Just because a person doesn't believe in God, that doesn't mean that they are a freethinker. And I don't think a believer in God is any less "free" (at least as long as they have the option to be an atheist). I have come across many close-minded atheists and many close-minded believers. The reality is that those people that label themselves as a 'freethinker' are probably not all that original with their thinking. In fact the vast majority of ideas are not original (i.e. we got them from someone else). Atheist or not, we can only work with the knowledge that we possess. And the foundation of our knowledge comes from the experience of being exposed to the ideas of others. I don't believe an atheist is any more "free" than a believer, they simply have a different set of ideas that they find to be believable. Believers are exposed to a lot of the same information that atheists are exposed to (same education and media resources), they simply choose to stick with belief as oppose to going to atheism. This doesn't make them any less "free". Those that believe that they are freethinkers are probably just as much of a sheep as a believer (different herder). Being an atheist only means that you don't believe in a god, and that is where it ends (atheism is not connected with political affiliation or science).
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
fear of atheism vs. benefit of belief (warning: may be ranty)
Many people fear atheism. Is it justified? Do atheists pose any sort of threat (or rather atheism's effect on people)? In the spirit of being objective, I am going to entertain this assertion. Being that atheism is a non-belief in God (or any other god), what must be looked at is the effect the belief in God has on an individual.
What a church does is load all of its highest moral views onto God (the word and its meanings). Then it tells people to believe in God or else! Most people are not leaders, they are followers, this is not a bad thing. The Christian churches often use the sheep and herder metaphor to describe the relationship with their followers. And atheists have been referred to as cats when it comes to having them follow along. But again, is this such a bad thing? Having everyone think for themselves instead of following the intellectual elite is overrated in my opinion. Such a thing leads many atheists to stupid ideas like moral-relativism, and television shows like Jersey Shore (people often do not know what's best for them).
Random thought: If you think moral relativism is true, use the search bar at the top of the page and type in 'moral-relativism' to see my views on the subject (I've written quite a few blog posts about it).
As I have stated before, I am an atheist that believes in belief--but not just any belief. I believe the majority of people (90% or more) are not intelligent enough to piece together their own moral code. Religion is a morality for dummies. But unfortunately, most religions are very outdated, and better and/or updated religions need to come about. Religion tells a person how they should behave without going into the details, and most people are not smart enough to understand the details anyways.
While I do debate for the atheist position on this blog, I do hope that religion is able to adapt to the changing times, and is able to thrive again. While religion isn't true, that doesn't mean its influences are bad and that it doesn't serve a purpose.
What a church does is load all of its highest moral views onto God (the word and its meanings). Then it tells people to believe in God or else! Most people are not leaders, they are followers, this is not a bad thing. The Christian churches often use the sheep and herder metaphor to describe the relationship with their followers. And atheists have been referred to as cats when it comes to having them follow along. But again, is this such a bad thing? Having everyone think for themselves instead of following the intellectual elite is overrated in my opinion. Such a thing leads many atheists to stupid ideas like moral-relativism, and television shows like Jersey Shore (people often do not know what's best for them).
Random thought: If you think moral relativism is true, use the search bar at the top of the page and type in 'moral-relativism' to see my views on the subject (I've written quite a few blog posts about it).
As I have stated before, I am an atheist that believes in belief--but not just any belief. I believe the majority of people (90% or more) are not intelligent enough to piece together their own moral code. Religion is a morality for dummies. But unfortunately, most religions are very outdated, and better and/or updated religions need to come about. Religion tells a person how they should behave without going into the details, and most people are not smart enough to understand the details anyways.
While I do debate for the atheist position on this blog, I do hope that religion is able to adapt to the changing times, and is able to thrive again. While religion isn't true, that doesn't mean its influences are bad and that it doesn't serve a purpose.
Vegetarians overthink their food.
By SunfishDish1_2.jpg: M.J. Klein derivative work: IdLoveOne (SunfishDish1_2.jpg) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
Many atheists are vegetarians (many =/= a majority), not because the position is logical, but because atheists are more likely to overthink (especially if they came to atheism by themselves, and were surrounded by religion). I would argue that overthinking can sometimes be a bad thing (like in the case of food)
Is this a poor argument against vegetarianism? I don't believe so. Vegetarians, when confronted with the idea of eating meat, are disgusted. But the problem is not with the meat itself, but the idea of where the meat came from. Many vegetarians eat meat-substitutes (which actually taste kind of like meat, but not nearly close enough for my taste buds); so the actual taste of the meat is typically not the problem, but the idea of where the meat came from. Vegetarians claim that they don't like to eat food that causes the death of other animals. What they fail to realize is that many many insects, mice, fish (from pollution caused by farming), among many other animals die from the harvesting of plant foods on a large scale. The only way I suppose to avoid the killing of animals is for a person to grow their own food in a sealed off environment (to make sure no bugs get stepped on or kill plants).
What it all boils down to is that vegetarians have been "influenced" (nicer way of saying 'brainwashed') by vegetarian activists. When a vegetarian thinks of meat, chances are that images that were instilled into their memory by slimy ideology-pushing vegetarians. I say slimy because they lack respect for others, exaggerate their claims, outright lie, and are very manipulative. And who do these activists target? The most impressionable people they can find (kids and young adults).
Random thought: A vegetarian is like a person that hates babies because the thought of where they come from disgust them.
When a vegetarian is confronted with the idea of eating meat, their IMAGINATIONS automatically turn to images of a slaughter house. When I eat meat, I'm thinking about the delicious taste of it—vegetarians are overthinking their food. Besides, eating material that has come from a living animal in the past is virtually impossible. Where do vegetarians think animals go when they die? They get turned into soil. It's the cycle of life, or as I like to think of it, the cycle of matter. Animals do not own the matter that makes up their bodies, and in time we all must give back to the soil.
Is this a poor argument against vegetarianism? I don't believe so. Vegetarians, when confronted with the idea of eating meat, are disgusted. But the problem is not with the meat itself, but the idea of where the meat came from. Many vegetarians eat meat-substitutes (which actually taste kind of like meat, but not nearly close enough for my taste buds); so the actual taste of the meat is typically not the problem, but the idea of where the meat came from. Vegetarians claim that they don't like to eat food that causes the death of other animals. What they fail to realize is that many many insects, mice, fish (from pollution caused by farming), among many other animals die from the harvesting of plant foods on a large scale. The only way I suppose to avoid the killing of animals is for a person to grow their own food in a sealed off environment (to make sure no bugs get stepped on or kill plants).
What it all boils down to is that vegetarians have been "influenced" (nicer way of saying 'brainwashed') by vegetarian activists. When a vegetarian thinks of meat, chances are that images that were instilled into their memory by slimy ideology-pushing vegetarians. I say slimy because they lack respect for others, exaggerate their claims, outright lie, and are very manipulative. And who do these activists target? The most impressionable people they can find (kids and young adults).
Random thought: A vegetarian is like a person that hates babies because the thought of where they come from disgust them.
When a vegetarian is confronted with the idea of eating meat, their IMAGINATIONS automatically turn to images of a slaughter house. When I eat meat, I'm thinking about the delicious taste of it—vegetarians are overthinking their food. Besides, eating material that has come from a living animal in the past is virtually impossible. Where do vegetarians think animals go when they die? They get turned into soil. It's the cycle of life, or as I like to think of it, the cycle of matter. Animals do not own the matter that makes up their bodies, and in time we all must give back to the soil.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monique Davis: "Atheism is dangerous!"
The part about Monique Davis is at 1:28 (if you want to fast forward to it). She clearly believes atheism is dangerous (or at least did at the time). I wish people that claimed atheism is dangerous would actually go into detail. What exactly is it that makes an atheist dangerous? Statistics have shown a positive correlation between atheism and lower rates of crime (Sweden has a very low crime rate and has an atheist majority). This is pure bigotry, and unfortunately, it typically goes unchecked. For example, if she said the same things about Islam that she said about atheism, this would have been much much bigger of an issue. I'm all for freedom of speech, but it should be much more limited for those that hold public office. Like if the president of the United States were to make such a claim against atheism, he would be speaking for the country (the job of politicians is to speak for/represent the people). Let's just say, prisons are not filled with atheists. If atheism was so dangerous, wouldn't that be the case? Gotta love unjustified beliefs.
If hell was real
Christians often threaten atheists with hell. In this blog post I'm going to list off some of my thoughts about hell, if such a place was real (I obviously don't believe it is)."if you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell" etc.
Let's play the devil's advocate, and say that hell (and God) does exist. Being that I'm an atheist I don't believe that the God character exists outside of the imagination. Anyways, what are us atheists to do if hell and God do exist? Christians seem very confident that all that don't believe are hell-bound (and also those that believe but are sinful), should atheists practice by lighting themselves on fire? I think this might be a good idea. But will it really help? I mean, God will give us new bodies and brains for hell, right (bodies/brains decompose after death)? Unfortunately with a new brain, we wont remember why we are being punished, but I'm sure God isn't worried about that. You see, God loves to hate atheists—which is why he would punish skeptics (and reward those gullible and lucky enough to hold the right beliefs).
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg)
Can we die in hell? If we can experience pain from burning, then we must be taking bodily damage from the flames....which would eventually kill us. Will God continually give us new bodies after each death? Would he be so generous to us atheists?Will God allow Christians to view our suffering from heaven (they enjoy fantasizing about atheists being tortured). Because when I'm being tortured I don't like an audience, and I guess this would embody the torturous spirit of hell.
Some Christians believe that hell is just the separation of souls (atheist souls in this case) from God. But is this really a form of torture? God seems like an unpleasant entity to be around. If Christians fear God as much as they claim (i.e. they have the 'fear of God in them'), wouldn't that be torturous to them? i.e. to be around a being that they fear so much? I know when I fear something/someone, I don't want to be around it/them. It would seem that most atheists would feel very uncomfortable being around such an angry, jealous, egomaniac, and would probably opt for hell even if they had the choice. In-fact, I wouldn't want to be around an entity that would dish out eternal torture for something as silly as not believing in its existence. I mean, who is to say that God's judging ways stop at the pearly gates? Wouldn't that be hellish to be on pins and needles for an eternity? Constantly dealing with the fear of God (i.e. fear of him hurting you) and gaining its approval? Christians obviously love that sort of self-deprecation and paranoia—unfortunately, atheists would need to pick their poison.
It would be great if there was an atheist heaven and a Christian heaven. In atheist heaven, heaven is the afterlife that atheists want (which probably varies greatly amongst atheists), and the same goes for the Christian heaven. Christians want a heaven in which they are subject to the will of such a character, I think it would be great if they could experience that hel....I mean heaven. Perhaps the afterlife is the opposite of what we think, and religion is a test of integrity (instead of fossils testing faith). As an atheist I do believe in the possibility of an afterlife (i.e. that the soul lives on); but no, I don't believe in a hell for the ignorant.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Why atheism wins the debate by default.
Many theists still debate atheists as if there is something to debate. They make a claim, don't back it up, and wonder why atheists believe what they do. In a debate there is a winner and a loser, and the debate is over whether or not A (God) exists. In order for a theist to win a debate, they must prove that A exists, and THEN prove that A is responsible for B (the universe). Theists believe they can effectively debate atheists by using the "well how did it all get here" argument. This argument fails because it does nothing to prove that God exists, but does prove that humans don't know how energy began (if it even had a beginning). Theists will argue that the burden of proof is on the atheists to disprove their claim. But are atheists actually making a claim outside of being intellectually opposed to the claim of theists? No. Atheists can only prove their position by pointing to the FACT that theists cannot prove their's (atheism does not/cannot go outside of this).
Theist: "God exists!"
Atheist: "Prove it!"
Theist: "Prove God doesn't exist."
Atheist: "What's your favorite flavor of lead paint?"
Thiest: "I win!"
Theist: "God exists!"
Atheist: "Prove it!"
Theist: "Prove God doesn't exist."
Atheist: "What's your favorite flavor of lead paint?"
Thiest: "I win!"
Creationist Dr. William Lane Craig: "Egad! What an Explanation!" (an atheist's response)
And this is how creationists debate atheists. Apparently finding finding arrowheads and believing God created the universe are the same thing. The main difference here is that we have seen people make pottery and arrowheads and we have seen people. In other words, we have seen the process for how arrowheads and pottery are made, and we have seen the maker. Another problem with Dr. William Lane Craig (got his doctorate at clown college) is that he is comparing the shaping of matter into objects with the creation of energy itself. There is no evidence that energy even needs to be created, but there is evidence that arrowheads and pottery need humans to be created (they aren't grown on trees). Dr. William Lane Craig is probably one of the more popular debaters against atheism out there, would think he could come up with better arguments—being that he has a doctorate and all. Here are two main problems with his argument.
-We don't know that energy needs to be created (our best physics shows it to be eternal)
-We don't know that God exists (we know humans exist)
To be able to claim that something caused something, we need to know that that something is, and then we can assess what that thing is responsible for doing. Atheists win any debate against creationism because creationists are unable to backup any of their claims. If we don't know something we don't know, an unknown cannot be used to explain an unknown—doing such a thing gets us nowhere, and is really just playing with words. At the end of the day, God is just an empty word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)