Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism.”

Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right.

– Richard Dawkins (source)

Loved the one about coveting your neighbor’s ass.

For more about Space Moose, see Wikipedia.

A lot of Catholics have been complaining about Benedict 16’s utterly immoral statement, and, on one hand, one can’t fault them for it: it just shows that they still have some sense of morality, that they’re not mindless robots obeying “Dear Leader”.

On the other hand… do those Catholics (and Christians in general) know their own religion at all? Why are they surprised? Why aren’t them just nodding because, well, the Pope is Catholic and he’s just stated a Catholic / Christian position?

People, the basis of your religion is that this life is just a test! That one shouldn’t “love this world”. Earthly suffering is immaterial; the only thing that matters is whether you’re “saved” or not. If unspeakable suffering leads one to God / Jesus and therefore that person is saved, to a Christian that’s perfectly OK; in fact, one couldn’t ask for more.

If God exists as they think, and is absolutely against all forms of contraceptives / sex not for reproduction as they think, then better for someone to suffer horribly and die of Aids, with a chance of going to heaven, than to live a long, healthy, happy life and end up in hell with certainty. This is only logical, if one accepts their premises. Which, of course, I don’t, what with being an atheist and everything.

Christianity is a life-hating death cult.

Choice A: there is no heaven or hell; no afterlife, no consciousness after you die.

Choice B: there is an afterlife, in heaven (eternal bliss) or hell (eternal torment), and you have a 10% chance of going to hell.

Which would you choose?

To me, if you don’t choose A instantly, you have never thought for a minute about what “eternal torment” – or even just the “eternal” part – means. Because the mere possibility of that, no matter how remote, should be enough to make anyone live in absolute terror.

Even eternal boredom is infinitely worse than the worst of monsters that ever lived deserves. Because there’s no escape, no reprieve, absolutely no hope of an end, of a sweet oblivion.

Now, as an atheist, I believe there’s no choice here: it’s A whether we want it or not. A theist probably believes the opposite.

Why don’t theists live their lives in abject terror? Well, some of them will use the “my god isn’t a monster and doesn’t send people to hell” argument. Of course, since that deity has no biblical basis, it’s obvious that it’s a god they’ve made up, with the traits they believe God should have. Since I don’t think belief shapes reality, I can’t accept that the god you or him or her or them – or me, if I wanted to – have invented can possibly exist. (As I’ve said many times on this blog, if you believe in a good god, you’ve made him up, and he can safely be dismissed.)

Others will believe that hell exists, but will be certain that, somehow, they’re completely free – or “saved” – from it. They’re sure that they have the proper “get out of jail free” card. Because they have faith in Jesus, because they have said the magic words, because they obey most of Moses’ law or Mohammed’s rules. Somehow, they’re certain that they belong to the right religion – the right branch of the right religion – even though most of the world doesn’t. They probably have the same religion as their parents, making their religion – and, according to their beliefs, whether they’re saved or not – a matter of chance, of geography.

And they don’t think there’s a non-negligible chance of ending up in eternal torment. They’re not in complete terror every moment. They can lead normal lives.

It boggles the mind.

A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (1991), p. 24.

Quite true. However, what is the alternative to a literal interpretation, if not a made-up-on-the-spot one?

“God”, like he’s described in the Bible, is evil (Dawkins’ famous “The God of the Old Testament…” quote is right on the money).

However, the moment you say “my god isn’t like that, he’s a loving god”, you’re worshiping a god of your own creation.

The former is evil, and the latter is an intellectually dishonest creation of yours (really, how can you make up something on the spot and then say it created everything and is worthy of worship?!); both are, fortunately for everyone (including theists¹), quite fictional.

1. this may deserve a post in the future

Which just shows that this blog is no Friendly Atheist.

Still, this doesn’t prevent me from answering my own question, in detail. As others said, neither statement by itself is offensive – much like “2+2=4” and “2+2=5” aren’t. One of them is right and the other is not, but a simple claim shouldn’t be offensive to anyone.

However, these statements aren’t said in a vacuum. When you say either of them, you are probably – even if unconsciously – adding something to it. How much, depends on the individual. Similarly, when you hear one of those statements – especially if it’s the one you disagree with –, you tend to add implications to it.

“There is a god”, when said to an atheist, only has no extra meanings when said by either a deist or an incredibly liberal believer (so liberal he couldn’t possibly be called a “Christian” or similar). If said by virtually every other kind of believer, it includes one or more of the following:

• I’m right and you’re wrong
• I’m saved and you’re not; you’re going to hell
• You’re immoral for not believing, and for having no source of morality
• (if in a Christian community) You’re an outsider; you’re not one of us; you’re not a real American/whatever
• Your life is incomplete; you can’t possibly be happy
• Jesus died for you, you ungrateful monster
• It’s because of people like you that evil exists
• If you don’t believe, you’re just in denial; God’s existence is obvious
• You must allow me to convert you, otherwise you’re screwed.

(note that I said “one or more of”. I don’t mean that every theist believes all of those, or means all of those.)

Meanwhile, and to be fair, when an atheist says “there is no god”, here’s what he can mean, or at least what believers hear:

• I’m right and you’re wrong
• You’re stupid
• You were conned
• You’re brainwashed
• You’re a sheep
• You only have those beliefs because you’ve never thought about them
• You’re irrational
• Your religion is a crutch, because you can’t cope with the real world
• You’ve wasted your life. Time, money, effort, hopes, fears: all of it was for nothing.

The last one is particularly poignant, and I love Dan Dennett’s take on it. When you think about it, that is perhaps the worst thing you can tell a person – which doesn’t mean that it’s not true –, and it’s understandable that many people find it utterly offensive, even if that wasn’t the goal. Incredibly, I think it can hurt people’s feelings even more than, for instance, saying “you’re immoral and you’re going to hell”, because a non-believer knows that those are not true, and that the believer is just speaking from ignorance. But “you’ve wasted your life” is a real, actual, present “threat” – one that must be fought at all costs. Because otherwise you feel like an utter failure, an utter waste of a life.

This explains why there were so many complaints about atheist / secular signs during the past months. Now, granted, some can actually be an attack on belief, and offensive to believers, but some the ones they complained about said something as inoffensive as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”, or, as Ebonmuse put it, “Atheists exist”. And even these were seen as personal offenses, as attacks on their faith, as “liberal Christian-bashing”, and other absurdities. Perhaps, from this angle, I can understand their otherwise incomprehensible anger: the fact that atheists exist and have a voice is a constant threat on their own perceived self-worth. “If atheists exist (and can speak out, and have normal lives), then perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve wasted my life.”

Sign A:

There is a God.

Sign B:

There is no God.

I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

Say that again? “Religious freedom”?

Yes, it’s that distortion again. Do these people even know what “freedom” means? When you’re deciding on something that affects mainly others, it’s not “freedom”, it’s power. The power over others, to dictate on what they can and cannot do.

“Religious freedom” is being able to have the religion you want – even if it’s “none”. It’s being able to act according to those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. It’s not being persecuted (as in “jailed” or “fed to large felines”) for your beliefs. That’s it.

“Religious freedom” has nothing to do with being able to oppress others, force your beliefs on them, or dictate their actions by turning your religious commandments into the law of your country, affecting everyone – even those who don’t share your beliefs. All of those are a matter of power – of having power over other people.

If you don’t have that power – even if, historically, you are used to having it it – your “freedom” is never in question. You can still do what you want. But so can others… and that’s what you can’t accept, isn’t it?

The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it.

– John McArthur, Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?

I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

However, that person, though possibly unaware of the fact, has a problem with definitions. Because it’s not about (his) freedom at all, but about (his) power.

I think it was Richard Stallman who once wrote that the difference between a freedom and a power is that the former is being able to decide something which affects mostly yourself, and a power is to be able to decide something that affects mainly others. Now, when you, a religious heterosexual, can (and do) decide what others (gays) can and cannot do, which is the case? It takes an especially convulted and twisted mind — not to mention incredibly selfish and egocentric — to claim that whether gays can marry or not affects you more than it does them¹. To decide that they can’t marry is not a question of your freedom, but of you having power over their freedoms.

Also, losing a power you once had does not constitute a “loss of your freedom”, because none of the latter was affected. Christians love to claim that their “religious freedom” is being attacked, but no such thing has ever happened (unless, possibly, in Muslim theocracies), because their freedoms are unaffected; what they are losing is the power they’re used to having — and which they always had, through history, unjustly, and often through physical force.

1. e.g. “not oppressing them hurts my feelings, so whether to oppress them or not is all about me.”

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer’s "No, that’s not America." Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Kudos to Powell for having the guts to say that (remember McCain’s (paraphrased) “no, he’s not an Arab,” (meaning “Muslim”, really), “he’s a decent family man”, thus implying that a Muslim can’t be one?). The implication, which probably shocks and offends the Religious Right like few other things in recent memory, is that being a Muslim is somehow not inferior to being a Christian, that being a Muslim (or a non-Christian in general) doesn’t disqualify someone for the presidency.

What next, they may be asking? “Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country?”

I’m betting, of course, that the media will focus on “Powell endorses Obama”, and ignore this small bit of what he said, but, to me, that was the most important part. I can easily imagine Powell saying the same thing about any other religion, or about the lack of one, and these things need to be said, to combat the Religious Right’s dream of religious tests for high office (which, of course, you’d only pass by adhering strictly to their exact branch of fundamentalist Christianity).

Incidentally, it’s strange that I haven’t seen mass conservative cries of “Obama is an atheist”, since atheists are even more demonized than Muslims in the U.S.. I guess it’s the old “there are really no atheists, as deep inside everyone knows God exists” thing.

If we stay with animal analogies for a moment, owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will draw the conclusion that they are god. (Cats may sometimes share the cold entrails of a kill with you, but this is just what a god might do if he was in a good mood.) Religion, then, partakes of equal elements of the canine and the feline. It exacts maximum servility and abjection, requiring you to regard yourself as conceived and born in sin and owing a duty to a stern creator. But in return, it places you at the center of the universe and assures you that you are the personal object of a heavenly plan.

– Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist (introduction)

Scientists say evolution is true and the Earth is old, but they’re only human and fallible. Between them and God’s word (the Bible), I’d trust God any day.

But how do they know the Bible is God’s word?

An incredible large number of believers will say something like, “well, it says so right in there! Would God lie?”. Sorry to say this, but that is such a ridiculously stupid argument that I can have no respect for you as an human being afterwards. Do realize how idiotic it is to say that something must be true simply because it says so? Would you believe a murder suspect with a lot of evidence against him to be innocent, as long as he said “I didn’t do it, and I’m telling the truth“? If you believe that, then, well, (inspiring music) know henceforth that this blog is the very word of the High God, the more-supreme-than-supreme being who created all human gods, including yours (after all, nothing can exist without being created, so someone must have created Yahweh and so on, right? The High God did it. Ignore the obvious implication.). Therefore, you must believe everything written here, since these are not just my words, but the words of the High God himself. The High God wants you to send me a billion dollars. You doubt it? Are you calling the High God himself a liar?

A slightly smaller number of believers will reply with something much like “I feel in my heart that this is the word of God. When I read it, it touches my soul in a way that no mortal words ever could.”

Well, what if you’re mistaken?

What, you believe you can’t be? Do you consider yourself infallible? Perfect? Incapable of error about something like this? Are you claiming that, just because you “feel” something, those feelings must be true, with no possibility of your being just mistaken or deluded?

Then what about all the other people out there who feel things completely different than you? How do you know you’re right and they’re wrong? How can you be sure your feelings are 100% trustworthy, but those of other people are not?

Most people would agree that claiming “I can’t possibly be wrong; I am incapable of error” is the epitome of arrogance. Then why is it that nobody is called on it when the subject is the belief that a book (written thousands of years ago) must be the word of a god? Or that the feelings in your heart must be justified (even though that is not valid for other people’s feelings)?

Admit it: there’s no way to be sure that the Bible is divinely inspired, other than one of the two: dumb circular logic you wouldn’t accept for anything else, or the belief that you’re infallible about something.

More on this: The Aura of Infallibility, on Daylight Atheism

Dawkins himself provides a perfect example of how the Moral Zeitgeist has changed throughout history (which I’ve again stolen from Wikipedia):

Slavery, which was taken for granted in the Bible and throughout most of history, was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a woman’s vote, in an election or on a jury, is the equal of a man’s. In today’s enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, Saudi Arabia), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. Any modern legal system would have prosecuted Abraham for child abuse.

In TGD, Dawkins also provides quotes from people who were, in their time, seen as progressive liberals, such as Thomas Huxley or Abraham Lincoln, but which nowadays make one cringe and gasp in shock because of their racism or sexism. This all shows one thing: our perceptions have changed. What was accepted, even seen as highly moral, many years ago, is now seen as abusive and immoral. This does not happen instantly (though it’s more quick than it may appear, especially in recent years, with mass communication and, now, the Internet), nor to the same degree in all places, of course. And changes are not always for the better (e.g. political correctness, which often prevents people from calling things what they are). But, in general, they are. Things do become better. Societies are far from perfect, but people today have more empathy than they used to have, centuries or even decades ago. Racism and sexism are condemned, have been erased from law books, and those who are still racists or sexists are seen as the bigots they are by educated people. We understand, more than we used to in the past, that life is precious, and that the suffering of other people is as real as ours, even if they look different or have different customs.

Note that I am not saying that morality itself is subjective. Slavery didn’t “become” wrong only in the 19th century, it was always a cruel, brutal suppression of basic human rights. What I’m saying is that the general public’s views on morality have changed, and will continue to change — mostly for the better. One consequence of this is that people might be excused for supporting slavery 500 years ago, but nowadays there’s absolutely no excuse, because they ought to know better.

Of course, the very fact that the Moral Zeitgeist changes and evolves with time proves one thing clearly: that most religious believers don’t get their morality from religion. (Those that do, in the western world, usually have “Phelps” somewhere in their name.) The morality in, say, the Christian Bible is nothing special for its time; not more enlightened, not more advanced or progressive (do believers really think that, before the 10 Commandments, everyone thought that murder was a pretty neat idea?), not “radical” in any way. Jesus himself might sound different, but what he was preaching was mostly an apocalyptic cult whose believers expected the end of the world in their lifetimes; it was Paul that turned Christianity into a religion, with — much like other contemporary religions such as Judaism — all the sexism and support of slavery that was the norm at the time.

While most believers today don’t get their morality from religion or the Bible at all (which is a good thing, too), many still think that they do. But, in fact, their morality mostly fits in with the current moral Zeitgeist. Beliefs such as “God is love”, “God loves everyone” and “God wants us to be happy and free” have no Biblical basis at all; they were made up by believers when society came to appreciate those ideas.

Of course, there are some who do cling, to a degree, to parts of Biblical morality. That is why, for example, churches before the American Civil War opposed emancipation; after all, weren’t people of color the descendents of Ham, condemned to slavery in Genesis? Wasn’t slavery Biblical? Didn’t Paul command slaves to obey their masters?

What about sexism? Well, the Bible clearly states — both in the OT and the NT — that women are the property of men. Who are we to change God’s law? Women should stay at home, not speak in church, and never have authority over men. Guess who opposed equal rights the most.

And don’t get me started on gay marriage.

Of course, eventually even the churches relent, when society has advanced so much that they risk becoming irrelevant. The Mormon church used to forbid black priests; that changed… and, according to them, it was due to a “new revelation”. Christian churches now want to take credit for the end of slavery (because “God loves everyone”, of course), when they were its biggest supporters back then. Churches these days don’t prevent black people from entering, or women from speaking. But all that happened later than with the rest of society. Religion based on scripture, revelation and authority is by nature conservative, and only evolves when forced to, when they are so displaced from society that they face possible obsoleteness or even extinction. One could say that religion, in general, is always behind the Moral Zeitgeist, because it is religion that is always the last to change. And that’s in the west; note how Islam resists change and clings to 13th century morality. They do it through force, fear, and isolation; the more people know, the more they question. The imams know perfectly well how Christianity lost many of its privileges in the west, and want to avoid a similar fate at all costs.

Now, if religion has to follow the rest of society or become irrelevant, if more and more of its original morality is nowadays obsolete and ignored… if society’s views on morality are always in front of religion in terms of progress, and religion has to play catch up… if you realize that in 10 or 20 years the Moral Zeitgeist will have shifted even more, and will be even more different from religion’s original tenets, forcing it to keep adapting… why not dismiss religion as a source of morality altogether?

I, of course, agree with Christopher on virtually everything he says, except for his support of the Iraq war — although he presents his case for it very well here, I still think it was the wrong thing to do, was done for all the wrong reasons (oil for Halliburton, and getting the US in a war frenzy so it’s “unpatriotic” to criticize the administration), and was done as badly as it could.

But, on the subject of religion, listening to Christopher’s wit is an intellectual delicacy, not to mention very, very funny.

Get the torrent here. Or look for it on YouTube.

Source: Cectic

This shows perfectly what the theists’ beef is, IMO. No matter how much they deny it, their goal is to insert religion in science classes, nothing more… and they won’t be satisfied with a truly neutral position, where science classes only teach science. To them, not saying “goddidit” is “promoting atheism”… and they can’t have that.

From Rep. Davis’ bigoted outburst about atheists, one part “jumped at me”, and I knew at the time (a few days ago) that I would have to dissect that point. That part is, of course, this post’s title.

If you follow, logically, from a correct premise, you will likely arrive at correct conclusions. However, if the premise itself is wrong, then the best logic in the world will still end up with a wrong conclusion… but it’s interesting to analyze those occurrences. This is one of them.

Rep. Davis, when she said that sentence, was being bigoted and ignorant, sure, not to mention hateful and full of “righteous anger”. However, there was something else there, something else you can hear in her voice. Fear.

And, from her original premise, she has every reason both to be afraid and to hate atheists. Because something very, very precious is at stake: the fate of eternal souls.

I’ve talked about this before, but most people — believers and otherwise — have never really thought about the concept of hell, or eternal torture. Or are simply unable to grasp it in its entirety, because humans have not evolved — nor have they ever needed to, for their survival, so it makes sense — to deal with concepts such as infinity. The worst part of “eternal torture” isn’t “torture”, but “eternal”. Even mere eternal boredom, without any active torture, is a fate inconceivably horrible, to an extent our minds aren’t capable of imagining. There is no crime on Earth, which is necessarily finite, that warrants such a fate — and this is why I believe the doctrine of hell makes the Christian god supremely evil, more sadistic than the world’s most sadistic sadist, and I wonder why more people don’t see it. Cultural indoctrination, I guess.

But, even without fully grasping the concept of eternal torture, Christians know very well  — even if sometimes just instinctually — that it’s something to be avoided at all costs, something worse than anything that can happen to us on Earth.

Now, think about it. You believe that the most important thing in the world — to such an overwhelming degree that, compared to it, nothing else matters — is to avoid going to hell. Both for yourself, and for those people you care about — and, if you’re a “nice”, well-meaning person, for strangers as well. Nothing you can do or achieve or feel here on Earth is worth anything if you still end up in hell. So, to save yourself (and, later, others) form hell, anything goes. No amount of earthly suffering really means anything compared to it. No amount of ignorance, of lying, of manipulating, of causing suffering to yourself and others is significant. Taken to the logical conclusion, to condemn someone to hours, days, months, even a lifetime of suffering, is a moral act… as long as it prevents that someone from going to hell! Indeed, this was the belief of the Inquisition. Better to be tortured for days or weeks and repent, thus having a chance of being saved, than to lead a pleasant life and then be damned for all time. If you really believe that God sends people to hell, then anything that prevents that is moral… no matter the suffering it causes.

But this is not simply a matter of suffering. It’s also a matter of knowledge. Any knowledge or way of thinking that can lead one to doubt God is dangerous — indeed, more dangerous than anything in the world — and must be suppressed. Whether that knowledge is true or false is immaterial. Evolution may indeed be a fact, and it is compatible with liberal theism, but it can also lead to non-belief, and therefore its teaching must be opposed at all costs, regardless of its truth — simply because it may lead thousands, maybe millions of children to hell. And isn’t saving innocent children the most moral act one can perform?

Recall the preface in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, where he wrote (emphasis mine):

I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Therefore, to a believer like Davis, the mere existence of atheists — and, not only that, but happy, moral, fulfilled atheists — is a threat, one that may cause many people to question their faith, to realize that, yes, non-belief is an option, and doesn’t make you a monster. It may cause millions of innocent souls to end up in hell. Morally, shouldn’t that be fought with tooth and nail? The mere existence of atheists is already a threat that is filling hell with souls that might not have ended there otherwise. But vocal atheists? Publicly seen atheists? Atheists that don’t act like hedonists, who don’t have “horns”, or frighten people? How many are they condemning to eternal suffering?

If one believes that God sends non-believers to hell, then it only makes sense to do anything in your power — including oppressing, lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering — to stop any possible source of non-belief. Whether that source is a person or group, or a book, or an idea, or a philosophy, or a knowledge. Whether that source is itself moral, or is itself true. None of that matters. Hell is what matters.

In fact, why stop there? Yes, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder”, so one can assume that a murderer goes to hell. But what greater sacrifice is there than one’s soul? What is giving up your life for others (say, your children), compared with up giving your soul? What could be more moral, more heroic, more noble than sacrificing your afterlife for that of your children… by killing that soul-damning atheist who is making them, for the first time in their lives, doubt what you’ve taught then since birth?

Compared to that, what is disregarding the Constitution (man’s law… pfft.) and taking away the legal rights of an atheist? I’m sure Rep. Davis considers her bigoted actions to be absolutely moral, and probably won’t even understand what all the fuss is about. After all, she was doing it to save innocent souls… in her eyes, she should get a statue, or something.

Well, as this post’s title says, this is a prologue for the next one, about that particular quote from Davis. I wanted that one to focus on that quote itself, which is why I’m introducing the story here, in a separate post. The “real thing” comes later today.

Also, I’m not American, so there’s little I can do about it, but if you are, and care for that pesky thing called the Constitution (not to mention the civil rights issue of having non-believers demonized and insulted by politicians without consequence — imagine if Davis’ rant had been against a particular religion or skin color!), please follow the second link above for ways to make a difference. Even if you’re not an atheist, you should still care…

I ask my readers (yes, you and that other one over there ) to please, please, spread this image (originally posted here) as much as possible.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think that this is a perfect example. A simple picture shows the utter, disgusting dishonesty of the creationists behind Expelled‘s attempt to rewrite history in order to blame evolution for Nazism.

Apparently, the Nazis themselves didn’t agree with Ben Stein…

I beg to differ.

Yes, the three main monotheistic religions have the same historical origins. Both Christianity and Islam claim to be extensions of Judaism, revere the same patriarchs (such as Moses or Abraham), but then add new claims, and refuse some of the original ones. I am not disputing this fact. Even the two newer religions’ holy books either include parts of the old one, or are inspired by it.

But having the same historical origin doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the same religion, or that they worship the same god. Not when they claim that their god has completely different attributes — sometimes even opposing ones.

Think about it. Is God a being who needed the blood of his son (which is also himself) in order to forgive humanity for their sins? One religion says yes, the other two say no. And whether the answer is yes or no, it means God has a completely different character than he would have otherwise. Does he need blood, suffering and sacrifice in order to forgive? Or can he do it on his own? Is he the kind of being who believes that guilt can be passed from those responsible to an innocent, or is he not?

I can argue that a god who wants and needs a bloody sacrifice is very different from one who doesn’t. Unless God is schizophrenic, one can’t rationally argue that it’s the same god. Either he wants that, or he doesn’t — to say that he wants it from some of his believers and not from others is far too ridiculous. In other words, if Christianity is right about that facet of God, then Judaism and Islam must necessarily be wrong — and vice-versa.

It’s easy to find more examples. Take hell, for instance. To me, with my human imagination, I cannot imagine something worse, more terrible, than the idea of eternal punishment. Can you even grasp the meaning of “eternal”? Human minds can’t quite conceive of it. Even eternal boredom, without any actual, active torture, would be a fate infinitely worse than any kind of finite torture inflicted on Earth by the worst imaginable sadist. It also follows that there can be possibly no crime — even hypothetically — that warrants such a punishment. No finite action, no finite crime or “sin” is ever deserving of an eternal anything — much less eternal torture. It follows that a god who does inflict such a fate on even one sentient being would be more unjust, more sadistic, more evil than our minds can conceive of.

Yet, of the three monotheisms, two say God is that evil. The other one says otherwise (there is no hell in Judaism, and the Old Testament says several times that death is final). Can “more evil than we can conceive” be the same as otherwise? Either God is the ultimate sadist, or he isn’t; it’s absurd to claim that Jewish sinners die a final death, but Christians and Muslims go to a lake of fire and burn for eternity. If that was so, then either God was insane, or we’d have to be talking about two very different gods.

I could go on. Does God have a favorite group, a “chosen people”? One religion says he does, and therefore doesn’t actively attempt to recruit outside of it. The other two say differently.

I’m not claiming that there are three different gods, each one worshipped by its own religion. In fact, I don’t believe that even one exists (what with being an atheist and all). My point is that the three monotheisms worship vastly different gods, with vastly different personalities and desires. They can’t all be right, of course. In fact, even if one was right, the other two would have to be abysmally wrong — worshipping not just a slightly different variant of the same god, but one with completely different (and often opposite) traits. Despite the historical origins, whatever the three main religions worship these days can’t possibly be considered the same god — unless, of course, God is the ultimate case of multiple personality disorder.

If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?

– Arthur C. Clarke

(seen on Life Without Faith, in a post about Clarke’s recent death)

Source: Cectic

Besides the obvious child abuse shown in the comic — and yes, telling a child about hell is child abuse, no matter how you put it –, I find the mother in the comic morally repugnant for another reason: cowardice. She is unwilling to take responsibility for her actions, and doesn’t come out and say “obey me, or I’ll punish you.” Instead, she has to invoke an external, supernatural entity who will punish the child for disobedience — and when one fails, she comes up with another… one which, sadly, most people don’t outgrow before they’re 5 years old, unlike the former. She’s such a coward that she lies just so that the child doesn’t see her as a source of discipline and therefore never resents her. Never mind that parents should be a source of discipline; it’s their responsibility, after all, what with being parents and everything.

Sam Harris: You can invent an ideology, which by your mere invention in that moment, is obviously untrue, which would be quite useful if propagated, to billions. I mean, you can say this is my new religion: teach people to demand that your children study science and math and economics, and all of our terrestrial disciplines, to the best of their abilities, and if they don’t persist in those efforts, they’ll be tortured after death by seventeen demons. This would be extremely useful, and maybe far more useful than Islam, propagated to billions, and yet what are the chances that the seventeen demons exist? Zero.

First — and I should not need to tell you this, of course — Harris is not suggesting that we create such a religion. But the idea is intriguing, and certainly worth discussing, I think.

You’ve probably heard many people — both religious and otherwise — praising religion in general as a good thing, regardless of its truth, simply because it supposedly makes people both feel better and behave better, giving special importance to the latter. This is not new — you may have heard of Plato’s “noble lie” –, but I can see several serious problems in it.

One of them, of course, is that it’s not true — and, at least to me, that matters. Another, I think, is that it encourages serfdom and acceptance of one’s fate (indeed, that was Plato’s use for it). Even when it doesn’t, you’d be encouraging people to “be good”, well, “just because”. Accept a command, and don’t think about it. And if you teach people to be obedient, even if their current “commandments” are good, there’s a huge risk that their next set of commandments won’t be. Besides, a religion may begin with good intentions, with a good set of moral rules and so on, but — to quote Ayn Rand — “the moral is the chosen, not the obeyed”. It’s not “morality” to act “morally” just because someone told you to do it.

Finally, there’s the problem that Harris suggests: most current religions are actually very bad ideas, and for every good thing they teach (e.g. “thou shalt not kill”), they also teach many, many rules and ideas that are simply monstrous. In just a sentence, Harris suggested a religion that would be much better both for its believers and for the entire world, which would be much better than Islam, as he says — or than any other religion I know.

Of course, a religion whose main tenet (expanding on Harris’s) was “think for yourself, question everything, and don’t accept anything on authority or on faith” would have a huge problem — you’re basically telling people to leave it!

A fictional example of all of this is a brilliant Star Trek: TNG episode, Who Watches The Watchers, which I intend to dedicate a full post to, in the future. In it, a bronze age alien civilization begins to believe the Enterprise crew are gods, with Picard as their leader, and one of the scientists who were studying the civilization suggests that Picard “show them a sign”, give them some set of good moral rules, and leave them with their new religion. Although that would certainly be the easiest way to deal with the problem they caused by being seen (as the civilization is on the verge of chaos due to their new, fervent belief), Picard refuses; he will not leave those people with a lie, sending them back to the age of darkness and superstition they had already outgrown, and therefore has to work hard to convince the civilization’s leaders that, despite the Enterprise’s advanced technology, they are flesh and blood, not gods.

A: Nothing can exist without a cause. The universe exists; what caused it? I say it was God!

B: OK, who caused God, then?

A: Nothing. God wasn’t caused or created; he always existed.

B: Then why can’t the universe have always existed?

A: That’s impossible, nothing can exist without a cause…

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

This is one of the most common examples of a fallacy called special pleading, that is, introducing an exception to a rule without justifying or proving that exception. Believers postulate God’s existance due to the fact that, according to them, everything needs a cause, or a creator, or a designer. Then what caused, created or designed God in the first place? Ah, that’s an exception. God always was. Why? Just because! And so on.

Unfortunately, arguing with someone who makes a claim like this and doesn’t see a problem with it is typically useless. We’re talking about a person who already “has” the answers, and will ignore any facts or logic contradicting them. You can’t argue with someone who sees no relation between truth and reality.

Fortunately, many believers aren’t like this, and would not use the argument above as proof of their god’s existence. Unfortunately, then we run into another problem: the more a believer is sophisticated and educated, the more he gets away from the absurd, Ray Comfort-like “proofs of God” (a banana?!? seriously…), and the closer he gets to admitting that he has no proofs or evidence at all, just faith… and if he still sees no problem with it, if he sees faith (complete disregard for facts and reality) as a virtue, then, again, there’s nothing that can be done for that believer.

But what about the “harmless” religions?

PZ Myers put it wonderfully:

As for the charge that these New Atheists are unable to tolerate a harmless religion, and that their goal is the elimination of the enemy, that’s complete nonsense. We want to eliminate them in the same sense that we want to eliminate illiteracy; we will educate, we will talk, we will stand up for our ideas.

(the underlining is mine)

It’s a beautiful comparison, in my opinion. I had thought about comparing a non-harmless religion to a disease of the mind (you can’t possibly claim Fred Phelps or the 9/11 hijackers is/were “healthy”, can you?), but I now think that any religion is at least like illiteracy; that is, it’s not the fault of the believers/illiterate, but it limits them, limits their choices, their abilities, and their future, and they would surely be better off without it.

This is a question often asked by believers (especially Christians) to atheists. What if we’re wrong, God does indeed exist, and after we die, as the saying goes, we do indeed meet our maker?

First, let me say that this is not a possibility that actually worries me, as I have every reason to believe that no god or gods exist. The universe appears 100% natural, and, while science is far from knowing everything, there isn’t anything out there, so far, that absolutely requires a supernatural explanation and can’t possibly — ever — be explained in naturalistic terms. In other words: a complete lack of evidence “for” is in itself very good evidence “against” (and it’s not like humanity hasn’t searched, for millennia), and therefore evidence suggests there are zero deities out there.

Second, if there was a god, it’s still virtually impossible that the human religions are right. Their gods are small, provincial, territorial, petty and tribal. And very human-like. They have human emotions (including a lot of jealousy), they tend to have a “chosen people”, they supposedly created a universe that we now know is incredibly vast and complex (and which was unknown when the religions appeared), but our insignificant little planet is still the only thing that matters in the universe — and our physical lives here aren’t even what really matters. (The idea of a universe old and vast like this, as simply “background scenario” for a test to see whether we’re saved or not… it boggles the mind.) The anthropomorphic gods of our religions are too obviously man-made to be the real thing. If there was a god out there capable of creating a universe, he/she/it would probably be much too complex for us to even notice — and he/she/it wouldn’t certainly be concerned with us, our morality, our sexual lives , nor would he/she/it judge us and create places for us to go after we died. In other words, if there was a god, it wouldn’t affect us in any way — and it would be infinitely greater than the petty anthropomorphic fictional deities of our religions.

Third, what if, despite all the above, there still was a god, and he/she/it was concerned with us, and did judge us in some way after our physical deaths? Well, it depends on its standards of judging. Maybe it didn’t care about our morality, or about being worshipped, but about something completely different. We have no way of knowing.

But suppose it did care about our actions. Then, the final question would be: is God good, or evil? I’m dismissing any corruptions of the meaning of “good” such as “whatever God does or wants is by definition good”. There must be some standard, other than the whims of a powerful being.

Therefore:

1. a good god — which precludes the insecure sexuality-obsessed tyrant the three monotheisms believe in — would reward someone who lived a good life, generally being nice to other people, and full of curiosity to discover things, and to follow the available evidence to the logical conclusion. The available evidence doesn’t in any way suggest the presence of a god, so to believe in one anyway is nothing more than intellectually dishonest wishful thinking. A good god would reward good atheists and good believers, and punish evil atheists and evil believers — but would probably be a bit disappointed with the lack of curiosity and honesty shown by the believers (but then again, he/she/it would have some explaining to do: why stay hidden and make it so that the universe implies his/her/its non-existence?). A good god wouldn’t be an insecure or immature, so he wouldn’t need, desire or care about worship or any kind of ego-stroking at all. Therefore, I have no fear at all of a good god.
2. an evil god — much like Yahweh or Allah (and if you don’t agree with me, you haven’t been reading your holy books) — would be much like a brutal dictator in a totalitarian dictatorship. No one is safe from such a monster; there’s no use in expecting justice or fair treatment. He owns you; you’re his property: a slave, no more. Sucking up might work for a time, but he can always torture or kill you on a whim, because, to him, you’re not really a sentient being; you are a tool to be used, a toy to play with. Still, sucking up — that is, worshipping him, and living your life just for him, obeying his commands blindly, no matter the suffering it causes — would probably be your best bet. Of course, that would also make you a disgusting little coward, devoid of any moral integrity. This god is the kind of being that would indeed create two places for us to go for eternity — one for endless torment, the other for sucking up to him even more. The only moral thing to do in the presence of such a monster, as he condemned and damned us for having the morality he lacks, would be to spit in his face, as a final act of defiance.

Fortunately, I don’t believe any of the above exists. I have no reasons to, after all. And the result? A feeling of freedom.

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

Christopher Hitchens: You had a marvelous quotation from Francis Collins, the genome pioneer, who said, while mountaineering one day, he was so overcome by the landscape, and then went down on his knees and accepted Jesus Christ. A complete non sequitur.

Indeed it is. One doesn’t follow from the other, unless you already had some nasty preconceptions.

Much like C.S. Lewis did before, Francis Collins doesn’t realize that the idea that some god exists (because he’s looking at something which seems to imply some form of design) does not mean Christianity — or any other particular religion — is true.

Why is it that supposed atheists or agnostics, when they have an experience like that, never “accept” the “truth” of a less common religion where they live? Why wasn’t Collins convinced of the “truth” of Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, from watching that beautiful landscape?

Because of his background, I’d say. Much like many Westerners, Collins was probably brought up to believe that religion means Christianity (regardless of whether its claims are true or not), and that then there are some other creeds out there, mostly weird, exotic beliefs. Therefore, a sudden realization that “yes, there is a god!”, to him, must necessarily mean “Christianity is true”. In other words, “there is a god” is synonym with “God incarnated as a human 2000 years ago and sacrificed himself to himself in order to change his own mind about damning us all”.

Needless to say, it takes a pretty warped mind to not only move from one to the other, but to see no problem with doing so.

This was suggested by a comment on Pharyngula. Imagine this nightmarish (but possible… yikes!) scenario:

1. McCain picks Huckabee has his running mate. Possible, because of the next point…
2. Huckabee gets McCain the evangelical / Christian extremist vote McCain probably wouldn’t get on his own (as he isn’t enough of a nutcase for most of the Religious Right — he even accepts evolution, by golly!).
3. Due to 2., McCain / Huckabee win the election (yikes again!).
4. A short time later, McCain dies (possible, as he’s already quite old).
5. President Huckabee… need I say any more? Christian States of America, creationism taught in schools exclusively, the Constitution rewritten to conform to the Bible. Next stop: “causing” the second coming of Jesus (read: Armageddon).

Paranoia? Tell me why any of the above is impossible… if you can.

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…

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.

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.

Source: By The Book Comics

I won’t insult your intelligence by talking about what’s wrong with this picture…

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.