? Because it would be dishonest, and the same love of truth that makes me an atheist prevents me from even considering something like this. The belief in “saving souls” for brownie points in heaven, even if you have to cheat, lie, and hurt people to do it, is, apparently, something very typical in evangelical Christianity.

EDIT: it was just an experiment, after all. Either that, or they aborted it because they can’t follow their plan to talk about the emptiness of atheism for 3 months and then “find Jesus” on day 90, because we were on to them on day 4. Nothing to see here, folks.

Posted in atheism, christianity, religion | 8 Comments »

Pope: "Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty…"

Thursday, December 13th, 2007

Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty

Source: MattBors.com

Tags: , , ,
Posted in atheism, christianity, history, religion | 5 Comments »

Belief System Selector – my results

Tuesday, December 11th, 2007

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (93%)
3. Non-theist (78%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (75%)
5. Liberal Quakers (71%)
6. Neo-Pagan (60%)
7. Mainline – Liberal Christian Protestants (53%)
8. New Age (44%)
9. Taoism (41%)
10. Reform Judaism (37%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (36%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (31%)
13. New Thought (27%)
14. Bahai (24%)
15. Sikhism (24%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (21%)
17. Scientology (21%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%)
19. Jainism (18%)
20. Mainline – Conservative Christian Protestant (14%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (12%)
22. Hinduism (12%)
23. Islam (12%)
24. Orthodox Judaism (12%)
25. Roman Catholic (12%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (9%)
27. Jehovah’s Witness (6%)

It’s a bit strange to see absurdities like Christian “Science” and Scientology in those positions, as I’d say they’re even more obviously bullshit-infested than, say, Eastern Orthodox or Hinduism (and that’s saying a lot), though that’s probably because they agree with me on something… no idea what, though. :) At least, the test got number one right, so it’s a start. :) It is a test more focused on beliefs instead of lack of them, however, as the phrasing of the questions shows.

What about you? What does the Belief System Selector say about your beliefs? :)

Posted in atheism, religion | 4 Comments »

Christmas for Atheists?

Tuesday, December 11th, 2007

A couple of weeks ago, in a Portuguese technology mailing list, someone suggested organizing for a Christmas dinner, and someone else (over)reacted by saying “sorry, wrong religion”. I don’t even know if that guy is an atheist, or religious but not Christian (probably the latter). Obviously, an argument ensued, with that guy even accusing others of “religious discrimination” for assuming that everyone is a Christian and celebrates Christmas. Needless to say, the argument (which I didn’t participate in) quickly descended into chaos and insults.

So… as an atheist, what do I think about Christmas? Well, I love it. :)

No, I don’t love the absolutely idiotic consumerism that makes it impossible to go into a shopping center during December, which creates huge queues everywhere, and which makes otherwise rational people go into a shopping frenzy, and actually panic because they might forget someone, or disappoint someone, or not be able to find the “right” gift for someone. As I said, I absolutely hate this, and refuse to take part in it.

But I love the rest of Christmas. The decorations, the Christmas trees, the songs, the Santas everywhere, the Christmas parties or dinners at work, the food (here in Portugal there are several types of traditional cakes and other foods that are only made near Christmas, and it’s probably similar in the rest of the world), the whole festive atmosphere of it. And the fact that I get to spend an evening with my family, include some of its members that I almost never see during the year.

No, I don’t feel like I’m “betraying my atheism” (which is a completely absurd concept, of course — you can’t “betray” a lack of belief in something :) ) by taking part in a celebration usually associated with Christianity (even though it comes from a much older pagan holiday, as everyone here probably knows). In fact, the kind of Christmas celebrated in Portugal has very little — if anything — to do with Jesus and religion, but instead with giving gifts (which unfortunately causes those ridiculous shopping frenzies I mentioned), with family reunions, and with and enjoying each other’s company. And I love it. I don’t need to believe in an invisible man in the sky to follow the traditions and “rituals” I enjoy.

Tags: ,
Posted in atheism | 2 Comments »

The relief of religious deconversion

Friday, December 7th, 2007

Responding to No Way’s comment after I mentioned my relief when I stopped being a Christian:

Now that intriques me.  I would love to see that post sometime soon.  After all, if I stopped believing the feeling would be the complete opposite of relief.

I’ve written about it in the past (interestingly, in one of this blog’s earliest posts, How I’ve become an atheist), but I’ll try to answer your question specifically: why the relief?

Well, first consider this: what if Christians are wrong and Muslims are right? If that is so, Allah will send you to “the fire”. Scared yet? There are so many religions (and variations of each religion) out there that the odds of picking up the right one are very, very small. And most of them say their gods are “jealous”, so you can’t pick several at the same time. The fact that you’re a Christian and not a Jew or Muslim or Hindu, or that you’re, say, a Protestant instead of a Catholic, depends just on one thing: where you were born. And while you may have a more liberal theology (“anyone who accepts Jesus is saved”, or even “God wouldn’t send anyone to hell, even though it says he does in the holy books”), that’s a relatively recent thing, and you’re probably in the minority, not to mention that the holy books don’t agree with you. So, statistically, if there is a god or gods and there is a hell, then each individual has very good odds of ending up in it — and of that happening just by chance, because you were born in the “wrong” place and raised in the “wrong” faith. To me, that would be very, very scary indeed, and losing that fear would certainly be a relief. Most believers (including myself, when I was one) avoid living in constant fear of their statistically probable eternal damnation simply by not thinking about this at all; their faith is the “right” one, automatically, because they were raised in it, and it’s “obvious”, so, end of story.

However, my own relief was more related to intellectual honesty; I was always inquisitive, with “the soul of a scientist”, so to say, and only managed to keep my faith by not thinking critically about it, by stopping myself whenever I started to consider the implications, before going “too far” — and, with time, the lines of thought I had to avoid became more and more in number. I knew, subconsciously, that if I thought about it, I would lose my belief, and come to the natural conclusion: that all religions are man-made, self-contradictory, and teach morally wrong — sometimes even repugnant — things. And that the reasons I had for not believing in every other religion could apply perfectly to my own. So, my mind served me so well at school, at college, at work, and to solve problems regularly in life, but it had to be “chained” for me to keep a belief that would not survive a good, hard look? Can you imagine how dishonest, how “fake” that made me feel? To have a part of my life that I had to constantly avoid thinking rationally about? To have two separate standards of reasoning, one I applied to reality and life, and the other to a belief that I just “had” to keep… or else? And yet I blamed myself, not the belief — because I had been taught so.

It’s as Martin Luther said, reason is the enemy of faith. I just disagree with him on which side to pick.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in atheism, faith, reason, religion | 5 Comments »

Why non-belief is the rational position to take

Sunday, September 9th, 2007

The “Is There a God?” has a new post called I’m not an atheist, I’m areligious. I was writing a comment there, but it was getting too long, so I’m posting it here.

While I agree with most of the post (that religion is to blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, Hitler’s anti-semitism, and so on), I have to disagree with this part:

The way I look at it to know there is no god requires the same amount of faith as it does to know that there is a God. Since I have yet to see convincing proof either way I can’t fall on one side of the argument or the other.

Non-belief in gods requires as much “faith” as non-belief in unicorns, and the default position should be “where’s the evidence?”, not “I can’t tell one way or another”.

Can one prove there is no god? Of course not, much like the aforementioned unicorns, or Russell’s Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But all those are extraordinary claims, and, as Carl Sagan said, they require (and everyone should demand) extraordinary evidence. There is absolutely none, so non-belief is the only logical, rational position, and it requires no “faith” at all.

Incidentally, while it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of any gods at all, one can certainly prove the non-existence of most particular gods, in several ways:

1- self-contradictory, logically impossible claims (such as omnipotence)

2- divergence from reality (e.g. holy books whose factual claims are contradicted by historical research, or contradictions such as the Problem of Evil)

3- tracing the religion’s origins and discovering / proving that the religion’s creator was lying, deluded, or didn’t even exist.

Tags: , ,
Posted in agnosticism, atheism, religion | 6 Comments »

My attempt at Hemant’s "Short and Sweet" questions

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

Hemant of Friendly Atheist, recently, challenged atheists to come up with very short answers to a number of common theist questions. A couple of bloggers have already answered them on their blogs, and now it’s my turn. :) I’m trying not to be influenced by other answers I’ve read.

I think this is an interesting project, as there are already several atheist FAQs (including my own, still unfinished), but those usually have longer answers. Having to answer a tough question in a line or two is a nice challenge. :)

Without further ado…

Why do you not believe in God?

For exactly the same reason that you don’t believe in every other god than yours.

Where do your morals come from?

Empathy, mostly. And reason, and a sense of fairness and justice.

What is the meaning of life?

I could tell you mine, but I can’t tell you yours, or anybody else’s. What, you believe it should be dictated to us by some outside source? ;)

Is atheism a religion?

No. Incidentally, that question implies that having a religion is something universal, even if it’s “atheism”. That is wrong; it’s like saying everyone has a car, even if yours is “feet”.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

Depends on the kind of trouble. If I can do something about it, I do it. If not, I deal with it in many different ways, which tend to include friends, family, getting slightly drunk, and listening to heavy metal music. Not all at the same time, of course. :)

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Yes, in the same way we’d try to convince an alcoholic or drug addict to do something about their addiction.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

Hitler and Stalin had moustaches. So, having a moustache makes you a mass murderer! What, you’re saying that their moustaches didn’t inspire their actions? Neither did Stalin’s atheism (Hitler was a Catholic). The Inquisition, on the other hand, was caused by what, exactly…?

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

See: flat earth, geocentrism, demonic posession as an explanation for diseases, slavery, and many other times when billions of people were wrong.

Why does the universe exist?

“Why” is the wrong question. “How” would be better. How, exactly? I don’t know, it’s not my field of expertise, sorry. But I don’t take the easy way out and say “Goddidit.”

How did life originate?

Again, I’m not a biologist, but I don’t see the need for a supernatural cause there.

Is all religion harmful?

Yes, because even the most “harmless” ones teach you to replace critical thinking and skepticism with wishful thinking.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They believe that any religious creed is above criticism, simply because it is a religious creed. So, they protect extremists, and prevent rational discussion of religion.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

People may feel better when, after a catastrophe, they somehow still feel that “someone above cares”. But that’s wishful thinking again… and it often keeps them from actually doing something about it. So, no.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

Which one? And what if you believe in the wrong one? Anyway, I believe a good god would prefer a decent unbeliever to a vicious believer… and, as for an evil god, only a coward would ever serve him.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

No. Something is either true, or it isn’t. Why such a fear of reality?

Are atheists smarter than theists?

Technically, no, but statistically they probably are. For instance, the percentage of atheists among scientists is much greater than among the general populace.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

If he existed — which isn’t certain — I’m almost sure that it was Paul, not Jesus, who invented the “he died for your sins; accept him as your savior and be saved” thing. In other words: the information we have about the historical Jesus is far from reliable.

Would the world be better off without any religion?

Oh, yes. Without religion in the middle ages, we would be at Star Trek-like levels today — not just in terms of technology, but of society. Religion is the thing that’s holding humanity back the most, and always has been.

What happens when we die?

It’s over for us, but we can leave memories and deeds, and can have made the world a better place for our children and their children.

Now, I’d add a few ones:

Isn’t atheism just hatred of God?

Do you hate Thor? Or just don’t believe he exists or ever existed? Well, it’s the same thing here.

How can you be sure God doesn’t exist, if you’re not all-knowing?

I’m as much sure God doesn’t exist as I am about unicorns or werewolves, and for the same reason: there’s exactly zero evidence for all of them.

Tags:
Posted in atheism | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »