I used to be an atheist, until I realized that it was stupid.
Princeton Wordnet defines Atheism as:
the doctrine or belief that there is no god or a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Merriam Webster defines Atheism as:
A disbelief in the existence of [a] deity or the doctrine that there is no deity
(Note: These are 2 very reputable dictionaries, so if you're going to refute the definition of Atheism, you have to find a more reliable source.)
Now that the definitions are out of the way, I can finally get into why it's irrational.
Think about it: the belief that no God(s) exist whatsoever, and denying the possibility of any of them existing, makes no sense. What's ironic is that a lot of hardcore atheists talk condescendingly about people who have blind faith - like atheists are one-up on them. They really aren't.
There's no proof for god. And there's no proof against the existence of it/them. From this, we can draw 3 assumptions:
- We can assume that there is.
- We can assume that there isn't
- We can assume that we don't know
The most realistically correct assumption would be number 3. If we were to assume that there is no God, it would be bad judgment. If we were to assume that there is, it would be equally bad judgment. Since NO judgment is better than BAD judgment, it only makes sense to go with option 3.
I hope I haven't lost you, 'cause I still have to get into why most atheists aren't actually atheists! It's funny because when you ask people what they believe in, they smirk and say "I'm an atheist". Then I ask them why, and they respond by explaining all the reasons why they don't believe in god. What they're doing wrong is that they're not explaining all the reasons why there isn't a god.
So many self-proclaimed atheists aren't actually atheists - they're more likely to be non-theists, secularists, or agnostics.
Next time you run into one, let them know that they probably aren't. People who don't believe in god tend to be very rational people (no, I'm not saying that being spiritual means you aren't rational). Do them a favour and remind them that it might not be the best stance to take, if they truly are reasonable.
Lastly, remember that "The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence" - Dr. Karl Sagan
p.s. my tracker says that at least 70 people are peeping the blog on the regular...but most of you aren't commenting. Quit texting me, messaging me, and bbm-ing me when it's blog-relevant. I'm no longer answering questions/discussing unless it's in the comment section. That's what the damn comment box is for...
Peace,
- knowledge
READ THE MISSION STATEMENT BEFORE COMMENTING:
ReplyDeleteMISSION STATEMENT
I read the mission statement, can I comment now?
ReplyDeleteLOL originally I was feeling a little obnoxious and I was gonna say I told you so about Atheists being stupid but then I realized your probably gonna go and and give me heck for it.
Anyway as you can see you just made a stalker out of me because I comment on just about everything surprise surprise but See I've always been a believer of God,its safe to assume that everyone probably thinks that I'm believing something blindly but i think personal experiences have allowed me to see there has to be a being out there helping me out...
moving on, the bottom line is you can't make people believe what they don't want to believe it's funny because these aetheists fight so much to be heard to be believed and I also find it strange that they challenge everyone's belief in God. Why bother challenging other people's beliefs? It's simple because they have doubts about about what they believe in, there is an instinct inside all of us telling us that something someone out there a greater being created us. Why argue, when you can just silently say well there's no God that's all there is to it. No, they give reasons to justify their point of view meanwhile believers of God or ethereal beings just usually go with the creation of everything. Even scientists can't find out how the bing bang theory came about, and what created it? where the eff did that light come from it has to have come from something, or someone. I'm not confident about a lot of things I believe in but when it comes to the existence of God, nothing will sway me besides I'm almost positive most aethists just hate religion and the practices, rituals and traditions that go with it because they find it doesn't make any sense. Man I'm just ranting on and on and on.. and I'm about to go on about religion so I'm gonna stop here.
my point is, I agree atheism is stupid.
@ Kathy:
ReplyDeleteDo you not see the irony in your post? You're assuming that god exists because your biases & past experiences incline you to believe that it does.
If I prayed to the flying spaghetti monster for it to rain tomorrow, and it did...then does that mean that the flying spaghetti monster exists? If I prayed to the FSM to help me get through rough times, then how would I know that it was because of the FSM that I got through it?
" Even scientists can't find out how the bing bang theory came about, and what created it?"
They have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. It's not that hard to believe that life is completely arbitrary & random. Intelligent design (for god) isn't anymore stronger than an arbitrary fine-tuning of universal constants (against god).
"there is an instinct inside all of us telling us that something someone out there a greater being created us."
Proof?
"I'm almost positive most aethists just hate religion and the practices"
That's a pretty unreasonable assumption. I hate religion(well, more christianity/catholicism), and I'm not an Atheist.
- knowledge
I would like to hear a legitimate atheist's take on this...to be honest i dont think ive ever heard one nor have i ever had the chance to debate this issue with one.
ReplyDeleteIts true- it is highly illogical to be an atheist. EVEN IF you are completely sure there is no god, you can't be sure. that is the nature of the problem. of course, EVEN IF you are completely sure there is a god, you can't be sure. However when you look at the outcomes, worshipping a non-existent god results in nothing but a waste of some time, whereas not worshipping an existent god could result in more disastrous consequences (pascals wager).
Therefore even if you ARE SURE there is no god, and wholeheartedly believe with the very fibre of your existence there isnt one, you should still never consider yourself an atheist, simply because it isnt logical.
Furthermore, its true- most of those smirking "atheists" arent atheists at all. To be atheist would be to deny the existence of a god, even in the face of one. That is, if god came down to an atheist right now and performed miracle after miracle, the atheist, by definition would still say, "nope, you dont exist, gtfo"
no atheist i know would actually be willing to do this.
So Knowledge- your argument here is sound. Ive read it through several times...and tried writing arguments against it, but nothing comes to mind.
"However when you look at the outcomes, worshipping a non-existent god results in nothing but a waste of some time, whereas not worshipping an existent god could result in more disastrous consequences (pascals wager)."
ReplyDeleteMy problem with Pascal's wager is that he assumes that "there's nothing to lose". There is, though. Pascal's wager assumes that it's just as easy to live as if god existed, even if it didn't. They're two completely different lifestyles & IMO, not worth it unless I know for sure that an after-life exists.
What it comes down to is a DEFINITE 80-ish years (assuming that I live that long) of a life well-lived life vs. MAYBE living happily ever after in an after-life that may or may not exist.
The thing about Pascal's wager is that it is not designed to convince "true" atheists as to god's existence, only to give agnostics a better informed choice.
ReplyDelete"What it comes down to is a DEFINITE 80-ish years (assuming that I live that long) of a life well-lived life vs. MAYBE living happily ever after in an after-life that may or may not exist."
This is interesting because you seem to be implying that your choice of lifestyle when there is no god would be one that would not get you into an afterlife if there was a god. By well-lived life i have wonder if you mean a life that would be considered "sinful" by todays religions.
Now what if all god asked of you was to live an ethical and moral life? this is not an unreasonable thing to do regardless of the existence of a higher power- our society functions well when the people involved in it act in good morals and ethics. Knowing this, what would you do? would you still ask for proof before acting ethically, or act ethically regardless, knowing it benefits not only your chances of getting into heaven (or if there is no god- your society).
of course, i would need to know more about what you think you would have to do to get into heaven if there is a god, but look at it this way (and this changes the argument a bit-i apologize):
God is the most supreme and good being (and we presume here this is correct for the sake of the argument)
That which is supremely good cannot, by definition, be flawed
Pride is a flaw
Therefore a god who would demand worship from us is flawed and is not God
Therefore any true god that exists would not ask us to worship him
If you agree with this logic, Knowledge then tell me, how is acting ethically and morally for 80ish years such a waste of time to you? does it not benefit you and your society as a whole to act that way regardless of the potential of an afterlife?
fantasic quote
ReplyDelete-phex
@ Spider:
ReplyDelete"This is interesting because you seem to be implying that your choice of lifestyle when there is no god would be one that would not get you into an afterlife if there was a god."
Not necessarily, BUT in order to discuss the probability of getting into an after-life, we need to go with extremes. If we don't go with extremes then it's just fair to assume that everyone can get into heaven.
"By well-lived life i have wonder if you mean a life that would be considered "sinful" by todays religions."
YES!
I personally find it hard to believe that this kind, forgiving god would deny me into heaven (or Chris Rock for eating pork). But apparently (according to a lot of Catholics), I'm going to hell. How people who do far worse, but claim themselves Catholic are still going to heaven, boggles my mind.
"Now what if all god asked of you was to live an ethical and moral life?"
But where's the line drawn? My logic behind following the bible is that it has to be all-or-nothing. I don't see how you could break a couple of rules, pray for forgiveness, try for a bit, break them again, pray for some more forgiveness, etc. and still land yourself in heaven. It doesn't make sense. Why would a perfect god even allow that? It's like placing rules that you know people are going to break(and offering them no real consequences when they do)...they might as well not be there.
In order to live "ethically & morally" by the Catholic standards, that IS a huge drastic change on lifestyle.
"does it not benefit you and your society as a whole to act that way regardless of the potential of an afterlife?"
I can't say that I legitimately care about the well-being of society in general. I care about friends & family, and I mean that to its fullest extent. I don't have a positive outlook on society - I'm generally pessimistic about it.
"Therefore any true god that exists would not ask us to worship him"
Dammit Salz, Have we talked about the "flaw" before?! I think the exact same thing & I have the most perfect analogy for it (but I'm saving it for a piece that i'm workin' on).
"how is acting ethically and morally for 80ish years such a waste of time to you? does it not benefit you and your society as a whole to act that way regardless of the potential of an afterlife?"
I'm living as ethically & morally as I can(within reason), but not as I could be. I wouldn't be as happy if I lived as ethically & morally as I could be(aka when I was a devout Catholic)...which is why I find it to be a waste of time for me. I don't want to live a life riddled with guilt, reverence, & useless boundaries.
"there is an instinct in all of us ... (too lazy to type here)"
ReplyDeleteproof?
why ask if there is one in the first place? if you look at in a sense that okay, let's say there's absolutely no proof whatsoever God existed, let's say the bible was not made isn't it safer to assume that there is no God? Why then do we keep doubting the theory of no God if clearly there is no proof of God. Yeah yeah your gonna counter that there is no proof that there is no God, but if you think about it the proof is there he doesn't show up we don't see him scientists have continually put whatever religions believe in the back burner with findings and such about where things came from.(including the bigbangtheory but honestly that theory is so sketch) But lets not forget that science may explain many things but a lot of it is based on theory just as we are theorizing here yeah we have proof here and there some concrete some not, still can't explain why people thought of such a thing as God, when clearly, in essence, 'concretely' there's no such thing. that's the instinct I'm talking about and we can all say its the inquisitive instinct in all of us but hey who though of God anyway?
and my assumption about atheists, I said atheists themselves probably disagree with most religious practices and find these to be stupid, I did not mean everyone who hates/disagrees/sees no point, in religious practices are atheists. I just lead to that conclusion because in my observation many of the arguments atheists seem to have against the existence of God is connected to religion. That's all I'm saying besides no hateration on the atheists they can believe what they want. I got my God, no proof required, my proof is all spiritual.
ps. if you did pray to a flying spaghetti monster for rain and it does,then maybe God is a flying spaghetti monster nobody knows what God looks like what if he is a flying spaghetti monster and they did say God is in all of us, that's including flying spaghetti monsters (I'm just joking around here) besides no theory is ever stupid they did think Earth was flat once upon a time and when they suggested its round people ridiculed this idea... so you never know maybe we should be praying to a flying spaghetti monster.
@ Kathy:
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late reply...I've been swamped lately.
"why ask if there is one in the first place?"
Because there doesn't seem to be. There's nothing innately inside of me that tells me that god exists (although it doesn't mean that god doesn't).
"if you think about it the proof is there he doesn't show up we don't see him scientists have continually put whatever religions believe in the back burner with findings and such about where things came from"
You're proving the point of my post. You're assuming that god exists by default, just because there hasn't been proof that god doesn't exist.
"...the bigbangtheory but honestly that theory is so sketch"
Not really. If you ever look into it, it actually makes a lot of sense. It agrees with all the universal constants of physics.
"lets not forget that science may explain many things but a lot of it is based on theory"
Yes, but theory makes a lot more sense than saying "I know god exists because I can feel it in my heart". There are many different definitions of theory, but the correct ones include that it is usually backed with empirical, substantial, and tested evidence. That = more likely than "guessing".
"no theory is ever stupid they did think Earth was flat once upon a time and when they suggested its round people ridiculed this idea"
That was a horrible analogy. People also once thought that universal truth was measured by mass appeal...look how wrong that was.
Peace,
-knowledge
I think this is a neat attempt/discussion. I think the agonostic logic is simple, but does nothing to convince thiests.
ReplyDeleteThe whole basis of monothieism is the existence of a benevolent & onmipotent God. And Thiests are incapable of thought exercises that assume otherwise.
I think all your logic does is validate the existing beliefs of people on the fence and fallen onto the side of agnosticism.
To truly explore the possibilties of no god, many gods or no proof of either, you must expand beyond pure logic and engage in other disciplines such as historical or philosophical.
Examples:
Historical -
Did Joshua really stop the sun so the Isralites could slay the Ammonites in entirety?
Did Moses really part the Red Sea ahead of the pursuing Eyptians?
Is Immaculate conception physically possible? or Ressurection for that matter?
Philosophical - if God is omnipotent, then he must be above the 3rd dimension. (4th dimension being time)
if this is true, then God has no sense of time. He can be in both the past, present and future, all at the same instant.
The ENTIRE basis of Christianity is our ability to chose/accept God.
But when God creates us, he also creates both nature and nuture forces, the ONLY forces that determine what we do.
Therefore, the moment God creates us, he already KNOWS if we will choose faith or otherwise.
Is that really choice? Is that free will? When God creates all the variable that equivocates the equation, and then punishes us for the incorrect answer?
I can go on. But you get the picture.
I think the best possible way to really delve into this is to consult a Priest or someone in the seminary. However, my efforts at the latter have been stone walled. Surprise surprise.
BTW, this is Hatorade from GTAM. Merry Christmas :D just got back from midnight mass...pure BS!
@ Edward:
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response. Glad to see you decided to comment.
I've looked at it hermeneutically and have looked at many passages of the bible in-depth...but at the end of it, nothing's conclusive.
Historically, we can only come to educated guesses. Almost nothing can be completely validated. We can take in the cultural, historical, and literary contexts and still only come out with what probably happened...but that's it.
Philosophically, we still need logic. At the end of all those questions, we can only choose probabilities & likelihoods. I guess we could say that it's still "unknowable" (hence the agnostic stance).
"I think the best possible way to really delve into this is to consult a Priest or someone in the seminary. However, my efforts at the latter have been stone walled. Surprise surprise."
I've had the opportunity to do that. Answers have never been definite, and they seem to be subjective enough to be completely pulled out of their ass. BUT, I did have the pleasure of discussing with the archbishop of Toronto...it happened to be one of the most memorable and worthwhile religious discussions that I've ever had. His answers were actually very well-backed and justified.
- knowledge