Why I Can’t BelieveFiled Under: Atheism, Religion
The question “Why Don’t You Believe?” is often posed to me by most religious people whenever I discuss my rejection of god and religion. They bring up the same tired arguments each time, not realizing that I have (and others) answered them countless times before. But, after answering this question so many times, I have come to the realization that “Why Don’t You Believe” is not the proper question. The better question is, “Why Can’t You Believe?” Now this is a question that deserves more than just a laugh, but an entire article.
Let me start by stating clearly my goal and what exactly I am arguing against. If you read this blog at all, you will know that when I refer to god, I specifically mean the Abarahamic god. I am also not attempting to argue against the existence of god, but rather I am arguing for the improbability of a Abrahamic god. My purpose here is give why I believe an intellectual person cannot be a theist, and more specifically, one who follows an Abrahamic god.
The Scientific Incompatibility
The Scientific Incompatibility is the main reason why I could never believe in a theistic god. Biology has advanced to the point where, Evolution by natural selection is a fact of the Earth’s history (and also a theory). Its quite obvious that Evolution or something awfully similar took place, and is currently taking place as we speak (perhaps at a faster rate than ever before). The fossil record is very good evidence, but the Human Genome Project implies some sort of common ancestry. We know that humans, like every other living species, evolved from common ancestors (either one or multiple), that the process was slow and gradual and due to the amount of time, the improbable became reality. However, Evolution by natural selection only gets rid of a literal reading of the “holy” books. What about the more common, though also wrong, metaphorical reading?
The problem with the metaphorical is slightly different, and I believe it to be an even more bizarre stance. The first issue arises when one considers, which parts are metaphorical and which aren’t? There aren’t any doctrine based or well founded theological reasons to label one passage metaphorical and the next literal. People pick and choose which part they like based on modern sensitivity and common sense, but they do it on very tenuous grounds. The second issue is, if evolution is indeed true there are many complications that arise. Such as, 99.8% of the species that ever existed are already extinct, why such wastefulness? Couldn’t god just cut to the chase and just start humans from the beginning? Why even create the dinosaurs if they were just going to be extinct a few million years later? Why create humans with organs that have no function (appendix)? Why watch the species that are the ancestors to humans die slow painful deaths for hundreds of thousands of years? Why wait 4 billion years to even consider sending down messages to illiterate, delusional fools in the Middle East? I challenge my religious readers who believe in a metaphorical reading of their Holy Book to think of answers for these questions, and when they can’t, think why you can’t, for it is part of the reason I can’t believe.
Those are, of course are just some of the issues with regards to biology and evolution, but there are many more associated with physics and astronomy. For when you reject evolution, you are essentially rejecting the rest of modern science as well. Now, why create so many stars? Why create planets that cannot and will most likely never be suitable for life? Why create physical constants that if shifted ever so slightly can cause the only planet suitable for life to go extinct within seconds? Why create a planet that large portions of it aren’t even able to be lived on naturally, limiting humans even further (the so called prized possessions of god). Why create moons for planets that don’t allow for life? Why create a galaxy that’s heading in our direction and will cause our extinction if it doesn’t happen prior to it? Again, these are just a few unanswerable questions that religious folk must face, yet don’t (and so they remain religious).
Praying
If there were ever a “eureka” moment with regards to my change from a Muslim to an Atheist it was while I was in prayer. As a Muslim it is considered required after the age of 16 that a person begin reading the daily five prayers. These prayers consist of constantly reminding god how good, merciful and awesome in general it is. You get a chance at the end to ask for something you want, so it is not entirely about god. To me, this kind of activity is fit for a slave or a serf. Anyone who would willingly restrict their schedule by adding these five daily annoyances simply is a servile fool. With 1.4 billion Muslims, I don’t see how these people actually think “Allah” cares about each and every one of their insignificant wishes. Also, why does god need praise five times a day? Is god a bit hard on hearing and the repetition allows him to know for sure which ones are his followers? I will go one step further, god or Allah are deaf. For there is surely no god listening to the prayers of their faithful, yet servile flock.
That of course is targeted largely at Islam but the same is true about the other religions and their prayer schedules. The Jews pick Friday and Christians pick the day of Sunday (god’s day off apparently) to get together and pray. I could think of many constructive things to do on a Sunday, and none of them involve getting down on my knees at a Church, Synagogue or Mosque. Also, I am skeptical of any god which requires its followers to constantly repeat some sort of chant of praise. Shouldn’t a persons actions during their life act as the only criteria for judgment?
The Number of Different Religions
Most religions make incompatible claims with each other. They don’t say, you can be a part Muslim and part Christian, or sometimes believe in Jesus and sometimes believe in Odin. Rather, they say, you must believe (fill in dogma or nonsense) and that’s final. This means, your concepts of morality and the cosmos are being controlled merely by the accident of your birthplace. If I were born to Christian parents, I might be a Christian, but why does that mean Jesus is more likely than Odin? The same question can be posed to every religious person. What is so special about their religion, and their place of birth that ONLY it gets to decide which is truth and which are lies. Another reason why this is interesting is because I have noted that Muslims argue against Christianity with usually the same reasons that I argue against both. What I don’t understand is why they don’t apply this same thinking to their religions, why do they think their religion is any different just because it was the religion of their parents or community.
With regards to reality, it doesn’t work like this “geographical belief set” that religions have put forth. Either evolution is true or it isn’t, and it makes no difference if you’re in Canada or India. The same should be true about a creator, either it exists or it does not, there really is little middle ground on this matter. So if one of these gods actually does exist, surely it is not something that changes due to your lattitude and longitude.
Justice (or lack there of)
Every second, someone in the world is committing a crime. Every few seconds a child dies of starvation. Murderers walk free, and mass murderers are praised and elected as leaders of nations. The poor suffer and are never able to create a better living for themselves, yet the rich dominate the world and spend more in a day than most make in a year (or even a decade). The gap between the rich and poor only grows, and the pain of poverty remains strong. We have rigged elections and criminals roaming the streets, ready to rape, murder and steal at any moment. Natural disasters kill innocent people, and wars kill even more. What kind of cruel creator would allow such injustice? Surely not a just or loving one.
Suppression of Women
The religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are truly man-made. Not just in the sense that it was humans that created them, but men in specific. In Judaism, one needs to only read the Torah to see the hatred of women, as the inferior sex. For Eve is born out a “bent rib” from Adam. She is created for the benefit and pleasure of Adam. It is she, who is more likely to be tempted and thus Satan targets her first. All of that bigotry without even leaving the book of Genesis. Leviticus also highlights the difference between male and female, for a woman who gives birth to a girl is twice as dirty as a woman who gives birth to a boy. With Christianity, why can’t Christ be born through the normal processes that a woman goes through? Islam has an even more intense hatred of women. Women can’t even look a man in the eye who isn’t part of their family. A woman is suppose to be covered from head to toe, and veiling her beauty because it can cause “temptation.” Oddly enough these religions think they are giving respect to women, when all they do is lay the groundwork for sexism and the hatred of women.
Faith
I define faith as, “belief without material evidence.” That is a concept that I will never, and never can agree with. How can one believe in anything without evidence? Why believe in the first place, why not just take a “neutral” or “undecided” stance instead? Some would counter with Pascal’s Wager, but how would one know which god to pray to? Personally, I believe things not because I would like for them to be true, or because they are comforting, but because there is good evidence. If the evidence is pending or just not very good, then one should just accept that more research needs to be done and leave it at that. The rejection of faith is the fundamental core belief of any free thinker, and thus it is the basis of my atheism.
Tags: anti-theism, Atheism, christian, christianity, god, islam, jew, judaism, muslim, praying, Religion, women
- Permalink
- Moiz Khan
- 17 Aug 2008 12:05 PM
- Comments (43)
Subscribe in a reader
August 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Religion: 0
Moiz Khan: 6
Brilliant article that poses a load of interesting questions for believers.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
If this doesn’t convince you that there is no god, then you just aren’t willing to think about it.
The most crucial paragraph that every casual believer must read is the second in “Scientific Incompatibility” which talks about taking a metaphorical stance.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
This is so well done — it almost brings me to tears. Thank you.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:59 am
This is a nice, clear explanation for not believing, thank you. I thought the Jewish Shabbat was on Saturday, though.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Islam means surrender to the will of Allah. Therefore, Islam is slavery to the will of Allah, or those who would put words in his mouth. So with what you said above, yes it is something a slave would do. A slave such as a Muslim.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Sami - Yes, but Islam is not much different from Christianity and Judaism in that regard. Both consider themselves to be sheep, and thus slaves. Islam does it right within the name.
And thanks everyone for the positive response!
August 26th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
[...] by hang2gether on August 26th, 2008 Moiz has already done a splendid job of outlining exactly why he cannot believe. It would be superfluous of me to write a similar article here, so instead I will discuss what it [...]
September 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
[...] [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
One of the main reasons I quit religion is the idea that the members of other faiths, Islam, Judaism, etc, all believe exactly as strongly as I did the opposite: that they are right and I am wrong. The only evidence either of us have is an ancient book and take the rest on faith. That single-handedly shattered religion for me. We couldn’t all be right, and there’s just as much reason for them to be right as there is for me.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I always thought Pascal’s Wager was a joke. It would be really hard to comply with all the religions of the world “just in case”, especially when they conflict with each other.
Your article is short and clear, and captures the heart of atheism very well. But criticism of the scriptures isn’t really necessary, as theology today is so convoluted and diverse between different groups, you’ll always find some that give leeway in some direction, so why not make an Anti-Pascal’s Wager?
Take all the things in the religions of the world that don’t imply the existence of god(s) or the supernatural and go by that.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
The tendency of the universe to twist & spin matter into structures, from galactic superclusters to aardvarks and ultimately beings capable of self-conciousness, coupled with the fractal space-time expansion engine which drives the whole thing, suggests a level of organisation greater than we are capable of comprehending, like an ant walking across an encyclopedia.
To take the position “It cannot exist because I cannot understand it” is not rational.
The belief in a ‘bootstrapping’ universe, something from nothing..the Big Bang is an act of faith. To explain that there is no time before the the beginning of time requires the same suspension of disbelief as “In the beginning was God”
A phase transition requires a previous phase. Intersecting multi-dimensional universes only knock the question back one iteration as does the God hypothesis.
Whilst a God could not have created the universe, he/she/it could still have formed during the early stages of the creation event. Even before transparent space arose, when everything was ’still touching’.
The pattern for our conciousness & its relationship to the interconnectedness of everything may well have formed that early.
‘Gods’ could have evolved long before galaxies & wet life. It is unlikely that they would require faith or sacrifice from us to get them through the day though.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Great article. Your a very good writer, but I noticed a bit of a flaw: You compare Buddha to Jesus. They were both prophets of sorts, but had thier major differences. First off, there was more then one Buddha, as it is a title, not a specific person. A Buddha is someone who has reached enlightenment or nirvana, and there have been a few, usually cultural leaders, most of them well documented in their lives and teachings. It’s be more fitting to compare Jesus to Nirvana then to
Buddha.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
May god have mercy on your soul!
September 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
You raise some good points, especially on Scientific Incompability, and the justice issue is to me the great issue with religions that deals with one or more personalized gods, like Christianity or Islam, but I have some issues with several of your other points here.
First off, on the different religions point. You say it “In science, it doesn’t work like this “geographical belief set” that religions have.” which is quite wrong. There are different theories to phenomena in science, and your belief will be affected by the university you studied at, on who your teacher is. You’ll find scientists that believe in the superstring theory, and some that don’t, to mention one example. That there are many different religions don’t make all of them untrue. And in fact, the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam, plus Judaism, worships in principle the same God, though they have different views on some key aspects like the Messiah and Muhammed and so forth.
And in your paragraph on suppression of women, you had an issue with the virgin Mary, which shows you don’t clearly understand that part of Christian mythology. The point isn’t that Jesus was God’s son because he was born by a virgin out of any sexuality issues. The point is that it was God himself who impregnated Mary, no sex was needed. In theory, it wouldn’t be a great issue if she wasn’t a virgin when God gave her a child, but that she was a virgin makes it such a greater miracle! It has nothing to do with feminism, you could just as well have turned it around and said why was the man excluded from this holy act? Why was only a woman, and no man involved in the coming of Messiah? If it was about the woman sexuality, why would the Bible mention that Jesus had brothers, that we must assume were conceived through normal sexual acts?
Lastly about you saying “I personally make no leap of faith whatsoever.”, I hardly believe that. Atheism is a faith, just as you need to have faith in religions, out from your definition, you need to have faith that the Universe just came to be from nothing, and that there is nothing out there. You can’t prove that there is no God with material evidence, just as you can’t that there is no God with material evidence. Evolution in no way disprove any spiritual being, all it disprove is a literal reading of the Bible.
I just want to say as a last word that I am not Christian, nor do I belong to any other religion out there. I am an agnostic.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Very Intelligent and well put together points. I am truly impressed. I could try and argue your questions, but they are well developed and you seem to be committed to them, so instead I’ll ask you a few questions of my own. Why should you care what others think? What meaning is there for your life? Without God is there a point to your existence? Please email me with your answers, if you think its worth your time. I’d love to discuss this with you.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
A correction to my comment, I meant “You can’t prove that there IS a God with material evidence, just as you can’t that there is no God with material evidence.”
September 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
THANK YOU JESUS
someone on the internets finally makes sense
September 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Actually, this argument is particularly shallow. I have philosopher friends whom aren’t even atheist give me a better arguments. I, myself, find it amusing to pick this apart, mostly because it’s so facile.
My favorite is the first, “strongest,” argument, the “Scientific Incompatibility.” Nowhere in this is any real argument against God. This argument is partly what has religious folks up in arms against Evolution, because it somehow “proves” that God doesn’t exist. How? Where in evolution does it say, “over millions and millions of years, countless mutations occurred that eventually resulted in all the living organisms that we have today on this planet. Thus, there is no God.” Ridiculous. That’s what is called the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, where the conclusion doesn’t follow the argument. I cannot easily jump from Evolution is true to there is no God. In anyone’s mind, one should be asking, how are the two contrary? How are they related? No actual connection between the two is even established in this argument, so it would be easy to stop at that. But, it’s much more fun to continue.
Another enjoyable part is the assumption that God created the universe in order for humans to exist. The author obviously buys into the argument while attacking it at the same time. Obviously, there is no God, because if there were a God, we’d be the most important of God’s creations. Why would an omnipotent God not just create humans immediately, if we were so important? Why bother with anything else in the entire universe because, frankly, nothing else besides us matters. While this argument might be useful in debunking religion, it’s quite useless to disproving God. The answer to the question is painfully obvious, and quite damning to both the religious and to the author of this sham; we are not the most important. Even if we were the ultimate expression of God’s will, why does God need to do things immediately and instantly? Because it makes more sense to you that, if you were omnipotent, you’d immediately do whatever you wanted? You completely ignore two of the three main traits of God when you make such an argument (google it). One could even answer the question with a Cartesian Demon if one wanted to, but I think my answer is sufficient. If you’re going to disprove God, you should at least understand what you’re talking about.
Unfortunately the fun part has ended. Now I get to quickly and easily debunk the rest.
Prayer
This is essentially the same argument. The argument assumes that God and religion are identical, which he does consistently throughout his argument. If prayer doesn’t work, God doesn’t exist. Or, prayer is distasteful to the author; therefore God mustn’t exist. Both aren’t even arguments. The author describes what makes prayer distasteful, and yeah, he argues that well. Does it disprove God? No. It does make a compelling argument for why the author doesn’t like prayer. I can make a pretty compelling argument for why I don’t like peaches, but I have the humility not to then conclude that it disproves God.
The Multitudes of Religion
Again, the argument assumes that God and religion are identical. They aren’t. And every religion will tell you that their way is the right one. You haven’t blasted a hole in every religion, you’ve just pointed out something that is painfully obvious to anyone who took an Ethics 101 course.
Injustice and the Suppression of Women
This is just the problem of evil revisited (google it). While interesting, this argument has been rehashed so much that it’s almost not worth my time. The answer is one of the above: God doesn’t care, God has a plan, or God doesn’t exist. Since you can prove none of these, and I can prove none of these, you seem to be taking your answer on faith, which brings me to my next point: Atheism is, in of itself, faith.
You have, entirely, failed to disprove God. You have no material evidence that God doesn’t exist. Hell you don’t have any logical reasons. One might go so far as to say that you lack logic entirely. So, all you have left to support your belief is faith. Good luck with that.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Ignoring the above anon’s holier than thou attitude, he makes some good points and fails to see one or two of yours.
First off, I think that arguing against a religion is very similar to arguing against a god, as the two go hand in hand. If something is faulty within a religion, that says something about the credibility of their god.
Saying that evolution happens thus there is no god is a bit a stretch, yes, but it does defy the holy scriptures. If the Bible is wrong about some stuff, who’s to say that it isn’t wrong about everything?
September 19th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Anonymous, climb down from your tower of intellectual superiority for a minute.
While the article has its flaws, it wasn’t about disproving god, it was about why the author can’t bring himself to believe in religion or god, which boils down to the myriad of inconsistencies he lists.
Even one such inconsistency would be enough to cause a scientific theory to be rejected, but a large number are tolerated in all systems of religions.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:58 am
The point is not about praying or listening to some religion - religions are the way to help people find the right path and to make the world better, but sadly they are constantly misinterpreted.
Many scientists are religious people. And I personally understand atheism as a shortsighted opinion. I didn’t believe at first too, but I got this “eureka” moment when I started learning physics, and especially quantum physics and I didn’t have to experience or see anything supernatural to start believing. I just know that there is God who created everything we have now, even if it was only this infinitely small though infinitely heavy spot in the universe, which later exploded and caused the “Big Bang”. Everything HAS the beginning. Except the beginning cannot have a beginning.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Me, I would say the article is deeply flawed and absolutely unpersuasive. You are right to say Anon is living in a tower, but I think his response is somewhat justified as the blog author claims to have “crushed” others. Either the author debates with the uneducated all day long for an ego boost or he is living in a tower himself, because his reasons are hardly crushing and do not deserve the myriad of accolades he received.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I’m sorry, but I will never believe that arguing against one thing, say thing A, is the same as arguing against another, say thing B.
That’s a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies ALWAYS invalidate an argument.
You’re right, the author does argue against religion, not exceptionally well, but markedly better than he argues against God. But atheism is primarily about the nonexistence of God. Any and all atheists can and should try and refute religion. But, they still must answer to the possibility that God exists independent of it. If you don’t, then you really aren’t trying. I mean, obviously, if God exists as long as the world existed, then, for some period of time, God existed without religion. Now, there’s something interesting.
Besides, the article is riddled with flaws, as I pointed out. The author either has no concept of logic or argumentation, or he doesn’t care enough.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Also, if the article is just about the author’s personal reasons for not believing in God, then why all do the rest of us care? If the author sets his standards so low, that doesn’t mean we should.
I have my personal reasons for not eating red meat, but I don’t blog about them saying that they are the end all be all argument against red meat. They persuade me and that’s enough. (Also, you can imagine, my reasons are much more logical).
September 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
@dR dMO:
Whilst a God could not have created the universe, he/she/it could still have formed during the early stages of the creation event. Even before transparent space arose, when everything was ’still touching’.
I wouldn’t call those gods. That wouldn’t be the god that I am talking about…the god I am referring is to the theistic concept of god.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
@vrek
Great article. Your a very good writer, but I noticed a bit of a flaw: You compare Buddha to Jesus. They were both prophets of sorts, but had thier major differences. First off, there was more then one Buddha, as it is a title, not a specific person. A Buddha is someone who has reached enlightenment or nirvana, and there have been a few, usually cultural leaders, most of them well documented in their lives and teachings. It’s be more fitting to compare Jesus to Nirvana then to
Buddha.
Good point, I will probably refine that section soon.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
@Sheik
First off, on the different religions point. You say it “In science, it doesn’t work like this “geographical belief set” that religions have.” which is quite wrong. There are different theories to phenomena in science, and your belief will be affected by the university you studied at, on who your teacher is. You’ll find scientists that believe in the superstring theory, and some that don’t, to mention one example. That there are many different religions don’t make all of them untrue. And in fact, the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam, plus Judaism, worships in principle the same God, though they have different views on some key aspects like the Messiah and Muhammed and so forth.
Perhaps, but certainly not NEARLY to the same extent. And I think you would agree on that?
And in your paragraph on suppression of women, you had an issue with the virgin Mary, which shows you don’t clearly understand that part of Christian mythology. The point isn’t that Jesus was God’s son because he was born by a virgin out of any sexuality issues. The point is that it was God himself who impregnated Mary, no sex was needed. In theory, it wouldn’t be a great issue if she wasn’t a virgin when God gave her a child, but that she was a virgin makes it such a greater miracle! It has nothing to do with feminism, you could just as well have turned it around and said why was the man excluded from this holy act? Why was only a woman, and no man involved in the coming of Messiah? If it was about the woman sexuality, why would the Bible mention that Jesus had brothers, that we must assume were conceived through normal sexual acts?
I think this is up to interpretation. Mainly because, it would seem while your points are true, that it doesn’t necessarily invalidate mine. Many people have interpreted as, Mary was pure and that is why she was chosen to have Jesus. My issue is with the concept of purity…but I can certainly understand the disagreement.
Lastly about you saying “I personally make no leap of faith whatsoever.”, I hardly believe that. Atheism is a faith, just as you need to have faith in religions, out from your definition, you need to have faith that the Universe just came to be from nothing, and that there is nothing out there. You can’t prove that there is no God with material evidence, just as you can’t that there is no God with material evidence. Evolution in no way disprove any spiritual being, all it disprove is a literal reading of the Bible.
I think we don’t really disagree here. I accept that the metaphorical reading isn’t disproven by evolution. Rather, evolution makes the metaphorical reading very silly, as it opens the flood gates to many questions which are essentially unanswerable.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Very Intelligent and well put together points. I am truly impressed. I could try and argue your questions, but they are well developed and you seem to be committed to them, so instead I’ll ask you a few questions of my own. Why should you care what others think? What meaning is there for your life? Without God is there a point to your existence? Please email me with your answers, if you think its worth your time. I’d love to discuss this with you.
Unfortunately you didn’t leave an EMAIL address, so I will just respond here.
The reason why I care what others believe is because their beliefs effect their actions, and their actions are what effect me. If someone holds a private belief and doesn’t really care whether or not its wrong…just that it makes them feel better. Well I don’t really object. But unfortunately, people don’t their beleifs to themselves.
The meaning of my life is set by myself, I think personally a great purpose of life is raising awareness and attempting to educate others. That however is just me, and others can disagree, but this is what I consider a subjective matter. I think this also answers the point to existence.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
My favorite is the first, “strongest,” argument, the “Scientific Incompatibility.” Nowhere in this is any real argument against God. This argument is partly what has religious folks up in arms against Evolution, because it somehow “proves” that God doesn’t exist. How? Where in evolution does it say, “over millions and millions of years, countless mutations occurred that eventually resulted in all the living organisms that we have today on this planet. Thus, there is no God.” Ridiculous. That’s what is called the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, where the conclusion doesn’t follow the argument. I cannot easily jump from Evolution is true to there is no God. In anyone’s mind, one should be asking, how are the two contrary? How are they related? No actual connection between the two is even established in this argument, so it would be easy to stop at that. But, it’s much more fun to continue.
I am not sure if you are reading the same article I am. But just in case you are…
I never set out to disprove god. The reason for that is simple. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Its actually a logical fallacy. And considering the kind of mental ju-jitsu believers do to cling on to their belief in god, they easily counter my points with things such as faith and the immaterial nature of god. god is simply not a falsifiable claim…
However, organized religion as put foward to their holy books make claims that can be falsified, and that is what I am attacking. Not god, for that would define futility.
And, I am also speaking about a theistic god only…not the deistic.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Another enjoyable part is the assumption that God created the universe in order for humans to exist. The author obviously buys into the argument while attacking it at the same time. Obviously, there is no God, because if there were a God, we’d be the most important of God’s creations. Why would an omnipotent God not just create humans immediately, if we were so important? Why bother with anything else in the entire universe because, frankly, nothing else besides us matters. While this argument might be useful in debunking religion, it’s quite useless to disproving God. The answer to the question is painfully obvious, and quite damning to both the religious and to the author of this sham; we are not the most important. Even if we were the ultimate expression of God’s will, why does God need to do things immediately and instantly? Because it makes more sense to you that, if you were omnipotent, you’d immediately do whatever you wanted? You completely ignore two of the three main traits of God when you make such an argument (google it). One could even answer the question with a Cartesian Demon if one wanted to, but I think my answer is sufficient. If you’re going to disprove God, you should at least understand what you’re talking about.
Again, I am not trying to disprove god. That is simply not my purpose. I am addressing the Abrahamic god mainly, with a couple shots at some other theistic gods/philosophies. You are arguing against a point I did not make…and so most of this your comments seem to be white noise.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
This is essentially the same argument. The argument assumes that God and religion are identical, which he does consistently throughout his argument. If prayer doesn’t work, God doesn’t exist. Or, prayer is distasteful to the author; therefore God mustn’t exist. Both aren’t even arguments. The author describes what makes prayer distasteful, and yeah, he argues that well. Does it disprove God? No. It does make a compelling argument for why the author doesn’t like prayer. I can make a pretty compelling argument for why I don’t like peaches, but I have the humility not to then conclude that it disproves God.
Again with this disproving god stuff…I don’t think you got the point of this article bud. I am going against theism and particullarly the Abrahamic god.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The rest of the comments don’t interest me too much to really forumlate a reply.
But, again…my goal with this article is NOT to disprove god. It is utterly impossible to do that. My point is provide reasons why following a theistic god, (Abrahamic) is not an intellectual stance.
—-
Also, thanks to everyone who responded with praise, I truly appreciate it.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Really this coincidence of words in no way deserves praise. Your argument isn’t sound, isn’t valid, presents varied problems with language (don’t, can’t) and is about as unreasoned as a dogmatic doctrine your “say” you are “arguing” against.
Your original post says you can’t believe in the supernatural, then your replies say you can’t believe in religion.
What am I to take as supernatural? You mention God quite a bit. Surely you don’t mean religion is supernatural. I’ve been to plenty of services and each one of them took place in space time, not one of them was supernatural.
So you’re attacking religions belief in God? Wait a minute, that’s back to your original post, why I can’t believe in the supernatural.
People call that hypocrisy.
And, really look into your use of the word Cannot. It’s about as destructive to your argument as the numerous fallacies anonymous pointed out.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
So, when you say that you reject God and religion, you really only mean religion, because atheists don’t actually reject God, they just reject religion.
When you say you can “never believe in something supernatural” you aren’t referring to God? You are referring to the very natural phenomena of religion?
When you talk about God creating all the stars and planets and having a direct role in the creation of the world and all the myriad species that lived and died until we came along, you aren’t disputing that God actually did these things, you’re disputing only the religious accounts of this (specifically, the Judeo-Christian accounts, which, by the by, don’t actually include God creating the myriad species that came before us and may not actually include the rest of the entire universe.)
When you reference God directly, you don’t actually mean God, you mean religion? (By the by, Deism is the belief in a theistic God.)
That’s not very clear, is it? It seems to me that God shows up in your argument a lot. And, one can easily assume, as an atheist, one who believes that there is no deity, that your argument must include God.
If you entitled your article, “Why I Think Religions Suck” I probably would have been all aboard. I mean, it still wouldn’t have been a remarkable argument, since it doesn’t even take into account the incredible acts of mercy and charity religions are capable of, nor the culture contributions or the amount of consolation that it has doubtlessly given people over the many, many years (again, by the by, most arguments will at least pay lip service to any counter-argument). Hell, I don’t think religions are all that cool. But I also don’t think that incredibly shallow, illogical thinking should go completely unchallenged. Clarity of what you are arguing against is important to an argument, otherwise, your argument isn’t a very good one. Which is the true meaning of my post.
So, you don’t like religion because it’s inconsistent with science? What a remarkable revelation! You truly deserve your accolades. You’ve really “crushed” all religions to dust. Yup, subject over. Actually, weak soup man, weak soup.
Oh wait, I’m sorry, you also don’t like religions because there’s too many varieties and they’re traditionally unjust to women. Also, you don’t like prayer because it’s too subservient. Wow, that’s just a laundry list of why YOU don’t like religion. Its hardly amazing fare, and it’s hardly an argument. And, you need to actually specifically define which religions you are up against. There are, in fact, religions that empower women, who believe in Evolution, and believe in personal power over the power of prayer. Yeah, you mention later that you’re up against Judeo-Christianity, but it’s a little late now. You didn’t mention that in your original article, so how was anyone supposed to know?
The point is to have well reasoned and well articulated arguments. Otherwise, you have nothing and you should expect people to challenge you like I have.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:46 am
So after some research, Anon is actually someone who in 2000 supported some fellow by the name of Harry Browne because he would legalize drugs.
Anonymous on the other hand is someone who enjoyed a book called psychic defense…and has apparently seen some really “extraordinary things.”
I suppose I’ll leave it at that until I actually feel compelled to respond to arguments that I have already addressed…ugh.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Moiz Khan, you have not addressed Anonymous’ arguments adequately. By steeping down to petty ad hominem attacks you are just losing this debate.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I generally assume that those who read my blogs know a bit about what I am talking about (the entire point of a blog)…I have always been arguing against an Abrahamic god, and this is simply general knowledge.
“When you say you can “never believe in something supernatural” you aren’t referring to God? You are referring to the very natural phenomena of religion?”
Both, and this entire article is geared against the Abarahmic god…
“When you reference God directly, you don’t actually mean God, you mean religion?”
Look where I used the word god, and you’ll see what I mean.
“That’s not very clear, is it? It seems to me that God shows up in your argument a lot. And, one can easily assume, as an atheist, one who believes that there is no deity, that your argument must include God.”
As Hitchens once said…”What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” The atheist does not need to provide an argument against god…it is the believers job to provide an argument for god.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
First off, I am not a member of any religion…I was baptized catholic, but abandoned that
when I was 13 or so for many of the same reasons you describe here. I was more or less
aetheistic for the next 20 years or so. Through a series of crisis in my life over the next
10 years or so, I realized that I didn’t like living with myself as the top of the food
chain. I thought long and hard about it, and realized that I truely felt that there was
something unexplainable in the universe, something that semm to interact with my thoughts,
something very basic and good that dwelled in my inner being that could not be denied,
something I needed to communicate with, and have in my life. I decided I would leave it at
that, a very basic, non-descript spiritualism that I carried with me on my journey through
life. that was personnel, unique and purposely vague. Well, I’m 58 now, and I have not
really added too much to my perception of what may lie beyond ourselves, but the feeling
that there is something has grown. The closest I guess you could compare it too was the way
native Americans thought of there world, a deep respect for the natural world, and in truth.
This was called the great spirit, and they saw it all around their lives. I would say to
you, not to confuse religion and spirituality. I too have no use for any organized religion
and their blatant hypocrisy and bigotry , and feel that they are the biggest reason for the
suffering and strife in the world. I see the Great Spirit in the eyes of those who live by
truth and the golden rule, which is ” do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
This if the only rule in my belief system, and I truly feel that if the human race simply
abided by these words, what a different world this would be. I also feel that we all carry
the great spirit within ourselves, whatever you want to call it, be it a conscious, great
spirit, or whatever, as well as an evil presence, a perverto of truth that thrives on lies,
suffering. The greatest accomplishment is to have man do its bidding while believing they
are doing “Gods work” You don’t need to look very far to see those who fit this mold, thats
for sure. Think about it, keep it very simple, and remember the Golden Rule, and see what
happens.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Freddie,
I think we are more alike than we are different. I too live by the “golden rule” with only a slight modification…
“Would I really want to live in a society where people did (insert action)”
I personally use that as my moral compass and probably the basis of most of my actions.
I think I also agree that there is “something more”…I just wouldn’t personally call it a spirit (because of the connotations of the word).
September 21st, 2008 at 12:11 am
I agree, and when I first started to swing off the road of strict atheism, finding a word to refer to whatever it was I was sensing was also a sticking point for me, because I too did not want to fall into using words, concepts, or dogmas that represented everything that was repulsive to me in the various religions. The only reason I sometimes use it to relate my conception of the unseen (but not unfelt), is that I like the way the native Americans incorporated nature, and the earth itself to their everyday life.The Creator, which is another term they use, when used in an open-ended and non-specific way, can come to refer to whatever consciousness exists. I do think that whatever it is I sense, is likely responsible for all we see, because I find it hard to believe things like the human body, just randomly evolved. It seems so much the product of a very advanced mind that has created an electro-chemical biological living machine so to speak, much the same as we have now entered the realm of computers, nano machines and the like, but extended much further to include living matter, including the plant species. Now, this could even include some sort of advanced beings that have obtained this level of technology. And I also think it is possible that the concept of “prayer” could somehow be a form of telepathy that may allow us to communicate through deep meditation.But these are musings, not dogmas, and therein lies the difference. I am not about to start recruiting souls to form a homogeneous mindset of ignorant and arrogant ravings.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
I believe in Wonder Woman. She is the daughter of Aphrodite. She was sent by the Amazons to the earth as an ambassador of justice, but man rejected her, hung her by her own lasso - but she arose three days later and flew to heaven in her invisible jet.
Pray all to the Mighty WW.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Very well written, impressive.
http://musecrafters.com/beyondtheborder/
November 6th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Like the previous commenter said, very well written. =)