"Yes, atheism is a religion, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Moosinat0r
Need more be said? Ok, fine... This feller thinks atheism is a religion, and he's got a post to back it up! I'm going to copy some of it for quotes, but if you want the whole of his argument, it's right here.
We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
So everyone but the party in question knows it's true. Sounds like a patently poor argument. So we need to accept the premise that we belong to a religion to determine if our religion stands up to Christianity, I'm in. Atheists do not claim neutrality, agnostics do. Some agnostics don't call themselves such, but a neutral position on theism can only be called agnosticism. Atheists have picked a side, agnostics are on the fence. Who really (other than theists) attempts to deceive themselves? It seems this really is a patently poor argument.
They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
On the contrary. Everyone has a different worldview, but I know that's not where this is coming from. The skeptical atheist believes only in what can be observed. The evidence has led to materialism. Sure, we then see everything through materialism, point being... They (plural) are like a guy (single) wearing dark yada yada...
You should have said something more like "The/an atheist is like a guy...". The problem with this is that creationists are the ones lacking in evidence. The atheist is more the person who chides another for wearing dark sunglasses and saying that the sun is not out.
They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Wait a second... Orthodoxy is a generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice. Not killing people is orthodox. Most people share that orthodoxy. "No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny." I'm going to assume that "truth" is erroneously used in place of "true", because otherwise it makes no sense. That in mind, the ending statement holds water. When we subject God to scientific scrutiny, we get no evidence for it's existence. Evolution, while our understanding of it is incomplete, is a much more verifiable theory than God.
They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
Our own brand of apostasy... According to Webster's Dictionary...
1:renunciation of a religious faith
2:abandonment of a previous loyalty
About Antony Flew, his conversion is unsure. He was in a mentally declining state when this all transpired. His book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind is suggested to have been primarily written by Roy Abraham Varghese. Even if he'd committed apostasy, it's no more a proof of faith than my changing in preference from Coke to Pepsi. That analogy is flawed, because the two are so similar, but the second definition of the word 'apostasy' should be taken into account before making claims such as this.
They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
Prophets, that's just ridiculous.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
I (and likely many other atheists) cringe at the word messiah being used in such a manner. Darwin did provide an atheistic explanation of what is and how it came to be, this no more makes him a messiah than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for revolutionizing the computer. There's some controversy as to how religion came to be, my opinion is that it was needed in history to control the illiterate population. Most people in the Middle Ages, for instance, couldn't read (at least they couldn't read Latin. I'm far from a linguist or linguistic historian). The pope could though, and they were the only people with access to the Bible. The clergy had the tendency to use their power to make people do as they wished. This is, in my opinion the cause for religion.
They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
I first want to point out how well God did with those prayers for Christopher Hitchens who, in case you've been living under a rock, is quite dead. They actually are asking for atheism to be given respect as well as to share the good news. There is no god! Theism is an antiquated social construct which must be eschewed in the name of progress.
Of these, none scream to me 'Religion'.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Atheists have no regard for life?
According to many Christians, atheists have no regard for life. Let's take a look... I'll start with martyrdom, unlike atheism, Christians are to feel proud to lose their life for God
Matthew 10:39
1 Peter 4:16
Revelation 20:4
There are verses which imply that martyrdom is not to be sought out, but it remains that it is a great privilege if it cannot be avoided. There's a real regard for life.
2 Kings 2:23-24 Elisha tries out his new powers on 42 kids, what awful deed had they done? Called him bald.
Joshua 10:28-42 Joshua wipes out 7 cities.
11:8-12 Joshua wipes out 20 cities.
Judges 3:15-16 God and Barak massacre the Canaanites.
9:23-57 God sends an evil spirit and kills over 1000 people.
12:4-7 42,000 killed for mispronouncing a word.
1 Samuel 5:1-12 God smites a lot of men with hemorrhoids in their "secret parts".
6:19 God smites 50,070 people for looking at his arse, I mean ark...
2 Samuel 24:15 God kills 70,000+ because David called a census.
That's nowhere near the entire list, but I'd be here all day. God's regard for life only goes as far as his patience, which apparently, isn't saying much. It would then follow that God's followers should have a similar mentality, and many do. Take the majority of the conservative party, with the "give em hell" attitude, 84% of conservatives are Christians.
Now, who has no regard for life?
Matthew 10:39
1 Peter 4:16
Revelation 20:4
There are verses which imply that martyrdom is not to be sought out, but it remains that it is a great privilege if it cannot be avoided. There's a real regard for life.
2 Kings 2:23-24 Elisha tries out his new powers on 42 kids, what awful deed had they done? Called him bald.
Joshua 10:28-42 Joshua wipes out 7 cities.
11:8-12 Joshua wipes out 20 cities.
Judges 3:15-16 God and Barak massacre the Canaanites.
9:23-57 God sends an evil spirit and kills over 1000 people.
12:4-7 42,000 killed for mispronouncing a word.
1 Samuel 5:1-12 God smites a lot of men with hemorrhoids in their "secret parts".
6:19 God smites 50,070 people for looking at his arse, I mean ark...
2 Samuel 24:15 God kills 70,000+ because David called a census.
That's nowhere near the entire list, but I'd be here all day. God's regard for life only goes as far as his patience, which apparently, isn't saying much. It would then follow that God's followers should have a similar mentality, and many do. Take the majority of the conservative party, with the "give em hell" attitude, 84% of conservatives are Christians.
Now, who has no regard for life?
A few major religions, Most to least harmful
Ok, so in this post I'll list a few Major religions, the most harmful at the top. I'll list some traits of the religion and perhaps create a character for them.
1. Christianity. Around 2.2B adherents. Christianity beats out Islam very slightly for the more vast hold it has on the planet. Christians are masters of deceit, they're so good that they've fooled even themselves. The Christian is a big hairy burly man who rapes one in the ass while smacking them with the Bible and yelling "Take it!". They'll shove it down one's throat, up one's ass, pretty well any conceivable place they can. When that fails they take to legislation. Despite Christians being the vast majority in America, they claim to be persecuted. If ever there were a group to want to be victims, it's Americans, it's Christians. The paramount of over-privileged, over-tolerated, over-respected groups is American Christians. Yet they whine so much about how they're marginalized.
2. Islam. About 1.57B adherents. Islam is a harmless religion. Harmless but for... Extremists who tend toward suicide attacks, genital mutilation, misogyny, the list goes on to end with plain dickishness. They share the deceit with Christians, what makes them dangerous is that they're less lazy than the average Christian. The Muslim is actually close to the stereotype. He's of middle-eastern complexion, wears a turban and blows his opponents up. Muslims and Christians share so much, but feel so apart. Muslims as a group are hated by Christians and many of them return that hate.
3. Mormonism LDS. About 14.44M adherents. The church of latter-day saints (LDS), may seem like a small movement in general, but considering it's under 200 years old, it's spreading uncomfortably quickly. What's more disturbing yet is the patent incredulity of the belief system. Basically, there's a never-ending cycle. There were once a bunch of spirits or intelligences floating around in nowhere, then [a] God(dess) comes along and offers them a chance to ascend to be like him/her. Satan however tricked some of the spirits into going with him. Mormons believe that black people are cursed for going with Satan. The ones who went with God, however, were put on earth to be tested. If we pass the test, we may become gods and goddesses of our own planets and the process repeats. This is so delusional as to be in itself harmful.
4. Chinese Folk Religions. 400-500M adherents. Varies in the degree of harm.
---
These may be dangerous to their constituents, but seem to be less dangerous to unwilling people.
5. Hinduism. About 837M adherents.
6. Unitarian Universalism. About 630K adherents. This is pretty much just accepting everything. It's major fault is the promotion of apathy and ignorance.
7. Wicca. About 1M adherents. That much belief in the power of will can have serious psychological effects.
8. Rastafari Movement. About 700k adherents. Bitch please.
---
9. Buddhism. 400-500M adherents. There are some omni-theistic tendencies, but they're less common. Buddhism to my understanding is a philosophy more than a proper religion. That gives it the sole right to the bottom of the list which should be classified "Just why?". Philosophy doesn't need another name.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
That Christians try to get out from under the burden of proof...
It's honestly disgusting. I'll use the teapot argument, it would then be my job to prove it's existence. To disprove it would be impossible because it's so very unlikely as to be deemed impossible. When presenting a pseudo-impossible argument it is to the party which presents that argument to prove it. I'm not saying that God can currently be proven, if he could I'd be writing tales of his love (or hate). But if I say that I reject the teapot, I do not have to prove the teapot non-existent, because the "evidence" for the teapot is so very scanty. Maybe there's an old book about the all-powerful teapot. But the teapot still cannot be proven, only alluded to. I'd even take compelling evidence instead of all-out proof. That's all the evolution has, yet I largely agree with that. There is, however, no evidence for God, teapots orbiting planets, fairies or the like, and I'm sure you don't believe in the invisible pink dog next to me which no one can see, touch, hear, smell, or even (god forbid) taste. But hey, it's there, it tells me how to live my life, has written an erroneous book, and it helps me with all aspects of my otherwise meaning life. I tell you it's there damn it! Stop doubting... Oh yeah, poochie says that if you don't believe that it exists, it'll chew on your balls for eternity. So yeah, believe in spot here.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
A few arguments refuted
Our current lack of knowledge pertaining to the origin of the particle(s) involved in the big bang is no more disproof of evolution than a lack of knowledge of where God came from is disproof of theism. Which, however is more likely? A particle of currently unknown origin, or an all-powerful being who has been there forever with no cause?
The argument that things need causes but for one exception is ridiculous. A good theory doesn't have exceptions strewn haphazardly through it. When the theory of evolution is taught we don't merely accept that the universe exists, we attempt to discover why. With the competition we have, however, there should be no need...
Atheists have/need more faith than Christians. Not only does that mean that we have more of the basis of religion than religious people do, but it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous because there's evidence on our side of the argument, something which religion cannot boast. Faith is belief without evidence, why would we need that? We have evidence without belief.
Atheists have no morals. That's unfounded, and as such, bullshit. Atheists are some of the most moral people I know, because they have to account for their actions instead of Jesus taking the heat for them.
We need God for purpose/happiness in life. I'm happy to report that this too, is complete garbage. I have a sense of purpose and I'm relatively happy. I don't need God for that.
The argument that things need causes but for one exception is ridiculous. A good theory doesn't have exceptions strewn haphazardly through it. When the theory of evolution is taught we don't merely accept that the universe exists, we attempt to discover why. With the competition we have, however, there should be no need...
Atheists have/need more faith than Christians. Not only does that mean that we have more of the basis of religion than religious people do, but it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous because there's evidence on our side of the argument, something which religion cannot boast. Faith is belief without evidence, why would we need that? We have evidence without belief.
Atheists have no morals. That's unfounded, and as such, bullshit. Atheists are some of the most moral people I know, because they have to account for their actions instead of Jesus taking the heat for them.
We need God for purpose/happiness in life. I'm happy to report that this too, is complete garbage. I have a sense of purpose and I'm relatively happy. I don't need God for that.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The cosmological argument
The basis of the argument is;
All forms of random crap exist.
Random crap must have a cause.
The universe is made of random crap.
Thus the universe has a cause.
That cause must be God.
The other version is more like;
Random crap exists.
Random crap which exists has the potential to not exist.
If something has the potential to not exist, yet it does, it was caused.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes for random crap. No infinite regression.
Thus there has to be a cause for random crap.
That cause has to be God.
Does matter have the potential to not exist? I mean... It could not be here, but what purpose would that really serve? I've got a notepad in front of me, it exists. It could not exist, but odds are, I'd just have a different notepad in front of me. I don't see how that can strengthen an argument.
I don't see why the acceptance of an infinite god who's always been there is no problem, but some energy or matter which was just "always there" is ridiculed by the religious community. Ok, so random crap has to have a cause, because it cannot make itself exist. So using Occam's razor, the best explanation is God.
I think the "When in doubt, chalk it up to God." mentality is dangerous and I don't think it should remain our way of describing things we don't understand rather than endeavoring to learn.
All forms of random crap exist.
Random crap must have a cause.
The universe is made of random crap.
Thus the universe has a cause.
That cause must be God.
The other version is more like;
Random crap exists.
Random crap which exists has the potential to not exist.
If something has the potential to not exist, yet it does, it was caused.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes for random crap. No infinite regression.
Thus there has to be a cause for random crap.
That cause has to be God.
Does matter have the potential to not exist? I mean... It could not be here, but what purpose would that really serve? I've got a notepad in front of me, it exists. It could not exist, but odds are, I'd just have a different notepad in front of me. I don't see how that can strengthen an argument.
I don't see why the acceptance of an infinite god who's always been there is no problem, but some energy or matter which was just "always there" is ridiculed by the religious community. Ok, so random crap has to have a cause, because it cannot make itself exist. So using Occam's razor, the best explanation is God.
I think the "When in doubt, chalk it up to God." mentality is dangerous and I don't think it should remain our way of describing things we don't understand rather than endeavoring to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)