I am an atheist

I’ve always considered myself a spiritual person. But I suppose if I’m going to write about this properly, I need to define that at least a little. I’ve always looked at myself and my life as a palette by which I can express my existence in more than just a purely utilitarian way. I view myself as more than the sum of my parts. This, to me, defines spiritualism.

However, I have absolutely no belief in any god or gods, nor do I believe in miracles or magic. I have no hope of heaven, nor a fear of hell. I believe that when I die, as with all living things, I am dead. I do not believe that my soul, which I view as a sense of self, lives on after the death of my body.

I am an atheist.

A couple months back I changed my about page to include a section on my “beliefs”, and inserted the atheist graphic (above) in my sidebar. I had decided it was time to put a bit more of a voice behind what had been my, mostly quiet, thoughts on the world for a long time.

Maybe there is no need for such a declaration. Maybe the fearsome bulk of irrational religious-based actions portrayed daily by the media is grossly overstated. Maybe the lunacy of creationism is not on the verge of being taught in science classes around the world. Maybe the complete denial of proven scientific facts is only really practiced by a small, but vocal, minority of religious zealots.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Something in me feels that we, the silent non-believing minority, need to speak up. We need to make a stand not for what we believe in or what we have faith in, but for what is fact and what is truth to the limits of our current understanding. We cannot allow this back-stepping in the grand evolution of human knowledge to continue.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating any sort of persecution. I believe, fundamentally, that every person should be allowed to believe whatever they like. This is personal freedom and personal liberty. However, to say that religion is a matter of personal liberty is a bit of an oversimplification, and ignores or denies what religion, at its foundation, is. Religion is a large and powerful method of control which indoctrinates the young, the poor and the sick. It works to evangelize a specific (and often archaic) set of values and hide or destroy knowledge that conflicts with its tenets. That is exactly the opposite of liberty.

In writing this I understand that the religious among you are just itching to drop to the bottom of the page and leave heated comments calling me all sorts of ungodly names and explain to me how I’ve got the path to god all wrong. And such is your right to have your own opinions, I’ll not remove them. However, before you do, please stop and ask yourself how it is you came to believe what you believe.

Can you honestly say you came to your unquestioning belief in a supreme being, or beings, without the overt influences of your family or the culture you grew up in? I’m sure there are some of you that are “born again”, or have come to your faith as an adult in some way, but the vast majority of religious people blindly follow the faith of their parents or forefathers. How then can anyone who has spent their entire life surrounded by a specific set of ideas possibly have an objective view about their religion?

We must stand up to the enemies of reason

“We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling – otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth.” – Richard Dawkins, “The Enemies of Reason”

Here’s the thing. I understand the pull of believing in something greater than ourselves. The desire to believe in some master plan for our existence. Numerous times throughout my life I’ve felt that pull – whether because of tragedy or trepidation. Despite seeing all signs of rationality point towards atheism, I was drawn to the colourful and imaginative world of religion.

But it never sat right. Sort of like, as a child, you go to slay dragons in the forest behind your house and only find trees.

I resigned myself to the cold, but truthful, reality of a world without god and the supernatural. And then I began to realize something: the workings of nature are much more fantastic and amazing than anything dreamed up millenniums ago as a means for explaining what we could not then possibly understand.

The blind belief in anything, anything, is flawed. And this is why science, and its methods of proof, is so brilliant. Science holds the answers not because it has all the answers, but because it wants to find them. At its core, science has no allegiance. It will quite happily do away with what it thought it knew, and replace it with a new set of understanding. In short, it learns. It grows. It evolves.

“Relativism – the quaint notion that there are many truths all equally deserving of respect, even if they contradict each other – is rife today. It sounds like a respectful gesture towards multiculturalism. Actually it’s a pretentious cop-out.

“There really is something special about scientific evidence. Science works. Planes fly – magic carpets and broomsticks don’t. Gravity is not a version of the truth – it is the truth. Anybody who doubts it is invited to jump out of a 10th floor window.

“Evolution, too, is reality. You don’t believe it or not believe it on the basis of whom or culture – the evidence supports it. Evolution is the plain truth.” – Richard Dawkins, “The Genius of Charles Darwin”

I think what Dawkins is saying is that moderates, whether religious or atheist, tend to hide in relativism. There is nothing wrong with being a moderate, if (and that’s a big ‘if’) doing so does not allow extremists to push forward their agenda. There are numerous places around the world where this is being done, that it’s in my own backyard is more than a little disturbing to me. By allowing religious fundamentalists to elevate creationism to the level of being considered a “scientific theory” and pushing for it to be included in science class is nothing more than pure insanity.

We live in a scientific world, where the direct results of scientific methodology can be seen absolutely everywhere. The extent of human knowledge is in a golden age. Whereby past centuries were lucky to be graced with one or two major scientific marvels, we experience them weekly – so much so that we’re hardly phased or amazed by them anymore.

We take for granted the fact that the life expectancy of the average human being living in a (scientifically) developed country has nearly doubled in the past hundred years – and infant mortality rates have dropped even more drastically. This isn’t from an increased belief in religion; this is because people, largely non-believers in a god, dedicated their lives to improving and understanding the world.

(c) AtheistCartoons.com

(c) AtheistCartoons.com

Because of science playing such a huge role in the comforts we all now benefit from, churches can’t but add science to the conversation. History has repeatedly shown how the church first denies, then covers up, and finally adapts/adopts scientific discoveries that conflict with religious belief. The most shining example, of course, is the belief the sun revolved around the world. Or, just as relevant, that the world was flat.

Now, of course, these are considered undeniable facts as proven by (not even all that) modern science. So, how then can there still be an argument, any argument, that teaching our children the world is less than 10,000 years old is anything but wrong? How can the fiction that God created two humans before all other animals be elevated to the same “scientific” level as the undeniable and proven fact of evolution by natural selection?

But this is exactly what is being done when people subscribe to a literal belief in the Bible, Torah, or Qur’an. By its very nature religion asks its followers to suspend their rationality and blindly believe, via “faith”, that what is being said is truth. Nonsense.

Equally nonsensical is the argument by creationists that goes something like: “Evolution isn’t proven because we can’t see it. Why aren’t gorillas still evolving into humans? Why aren’t other animals still evolving if that’s how it happens?”

But that’s not how it happens. We didn’t evolve from gorillas, or chimps. Rather we all evolved from a common ancestor – modern apes went their way and we went ours. And we are still evolving. It’s just that evolution doesn’t happen in a lifetime, or 100 lifetimes, it takes thousands upon thousands of years.

(c) AtheistCartoons.com

(c) AtheistCartoons.com

This is not a theory. It is a fact. It is evidenced by a meticulously gathered mountain of research initially through paleontology, and now conclusively by scientific strides in the understanding of DNA. As human evolution deals with times dating back millions of years (at least 4-5 million years since splitting from our closest cousin – the chimpanzee), there are bound to be some fuzzy areas that scientists aren’t certain about. However, it is not a question of whether man originated several million years ago or six thousand years ago. The latter is simply false.

That returns us to the moderates – those who largely agree the young earth theory is nonsense. The religious liberals who don’t look at their holy book as being literal, but rather allegorical. Religion is thus just a set of moral codes or laws to follow to live a healthy and happy life – or else burn in hell for all eternity. And that’s where you lose me. I get living a moral life, and I totally understand wanting some guidance on how to do that. We’re social creatures, and learning from others is how we grow.

Why though must we tack on supernatural ideas to such a moral code? Why do we need the prize or punishment of Heaven and Hell to force us to behave in a proper fashion? The truth, of course, is that we don’t. I am an atheist and I live a happy and fulfilling life that, by most’s standards is completely moral. In fact, I am certain that morality has no connection to religion, and atheists by and large are no less moral than the religious.

And though it could be argued the opposite isn’t true – that much death and immoral actions are done in the name of religion – I’d hazard a guess that even without religion we’d find ways to kill each other.

Where my problem with religion lies is that it infects systems that I both desire and require to stay non-religious. It creeps into and infects education and political policy – two things that should never be marred by a lack of rationality.

It is for this reason that I am standing up and stating, loudly and longly, that I am not a communist, I am not an anarchist, I am not immoral, I am not unethical, I am not non-spiritual, but I am an atheist.

96 Responses

  1. An extremely related pet topic:

    At least one of the following propositions is true:
    (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
    (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
    (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

    Which leads to the happy-days conclusion:
    (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
    (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
    (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

    http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

  2. well written post.

    though, i personally tend to think it is a small but very vocal minority who are pushing for god as part of science classes, and i don’t really have much fear of it succeeding, though if it were i’d certainly be pulling my own kids out of that section of the class. this may be the point i most strongly disagree with when it comes to the commenters on outcampaign.org and affiliated sites. the reactionary nature of many of the evangelical atheists pretty closely mirrors the zeal of the evangelical theists. i tend to detest both.

    re blind following, there’s a middle eastern theologian turned philosopher turned mystic named al-ghazali who built his life’s journey on just that idea. he said the huge majority of religious people are simply conforming to their parents ideas and lacking any attempt at reason or questioning of their own. those that do make it to the point of questioning can then never turn back. the problem, as i see it, is how to get people to question.

    and the literalists can just kiss my ass.

  3. I’ve always considered myself a spiritual person. But I suppose if I’m going to write about this properly, I need to define that at least a little. I’ve always looked at myself and my life as a palette by which I can express my existence in more than just a purely utilitarian way. I view myself as more than the sum of my parts. This, to me, defines spiritualism.

    However, I absolutely believe in the existence of God, I believe in miracles and magic. I have a hope of heaven, and a fear of hell. I believe that when I die, as with all living things, my soul lives on. I believe that my soul, which I view as a sense of self, lives on after the death of my body.

    I understand that you are unhappy with the denial of scientific fact. I am a Christian, and I do not always find myself uncomfortable when I encounter vehemently believing such things. Why? Because it is not the core of my faith. The core of my faith is in my salvation through Jesus’s death and resurrection.

    Look, Christians have done a lot of bad in the world, and yet

  4. What, no responses?

    Well, I for one see no conflict between faith and science- and by faith I mean all forms of religion and philosophy. One informs us on that stuff we can’t see, the other describes the physical world.

    Totally agreed, though, that wishy-washy hand-wringing about different versions of truth allows the nutjobs to get away with far too much. I think we need some militant moderates.

  5. Well stated my friend, even though I personally could not disagree with you more. I think that you have taken a more “extremist atheist” view here in generalizing people who believe in some sort of a higher power.

    Yes, there are many people who have used the teachings of the Bible, or other religious texts, to justify horrible, horrible things over the course of history. However, people have committed, horrible, horrible things in the name of science. Shunning the teachings of Jesus Christ because of the actions taken by crusaders is morally and logically equivalent of not believing anything that Albert Einstein taught because to do not agree with the use of nuclear weapons.

    Yes, evolution is a fact, and no reasonable human being will refute it. However, you know that people, no matter what their faith are often anything but reasonable. Yes, devout Christians are the largest opposition to this fact, but correlation does not imply causality. There are a large number of atheists out there who do not believe in global warming, that just means that they are blinded by their other dogmatic views, irrelevant of religion.

    One must remember that most of our world views, such as conservative vs. liberal, are relatively new ideas, and as such have yet to pervade other aspects as deeply as something as old as religion.

    I do disagree with you quite strongly when you say “…this is because people, largely non-believers in a god, dedicated their lives to improving and understanding the world”, while the scientific community is rife with atheists, that is a bit of a bold and misleading statement. One must remember that perhaps the most influential scientist of all time, Albert Einstein said that “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Hardly the words of someone who was forsaking God for the benefit of mankind.

    Anyway, to stop this from being a blog post of my own, I want to state a few things clearly: I think that you have every right to believe what you want to believe, and I totally agree that so many people hide behind relativism, and that is sickening. But I think that you are overstating your moral absolutism by attacking the idea of religion so strongly. And you using the “A” to certify yourself as a rational thinker, implies (and I assume intentionally) that believing in some sort of higher power means that you are an irrational person.

    Ramble being said, I do think that this is one of the strongest, most succinct, and least offensive supports of atheism that I have ever read. Well done, my friend.

  6. Well put. I have no original contribution beyond the problem of theodicy, i.e. why would a good God allow terrible things to happen? Where is the hand of God in the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution or any other colossal tragedy that we humans inflict on each other?

    If he existed, God would be the most abusive parent in the history of the universe.

    • _We_ are the ones who choose to do it, it is _our_ responsiblity… God doesn’t force people to commit violence, rather we choose to commit violence. God would not be to blame, WE are to blame.

  7. @Chris: Science informs us on both things we see and can’t see. Religion asks us to believe in things that have never been seen or existed.

    @G: I think you misunderstand me. I actually address the very fact that people of both religious and scientific dispositions have caused (and would continue to cause) horrible things to happen. The flaw in your Jesus/Einstein argument is that Jesus didn’t actually write anything we attribute to him. Jesus’ miracles and Son of God claims cannot be verified using any sort of scientific method (or any method other than blind faith). I don’t disbelieve in the teachings of Jesus because of the actions of crusaders, I disbelieve them because they can only exist through faith – not fact.

    Also related to Einstein. He’s often misquoted and hijacked as a theist in support of religion (often using just that quote, from this NYT magazine article, in fact). However, he also said:

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

    and this…

    The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

    And yes, the “A” graphic implication was intentional. For a rational person to believe in a higher power (at least under the definition of religion) they must suspend their rationality. They may be rational in many other facets, but not in their religious views, as there is nothing rational about it. Not historically and not scientifically.

    Somewhat unrelated, I saw this cartoon earlier and when I saw your “correlation does not imply causality” line:
    (c) AtheistCartoons.com

  8. A very good article indeed. It’s well worth saying, too. Organised religion is still very vocal, and claims to speak for people of whole races or continents even though their number of devout followers is actually a minority, in most cases. So atheists do need to identify themselves positively, and put forward their case, and I myself am an atheist.

    So, the “atheist buses” in London recently, which had adverts paid for by an atheist group and which said “There probably is no ‘God’: go enjoy your life” (I quote from memory; might not be verbatim), was hugely important in being vocal, and forthrightly so. It also fought against the foamy waves of ‘spirituality’ which is vague and as equally sentimental and illogical as organised religion.

    And, if you want proof that religious leaders should not be allowed to speak for anyone, listen to the Pope a few weeks ago, when he said that condoms spread AIDS in Africa. Almost the ramblings of a madman.

  9. Hey Ryan, how are you lately? We should catch up sometime. My take is..

    So where do you go when you die? I’d like to think I’m going somewhere, I could settle with hell if that’s the only place I’m going. Hehe The notion of rotting into ashes is just so sad and unfulfilling. I’m not a spiritual person but I would like to dupe myself into believing that something is up there (be it god or aliens) who created us. As for religion, it itself was for a good cause but people perverted it for their own personal agenda. To quote Gandhi, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

  10. Big ups to comment numero uno.

    Also on a similar note, while everyone seems to be calmly awaiting or perhaps fearing their unstoppable demise, I have every expectation to live eternally inside of some kind of quantum computer that has had my existence transferred inside of it. How else are we supposed to visit other places in the galaxy or the universe when we’ve already established that the the physical speedlimiter is set at the speed of light and the nearest systems are like 10 light years away! Seriously who or whatever created the universe was a colossal wanker! “Yeah I’m a make this mofo’n universe’s booty huge, make sure dem humans know its bigger than Jebus, but give em zero means of checking the bitch out, aside from peering at it through telescopes all peepshow stylez wit nuttin but an old school view cause it takes that nasty light a hella long time to get to em! ya i rule!” Seriously, he/she/it deserves a swift kick in nutsack.

  11. 0. I like Dawkins, too. He’s charming and charismatic. That bit about “just taking it one god further” is brilliant. BUT…

    1. First, terms-

    Stating that you don’t know, haven’t ever seen any reason to believe, doubt the possibility of god’s existence or the possibility of certainty regarding god’s existence (as in, doubting it is verifiable), and think the existence of god is irrelevant is what I’d call agnosticism. If that’s what you mean by Atheism, cheers.

    Stating there is no god is atheism. It’s intellectually dishonest.

    2. RE: Science works: While it’s true that life expectancies have increased in the recent past, I’ll think you’ll find they’re only now returning to level achieved in the pre-Scientific age (note the capital “S”). AND it was scientific discovery which lowered those life expectancies to begin with.

    If, by science, one means deduction AND induction, analysis AND synthesis, then cheers to science. That’s just how our brains work. It’s unfortunate, but people use induction to get to the belief of some kind of creepy old goat on a hill that cares whether they’re schtupping their sister. That’s faith. They shouldn’t say it’s true, because it isn’t verifiable. They do anyway. They’re silly. Them’s people.

    However, if Science to you means that specific Baconian, it’s true because it works, scientific revolution, rise of the machines, “golden age of human understanding” mumbo jumbo…then no thanks, sir. If you’re in that camp, you’ll have to quit with the “look at all the horrible things done in the God’s name” crap. Just as many, if not more, horrible things have been done in the name of science. Science, not Jeebus, is deforesting the planet. Science, not Krisha, is melting the glaciers. Science, not Ahura Mazda, pushed us into our present socio-economic state of servitude for food and shelter through the rise of the agricultural revolution. The fact that we can use a scientific development like internet access to learn just how awful our Baconian science has made our lives is little consolation.

  12. You’re the second person in this thread to accuse me of blaming religion for all the horrible things done in the name of religion. I think I pretty clearly stated (and will state now for the third time) I think that the horrible things we do to each other and our planet are purely *human* in nature, not *religious* and not *scientific*. That they were done by religion or in the name of religion is just a means by which powerful men control people. My only argument in that regard is that religion is easily and frequently abused to move men to action in causes they normally would not involve themselves with — namely the death and destruction of other people. I concede that science is also used to this end, but by different means. It doesn’t control people, it simply creates better tools by which we can play these actions out.

    I’m an atheist, not agnostic. There is no god nor gods. It is fiction, absolutely. Do I think there could be a higher power, in the sense that we might not be alone and not the most advanced species in the universe, sure. Though I’ve no scientific evidence to support the idea that there are (a) other advanced species in the universe or (b) that those advanced species are more advanced than humans, it would be ignorant to assume it was absolutely impossible. Also, do I believe there is a whole plethora of things that are currently beyond the understanding of our science? Of course. When I look up, I get lost. It absolutely amazes me – far beyond any biblical understanding of the world ever could.

    But the superstition of religion is and has always been a human fabrication, absolutely. There is no God or gods that created us in their image and continue to concern themselves with our affairs. That’s fantasy, created by man. That is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, using intellect to justify religion, in any way, is in my opinion dishonest. You cannot put “blind faith” and “intellect” in the same sentence and expect them to play nice together – you just can’t. Modern religious people attempt to, hence we have the euphemism of “Intelligent Design” and the likes of Christian “science”. But it’s deceitful and insidious, designed to give the religious and would-be religious a method by which to justify their irrationality in a rationalized world. It doesn’t make any of it more true. It just makes it sound more modern.

    Science, not Jeebus, is deforesting the planet. Science, not Krisha, is melting the glaciers. Science, not Ahura Mazda, pushed us into our present socio-economic state of servitude for food and shelter through the rise of the agricultural revolution. The fact that we can use a scientific development like internet access to learn just how awful our Baconian science has made our lives is little consolation.

    Science isn’t doing any of those things – humans are.

    Science is simply a toolset for understanding the world. It is the evolution of religion. Both science and religion cannot cause horrible things to happen, we need people for that.

    I looked for stats supporting your view that pre-Scientific age (capital “s” and lowercase as well) people lived longer and healthier lives. I couldn’t find any.

    Here’s life expectancy through history according to Wikipedia:

    Humans by Era Average Lifespan at Birth (years)
    Upper Paleolithic 33
    Neolithic 20
    Bronze Age 18
    Classical Greece 20-30
    Classical Rome 20-30
    Pre-Columbian North America 25-35
    Medieval Islamic Caliphate 35+
    Medieval Britain 20-30
    Early 20th Century 30-40
    Current world average 66.12 (2008 est.)

    What’s your reasoning for science lowering life expectancy? Though it may come to pass that the stuff we’ve done and continue to do to our planet is going to end up cutting our life expectancy (either by pollution caused medical problems, mechanized or nuclear war, genetically modified foods, etc.) I don’t think we’re seeing it. Not yet at least. And then, again, that’s human action, not science. The religious as much as the non-religious are responsible for using the fruits of science to bring about these things.

    As for Dawkins – personally, I find he’s a bit too “Michael Moore” in his ambushing of people in documentaries, and the “AWWWwwwe SNAP!” factor for documentaries has waned for me in recent years. But what I like about Dawkins is that he’s standing up and raising awareness.

    I meant to address this in my original post, but neglected to. The problem with atheists is that we have no belief system or organization. We don’t have a church or mosque to go to and congregate and commiserate about the evils of our opposition. And though there are a handful of atheist societies, they can hardly be compared to the highly organized and propagandized functions that religion has in hand.

    This, largely, is why religion is allowed to seep into modern education and political structures – despite there being long-standing laws against both. This is why it is given so much airtime on mainstream television (while the atheists hangout on Discovery, History and National Geographic channels).

    I, by no means kiss the ground Dawkins walks on, but he’s yet to say anything significant that I disagree with.

  13. Science is used to ask “how?” “when?” “where?” and “what?”. Religion should be used to ask “why?” Anyone who gets that mixed up (fundies) are only looking for hurt and are ruining both science and religion for the rest of us.

    Ryan, you don’t believe in God, and that’s rational. But then you accuse people who do believe in deity as being irrational. How so? What “logic” or “rationality” do I have to throw out the window in order to to believe so? There is NO scientific finding or other generally accepted idea that would be in conflict with the concept of the existance of deity. Just as there is none that would prove the existence (or non-existance) of deity either. So to believe in God is rational, to not believe in God is also rational, because they are both BELIEF systems, unsupported nor deniable by evidence. Until evidence can prove either way, it is perfectly rational to believe in either hypothesis.

    But I whole-heartedly support your angst about religion seeping into politics and education. People can have their beliefs about God (or disbelief) in any way they want in private, but stay away from my kids and my tax-dollars.

  14. You’re right Chip. I may be blurring my argument. “God” is just a word, and there’s no way for science to disprove a word or a concept such as a “higher being”, but under science, a creator of the universe would be an unproven theory based on the imaginations of man.

    My intent is to state that there is no rationality in believing in stories of the various religious texts as fact. They are stories, fictions, and to believe in them as such – and to apply their messages in an allegorical way is rational. To believe they are a true and factual account of history is not rational. It’s conventional, which lends it weight as being rational, but it’s very definitely not rational.

  15. As I feel I’m getting a little whingy in my responses, let me further a couple things.

    I’m not on a crusade to wipe out religion. I doubt most atheists are. I wouldn’t complain about a world without religion, and I do feel that many religious fundies (I love that term) are holding back scientific and humanitarian advancement.

    But religion and beliefs are a deeply personal matter and many people I admire and respect (some of whom have and may read this) hold religious views. My intention is not to offend them by being direct in my views about what is and isn’t rational.

    So, before this digs too deep into the semantics of the term – I believe that belief in a God (or many Gods) is a rational behavior in that it requires the higher cognitive abilities and intellect that evolution has afforded humankind with. Religion, as with philosophy, is a wonderful exercise of that intellect.

    Where I think it parts from rationality is in its denial of facts that conflict with its dogma. Whereas if science was ever presented with proof of a supreme being
    it would graciously adopt it, I don’t believe if religion was ever presented with proof there is no god it would accept it.

  16. Let me rant a little first: To accuse science of being the cause of all that is wrong with this world is just as dumb as accusing religion of the same thing. People are people. People are fundamentally tribal creatures who will do anything, no matter how obscene, to boost their tribe’s chances of survival. And people, in general, do not see the “long term” or “big picture”. People think only in terms of immediate benefit to the tribe. And yet we do have the ability to look beyond the immediate benefit to our tribe. In other words, neither science nor religion is responsible for the evils done in this world. People are.

    @Ryan: Perhaps I chose the wrong words. Science is very good at explaining the physical world. Religion and philosophy deal with what lies beyond the physical world. This discussion happens in the realm of religion and philosophy: None of us can prove God or gods or ‘god’ exists, but neither can any of us prove that anything beyond a complex pattern of chemical reactions exists. We have no way to prove that something like a “mind” or “soul” may exist independently of our physical bodies, nor can any of us prove that such a “mind” or “soul” does not exist. In other words, we’re stuck with the most rational answer being: “I don’t know.” And so each of us chooses, based on the evidence at our disposal, what we believe.

    Still, I’ve heard a hell of a lot of preachers say that “Science is the discovery of God’s creation”. It has been frustrating, to say the least, to see so many people who would agree with that statement were it delivered in church/mosque/place of worship of choice turn around and deny it as soon as science throws up something new. It is equally frustrating to see more and more atheists behave the same way.

    Oh, and ‘agnostic’ is the limp wrist of philosophy.

  17. An ‘Amen!’ somehow doesn’t seem appropriate, but that’s how I feel. I’ll come out, too. I’m an atheist. I was raised a Mormon. My entire extended family believes I am going to spend eternity naked, destitute and burning in an outer hell with Satan. Nice.

    I also have problems understanding how morals and so-called family values have come to belong to the religious. I have morals and they are based on ethical principles, culture and the many experiences I have had across this world for the past 33 years. Good enough for me!

  18. While I’m not an atheist some of the smarter people I know are. Most of the spiritual world stuff that is claimed to go on is no doubt crap and I have seen much to really tell me otherwise on everything else. But with our science I still wonder how and why we got here, and what explanation there is for it. Science really doesn’t have a good answer that I have seen.

  19. Ryan

    I understand that you are not blaming religion, but in your article you do try to frame the debate about atheism vs. theism as a debate about the actions of the religious. Really, why else would you bother to bring up the Creationism and Geocentric views as an attack on the religious. The actions of the faithful should have little to no effect on your faith. I know in re-reading your article (as I have a few times) that you did not explicitly state it, but in bringing these points it looks as if you’re attempting to frame the debate in that way.

    My apologies for the oversight on Einstein, I did know that but it honestly slipped my mind. That being said, there have been several scientists throughout the age, including Darwin, who felt that they were “uncovering Gods work”. The advances of the 20th century that you mention are all well and good, but one must remember that atheism as an accepted belief is a very new thing, and that many of the people who first developed the scientific foundation that these are built upon were discovering them out of a belief in God.

    And yes, faith, all faith, is completely irrational, however we must remember that human beings are incredibly irrational creatures. The scientific method begins with a hypothesis, which in itself is a tiny little leap of faith. While this leap of faith can be tested far more easily than any religious ones, it is still an irrational act to begin with. There are many scientific theories, such as the Big Bang, and String Theory, that can only be tested mathematically, and not empirically. This means that there is a *faith* that the mathematics is going to work out. Even the Big Bang is not mathematically explainable for the first 10^(-5) seconds, so believing it requires quite the act of faith.

    Lastly, the typical atheist response to “How did the Universe get created?”, is usually “It just happened”, thus implying that everything we know and could ever know exists only as a result of chance, a mere one out of infinite possibilities. This means that we must be so lucky to exist, in what should have an infinitesimally small probability. That sounds like quite the leap of faith to me.

  20. @chriswaugh_bj: Does religion come up with new “somethings” that throw the scientific world in an uproar of denial? I’m sure it happens (as it’s practiced by humans, not robots); but science, as a discipline, is built to accept new learning at its very foundations. I think this is the most striking difference between science and religion.

    @G: Well said. And I think what you’re saying about faith existing in both religion and science supports my belief that science is the evolution of religion. Faith, as we’re using it here, is a gap filler. It is the assumptions about the things we don’t or can’t currently know. If it was a question of us having only one system of absolute certain truth or nothing at all, we’d all have to sign up for nihilism. So it’s more a question of which system explains things more truthfully and will lead to more truthful explanations in the future. The edges of science are the edges of human understanding, and that’s where religion and science still rub shoulders.

    Religion was created, just as science, to explain the world around us. However, as a species at least, we’ve outgrown religion. It can’t adequately explain even the simplest things without resorting to a faith-based system. Science goes further. It can explain many, if not most, of the things in our physical world to a sufficient degree, but does resort to theoretical assumptions or “faith” on the fringes so that it can continue to push forward and discover more – unlimited by the limits of what we’re able to touch.

    As for my framing – I do have a very clear reasoning for making my opinions about religion and about atheism a part of my blog and on public display. Though I don’t blame religion for all the ills of the world, I do believe that loud lobbying voices from the religious community threaten to hold back, or push backwards, human advancement. And I think many of the religious moderates and unorganized atheists silently watch this happen – disagreeing with it, but saying nothing about it. Whether it be moderate Christians not speaking up for evolution, or moderate Muslims not speaking against their faith being used to kill innocent people, or closet atheists that see themselves not belonging to any “group” and so not involving themselves in the debate at all.

    @Matt Schiavenza + GlobalGal: Welcome to the outing! 🙂

    @Tex: I agree – human understanding of the world has yet to give all the answers, and may never. Atheists tend to have to accept that there are limits to how much we’ll know about the universe and its origins in the short-term. But scientific knowledge is cumulative, and that’s exciting. There may be ceilings to how much us, as the equiv. of bacteria on some tiny rock, are able to learn about the vastness of the universe. Personally, I’m ok with that. I don’t need to know or understand everything to marvel at it. I don’t need a god, religion or scientific exploration to teach me how to appreciate the beauty of it all. That comforts me.

    But when I do need answers, I prefer them to be truthful, if not omnipotent.

  21. I was wrong about life expectancies. You’re absolutely right. I was thinking about height and skeletal formation. That and the drop from the Paleolithic to Neolithic. Though, I think taking infant mortality and childhood illness out, our life expectancy only increased very recently. Maybe I’m wrong there, too.

    When I wrote that Science melts glaciers, I took for granted that you’d appreciate I meant that a concept like Science (by which I mean collective knowledge applied in the name of “progress” as a vehicle to take power from the many and give it to the few) is about as capable of doing that without the aid of people as a concept like evangelism is capable of doing the following

    * It kept Africans slaves (for the betterment of their savage souls).
    * It brought smallpox to the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs.
    * It’s started countless wars, and corrupted vast numbers of people.
    * It has completely ruined Sunday TV.

    http://www.thehumanaught.com/blog/general/jesus-is-not-like-buddha/

  22. Damn you Ryan, I was going to work on my Chinese homework tonight, but then came across your post, and had to read the whole thing, all the comments, and then post a reply…. and now there’s no time left.

    First, kudos on the great post and also all the replies in the comments. You’re a strong debater, as I’m sure you know. Yet, you fell down in a few places, and I’m here to see if I can’t prop you back up. Please, no need for thanks….

    I’ll just comment on comments in the order they appeared above, not necessarily argument order.

    You said:

    The workings of nature are much more fantastic and amazing than anything dreamed up millenniums ago as a means for explaining what we could not then possibly understand.

    I’d like to echo that. I think the imagination shown by all the myths of all the various religions don’t even come close to the fantastically surreal aspects of even mundane scientific theories. All of those myths are obviously so much childish claptrap, with forces personified, parental figures, good-and-evil, etc. Compare them with, for example, special relativity, with it’s elegant fusion of space and time. The universe, as described by modern physics, is so fantastic and bizarre, there’s really no need to believe in anything “beyond” to make it more interesting.

    You also said:

    Equally nonsensical is the argument by creationists that goes something like: “Evolution isn’t proven because we can’t see it. Why aren’t gorillas still evolving into humans? Why aren’t other animals still evolving if that’s how it happens?” …. It’s just that evolution doesn’t happen in a lifetime, or 100 lifetimes, it takes thousands upon thousands of years.

    Actually, you sum up a common misunderstanding which you then failed to correct, which is that evolution is not just a theory, but it is a demonstrable and proven fact. It has been demonstrated repeatedly in laboratories with organisms that reproduce rapidly, such as fruit flies and bacteria. Complete new species have even been evolved, and mathematically rigorous evolutionary theory has been resoundingly vindicated.

    Joe Thong said:

    So where do you go when you die?

    So where were you before you were born? In a word …. elsewhen.

    Josh said:

    Stating there is no god is atheism. It’s intellectually dishonest.

    Ahem, no need for name-calling. In fact, I’m pretty sure God herself is an atheist, so be careful.

    Chip said:

    There is NO scientific finding or other generally accepted idea that would be in conflict with the concept of the existance of deity…. it is perfectly rational to believe in either hypothesis.

    (Emphasis added)

    Then Ryan said:

    You’re right Chip…

    Actually, Chip, no, you’re not right. A very well accepted idea is Occam’s Razor, which is in direct conflict of the concept of God. And, no it’s not rational to believe in God. I can’t prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but that doesn’t make it rational to believe in It (I happen to just take It’s existence on faith, the opposite of rationality.)

    Ryan said:

    I’m not on a crusade to wipe out religion. I doubt most atheists are.

    Here’s just an aesthetic criticism, you might disagree. I think you come across as a little bit apologetic for your atheism sometimes. No one accused you of being on a crusade. I like your post and your stated reasons for posting: get the message out there! 加油! As for me, if religion gets wiped out, I won’t shed a tear.

    Chriswaugh_bj said:

    nor can any of us prove that such a “mind” or “soul” does not exist.

    People who still believe in a detachable soul mystify me…. even as neuroscience relentlessly progresses, mapping more and more of who and what we are, the bits of our soul, to functions within the brain. What about sleep, and alcohol, and general anaesthetics … what happens to the soul when these are applied? Descarte postulated the pineal gland as the locus where the soul communicates its magic to the physical world, the brain, and thus to the muscles, etc. I wonder, Chris, do you agree with this theory, or do you have your own? Or maybe you hadn’t thought about it that far?

    G said:

    … atheism as an accepted belief is a very new thing,

    Hmm …. miscegenation as an accepted practice is a very new thing, too. Ryan, you must be lynched!

    G also said:

    The scientific method begins with a hypothesis, which in itself is a tiny little leap of faith.

    Wrong! I think the scientific method actually includes something called experimentation, after that first step, before the hypothesis gets accepted.

    G also said:

    There are many scientific theories, such as the Big Bang, and String Theory, that can only be tested mathematically, and not empirically.

    Wrong!! There’s lots of empirical evidence for both. More for the former, less for the latter. Which is why the Big Bang is more widely accepted than string theory

    G also said:

    This means that there is a *faith* that the mathematics is going to work out.

    Wrong!! Math is not based on faith. And notwithstanding Einstein’s quote from the article Ryan linked to:

    To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.

    On the contrary, a lot of physicists express profound astonishment that the universe behaves in an understandable, mathematical way, and have set about to figure out, without assuming anything supernatural, why it should be so.

    I for one believe that there is no God, and that the laws of the universe must be derivable from a combination of a zero-information “theory of everything” and the anthropic principle. This paper by Max Tegmark is a fun read.

    Anyway, Ryan, I’m glad you’re in China, and urge you to fight against those missionary hordes!

  23. Klortho > I’m not 100% sure where I said that I was going to lynch Ryan, I am in fact in a miscegenatistic relationship myself, so no lynching on that part 🙂 My point in making that, is that it is unfair to say that so much has been done in the 20th century by atheists, because so much was done in all previous centuries (and this one too) by people of different faiths. And as I said in my first comment, the correlation does not imply causation.

    And yes, I understand that the Scientific method includes experimentation to prove the hypothesis, but the hypothesis itself comes first. Hypotheses come from a *belief* that they will or won’t work out. And that is the tiny leap of faith that I mentioned. Yes, your leap of faith can be checked, but it still takes one to begin with.

    I do understand that both the Big Bang and String Theory do contain empirical evidence, but they both rely a lot on mathematical modeling, which are quite valid, but do require a certain *faith* that they will work out for the other portions (including those pesky first 10^(-5) seconds). I’m not saying that I don’t believe them, because I do. They simply make sense (I’m glad that you mentioned Occam’s Razor because I was going to in this reply), but they do not explain *why* the Universe exist, nor do they explain what came along first. That’s where yet another leap of faith occurs, and in my own personal view, it makes more sense to be the work of something/someone greater than I am, and in your personal view it makes more sense to have it be a complete fluke.

    Ryan > I understand that you say that the moderates/atheists need to stand up to creationism being taught in schools, and I could not agree with you more. When I was student teaching, it was at a Catholic school, and I remember my teacher talking about single-celled organisms and said to the class “Isn’t it amazing that God created these things?” and my jaw almost hit the floor. At the time, I felt that it wasn’t my place to speak up, but I feel quite bad about it now. I do seriously regret my silence there.

    But I *really* disagree with you saying that our society has outgrown religion. In a time where our, Western society is drowning in its own excess and declaring war on innocent people for their natural resources, while everyone else just watches, don’t you think that it’s time to pay attention to some ancient moral codes?

    Jesus’s teachings (Note: I have *never* in the comments said anything about his divinity, that is a matter of faith and has no place in this forum) are perhaps more applicable today than they have ever been. Whether you believe in his divinity or not, the guy had some pretty crazy ideas, like “Hey, let’s be nice to each other”, which certainly could be put to good use in this day and age. Of course, he was not the only one to say such things, but he was the most influential person to say it in the West, and that is were religion is needed. You said in your comment that you grew up as a moral person without religion, and as your friend, I fully know that. But what I think that you may be missing, is that Christ’s teachings are so ingrained into our Western morals, is that with or without religion, the ideas such as the Beatitudes are completely inseparable to our basic ideas of goodness.

    If we do away with religion as a whole, then we are losing a very important part of our moral framework, which as a society we probably need more of to begin with. And how on earth do we replace it?

    So I don’t think that the world needs less religion or more of it, I just think that it needs more responsibility, and that needs to be applied to both science and religion.

  24. Great post, thanks for ranting to us. I just wanted to comment on the end bit, where you insisted you aren’t an anarchist. I tend to think that anarchists get a bad name through certain long-standing media portrayals (ie, bomb-throwing baby-eaters), which are similar in a sense to the accusations against atheists in many parts of the world.

    Despite what an ex-girlfriend’s religious mother used to think, i’m not immoral and depressed because i’m an atheist. I’m quite happy and i think quite a lot about what is good and right. In a similar way, i’m not an angry nihilistic trouble-maker because i’m an anarchist. I merely want to create a peaceful society by moving in the direction of least hierarchy. I believe everyone should have the right to take part in the decisions that affect their lives.

    in case you’re interested in the philosophy behind anarchism, here’s a link that i found very informative: http://anarchistfaq.org/

    谢谢阿,再见!

  25. @G: Let me hit this “the correlation does not imply causation” first – isn’t this exactly what’s being done with a belief in religion. Through correlation we state the Bible, or more to your point, the New Testament, contains ancient moral codes and that these codes are used by Christians to live a moral life – something you view is ever more important in our rapidly declining world. However, that would be implying causation. It implies that because there are moral codes in the Bible, and people follow the teachings of the Bible that people must receive their morals from the Bible.

    However, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume there were morals before the Bible was written, or in societies that never had the Bible as a guide. Adding to that, the Bible contains many horribly barbaric teachings that simply do not apply to a world where our moral sense has evolved further than where it was when the Bible was laid out (whether in Judea, or the 1600s).

    So wouldn’t it be implying causation by correlating the Bible, or (loser) the teachings of Jesus, to our moral structure?

    One of my favourite quotes is by physicist Steven Weinberg:

    “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”

    My point isn’t to get in a pissing match with Christians about whether people have done more harm to their fellow man under the banner of a religion or under the banner of no religion (though I think my opinion is clear). My point is to say that as a theory, under scientific method, saying religion is responsible for human morals fails conclusively under testing and with any review of the massive evidence to the contrary.

    So, why then, is it so hard for the religious to consider that perhaps our moral structures are as deeply ingrained in us as the things that construct higher-level decisions like morals – eg. love, compassion, desire, fear, anger, etc.

    I think it’s in River Out of Eden (but the idea likely goes as far back as The Selfish Gene) that Dawkins explores all of these things as simple extensions of evolution by natural selection. To me, this just makes much more sense.

    @Doviende: 谢谢你。 I admit to being completely ignorant about anarchism – that it’s so largely misrepresented isn’t surprising (based on what it’s opposed to, and where power structures lie). Thank you for opening my eyes to my ignorance (stated or not) on the topic.

    My reference to anarchists in the OP was simply in reference to the blind belief that atheists are anarchists (and a lot of other things). But there was an implied meaning of distancing through negative connotation. That the connotation is also built on ignorance is no excuse for me perpetuating it.

  26. @Ryan, sorry, but apart from the existence or non-existence of God/god/gods/whatever, I fail to see where we disagree. In fact, I fully agree with everything you have to say right up until you say “therefore there is no god”. That is an irrational leap of faith that can be neither proved nor disproved.

    @Klortho: I fail to see what argument you are bringing. Really. I agree that science (largely, but still imperfectly) explains the physical world, but there is an element of our existence that goes beyond that, and the mere fact of this debate shows that. Does anaesthetic temporarily negate our existence? Perhaps. But then maybe sleep does, too. Does the fact that anaesthetic or alcohol can put us to sleep negate the possibility of a soul? No more than sleep does. Does neuroscience call a soul into question? Absolutely, at least if you’re talking neuroscience at the level of brain injury or disease causing quantifiable changes in personality. Does any of this disprove the existence of life beyond the purely physical? No, it calls it into question. Science does not yet have the ability to prove or disprove such matters either way.

  27. @Chriswaugh_bj: You’re right – there is no way known to me to disprove a god. And I’d like to refer you to Klortho’s mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is equally no proof of its existence either, and I am also a non-Flying Spaghetti Monster believer.

    I know what you’re getting at – the agnosticism of it. The “we cannot know” argument. And as much as I appreciate anyone’s ability to say they don’t know something, at some point a line needs to be drawn and we need to say “we don’t know the answer to this, but we’re pretty sure it’s not XXXX.”

  28. Strong and well said stuff Ryan. See, this is the what I would write if I had a decent english and a way of getting my thoughts down to my fingers… Nicely written and exactly down my alley.

  29. You’ve made what you consider he most rational choice based on what you know and that’s good. I can also understand how you might feel under siege from evangelicals. I empathize with that completely, and I’d also hate to seem them running the school systems. However, I can’t agree with you that atheism is the only rational choice.

    proven

    I think it’s important to realize that science absolutely cannot prove anything. All it can do is present a model that we hope is consistent, though that goal may be impossible.

    To the best of my knowledge, the only academic pursuits in which proof is attainable are math and certain branches of philosophy.

    In writing this I understand that the religious among you are just itching to drop to the bottom of the page and leave heated comments calling me all sorts of ungodly names and explain to me how I’ve got the path to god all wrong. And such is your right to have your own opinions, I’ll not remove them. However, before you do, please stop and ask yourself how it is you came to believe what you believe.

    Can you honestly say you came to your unquestioning belief in a supreme being, or beings, without the overt influences of your family or the culture you grew up in? I’m sure there are some of you that are “born again”, or have come to your faith as an adult in some way, but the vast majority of religious people blindly follow the faith of their parents or forefathers. How then can anyone who has spent their entire life surrounded by a specific set of ideas possibly have an objective view about their religion?

    Considering the myriad of epistemological questions we just don’t have good answers for, I think it’s poor form to make pre-emptive attacks on people who might disagree with you. Considering the work of Descartes, Hume and other philosophical skeptics, it’s quite a leap to assume that you have a physical body to begin with. The Ancestor Simulation hypothesis Alex brought up in the first comment is another logically solid, if unusual, argument that we most likely don’t inhabit a physical reality at all.

    I love science and technological progress. But for all of it, we still don’t have a consistent physical model of the universe. The deeper we probe it, the stranger and less coherent it becomes. The second incompleteness theorem that Godel, a devout Christian, actually did prove is also very problematic for those looking for a reducible, provable reality.

    Picking apart a given religious text may be easy, but there will likely never be proof regarding God, souls, or the reality of our perceptions. Furthermore, it’s unlikely there will even be a complete, consistent, rigorous argument for atheism.

  30. @Mark: Cheers for chiming in.

    Considering the work of Descartes, Hume and other philosophical skeptics

    The philosophical skeptics were important in widening the accepted thoughts of the Western world at a time when Christian thought was the only acceptable way of thinking–anything else risked jail, torture or death. But they’ve really nothing to do with science and ration. Philosophy is much closer to religion than science is to philosophy, as both philosophy and religion only require a theory – and that’s just an idea. A creative process, not a scientific one.

    It would seem both from the comments here and the religious people that I know whom consider themselves “rational”, all use a similar argument: science is fallible or doesn’t have all the answers. But the unspoken part of that is the irrational part: “science is fallible or doesn’t have all the answers, so God must be equally possible.” I don’t think it’s a stretch to see the failing in that logic.

    This argument seems to come most from people who have a rather liberal view of religion. People who, in my opinion, celebrate religion on a very personal, non-dogmatic level. But then, that’s not religion is it, not organized at least. That’s belief. Personal beliefs are by their name “personal”, and so very sensitive to any sort of attack. It is not my intention to attack anyone’s personal beliefs, but lumping personal beliefs under a “religious” umbrella creates a network of sorts that gives socio-political strength to a group of people who, in reality, could have very conflicting views of the world.

    What is certain however, is that religion — as it is defined by Judeo-Christian beliefs about God, heaven, hell, prophets, saviors and miracles taught in the Torah, Bible, Qur’an — are an archaic relic that have simply been adapted as best as possible by a group of people who, for some reason, refuse to let their beliefs evolve and grow. Growth and learning is what has allowed humans to reign supreme above all other animals, and yet we’re still stuck on teachings that when first taught had no concept of the knowledge we have now.

    I love science and technological progress. But for all of it, we still don’t have a consistent physical model of the universe. The deeper we probe it, the stranger and less coherent it becomes.

    It’s true, when you get down to a sub-atomic or super-universe level you are dealing with areas of knowledge that our brains have never in their entire evolution needed to understand – it follows that there would be limits to our ability to process this information.

    But as much as that may be a strike against modern science, or our abilities to harness it, it is not “one for the God” column. It simply means we’re not there yet — but we are still moving forward. We, as a species, know more now then we did 6000 years ago, more than we did 2000 years ago, more than we did 600 years ago and more than we did 75 years ago. It makes sense that we’ll know more about our world and its place in the universe as time trods on.

    There is no god; of this I am as certain as I can be, as certain as I am that I cannot walk through a wall. Theoretically, both are possible, but both leave my skull throbbing. We should never stop questioning, as it is those questions that have given us so much, and my argument for atheism is simply that religion asks us to. It asks us to stop evolving, while in the same breath saying there’s no such thing. It’s Oz.

    Keep in mind, in all of this when I say “there is no god” I understand the fallibleness of the statement. Do not confuse this with arrogant assumptions. My meaning is, there is no god as outlined by religious text – which is religion. God is just a word, and science simply can not disprove that there could be a supreme being or beings that had some involvement in creating what we know as “the universe”. That doesn’t go against science – but it does go against religion, at least the stories of Judeo-Christian religion.

    You mention my picking apart “religious texts” as if these are somehow separate from the religion they are concerning. The religious texts are our only connection to those religions. If they fail, the religion fails.

  31. It’s true, when you get down to a sub-atomic or super-universe level you are dealing with areas of knowledge that our brains have never in their entire evolution needed to understand – it follows that there would be limits to our ability to process this information.

    The issue I was referring to is the assumption that a full set of self-consistent rules exists at all. I suspect it doesn’t. I think in his rush to escape irrational assumptions, Dawkins made a host of other assumptions which appeared rational only due to the shared assumptions of his audience.

    The philosophical skeptics were important in widening the accepted thoughts of the Western world at a time when Christian thought was the only acceptable way of thinking–anything else risked jail, torture or death. But they’ve really nothing to do with science and ration. Philosophy is much closer to religion than science is to philosophy, as both philosophy and religion only require a theory – and that’s just an idea. A creative process, not a scientific one.

    Philosophy absolutely is a rational pursuit. And it’s not true that it “only requires a theory”. Philosophy involves proving things from base axioms. To a large degree science is built on the back of philosophy. Without tools such as propositional calculus, the scientific method wouldn’t go far.

    I’d go further and say that philosophy and mathematics are purer and may represent a deeper truth than science can.

    There is no god; of this I am as certain as I can be, as certain as I am that I cannot walk through a wall. Theoretically, both are possible, but both leave my skull throbbing.

    Why and how? Walking into a wall is a good test to see if you can pass through, but what test can you use to falsify the existence of God? One issue is falsifiable, relies on your senses and can easily be tested. The other isn’t falsifiable, doesn’t require sensory input and isn’t testable. One is prime for scientific experimentation and the other isn’t.

    How is your certainty in the non-existence of a creator any different from our ancestors’ certainty that there were no black swans?

  32. Philosophy absolutely is a rational pursuit. And it’s not true that it “only requires a theory”

    You’re absolutely right. I’m not sure why I took such a limited view of philosophy to mind when writing what you quoted above. However, to correct that – you’re absolutely right, philosophy can be every much as rational as science. I agree completely that what we now see as science had its foundations in philosophy. I think for a large part of our history those two things blurred, and still do. Just as philosophy can also blur into religion, and at one time religion blurred into science — and may again. Such is the nature of man-made things.

    For the rest we again return to the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.

    How is your certainty in the non-existence of a creator any different from our ancestors’ certainty that there were no black swans?

    It is absolutely the same.

    From the information I have access to, at the time of my certainty, I construct my belief. I am not saying that a “god” or number of “gods” could not exist, in fact I’ve said a couple times now that they “could”.

    But I don’t base my reality on what “could” be, nor on what my imagination can create — I base it on the collective knowledge of my time.

    My certainty lies not in the existence or not of beings more superior to humans, nor is it in whether or not such a supreme being was involved in the creation of all that we know. How could it? My certainty lies in the falsifiable creations of men, which is what religion is.

    So, while what we don’t know cannot be proven until it is, what we do know can (within the limits of our existence); and those proofs can be more certainly used as a foundation of belief that their opposites. I’m not arguing against a god that may be, I’m arguing about the ones we’ve already said to exist.

  33. I’m enjoying this thread, Ryan!

    For the rest we again return to the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.

    How is your certainty in the non-existence of a creator any different from our ancestors’ certainty that there were no black swans?

    I’m not quite sure I follow you there. I’ve recognize nearly everything you’ve written about in this thread from Dawkins’ book and BBC documentaries, but I don’t see the connection between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and my question.

    The Black Swan is an example of an anomaly, the thing we thought was impossible because in the past we’d seen countless swans that were all white.

    Certainty that there is no rational number that’s the square root of a prime number can be proven and is a rational to hold. Similarly, certainty that people can’t walk through walls is rational. It’s not provable, but it can be tested with large numbers of people. The possibility of the existence of life that doesn’t require water or a new fundamental force in physics would be different. The non-existence of these things can’t be tested, and they might one day be discovered as the black swan was. Despite all our current data, the certainty they don’t exist would be unfounded.

    Back to the creator argument- the existence of a creator that lies outside the ordinary “rules” is a necessary concept for many philosophical models of existence. If there is no creator, then we’re left with the following sorts of models:

    • The universe created itself at Time 0 (in which case the universe is the creator)
    • Time is circular and therefore there was no creation or creator (maybe like Nietzsche’s “infinite recurring”)
    • Our understanding of time is somehow false (note the plaguing question of “Time’s Arrow” in modern physics)
    • Nothing exists at all

    Some would argue that the first option might be tantamount to saying the universe itself was “God”. There are other explanations, outside of the list above, of course, but they get increasingly esoteric. As you mentioned above, Occam’s Razor is a good reason to reject them, unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

    How does the introduction of a Flying Spaghetti Monster simplify any of this? Are you positing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator? Or are we talking about something like a universe that created itself and a Flying Spaghetti Monster along with it?

    So, while what we don’t know cannot be proven until it is, what we do know can (within the limits of our existence); and those proofs can be more certainly used as a foundation of belief that their opposites. I’m not arguing against a god that may be, I’m arguing about the ones we’ve already said to exist.

    That makes sense. Even in the best of circumstances, there would be massive distortions in any historical record and with something as powerful as religion was up until recent generations, people would be actively distorting further in order to co-opt it for their own means.

  34. The black swan argument doesn’t work because it presumes that science said there was no black swans. That was a human assumption, not a scientific one. The current knowledge and understanding of the time indicated that no black swans existed, so non-existed. When black swans were discovered, science (through naturalists) integrated them into the model of understanding.

    In my opinion, reason depends not on being infallible, but being able to accept those things that make it infallible and correct itself once proof to the contrary is shown. This is precisely why I don’t agree with religion. It is a collection of beliefs that may have seemed reasonable at the time, but have since been proven incorrect by a whole line of black swans – and yet it powers on with a strength in numbers and blind eye attitude.

    If you re-read my statement of certainty in the non-existence of a god or gods you’ll see it’s not really a “certainty”, but a presumption of certainty based on all available resources. To presume otherwise is to presume there must be neon blue swans as well – and not just to guess that, but to commit it as scientific record based simply on the idea that we can imagine it as being.

    Perhaps more to the point than the FSM, is Russell’s china teapot (scooped directly from Wikipedia here):

    If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

    In grabbing that I see they’ve got a quote from Dawkins’ A Devil’s Chaplain, which I’ve not read but the passage does well to mirror my feelings on the subject:

    The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.

    Obviously some rather extreme examples, but my (Bertrand’s and Richard’s) point is if “the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions” there is simply no end to the imaginative answers man could create to define his and his world’s existence.

    The introduction of the FSM is not meant to further complicate things. It is not presented as yet another possible answer – it is simply to illustrate that just because we don’t have a finite answer for something now, doesn’t give added weight or validity to the answers we created in the past.

  35. I’m not an atheist but I have equal respect for anyone who has a well-defined set of beliefs/principles and defends them. But my only issue with atheism’s relentless pursuit of scientific truth is it is easy to lose sight of the greatest human attribute- love. Perhaps religion is just a cozy myth but it can inspire people to the most irrational acts of love and charity (though it can also inspire irrational hate and madness). Yes truth is a vital pursuit, but I see so many die-hard atheists completely absorbed in their battle with what they consider to be intellectual incompetence that they develop a cold-heartedness that can distance themselves from the “irrational masses.” I’ve seen many atheists so high on their intellectual horses that their condescension colors much of their interactions with other people, although Ryan you seem to be a very tolerant and receptive person and it’s refreshing. As I said before, truth is vital, but scientific truth by itself is cold. An act of love is far more satisfying than winning an argument. I have never met anyone whose heart was filled with love speak a single word of regret about their life, no matter what source the love comes from. To love and be loved is much better than being proved right.

  36. There you are Owner of this Blog,
    You chicken out by deleting most of my comments.
    Do you find my comments a treat to your false beliefs.
    Re-edit my comments if youre the person of truth.Let the public decides
    who is correct.

  37. @Solomon: Your comments weren’t deleted because of their content, as diluted and pointless as it was. Your comments were deleted because you were flooding the site. You had posted 10+ comments in less than 24 hours with no responses from anyone else in between. This is unacceptable troll-like behavior. If it continues, you will be banned from accessing this site.

    To insinuate that your point-of-view is in some way a challenge to my own is to insult the religious people above who, while in dis-alignment with my own views, did a much better job of touting their beliefs and the rationality of believing in a god than you even came close to.

  38. Sorry for this site rules, I’am not aware.
    You can say that my comment [is as diluted and pointless as it was] after you answere
    my previous questions Ryan if you still remember.You use the word [insult],thats your word not mine.So you think you have done a good job of touting peoples beliefs into thinking theres no God.You are swaying the people from the truth,the right path.Who gave you life Ryan.Answere to all those people there.And who determines when you will die.Or when your wife is pregnant & about to give labour,to Whom do you hope for her safe delivery.To whom you pray for a boy or a girl.Would you say Nature please give me a boy or Evolution please grant me a girl.Answere me Ryan if youre the man of truth.Stop all this ‘good job’ of yours Ryan.I,am sponsoring the truth Ryan.I got no return in sponsoring this.The return is only from Allah the almighty.

  39. This is one of the things which piss me off about religion: the idea that some “true faith” could be a license for uncontrolled behavior. Discussions with religious can be enriching – discussions with people who open their mouth but shut their eyes, their ears and their imagination are not.

  40. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Are you referring your comments to me.If not I’am sorry.If so..this is what I have to point out.I think its too early for you to jump into conclusion that my previous discussions on religion or true faith is based on shutting eyes,ears or imagination.If you look back, they are clearly based on eye,ear,imagination,head as well as heart opener.This is just the beginning,there is much more for us to interact,question,discuss.Religion or true faith is about looking for it,maybe through your whole life,weighing the logic & magic in it.

  41. quote #42 You are swaying the people from the truth,the right path.Who gave you life Ryan.Answere to all those people there. unquote.
    That’s no way to discuss things, Solomon. Before you start a discussion, you need to understand that to an atheist, the world without< a god is just as real as a world with a god is to a believer. As long as you think of an atheist statement as an offense, you can’t have a meaningful discussion with him or her at all. You can only demand an apology for an offense. Which wouldn’t make sense here, because it’s not an offense.

  42. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Does that imply that you have just shut your ears,eyes & heart, the world without God as real, not even looking at your surrounding,wondering who could have create this universe with its millions of gigantic stars with its intricate gas compositions & matter,the oceans with its vast living species.One could not imagine those beings cretes itself with its unique design,colour,structure.One just can’t shut thier minds out of those creations.And that is only a minute fraction of Gods creations.Now who is the one not making sense?I think our sound in mind viewers can judge that.
    The only one, oneself to seek apology for the offence they have made is from God.I’am not the one who says that ‘touting peoples believe that there is no God’ is an offence.I’ts God himself says its an offence.So any meaningful discussions is apt to continue.

  43. I have seen no touting here. I’m no believer, but I don’t think of religion as a makeshift to answer every question which we can’t answer ourselves (yet). I can’t answer the question how the world was “made” – but that’s no good reason to become religious.

  44. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Yes, you won’t be able to answer how the world was made until you vow there is God.
    It’s not the question of becoming religous.It’s the question of upholding the truth.
    The answer have been laid in detail by God yet stone hearts choose to defy.

  45. Solomon: I don’t feel the need to have an answer to every question. That’s not the way of the world. Only faint-hearted people are in need of answers to everything. Your comments are an interesting illustration of a fundamentalist’s spiritual weakness.

  46. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Is it you don’t feel the need to have an answer to every question OR youre afraid to know the answer or the truth?God knows what your heart is reveiling or hiding.And I don’t have to comment the rest of your comment,they are just retoric talk and lies without justficaion to sabotage spiritual beliefs.And you will not dare to challenge what you refer as the faint-hearted people.Lets see who are the one who is faint hearted.

  47. Ryan,
    It’s not what I say. It’s what God says(you can find it in the Qoran;84’th Surah or chapter AL-INSYIQAAQ phrase 23).So theres no need to call me Santa.
    Now are you trmbling knowing to know somebody sees whats in your heart.Theres nowhere to hide…

  48. Now are you trmbling knowing to know somebody sees whats in your heart.Theres nowhere to hide…
    Solomon: I don’t think that too many people are interested in your wet fantasies. What you wrote pretty much confirms my impression of you, and life’s too short to argue with people like you. Have a nice life, if you can.

  49. OR youre afraid to know the answer or the truth?
    Truth is welcome. But it will come from a serious search – not from fainthearted dogmatism like yours. You are too fearful to live with uncertainties. That’s your problem, and you can only address it yourself.

  50. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Is that all you have to say.
    Or are you chicken out before a challenge.
    Looks like youre the one who is fainthearted.
    Put forth anything you like from Science to mystique if youre
    the man of truth.
    And don’t mention that lousy word Religous Fundie or Fundamentalism
    crap.Let the people think & decide who is in the path of truth & who is lying.

  51. That’s not all I have to say – but it’s all I have to say to people like you. Fundamentalism is no lousy word. Identifying fundamentalists helps to saving, rather than wasting time. My heart goes out to all people who have to live under the stifling rule of theocrats. The sooner they will be free to speak their minds, the better. Have a nice day.

  52. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Theocrats,technocrats or bureucrats,that are only labels that my ears can’t bear to hear anymore.Truth does not have to be categorize into theocrats or fundamentalism.Truth stands on itself.I’am sponsoring truth.And remember,truth does not contradict.What I do is no waste of time,youre not identifying fundamentalists,you and your allies are swaying people & yourself from the right & true path and I’am not gonna let that go on…An I’am going to coach the people into identifying what is true & what is false.Why not start with that lousy evolution …(ape becomes men) theory

    note:sorry for the comments “what a you doing”,that was written & posted by my 10 year old son.

  53. you and your allies are swaying people & yourself from the right & true path and I’am not gonna let that go on…
    Your paranoid language speaks for itself, solomon.
    Let me give you an example of your logic. I’ve invented a dogma of my own. Here goes.
    JR has established that a guy named S. indulges in the nasty habit of ******* ****. If this guy named S. should happen onto this website and commenther thread, of which JR is sure he will, because of divine providence, S. will tremble as someone sees what is in his heart and habits. And it’s not what JR says. It’s truth, and divine providence.
    Everyone who doubts his dogma is an unworthy bugger, and will burn in hell.

    A stupid comment? If you think so, look at your own comments, and compare.

  54. JUSTRECENTLY,
    That sounds like someone who have loss his ideas & gonna gave up.And you also did’nt have the word for the nasty habits ******* ****, Why? Because there is no nasty habits at all!
    Is this the last desperate attempt or the best you can do to shut ‘me or the truth’ up? Theres no question of trembling for me at all.Why should I be trembling? I would even be glad if everybody can see right through my heart.I have nothing to hide coz they will only see truth.It’s not my dogma either, its God’s.The unworthy bugger who shut their eyes & mind up after truth have come to them is the one who will be burned in hell & that is what God says, not me.

  55. Wow… this is just not going to end eh?

    @JustRecently: I’d save your breath m8 – arguing with Solomon is about the equivalent of arguing with a 6 year old. He’s not furthered the religious opposition to my original point even a fraction further than it was before he stumbled upon this thread, and seems to base his entire point and ideology around the idea that he is right and everyone else is wrong. And while we all do that (especially us bloggers) most of us seem to have at least the good sense have some method, above the original statement, to back that up.

    In short, the dude’s a troll. If you ignore him, he’ll go away. If you plan to convince him of anything, you’re wasting your time (and space in my database hehe). It will never happen.

  56. JUSTRECENTLY,
    Are you mimicking my words or its just you don’t have any points in your pocket to argue.
    That goes same to you Ryan.I can be a six year old or sixty years old and that depends on the argument you put forth.You both have convince nothing,even to yourself.You are the one wasting your time with your pointless beliefs theres no God.And you don’t have the slightest point to deny that.

  57. Ryan: I think I owed Solomon an earnest warning that he’ll rot in hell if he doesn’t repent and accept JR’s Dogma. But you have a point re database. So,
    Solomon: read my comment #59 three times a day aloud. Maybe it will sink in, improve your sorry life, and save you from hell. That’s all I can do for you.

  58. JUSTRECENTLY,

    Kah.. Kah.. Kah..Ha..Ha..Ha..That really sounds like a six year old.
    I can do a lot for you JR.Get back to the true path.The path of God.
    Before you die.

  59. Ryan. You rock!

    God.Gods.Godess.Godesses.ET.ETS. We are breathing/living/functionning beings adapting to our environments, conditionned by our roots/families/societies/cultures in search of the same ideals (love, happiness, purpose, value, meaning). Some people require/need the help of a spiritual image/leader when they feel lost, WHY NOT?. As long as they are able to break free. You find something helpful? go for it and you must also learn to let go. To each its own. As long as love, respect, decency and common understanding of the laws of Nature are followed. Be good or be bad. It is human nature. It is in all of us. It is a choice we make, day after day. We start out as pure and curious (full of potential) and end up mostly confused and lost in a sea of cruelty/negative vibes/hate/distortions/lies. I keep on swimming, sometimes in circle, sometimes in a straight line or backwards. We all will reach the same destination, enjoy the journey and do as much good, give as much love to offsset the daily grind of lies and manipulations. Open your mind and heart to life. Nature will keep on reminding us of who/what we are…

  60. Thanks for your explanation here Ryan!

    I have just read “God is NOT great – How religion poisons everything” by Christopher Hitchens

    I recommend it.

    Although I have never believed in a god, I did colour in my scripture books in religious class in my public school, and later wanted to fit in and be “saved by Jesus” – until I realised that all being saved by Jesus would do for me is save me from a lot of fun “sinning” that I was more interested it, as I still did not reconcile the existence of a universal greater power or “God” the whole thing seemed a bit pointless.

    I am now happily living in this rather non-religious country. I hate religion, and now know why.

    I also realised that I should do more to be OUT! I’m already out as Queer, so being out as Atheist should be fun too.

    Extra reading – http://www.venganza.org/

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F. Roberts

    With image here –
    http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gods-we-dont-believe-in.jpg

  61. @Jenn: I also recently read Hitchens book and strongly recommend it. Also, loving the FSM site. Didn’t know us Pastafarians had a source of up-to-date FSM revelry!

  62. I am not Muslim and I do not believe in Allah. But, I have to respect Solomon for standing up for his belief. He was not eloquent in his use of English, but there was something admirable in standing up for Truth capital T despite his sounding like he was lacking in intelligence. (He actually did pretty good for a 2nd lang. spkr) I am sure all the rest of the posters here have way too much pride to sound like Solomon – and come on, guys, admit it. You wouldn’t want to look stupid (like him). You want to be “rational” and be admired for it.

    But I think it was Jesus who commended the little children as being close to heaven. And it will be the little children, and those who are “like them” who know the truth and are set free for their honest admission of it. I think that Solomon is closer to that than any of you, for what it is worth to you. Unfortunately, probably not much. Just had to add my two cents… 🙂 Nothing here that your “logic” can’t tear apart I’m sure… but I like to think that just because belief can’t be touched by logic, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own reasons, that “reason” knows not of…. that is part of a quote from someone…. let’s see… “the heart has it’s reasons that reason knows not of.” don’t remember who said it.

    Anyway, there is so much more to us than our brains. Come on, did you ever just “know” something, deep down? Did you ever fall in love? Why? Because of all the “reasons” the person would make a good mate? No, who would be with someone for such base reasons? And what of joy, and peace, and all that? Those aren’t rational, but they exist and I don’t think I could do without them.

    • @Kathryn Anne: You don’t have to be a Muslim to believe in Allah — as a Christian you believe in him too. Yay, one more thing you have in common with Solomon.

      There’s nothing irrational about a human’s need to believe in something greater than him or herself. The irrationality, by definition, comes when you believe blindly in such things.

      Love, joy, peace, hate, envy, greed, etc… these are emotions and are not things we just “know” as if by magic, but things we know as we know how to breath, and how to jump and close our eyes when we hear a loud noise, how we know to sneeze… they are instincts that have helped perpetuate our species through generations upon generations.

      You speak of your God as if he touched you without any outside interference, as if that belief was as natural as love or compassion or pain… but it’s not. It’s taught and learned. It’s pushed upon the young and unbelieving, sometimes with great force and coercion. There’s nothing natural or admirable about it.

      • I doubt that your assumptions are rational. Did I say you have to be Muslim to believe in Allah? No, I did not. Yet you negate this as if I did. I said I don’t believe in one or the other. You assume I am Christian and that Christians consider them the same God.

        As for blindly believing in religion, when I was 19 I despised people who blindly believed anything without reason. I have become much more merciful in my older self. I was raised by a rational, AND non-emotional mother, a cyto-geneticist, and an intellectual father, a teacher, who were too busy to teach me much of anything, but who wanted me to “question authority” and “look it up in the dictionary” and “put brains before beauty” (this from my mother). They are not religious people. They are both very good and rational humanists. They are very much against indoctrination.

        But I think it is equally dangerous to try to block emotion as it is to ignore reason – we all have it and it is only rational to examine it, allow it, and embrace it. I don’t want to deify or deny reason or emotion, but recognize that they are both useful. Be careful of extremes.

        But I can look at people like Solomon and love them – if you want you could call it irrationality, but for me it is not. I admire him precisely because he stands for something (he called it Truth) without caring about being looked down on. Without the emotion of fear. I think that fear could block or freeze something that transcends emotion or reason, and that would be our peril to ignore.

        I think that from experience of my own failings, and how I am still the same person inside whether someone despises me and doesn’t excuse my failings, has taught me that it is “better” to love others over and above my feelings or opinions. To look for something good in all people, and commend them where you can.

        And actually, I don’t really think love is just an emotion. Yes, we feel love. But to love someone by doing something for them and not for any self gain is for the sake of reason and not emotion– it is an act of the will. Loving others when you don’t feel love for them. Loving by a principle – because you appreciate others to do good to you and so you do good to others. In that way, it is not an instinct. It is something we can deliberately choose to do – show love to others because we recognize it as a better way to live.

        So here are some questions for you: Caring for others – is it irrational? And if it is, is it a bad thing? Where do you draw the line? Could someone like Jesus love someone like Hitler? Could you or I? What are you willing to do for your principles? Is there a hill you will die on?

      • @Kathryn Anne: Sorry that I assumed you were a Christian. Are you not? You quoted Jesus in a way that sort of presented you believed him to be an actual person, and a person of some merit. Jesus’ dad being Allah… I think you can see that it’s a rather easy assumption to make. But you’re right, I did assume and if that’s not the case, no offence was intended by it.

        A few fallacies that I see in your response:

        1. You assume I think emotion is irrational and that rational people feel no emotion. Quite to the contrary, I believe quite strongly that emotion is an integral part of being alive and very much plays a part in the rational world.

        2. You equate feeling emotion to believing in a higher power (using Solomon’s emotions about believing in Allah as an example of something we should praise as a standard by which we should hold ourselves to). I assure you that despite being an atheist I am just as emotional as your average religious believer. However, I do not devote myself to my emotional responses. Nor do I live my life by them without question. I understand my emotions are there for a reason, and rationally, I understand why people believe in religion. I just don’t and I don’t think the world benefits from doing so — but fully admit I don’t necessarily know what’s best for the world.

        3. You seem to be forwarding the idea that there are truly altruistic acts. I don’t believe there are. One of the things that has allowed us to excel as a species is our ability to utilize our actions in ways more complicated than A->B — and while we’re not the only species that form complex social structures that reward “kindness”, there are few species that have woven it so completely into the fabric of their habits and reaped such comprehensive rewards from it.

        To answer your questions:
        Caring for others – is it irrational? No, definitely not. Whether it is caring for your family, community or strangers, there are obvious rational benefits to caring.

        And if it is, is it a bad thing? Why does it sound like you are saying only the religious care about people?

        Where do you draw the line? What line?

        Could someone like Jesus love someone like Hitler? Perhaps. He wouldn’t have been the only one. But is your meaning that we should be able to love someone despite their faults, no matter how great those faults are? My belief is that you should not allow your distaste for someone else’s actions negatively affect your own life. If you are consumed by anger, sadness or range by someone’s actions, it is only a detriment to yourself.

        Could you or I? I’m not in the habit of loving long-dead mass-murdering asshats. But what I think you’re saying is that we should extend “love” to all people and by doing so you somehow make the world a more joyous place. I think this attitude is a bit self-righteous. I’m not saying you’re self-righteous, mind you, I simply believe that saying you can love someone you’ve never met, and who largely embodies what the world would call “evil” is an attempt at making a statement about yourself (should you be that type of person, that is).

        What are you willing to do for your principles? As much as it takes?

        Is there a hill you will die on? As Jesus allegedly did? Meaning will I sacrifice myself for the sins of all humanity? I’ll probably not have the opportunity.

      • I just saw this…

        “I’m not saying you’re self-righteous, mind you, I simply believe that saying you can love someone you’ve never met, and who largely embodies what the world would call “evil” is an attempt at making a statement about yourself (should you be that type of person, that is).”

        Be what type of person? Does this mean you think it selfISH, and so cannot do anything but feed the ego and can’t help make the world better (which is what I would want to do), and that to make the world better we need to hate other people or at least be blind to them? How about, instead of Hitler, just some average person you don’t know who may not be particularly evil nor particularly good?

        I’m curious: what do _you_ think love means and is about? I’m not sure how to put my understanding of it into words, but I’d like to hear yours.

        “Is there a hill you will die on? As Jesus allegedly did? Meaning will I sacrifice myself for the sins of all humanity? I’ll probably not have the opportunity.”

        Her question looked like a hypothetical to me. I.e. _if you had_ the opportunity, would you?

  63. Pingback: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster | A China Blog on Suzhou Expat Life

  64. Great post Ryan. Don’t know if you remember me but I just googled about atheism and came uopn your blog. Coming from a Spanish/Puertorrican and Italian background religion and faith had always placed a huge roll in my life. I remember as a little girl in catholic school being kicked out of class once simply because as a curious child I asked the nun/teacher if Marie Magdalene was Jesus wife. I nearly got my ass kicked out of schol b/c of a simple question. As I got older I came to love Science and decided this was my path, my truth and regardless of how my family feels about religion I will not change who I am or conform to their belief system just to please them.

    I have a lot of friends tha are both atheist and religious an in my friends I have found what I was never able to find in my immediate family; acceptance for having beliefs different that their own.

    • Hi Griselle, long time! I’m fortunate in that I came from a rather accepting and un-religious upbringing. We were holiday Christians, and though church was never absent, it was also not a place we visited for much other than family functions and special occasions. I can’t imagine growing up in such a strict system as you did, and can easily see why it pushes as many people away as it manages to entangle in its web. I’ve got a pretty great group of friends with a myriad of beliefs (some of which were vocalized above) and couldn’t be happier about that as well.

  65. glad to see someone else speaking out about the mad idea that animal species don’t evolve with time, because the bible says they don’t. This idea is dangerously gaining ground.

  66. Dear Kathryn Anne,

    I’am deeply touched with your words, even a little heartfelt at the first place.Thats the kind of heart that would see the light.The purpose of me coming here is just for the purpose of the love of the human race, to save them from the fires of hell God willing.I’de rather swallow the whole of my foot for the sake of truth no matter how silly it may sounds to unbelievers.Ones you have the faith & confidence, nothing can change that.

  67. Dear ji xiang,
    Evolution is a fake.Man and apes does not evolve from a common species.Until today evolutionists cannot provide the fossil proofs of the gradual transformation from common ancestor to ape or man that must have existed in abundance if evolution is true.
    By the way a warm Hello to you Ryan.

    • Oh, do me the favour. There are masses of fossils of animals of the past that are extremely different from any species which exists today, or at other times in the past. What more do you want? Obviously we don’t have a fossil for every step of the evolutionary process, that would be impossible.

    • Most Atheists resort to science, as if science is their God.

      I think I know what you’re trying to say, but what you’re saying in its current form doesn’t make sense. We all “resort to science”, as it means to “turn to” or “fall back on”. And science has proven a trusted pillar to do so with. Otherwise we wouldn’t fly, cure disease or know even a minor thing about what is outside our atmosphere.

      Science is not a “God”, as science is fallible, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a true scientist, or any educated person, that thinks otherwise. For this reason science isn’t worshiped like a god is worshiped — namely, blindly. But I will grant you that many atheists admire science greatly, as do many theists.

      I don’t get it Solomon. I mean, I admire your conviction, but your argument (which you’ve attempted to breathe new life into a year after your first visit to this topic) has no substance.

      You’ve presented no argument for the proof of a god or gods other than your blind faith that there is one. Please visit here to see how silly of an argument that is.

      As for evolution being fake. You’re probably right. It’s right up there with gravity, sub-atomic particles and the structure of the universe as the biggest hoaxes Atheists have ever come up with to undermine the monotheistic truth of our existence.

      • I’am not going to start a fresh confrontation with you since you dump my comments almost a year ago.Not just yet.Lets first ponder to some of my other points.It might put some sense or reasoning to you and the viewers.

        If life happens to exist by chance, the probability of your nose being located where they are now is almost nil.Chances won’t happen much often, creation yes (mass production).

        By the way I admire Fred Phelps Sr.

  68. Atheists=enemies of Reasons but they don’t realize.

    How could this complicated life processes can be sum up into a one simple word “natural selection”?

    How could a created object “man” themselves explains his own existence or origin.In other words the claim comes from their own self.The claim should probably come from a third party, that is the creator.Who knows better or have the right to comment to a certain existence?A toy or the maker of the toy?

    • You, Sir, obviously hasn’t the slightest clue regarding the Theory of Evolution and the Process of Natural Selection. If you even remotely understood either concepts you would not utter the words you are doing now. I strongly recommend you read up on these topics before you even post any more messages anywhere ever again.

      • Bo Yang,
        I’ve read up the evolution theory and I found it to be silly.With your own words put forth whatever regarding evolution & lets start a debate on it.For sure I can refute it on every corners.

  69. I think the arguments on both sides are simply asking for the same thing but with a different question.

    Those that believe in evolution as a concept make the argument that man evolved from other things. Certainly the complex can come from the simple. But it doesn’t exactly answer as to why there are still apes..well unless we forced people to live there and pretty much eat all of their food. We’re intelligent enough to buy and shop for food then kill it with our bear hands (if people do that legally well that’s fine). We haven’t exactly seen anything evolve on its own but there’s enough evidence to at least suggest it exists

    Those that believe in creationism believe that man came about due to God’s will…there’s not much for evidence of this…

    Ok so what if they are both right?..huh?

    What if we can reduce evolution to simply being a massive mutation that somehow within itself over time became the majority. What if it was God that was making this evolution?

    I was Catholic…then I was Atheist for a number of years…now I am Catholic again but I don’t take everything literally.

    Sure one might argue that religion has been twisted for things but to compare there’s really only four theocracies on the planet: Iran, Israel (yes it is), Andorra (something about a bishop is always a partial head of government and of course Vatican City. In athiesm I just envision China (I’ve been there) and the soviet union. Both of which were places where leaders thought they were accountable to no one (no God) and they started tens of millions. I’m not suggesting that atheists are murderers but if they activally try to suppress religion that is what can occur.

    Furthermore in not believing in God there’s really no support groups…there’s no “church” in at itself. There’s no fund raisers..there’s no donations to little league teams etc. I’m in Mass and the Catholic church is the 2nd largest provider of social services after the state government. I haven’t seen atheists as a group do any charitable act.

    Furthermore an atheist argument can somewhat be dissolved by the idea that they are against organised religion rather than religion in at itself. If religion was something personal that was kept to individuals then where is the outrage?

    BTW incase someone tries a side argument I am for gay marriage, pro choice and for the death penalty.

    • Hi Matt, thanks for the well-considered comment.

      A couple points I’ll raise:

      1. Not all atheists are outraged. Put anyone in a corner and they tend to strike, I think that’s why there’s this common misconception about atheists. The quiet ones just go about their business. Unfortunately, the majority of atheists live in countries dominated by societies that are supported and run by people who believe completely in faerie tales. Outrageous indeed.

      2. The difference, I would propose, in Communists persecuting the religious and the religious creating holy wars and inquisitions is that while Communists are atheist, their actions are not driven by atheism, but just by a different blind ideological faith which is as equally twisted as any religion.

      3. I think you need to brush up on evolution if you’re not clear on why there are still apes. And you’re actually wrong in saying we’ve not seen anything evolve. Perhaps not in nature in real time, as it is a slow force, and just not possible, but under controlled settings there have been lots of proven examples of evolution. Take a look at the domesticated dog if you want proof kicking around the house.

      4. While I can appreciate you trying to play moderator, especially when there are comments above that are tipping the scales into the insane, check out the section of the original posts on my thoughts on moderates.

      5. Regarding there being no support groups for atheists, yep — it’s a bit of a lonely road, and proof that more atheists need to “come out” and create social groups that are atheist-accepting/inclusive. I’ve a son now, and it saddens me that any group he joins will likely have a religious agenda or backdrop as that’s where their money is coming from. Indoctrination aside, I think the community aspects of religion are wonderful, and I doubt very many atheists will disagree with it. The problem is that its principles are founded in fiction, and not in a fun bookclub sort of way, but in a “damn-your-soul if you don’t believe what I’m telling you” sort of way.

      6. “the Catholic church is the 2nd largest provider of social services after the state government. I haven’t seen atheists as a group do any charitable act.” Remember that the Catholic church isn’t actually charitable — it’s members are, as the church is simply spending their parishioners’ money. They aren’t a business, so if they give away money given to them by people looking to help pave their way to heaven, that’s not charity, that’s simply reallocation of funds. Funds they’re very likely to get back by assuring the circular support of a heavily Catholic community. As for atheistic charity, I think if you could track down the info, I doubt you’d find a huge disparity between personal charitable acts of the religious and the non. By and large, people are charitable because of their humanity, not their religious beliefs. It’s just religious marketing that leads people to believe otherwise. But if you really need direct examples of how atheists have given to their fellow man — I’m sure your home is filled with things invented by atheistic scientists that make your day, and the days of the poor, all the better.

      7. “Furthermore an atheist argument can somewhat be dissolved by the idea that they are against organised religion rather than religion in at itself. If religion was something personal that was kept to individuals then where is the outrage?” — Sort of. The argument cannot be dissolved, but the “angry atheist” image sure can. Atheists simply don’t believe in gods, and so that being their “argument”, that’s not going to change by decentralizing religious belief (not that decentralization could ever happen — personal Jesus or not, religion is about power and religious history is full of failed attempts of breaking from that power structure, and in the end simply creating a new centralized power). Atheists generally have no problem with people who do believe in gods — maybe just the douche bags. The “angry atheist” is simply a reaction to a world that is heavily biased in the theistic debate.

  70. I’ve been raised as an atheist and I’m very happy about that. I can’t relate to religious people (only superficially), I can’t really understand how their brains function. I generally have the tendency to doubt everything that was written by men, especially the so called few thousand years old holy books, who’s translations are the latest craze among some grey old men. Nevertheless, I think I’m a moral and grounded person, only manipulated by the media and advertising industry and I think that’s more than enough to torture my sanity on a daily basis. I’ve no problem with people believing, unless they’re not obsessed and inclined to convince me, that my world views are wrong. Every debate so far resulted in me grinning and them fuming. I do like temples, though. But only because of the historic and architectural value.

  71. Come to Australia, not sure of the stats but you will find plenty of atheists here. I personally believe we were dead before conception. So all of us have already been dead already. We simply shift off to that black place again when we die.

  72. Pingback: Very Good Page

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*