Since I was tasked to represent atheism, I will do my best to help you all understand us. To start us off, here are two cool videos.
Funny video about Christians (from an secularist point of view), and a catchy upbeat song! I guarantee that you'll like it.
Here is short and entertaining video of Richard Dawkins.
Here's a funny Monty Python video that parodies Christianity
Here are the tenets of atheist thought and I think that I can speak for atheists in general.
1. Religions are inherently hilariously ridiculous.
Come on, a man was swallowed whole by a whale and lived to tell the story? A ship was built by a single man that contained more than 10 million animal species?
Seriously, guys?
If you really compare Christianity's claims with Scientology's they're not that far apart. A giant ship of all animals on earth isn't that far from the Evil Lord Xenu blowing up millions of aliens in our volcanoes with nuclear weapons.
Although many things in science are very far-out and non-intuitive (light's particle-wave duality, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Theory of Relativity) science's claims are backed by experiments, observations, and real practical technologies that utilize these claims.
I know what some of the religous people are going to say. "You can't prove that an Ark containing 85 zillion species of plants and animals didn't exist! You weren't there!" And you'd be right. I can't disprove the existence of Noah's Ark. But I don't think I should have to. The mere idea of it is hilarious and ridiculous, and I shouldn't have to disprove it in order to be confident in my belief that it never happened.
2. Religions bear an uncanny resemblance to mysticism and superstition.
These are all worldviews that are thousands of years old, make fantastic claims with suspicious evidence, and are filled with circular logic. And the Creator always talks to the prophet "alone in the woods or in a mountain" when it just happens that there's no other witnesses around to corroborate the story. And magically, this one person appears with tablets as the "word of God" for all to follow.
For an all-powerful being, God sure tends to communicate his commands through easily forgeable mediums a lot doesn't He? Most of the educated world has already rejected all forms of mysticism and superstition. Is there any reason NOT to consider religion another form of mysticism/superstition?
In summary, I argue that the burden of proof lies on religions to prove God exists.
Here's a little personal story on why. My grandfather was once accused by the Chinese government of being a spy for the United States. In China at that time, you were guilty until proven innocent. Except, as you can imagine, it's impossible to prove you're not a spy. It's easy to prove someone IS a spy, if you find the right documents and evidence, but what can you say or do to show you're NOT a spy? Anything you say is exactly what a spy would say. What documents can you show to prove you're not a spy? Any document you show is exactly what a spy would have specially prepared for this exact occasion.
In the same way, it's EASY to prove God exists. All you have to do is have God come out and say to everyone, "Hey, I'm real!" He just needs to say something out loud. On the other hand, if there is nobody pulling the strings behind the scenes, we cannot prove nobody's there. Any contradictory evidence, i.e. dinosaur fossils, is just an "elaborate ruse by God to test our faith." Any meaningless and senseless tragedy, i.e. school shootings or child molestations, although fully preventable by the all-powerful God, it shows that He has a "Greater Plan" or something, and we are unworthy to understand his logic.
If there is no God, it can never be proven that there is no God, just like my grandfather couldn't prove he wasn't a spy.
Posts
20 comments:
I understand everything you said and I have a lot of friends who feel the same way.
I just want to give an idea that can't seem to let me become atheist. It is evolution. Everything seems to be by random chance and miracles after miracles so that we could come into being. I'm a very scientific thinker and in my opinion, this can't seem to be possible or likely. If miracles after miracles have to occur for us to come into being, then how is it hard to believe that there exists a God. It seems to make sense to me.
This is the way I see it.
Hum... a.kim
These "miracles" you are talking about are probabilities at work. Evolution happens with the random combination of DNAs during reproduction. I think even a religious person can believe in evolution because it is easily observed. I think our very own krnchoe can tell us about this. I think these "miracles" you are talking about refers to how was the first living thing came to be. It took the first living thing a looooooooooooooooong time to appear. The probability of elements fusing together to form such complex things are very very small. However the time it took was also really really long. So probability saids it could happen, nature simply failed a gazillion+ times before it made the first living thing. I'm not sure if I am clear on this, or that it answers anything you said, but that's how I validate "evolution"
I meant miracles as in very low low probability of it occuring. And yes it took a long time before a living thing came into being. But even after, sequential leaps of evolution must have happened in order for the next steps to occur. And this does not fit in a time frame. I believe if you look up Intelligent Design, it better explains the actual numbers and timescale. A huge activist in Intelligent Design is a person who use to believe in evolution but realized it needed some divine intervention for it to occur on the universe's timescale.
I am not saying that evolution on a microscale is not true. I believe it occurs. I just have a hard time believing evolution as a whole. From nothing to everything.
Despite Richard Dawkin's assertion that evolution is harmful to the christian faith, I have a belief that says it IS still possible the two ideas co-exist, and so I am not against the idea of evolution on a religious basis.
Whether evolution is improbable or not, I don't know. The statistics concerning the probability to create a single 100 amino acid peptide chain that codes for even the crudest machinery seems staggering (1 out of 20^10). It just won't happen. Now evolutionists argue that in the Earth, trials are carried out in a factor of time and sheer quantity of the number molecules, thereby drastically increasing the probability of replication molecules, not necessarily life. However, in all honesty, it's hard to accept that even these replicative machinery could even come into existence, because an accurate, realistic, and unbiased statistical calculation cannot be made - there are simply too many factors and unknown variables.
Now I realize 4.6 billion years is an unfathomably long period of time, but at the same time, 10^20 is an unfathomably big number. Let alone, the transition of random molecules to form replicative molecules would likely act as the rate limiting step, meaning it should taken the longest time in this evolutionary process.
but again, an accurate/unbiased calculation will determine the difference between of a probability of 1 out a gazzilion, to a probability of 99.9999999999 percent. So I propose simply, that we cannot say evolution is a fact, but at the same time we cannot say evolution is false with statistical certainty.
I don't necessarily support creationism in schools, that is strictly religious. however, I at the same time was offended by the relative confidence evolution was imposed on me. they brought out the ideas of evolution stating that it was merely a theory, but presented them with an aura of f actuality. yes, we can observe micro evolution, transposable mutations, and etc that may account for "fascinating" changes, but, we cannot be so arrogant as to propose that THIS is the mechanism by which life came into being. here, i am not denying the credibility of evolution no more than which it deserves.
correct my post, both numbers should be 20^100
Yeah, there's actually quite a bit of research being done with respect to "how did the first life-form come about?"
Be careful not to confuse this with "evolution." Evolution never claims to be able to explain the genesis of life itself, it only explains how speciation and adaptation occurs.
It's true that the spontaneous formation has some pretty long odds, but remember, random bursts of energy (sunlight, gamma rays, lightning strikes) and random mixtures of chemicals are occurring in every crook and cranny of the whole earth, and this had been going on for a billion years. (For a frame of reference, the universe is only about 14 billion years old.)
http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/chem227/origins/timeline.gif
Plus, you gotta remember, there's an uncountable number of planets out there all around the universe. There's nothing particularly special about our Earth. If humans had evolved on another planet, we would have named that planet "Earth " instead of this one.
You can visualize it like this. The odds of winning the lottery are virtually zero. But when enough tickets are sold, the odds of somebody winning the lottery become pretty reasonable.
my main point was not to argue that the mechanism by which life began is improbable. I am just trying to say, you can't be certain the calculation you make is certain. 20^100 is account for more atoms in the universe, so i do not even know if it would be an accurate representation of the first "signs" of life, but i suppose no one can give a correct probability.
now i visualize a lottery, but in the case i proposed, i visualize a statistical probability so small, even if the lottery was ran a billion trillion times, you still wouldn't find a winner. i'm not saying that is what happens, but i am saying it is a certainty people who believe in such a theory must account for. fyi, i don't discount the theory either.
I have a separate question about atheism. What do atheists see as the basis for living an ethical life? Do they feel there is any "meaning" in life? Whats the point of living?
well...atheists are truly a completely diverse group (as a former atheist) kinda like lumping all theists together. Naturally, since they don't believe in a bigger force than the temporal world, they have no need to band together and try and decide the meaning of life...how to live it...moral standards.
Societal and personal beliefs replace these. So, this will not probably represent what ktao says...but for me I believed in the total happiness level lol. I started with just personal happiness level (happiness not as in drinking...it's the deeper happiness that we all kinda understand but can't explain) but then progressed to living life, contributing as much happiness to society as a whole as possible. Why? Because I believed heavily that money doesn't buy happiness, but rather happiness stems from self-satisfaction in a worthy goal. So, I set a "worthy" goal for myself, set the moral standards according to this (do what is best for ultimate happiness) and i believe in doing the best i can towards that goal is the only way i can die with no regrets.
seagull, what kind of answer to your question do you honestly expect? obviously I have no morals! Because there is no hell, I can just do anything I want to anybody! Obviously I am liberated from my conscience and my guilt, because I don't believe a Supreme Being is gonna rape my ass in Hell if I misbehave. I have no qualms killing and eating babies and old ladies. When kids trick-or-treat I give them razor blades and I go around telling every kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist, hahahaha it's so fun! hahaha being atheist is so awesome!
Ok, but seriously. I personally believe that atheists, in terms of morals, are much more concerned with social justice and equality than the religious. Because we don't believe that the cosmic scales are automatically balanced for us in the afterlife, we are much more concerned about giving the oppressed a fair shot in this life.
There's a very good reason why Communists are atheists. Because God doesn't exist, justice doesn't automatically exist, and karma doesn't automatically exist. If we want any karma in the world, we must create it ourselves. We can't sit around doing nothing but praying for it.
hotlikeatoaster, i think you misinterpreted my question. I didnt mean to say that if you are an atheist, there is no reason to be good. i was just trying to figure out what the logic is. if you are an atheist, you know that in 70 years, if you are lucky, you will be dead. thats it. nothing beyond that will matter for you. whats more, put it on a long enough time scale, everyone will be dead. nothing you can possible do will have any meaning whatsoever. where does value come from? what value is there in my helping others? to what end do i do that? or in self sacrifice? it seems as if the value you put into the world is just an illusion, or else can solely based on your own personal happiness. so, why not be a hedonist?
It's not altogether clear to me what treating others with decency has anything to do with the fact that we're all gonna eventually die.
I think our moral sense has more to do with our emotional, passionate side, than our cold calculating side. When you hear about all the human trafficking a.k.a. sex slavery that still exists today, you don't think "Oh well, every dies anyways so what does it matter?" If you do think that, then you have no heart.
Without religion, I think morality will actually be stronger in people (if you measure it not by moral "talk" but by moral "walk"). I stated in my last post about religion's tendency to make people not want to seek real justice in this life, so I'll talk about another thing religion does to our natural morals.
When those religious people were molesting altar boys, I simply cannot understand their reasoning. Given their belief that they will burn in hell, why did they carry out their actions? Did they think
"This innocent little boy is probably going to end up in heaven anyways, so that will make up for what I'm going to do to him now?"
Or did they think,
"Since I already molested another boy, I'm already doomed for hell. Oh well, I might as well molest more little boys because my punishment won't get any worse than it is right now?"
What was going through their minds?
You might say being atheist and having no divine punishment for your crimes logically leads to hedonism, but if you accept that argument then I think you have to accept that believing a strict, hardline system of Heaven and Hell also leads logically to hedonism. If you know that you're already doomed to hell, you might as well commit more and more crimes, because your punishment won't change? There's no marginal punishment curve to actually deter you from committing crimes.
Now that I read over my response, I realize that I didn't directly answer your question about atheism and morals. I just challenged the so-called monopoly that religion claims to have over morals.
Just like all people innately have things like love, hate, curiosity, and ambition, all people innately have things like empathy and sympathy and a conscience. If you believe animals have no souls, so if I told you I knew a kid who tortured a chicken to death, what would you say, and why?
Would you say "That sounds fun, when's the next torture-fest?" because your religion thinks they have no souls, or would you be outraged and empathetic for the chicken?
I'm no animal-rights activist, but when I envision the unending screams of a chicken being tortured alive, it makes my blood boil. It doesn't matter what religion you are, what's wrong is wrong.
Couple thoughts:
I think when we recoil from a person who tortures chickens for fun, it is not so much for the suffering af the chicken (which we may or may not be able to comprehend) but rather from the nature of the person who is able to commit such torture.
Second, you are right, I would not want to join the torture fest. But what about someone who does? What makes my conception of the world which includes torturing animals as wrong any more correct than his?
How can you possibly agree with torturing a chicken while being aghast at the "nature" of the kid torturing it? That seems extremely contradictory.
As for why torturing a chicken is wrong in the first place, the answer is in your heart. I can't give you a logical, well-reasoned and coherent statement, because logic has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong.
To illustrate my point, let me ask you if you own a pet dog?
A lot of Westerners consider eating dogs to be pretty immoral, and they react in disgust, whereas many Asians don't see the difference between eating dogs vs. eating cows or pork. If morals were about logic and reasoning, eating a hamburger is morally equivalent to butchering your pet dog and eating its flesh. So, what's keeping you from doing that, if you just happen to be hungry one day?
Therefore, morality has nothing to do with logic and reason.
i disagree...morality can be dictated by "happiness" not the happiness you get by partying...i always gotta state that lol. The happiness of a dog is there as well, and you are deriving a little joy at the immense pain of another organism. That is why it's wrong. That is also why we try and "humanely" kill animals. Because we derive benefit from eating it...yet no point in increasing the amount of sadness/pain it experiences. That can very well be the justification that we naturally abide by.
So I think that you're disgusted at both the person and at the act itself. Also, eating dogs is seen as "morally wrong" because people who haven't FRIENDED and had PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS with cows and pigs...so, they see dogs as friends/part of the family, that is what disgusts them. It doesn't need to be purely reasoned out...it's something humans simply do, just like why you would be more offended if somebody insulted your parents than just a random person.
But I do agree with KTao that what is right is right...and attempt to give justification through the total happiness theory.
the "morality" that has been spoken about has been limited to human subjectivity, which would make sense for someone who doesn't believe in God. What is wrong for one person could be completely acceptable for another person. Where is the line drawn? What makes something completely right and another thing completely wrong? Are there absolutes when it comes to morality, or are there just situational ethics? "It depends"...we've all heard that before.
But if there is a God, then He must know what is right and wrong, and what the absolutes are, right? This is because, obviously, He would have created them.
So, I think that we as humans get too caught up in what WE think is right, what kinds of actions are acceptable, and what sorts of behaviors are ethical. But does that matter? If there is a God, shouldn't we just accept that He is almighty and all knowing, can't we accept the limitations of our knowledge and trust that he has it under control?
As someone who believes that God exists, and that He is present and working in my life everyday, I can honestly say that I am content to know that there is someone who does have EVERYTHING figured out and under control; i don't need to know the answers to everything; what use would it be to me anyway?
All this stuff about evolution, circular logic, uncertainty principles, etc: does it really matter in the end? When I die, is the first thing I say to God at the entrance of Heaven going to be "So God, just so I can have peace of mind and just know, did I get created through evolution? Because knowing this would really clear my mind after entering through the pearly gates." Obviously, not.
Think of these hypothetical situations:
Situation #1: There is no God. However, while you were alive, you believed that there was one. What happens when you die? Nothing really; nothing's really affected.
Situation #2: There is a God, and he is alive and working. You believed that while you were alive, and when you die, what happens? You go to Heaven.
Situation #3. There is a God, and he is alive and working. However you didn't believe this while you were alive. what happens when you die?
These are just hypothetical, of course.
In summary, I think that this world is as bad as it gets if you are a believer, but as good as it gets if you're not.
hmm, but what if believing in God decreases your happiness because you are doing stuff that makes Him happy and not you. Therefore, if you believe in him, yet he doesn't exist, you've spent your one lifetime dedicating your time and
effort to something that you were
1.) not rewarded for
2.) made you less happy/free
but why would God have us do something we weren't happy with? If he is God and knows everything, then he must know what is best for us. If i know that what i do pleases God, then it is more than enough reason to be happy!
yup, but it's def harder to concentrate on what God wants than what we want. Therefore, if there is no God (so what atheists think), then they have lost out on making themselves happy instead of God. if God does exist, then you're right...it's for the good.
Post a Comment