4 Things Both Atheists and Believers Need to Stop Saying
Getty
For a moment, take a step back and forget all the ideas that come to mind when you hear the word "God." Forget about organized religion and everything that flows from it. No Jesus or Buddha. No corrupt religious figures abusing their positions to raise money or shelter sin. No holy wars or persecutions based on humanity's flawed understanding of divine intent. None of it.
Just a force in the universe, not only more powerful than humanity, but greater than anything we have known. Something beyond mere biology with the ability to create worlds and predetermine tomorrow's history. By definition, it's almost too much to comprehend, and, not surprisingly, I have trouble accepting the existence of such a power. But that's not the same as saying God doesn't exist.
After all, God -- like the Loch Ness Monster or that Canadian girl I lost my virginity to junior year -- can neither be proven nor disproven. And given that, it always seems to take an act of both extreme faith and arrogance to mock the very notion of a God or to tell others you know precisely what He is thinking.
Getty
Her name was Samantha and she totally exists. Just lives in Vancouver is all.
But that doesn't stop people. And while I can accept whatever's in people's hearts, there's no reason the rest of us have to keep hearing about it. Here are the four things about God I've heard enough of from both atheists and the devout.
#4. Devout: God Hates X
Getty
First off, no one says God hates Ecstasy. That's not the point of this title entry. I'm referring to people who claim to know what God hates, whether that's "fags" or really hot sex or people who pray to the wrong god. The devout can believe what they want and even teach it to their children. I hope it gives them strength and comfort like a warm blanket against the cold brutality of the world. But that doesn't give anyone license to use their God as a weapon.
These are the people who actually believe in an omnipotent Creator and the only thing inspiring enough for their protest sign is what that Creator hates? Why would anyone want to hold that up to the world? That can't be the best way to honor God. I mean, think about your own parents. If you were really proud of your folks and wanted to tell everyone how great they were, would you whip out a list of things they hated? Personally, I hope my own children would share things I taught them or talk about how safe I made them feel, not how great I was at hating on cable news and pop culture.
"Best thing about my Dad? Probably that crazy mean stuff he said about the Black Eyed Peas."
But there's another problem with defining your faith by who your God despises: How do you know? Some of you would say, "Because the [INSERT HOLY BOOK HERE] tells me so." Perhaps it does. Or the translation you have does. Or that part of the book written by a disciple or scribe or divinity student does. And perhaps there are no other sections of that same holy book that preach tolerance, forgiveness or even ideas that run directly counter to the tiny passage you've clung to in support of hatred. Maybe that's all possible. I'll even go further. Let's pretend it's somehow indisputable that yours is the only true God and your holy book was written by God, Himself/Herself/Itself. That it came off the heavenly presses and was placed in your hands before the ink even dried. (Although last I checked, God didn't have a thriving Twitter account so I'm not sure he could even land a book deal today.)
Getty
Not yet a CBS sitcom.
But even giving you and your Holy Book the benefit of the doubt, there's still a problem: You're still you. Just some dude. Are you so impressed with yourself or so intellectually uncurious that you think you perfectly understand the will of God just by reading a book? Hell, put five scholars in a room together and they'll fight about Shakespeare's actual intent with Hamlet. For what it's worth, Vladimir Nabokov and I have diametrically opposed views on Kafka's Metamorphosis. Does anyone truly understand what Joyce was on about in Ulysses? And these were just books written by geniuses -- not all-powerful, all-knowing deities.
Although the extremists in my faith can be as didactic and angry as any other religion, Judaism does have one feature that makes me very proud: the Talmud. The Talmud is NOT the Torah (Hebrew Bible); it is a book that attempts to interpret the Torah. Each section of the Torah is given a page where its meaning is then disputed by the best and the brightest Rabbis whose interpretations are each recorded in a corner of that page: four Hebrew scholars who all read the same allegedly divine passage, but in four different ways.
Having a one in four chance of being wrong about God is not that big a deal if you're telling people God loves them, but you don't really want to throw stones with those kinds of odds. Unless, of course, you think the New Testament, the Koran or whatever other holy text you follow is impervious to misinterpretation. Then, of course, carry on with your God-sanctioned hatred.
#3. Atheist:God Is Not Great
Getty
I take issue with how deliberately and needlessly provocative the phrase is. Also, how illogical. "Hey man, this God you believe in that I totally don't believe in? Yeah, well, he sucks!" Kind of tries too hard, y'know? I mean, after all, if chicks think you're a badass for saying your old man or your High School principal sucks, then, wow, imagine what a rebel you are for saying God sucks.
Getty
"It takes a big man to stand up for what he doesn't believe in."
But my main complaint is that most purveyors of this sentiment don't really have a beef with God. Even Hitchens' book mostly tears apart the abuses of organized religion, particularly Judaism, Islam and Christianity. I'm surprised how often atheists conflate the two things. Of course organized religion sucks. It's run by people. Religion, like government or anything structured and administered by humanity, will always be flawed and ruined by all of our weaknesses and failings.
And given how much we suck, why shut the door completely on the possibility of something in this universe being better, stronger and wiser? Something we could strive to be more like? It's always seemed to me that the most virulent atheists -- not mere nonbelievers, but those who claim to be positive about God's nonexistence and openly hostile to anyone who could think otherwise -- are incapable of believing there could ever be something greater than they. Not a lack of faith so much as humility. Certainly, that's not true for all atheists, but it doesn't help the atheist cause that the three most hostile atheists I can think of are also on the short-list for most overbearingly arrogant.
Getty
If we find out Trump and Gene Simmons hate God too, then that will just clinch my argument.
I'm an athiest, and when I saw this article, I was actually suprised to realize that none of the "athiest" entries in this article are things I've said. I don't have a problem with the religion itself, just the atrocities committed by the church. Like I once read "I don't hate god. I just hate his fan club."
ReplyThe last sentence of this article is utter nonsense, and hurts the brain to read (almost like my own sentence, here.) Anyway, if you could present any sufficient evidence (any at all) to support the existence of something, as you glibly put it, more divine than the human mind, then I'm all ears. And don't talk about charlatans like Deepak Chopra and Amit Goswami who bastardize quantum physics to fit their own Eastern philosophies.
ReplyHes not saying that something more divine exists, hes saying the possibility exists and that its retarded when atheists won't acknowledge something's possibility when they can't prove it wrong. Which is pretty much the basis of the scientific method, you know you have to test a hypothesis before you can reject it. So when you find a way to test the God hypothesis let us know.
#2 - "God Helps Those Who Help Themselves"...Man helps those who don't.
ReplyAll in all, a wonderful article. I appreciate Gladstone's willingness to give HIS OPINIONS on such a touchy subject. I agree with what he's saying here.
ReplyTolerance is where it's at.
The problem with people who see fit to contribute "you're both wrong" to such a discussion is that they, themselves, are in the wrong.
Reply Hide All See All 11 RepliesSee, this isn't a two-sided issue. It's one-sided. There is no god. The supernatural is bunk. Default response to the incoming noise: randi.org.
To lambast atheists for pointing out very real fallacies is moronic. The parts specifically condemning believers, however, ring true, somewhat.
In short, this is a poorly thought out article.
The articles saying people should stop being dicks to each other, don't act like atheists can't be dicks too. Second you can't disprove a negative, you can't say something doesn't exist because you haven't observed it. You can believe it doesn't exist or that it does, but those are beliefs not facts. Also James Randi devoted his career to debunking psychics, if thats where your justification for no God comes from then you really need to educate your self on the debate.
Thors hammer:
"you can't disprove a negative, you can't say something doesn't exist because you haven't observed it. You can believe it doesn't exist or that it does, but those are beliefs not facts."
I don't support Axelhander's aggressive comment, but this makes no sense. Why should I believe in the existence of something if there is no proof of its existence ? As a result of a lack of proof, considering that something doesn't exist is the most logical, reasonnable thing to do. It has nothing to do with faith.
Atheism is not about saying "there is no God", it's about saying "Since there is no proof I don't believe there is no reason to believe there is a God".
Sorry, I meant "Since there is no proof, there is no reason to believe there is a God".
Proof of God is something so subjective its hard to really know what it'd be. Some people believe they see God every day, they maybe right who knows. Some don't think he exists so they aren't looking for proof because they don't think they'll ever find it.
My issue was that the OP was using lack of evidence to justify that God doesn't exist as a hard fact. If lack of evidence is enough for you to personally draw the conclusion there is no God, then fine thats your right. However the OP uses it to dismiss theists as if it was a proven fact that God doesn't exist and it isn't. Lack of evidence of existence does not prove lack of existence, and thats the logical jump the OP takes. The OP is using faulty logic to present his beliefs as fact when they aren't at all their really just beliefs.
Mikel13:
Actually, Thors hammer12345's quote that you picked out is entirely accurate. Science is all based on inductive reasoning. For example, every time you stop giving your plants water, they die. You assume that your plants need water to live. But it could be that by some bizarre coincidence, at the same time you stop watering your plants, a lethal airborne plant virus pops up that causes them to die. You can't necessarily rule out every option until you've tested it. This is obviously a silly example, but that's how science works. That's why the phrase, "it's not even wrong" exists. You cannot prove that God exists anymore than you can prove that he doesn't exist.
That being said, I'm a foxhole-Atheist and will one day go to my death happy to be nothing more than a particularly attractive hunk of compost, but I know that I can't be 100 percent sure that I'm right.
Also, your last sentence was a double negative. BY THE LAWS OF THE INTERNET, MY ARGUMENT IS SUPERIOR.
Exactly you can say I see no evidence for God therefore I'm going to live my life as if he doesn't exist. The OP uses lack of evidence as proof that God doesn't exist, and it isn't. You can't say something doesn't exist because you have no evidence, you can say you believe it doesn't exist, but thats a belief not a fact. Think of it like your friend says they have a dog and you go to there house and have them prove it. You may see no evidence of the dog but you can't definitvely prove it doesn't exist just because you can't see it. However your friend could prove he does exist by presenting it to you. Thus the negative (the dog doesn't exist) can't be entirely proven, where as the positive (the dog does exist) can be. Thats the why I took issue with the OP claiming certainty, when atheism inherently doesn't have it.
Awesome, mate. You just proved one of the article's points: that everybody who's ever read some Dawkins or even an atheist blog automatically assumes himself to be smarter than any religious person who's ever lived. Kudos.
There are some retarded things being said here. The conviction that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is downright absurd, and anyone who even thinks along those lines should feel embarrassed. If you can't prove that something exists, you have every reason to believe that it does not exist. For example, there is no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn lives in my backyard and gives me advice everyday, so you therefore have every reason to believe that such a creature does not exist. Read Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Krauss, Stenger, or anyone else respected by scientists. There is no evidence, or even a need, for a cosmic personality that somehow engineered the entire universe. And furthermore, there's no reason to turn to an invisible cosmic creator to make yourself a better person, when every day you can read the teachings and works of real, honest men like Socrates, Voltaire, and Russell, among many, many others.
Right if you have no evidence something exists its not wrong to BELIEVE it doesn't exist. However that doesn't PROVE that something doesn't exist. Its a logical conclusion to draw but it is not a fact. Einstein was very clearly agnostic and often detested atheism for its claim of certainty, he didn't believe in a personal God in the Abrahamic sense but he did believe in a creator God. Similar with Hawking he most certainly acknowledged that a creator God was possible he just didn't believe it. Socrates most certainly believed in God claiming he took his guidance from a "voice". Rousseau was deeply religious he derived his entire view of morality from the belief that all things were of God and should be treated as such. As any first year philosophy student can tell you true objective morality only can be derived from a higher power. All atheist philosophers acknowledge that morals are relative when God is taken out as a constant. Its retarded to not acknowledge possibilities when they haven't been disproven.
Also Jesus most certainly existed, his divinity is certainly debatable, but its widely acknowledged that he existed as a rabbi and teacher that accumulated a large following. Hell most of the philosophers you named were theists, by the standards you presented Jesus's morality is just as valid as anyone else.
I don't know why I thought you said Rousseau, but whatever. Voltaire was a deist and he was a huge proponent of religious tolerance. So yeah a lot of the people your citing for support would entirely disagree with you. You're the psuedo-intellectual atheist who thinks there being smart when they throw out famous names. When really you look stupid because they don't really support your position.
Actually God does have a Twitter; my atheist friend follows Him.
ReplyI think it's @thealmighty.
I'm an atheist, and I don't think religious people are morons. It frustrates me that non-atheists often conclude that this is how every atheist thinks. Atheists disbelieve in the existence omniscient super-natural beings. That definition says nothing about elitism. Although religion is irrelevant to my life, I understand that to some religion serves as a very real force that gives purpose to their life, a community to connect to, a culture, and something that answers unanswerable questions. It gives them hope. I wouldn't want to trample on that. Doing so creates negative energy and wastes time. How people choose to live their lives is solely their business, and they should be able to be respected despite affiliation with religious groups. Anyone who says otherwise, theist or atheist, is someone I would like to avoid.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesYou're my kind of atheist. Not the kind that treats it like a religion then flies off the handle when you point that out!
You said everything I wanted to say. Very eloquent.
Very well put, mate. I hate any and all proselytising, because anybody who wants nothing more than convince people that their most deeply held beliefs are wrong MUST be a dickhole. I don't want some redneck yahoo coming at me telling me that Jesus loves guns, but by the same token, I do not want pseudo-educated atheists screaming in my ear about how Dawkins is so smart, he makes St Thomas look like a drooling retard. Leave me the bloody hell alone, the both of you, since I award you the same bloody courtesy.
as a believer, I can get down with that.
I think atheist need to seperate their disbelief in organized religion from their disbelief in God. One is a human institution that will undoubtly have its flaws, and many of their claims can be seen as most likely bullshit. The other is a being greater than all we know to exist and whose existene or intentions cannot be known or proven/disproven, thus dismissing its existence is rather arrogant considering that his existence can't be disproved.
Reply Hide All See All 10 RepliesThey don't disbelieve in organized religion, they think its corrupt, and since they don't believe in God there is nothing to separate out. Also, to an atheist disbelieving in God is not more arrogant then discounting the Greek Gods. As far as an atheist is concerned the God of Abraham is no more plausible then Zeus is. Do you worship Zeus... you know, just to make sure you ass is covered?
Except Zeus is supposed to have a physical presence and live on Mt. Olympus. People have been there and no one's found him so it can be fairly assumed he doesn't exist. If your saying organized religion is bullshit, maybe wrong maybe right, but its a valid assumption. However if you define God simply as a being or power or force whatever that created the universe and exists apart from it not within it (which most monotheistic religions do at least at the most basic level) than it is rather arrogant to say he doesn't exist considering that there is no more or less proof either way, because there could never be proof unless such a being existed and made its existence known to us. We can't know on our own anything greater than the universe itself as we are part of the universe.
The Greeks didn't think you could just walk up to the gates of Mt Olympus and request and audience, which would suggest that Mt. Olympus was a duel location: the physical one we can see, and go to, and a supernatural location that you can't just walk into where the Gods resided... In which case being unable to locate him means nothing with regards to his existence. But that's not really the point. Pick a Pantheon, any Pantheon, we don't believe in those Gods any more. Your average Christian would say that a person worshiping Odin, or Thor, or Isis, or Set was a Pagan, or a Heathen, or a Heretic. That the only God who actually exists, and should be worshiped is the God of Abraham. An Atheist would say that worshiping the God of Abraham is just as baseless, and to that person, said dismissal would be no more arrogant then your (flippant) dismissal of Zeus. Also, for the record, I wasn't saying that organized religion is bullshit. I was saying that if there is no God then all you can judge religion on is the actions of the groups claiming to represent him/her/it, there is nothing to separate out.
I'm not framing God in terms of any Abrahamic religion. I'm talking about the philosophical debate over the existnce of a creator God. And the best either side can produce is "we don't know" so it is rather arrogant to dismiss the other side when you have no more proof than the other side. See two different ideas yet many atheists either refuse to or don't understand the seperation.
Alright. Let me try this... Let's say that I still, at 29 years of age, believe in Santa Clause. I am convinced that the jolly old fat man exists, and brings presents to good little children on Christmas Eve. I offer you no proof of this aside from my Faith in Santa. You can't Prove other wise... so by your own argument it would be extremely arrogant of you to dismiss that belief. But you probably do. Or, how about this... if your friend came up to you and told you that they see ghosts would you take their word for it? Or would you assume they are on drugs, or ill? You would have no proof of this illness, or drug abuse, but that's what you would probably assume unless your friend could prove otherwise. You can offer an atheist no proof of God, yet you insist that it is arrogant of them to discount your belief. How arrogant are you to insist that something you have no proof of exists, and must be worshiped and obeyed?
If I can't prove to you that Santa doesn't exist then it would be arrogant to call you stupid for believing in him, you can disagree and not arrogantly dismiss anothers belief at the same time. If my friend said they see ghosts who the hell am I to say what someone else experienced was real or not. Just because I don't believe something doesn't mean I'm right. Its arrogant to dismiss the other side when the whole nature of the arguement is beyond the scope of what we as humans can comprehend. Again this gets to the difference to the philosophical argument of God, and the semantic argument of organized religion. I never said being an atheist is arrogant I'm saying there is a difference between pointing at the bible and saying "you beleive the universe was made in seven days your stupid" and saying "you believe in God, your stupid". Some atheists don't seperate the arguments when they entirely are different.
I'm just gonna say it again. For an atheist There Is No Difference. And really for a lot of Christians the same holds true. The stories come from God. If you insult the belief in the stories you are insulting the belief in God. For an atheist if God does not exist then you can not draw a distinction between it, and the religious organizations claiming to represent it. The two are the same. Also take into consideration that at lot of atheists are going to be a bit defensive on the subject. A lot of people (you included based on your comments below) feel that if you don't ascribe to a religion then you are amoral. Its an insulting statement, and it gets thrown around like its fact despite a persons behavior. Being treated like that would make me cranky and defensive too.
The distinction between the philosophical debate on God and debate on religion isn't new. Its a distinction made from Socrates to Aquinas to Nitzche. Any atheist who doesn't make that distinction is either not concerned at all with God or religion (which would make it strange that they would be commenting on it) or isn't educated on the debate thats been going on for centuries.
There can't be objective morality without a higher authority to derive morality from. I'm not saying atheists are bad people, but even something as agreed upon as the survival of the human race as "good" cannot be said to be objectively true because its a view only held by most humans, and whose to say we're "right" in that veiw. If there is no morality greater than humanity, then no veiws on morality can be "wrong". Everyone ascribes to their own morality, but without a higher power to derive a set of morals from no one's morality is more valid than anyone elses'. And ascribing morality to God is what religions attempt to do, but that has nothing to do with his existence, thats just the assumption they make to then derive their morality from.
You're only seeing the existence of God framed within the context of religion, and it isn't that simple. Even if all religions are incorrect that doesn't mean he doesn't exist just that are interpretations of him are incorrect, and I'm not arguing on the validity of any religion, just the existence of God.
Its logical to say that God doesn't exist therefore religion is bullshit. However it is ilogical to say God can't exist because all religion is bullshit. Many of the comments here seem to make the latter stance and its a backward way of thinking, which is why the distinction is necessary. Believeing in God is not the same as ascribing to any particular religion, and to dismiss either side of that debate is arrogant because no one knows with any sort of demonstratable certainty.
All of the people you sited were starting from the assumption that God (or the Gods) exists, and is better than us. When that is your assumption of course you can separate out your opinions on all mighty beings, and worldly organizations claiming to know said being’s will. I'm not questioning that. But if your starting assumption is that there is no all mighty being (or collection of all mighty beings) then the only thing there is to discuss is the behavior of the people claiming to follow this nonexistent entity. At best you can look at people’s behavior as compared to what it ought to be based on their own holy books.
Also, even an atheist who has no doubt that there is no God, and that all religion is bullshit, is going to be concerned with religion. The various religions of the world permeate almost every aspect of our culture. Religious conflict is at the heart of most of our ‘hot button’ issues, from abortion, to gay marriage, the stem cell research, to war. Regardless of what issue you’re discussing, religion is going to play a part. It’s to ingrained in our society.
As for objective morality, I will concede that in order for there to be an absolute truth in morality there has to be an outside force imposing its morality on us. The thing is even the morality spelled out by the big three tends to be flexible. In fact, many of the things our society thinks of as truly unforgivable aren’t even really discussed in the Abrahamic holy books. I was raised in a Catholic household, but by the time I was in my early teens I had rejected a good deal of that doctrine. My moral code actually easiest to sum up with the Hippocratic oath: First do no harm. I’m not a doctor, nor will I ever be one, but that is how I judge my actions. And it’s not always easy to live that way, sometimes I have to break it down to a matter of degrees. Sometimes the question I have to answer is what is the least amount of harm I can do? And when I fail, I feel guilty. This is as opposed to the utter lack of guilt I feel when I support Gay Marriage, and a women’s right to choose, in direct defiance of the religion I was raised in.
First of the people I cited Aquinas was the only Christian, and Nietzche didn't believe in God at all. Second morality is ascribed to God by religions, who believe they are doing Gods work. My point is simply that you can say religion is bullshit and point to many scientific discoveries to support your claim. However if you say God doesn't exist there is no science to back up that claim, just like theres no science to back up that God exists, and it is arrogant to act like someone is a fool for simply believing in God. Just like its wrong to mistreat people for not believing in the same thing you do. The debates are related but still seperate, God isn't only defined in the Abrahamic sense.
I've just now decided that I'm calling my non-religious, un-believing status "Hibbldy-doo". Because I'm tired of being lumped in with people's weird-ass perceptions of what I'm supposed to think.
ReplyGod? Probably not, but who the hell cares, I'm hungry and I have laundry to do.
Agnosticism is the way to go if you are looking for evidence.
ReplyTheism is the way to go if you look at the odds and rewards for believing or not in the case of existence or non existence of god.
Atheism is the way to go if you want to keep a strong faith on the importance of human achievements or want to feel constant existential dread.
Theist agnosticism is a nice way to keep an open mind while still feeling that warm fuzzy faith inside of your chest.
Atheist agnosticism is the best choice for people who value reason without any metaphysics thrown in it.
Any choice is fine, really, as long as people stop saying stupid s**t and using them as excuses to act like monkeys.
I guess I want to post here why this is the most infurating article, but I will only sum it in two points:
ReplyThe article mocks about the notion of how people make terrible assumptions with few basis about god, but in a funny turn, it makes terrible assumptions about why people reach to those conclusions.
Second, I don't know if in USA or at least in New York there is a motto that sounds something like: "Never talk about politics or religion with your friends or you will end up fighting". But I guess you should do the f*****g same wiht internet articles. We don't come here to have our personal points of view critized by idiots who makes assumptions about why we stand strong about a point we belive in.
I agree with your first point, but I don't necessarily agree with the second. Even though it may be uncouth to discuss politics an religion among friends, I think Cracked is an appropriate enough forum--especially if the site editors approved it--and the author absolutely has the right to make the points he does. He's just wrong.
I'm not entirely certain what your first point is... Are you saying that the article is mocking people for making assumptions about God with out taking the facts into consideration? If that is the case, I disagree. When writing about the devout the author seems to be making a very valid point about the assumptions that people make about what God does, or does not think or do. Unless you have personally spoken to God recently you cannot know for sure what God's opinion would be on Gay marriage, or stem cell research, or helping people who have/have not helped themselves, and neither can anyone else. When writing about atheists the author is making another valid point about the disrespect that many atheists have for the subject of religion, and the arrogance of surety. In both cases, what I took from the article was that the author feels that any person making grand, sweeping, definitive statements about a subject on which we have no current evidence is foolhardy, arrogant, and irritating.
With regard to your second point: I again must disagree. This website is not required to stick to subjects that wont offend you. No one forced you to read this article. But as much to the point... I don't think this article was particularly offensive unless you're a hate mongering ass hat. In which case, this was the least that you so richly deserve.
A few other points: Claiming Christopher Hitchens fulfilled his lifelong wish of becoming god is kind of/very/completely a screwed up thing to say. Really, the entire idea that atheists don't think there's anything more powerful than them is false (gravity, the sun and the sheer magnitude of the universe, to name a few things unarguably more powerful than any single person) and reminiscent of the darker side of 12-step philosophy.
ReplySecond, to infer in one entry that atheists are losers for "standing up for what (they) don't believe in," and claiming religious-style dogmatism in another entry is intellectually dishonest. The latter criticism is valid for some atheists. The former is not. Many of the atheists I know--myself included--hate being forced to defend our beliefs as a monolithic philosophy; we just want to be individuals. But the manner of modern public debate on religion/non-religion has become such that we go into arguments from the disadvantaged position of groupthink being the standard. The forum forces discussion of atheism as its own religion, which it is not. In the legal arena, atheism has to be considered as a religion in order to maintain protection of individual first amendment rights, but in every day life atheism should not be considered as a religion. And it's unfortunate that many people, theists and atheists alike, do consider it that way.
It's satire.
He was pointing out Hitchin's arrogance, he didn't literally mean that Hitchin's wanted to be God.
I wholly and completely agree with this article, gotta say. Personally, I'm neither atheistic nor religious. I'm agnostic. I do have a certain idea of spirituality, but it's not tied down to any single religion. Furthermore, I constantly modify my spiritual ideas based on the progress of science. There is a POSSIBILITY that God exists as set down in the Bible, but I personally believe that that is PROBABLY not the case. However, until it is proved that there is or is not a god, I cannot come to any conclusions regarding the subject, as that would be irrational. The possibility of the existence of God cannot, and should not, be denied; likewise, the possibility that there is no God should not be ignored. Irrationality is what starts wars and brings hate. Until human society becomes completely rational--which can probably never happen, as emotion is necessary for the propagation of the species--there are going to be divisions. We need to learn to live with that. If you're an atheist, good for you, just don't start bashing believers. If you're a believer, good for you, just don't start bashing atheists. And I will admit that, as an agnostic, I myself am guilty of this. I disapprove of atheism and religion alike. I'm not perfect, nobody is. But people need to shut up and start tolerating each other, and science needs to be allowed to go forward.
ReplySince when is Penn Jillette arrogant? He's probably one of the most even-handed atheism advocates in the public forum.
ReplyThe central concept in the 'god is not great' argument is that faith is not an admirable quality, as it's sold to be. If you think something is true because you merely feel something is true, and if society condones feelings-as-proof as an admirable quality, the logical conclusion is that everything becomes permissible. If someone feels deeply that murder is an okay thing to do, and thinks its okay to murder people because he has faith it's okay, how can anyone in a society stop his crimes if the whole society condones faith as a policy?
The law doesn't allow for everything that society condones. Faith in itself is not the admirable quality, its what you have faith in that is admirable or not depending on what it is you believe in.
As an atheist, I am not bothered by other people holding theistic beliefs.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesAs an anti-theist, I am bothered when those beliefs are sought to be enforced as law and\or replace science.
Point 2) Saying god is not great is a criticism, not a show of arrogance, and your article is confusing the two. And religion SHOULD be criticized when it makes factual claims.
Point 4) The FSM doesn't make atheists look bad, nor does it to be taken seriously. It's annoying, but that’s what it is supposed to be. It's exemplifying a form of theistic logic.
When is that logic encountered by atheism? What atheism is being imposed on people? What atheism is censoring your argument or holding you accountable for making one? What atheism is being shoved down people's throats? Evolution? Scientific facts?
I assume you're heart is in the right place, but you're points against atheism are not vary valid, and quite frankly, demeaning towards the attempts made by atheists for a more fair and rational society.
You’re mistaken in assuming that both sides are as equally infringing and demeaning of people, and you’re making a false claim on the intellectual and moral high ground. You’re points against atheism are not valid. Find better ones, and let’s discuss.
Edit: Points 2\4 should be 3\1.
If you're an atheist, why does it matter if God is or isn't great to begin with. He isn't real, remember?
His point is that some atheists also act like their s**t don't stink and it does. The problem with the "God is not great" arguement is that it ascribes humanity's morality on to God. Anyone who believes in God would say that simply by virtue of being God that anything he does is inherently right. So if you have an issue with what occurs you'd be inherently wrong because your human and you're questioning his plan which you have no right to do. Gladstone's point is that its an ego stroking arguement. It does nothing to further whether God exists or not. It only demonstrates that the one making it doesn't comprehend how most believers view God.
Beyond that atheism doesn't force its beliefs down anyone's throat, but religion doesn't either. Its the people practicing either one. His point is that people are assholes whatever they believe or don't believe. People have done terrible things in the name of religion, but they've also done them because of political and racial reasons as well. His point is that there nothing inherent in religion itself that makes people bad, people can just be bad sometimes and they'll justify it however they want. Which is counter to some atheists that contend religion is the root of all evil and it isn't, its zealotry (whatever the cause)that is the the cause of most wrongs in the world.
You missed one..."God never puts more on you than you can handle." I'm sure the folks out there who lost their cookies while under stress really buy that one.
Reply"...Need to Stop Saying"? I totally disagree. Bare with me. The great thing about the internet is its ability to allow people to explore their ideas anonymously. I say, go ahead and post your thoughts, whether its some stupid "Goodwin" comment, or extreme Biblical interpritation. My only stipulation, do it a place that isn't going to be a big echo chamber of validation. Flex your mind like an exercise. No longer do we have to avoid the taboo of intense political/religous/sexual discourse. Maybe still in physical social interaction, but again I say, go ahead and post! Just do it where you expect to be challenged, and don't run away from the challenge (that'd make you a troll). This live-and-let live internet philosphy doesn't serve the great "collective mind" internet attribute very well (unless that's the topic). So you're noticing comments that make you uncomfortable on the internet? Good. It's the only way we will learn. And that goes for both sides.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replies"Need To Stop Saying" OUTSIDE OF THE INTERNET.
People don't learn by simply shouting their ideas and beliefs. They don't learn by repeating what they already "know" over and over again. People learn through debate and discussion that moves quickly, and usually quietly to a diverse array of topics. Obviously you understand that, but what you don't understand is that the internet is populated by people who see shouting as actual valid debate and discussion. People like you and I are the... exception. Not to sound totally elitist.
Need to stop saying because they don't further the debate. Just people stroking their own ego.
#3. Atheist:God Is Not Great
ReplyWebsite makes a poor point, it's easy to attack God himself and not just the believers and what they do, it doesn't matter which deity it is. This is precisely what Hitchens did so well.
"I'm surprised how often atheists conflate the two things. Of course
organized religion sucks. It's run by people. Religion, like government
or anything structured and administered by humanity, will always be
flawed and ruined by all of our weaknesses and failings. And
given how much we suck, why shut the door completely on the possibility
of something in this universe being better, stronger and wiser".
Were is the wisdom in earthquakes and diseases. Again, it is easy to attack any deity not just for the existence of bad things but also for their continued existence.
And the reason religion sucks is because of the scripture. Not one day goes by when something stupidly faith based causes someone harm. These things would not happen without the instructions of faith.
"God's nonexistence and openly hostile to anyone who could think
otherwise -- are incapable of believing there could ever be something
greater than they."
No, we can image a lot of things, with the use of fantasy we could create tons of possible deities in various forms and shapes. Fantasy isn't the problem, it's giving in to this nonsense which not only means that certain people claim to KNOW that there is a god and they also claim to know its mind. And on top of that wish to force others to believe this too.
"#1. Atheist: God Is a Fairy Tale For Morons"
There is a correlation with higher education and lack of belief. But believers can be intelligent like Newton, this is quite clear.
"The perversion of the Spaghetti Monster meme is a good example of how
some, particularly on the Internet, have destroyed the distinction
between thoughtful protest and mere mockery."
Now you're making this personal. It is thoughtful protest because it demonstrates that ID proponents want their faith based "science" to be taught merely on the basis of faith. If ID enters the science class then why doesn't the FSM, and tons of other beliefs? What room would there be to actual science?
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." Jefferson
I'm not going to pretend to respect ID, I don't. Nor will I pretend to like faith. I'm fine with if people believe personally, but they all too often bring this nonsense into government, especially in the middle-east and Africa people suffer because of this non-answer for a solution.
I generally agree with the article. I would like to comment on the following sentence however: "And given how much we suck, why shut the door completely on the possibility of something in this universe being better, stronger and wiser? Something we could strive to be more like?". As an atheist, I would ask you, why NOT shut the door completely? Why does a moral/existential ideal has to be tied to a supernatural belief? Through the years it's become clear to me that the moral standards of people have little to do with their religious beliefs. Religion is simply a set of ideas that each person molds to fit the morals they have acquired through social interaction, education and introspection. It does not create morality, it is more like a vessel to express it and thus, it is optional. It clearly works for many people, but I can strive to be a better person without believing in a higher power.
Reply Hide All See All 7 RepliesYou can't have objective morality without a higher power. Lacking a power greater than humanity saying what is right and wrong, ALL morals are purely subjective. There has to be a higher power for objective moality to exist.
Why does objective morality need to exist? We all agree kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is a shockingly deplorable thing to do, why do we need to make a philosophy/epistemology leap of claiming that there is some transcendent and objective morality?
@thors hammer12345: You are implying that religion is the basis of morality, which is something I completely disagree with. You can't have objective morality on the whole, period, because it's difficult to get 7 billion people to agree on every moral issue. There are some basic issues that you can say the majority of people agree on (e.g. concerning murder), but there is definitely a lot of disparity. Moreover, even if you do believe in a higher power, you should wonder about the sort of morality you adhere to if you base it on texts and scriptures that are thousands of years old and of highly questionable origin. I don't have to tell you for example that the Old Testament contains "morals" that would be considered detestable in our time. And I assume you disagree with many of those (I hope you do at least). The very instant you make this judgement, you are being subjective. What I'm trying to say is that morality has evolved along with humanity (with many ups and downs, but the general direction is forward in my opinion). It's religion that usually adapts.
I implied from the OP that they wish to reject the idea of a higher power yet wish to strive for being a morally good person. However there is no "right" meaning to what "good" is without a higher power otherwise anyones belief of good or bad is no more valid than anyone elses, only some veiws are more widely held than others. So unless there is some higher version of "right" and "wrong" then one's morals are only as right as far as they can force them on others.
To me that sounds like erecting a barrier where there is no need for one. Such a "higher" morality as you describe is not of any use since we can't even conceive it. I understand what you're saying on a theoretical level, but it's really a dead-end argument. Also, my OP was referring to a purely personal moral advancement. Part of that advancement would be not to force my morals on anyone. Ideally, one leads by example.
Its God we can't fully coneive of not the morality he preaches. The idea is that there is a higher morality we can ascribe to if God exists, but without him there isn't and so there is no right and wrong. So no one can be doing anything bad because there is no objective good.
BVM,
Actually, without religion we wouldn't have morality; we'd still be doing trial by combat and witch dunking today, or worse, we would all be cynical, disregard human life and still engage in a lot of evil things. The Church thorugh the Inquisition introduced presumption of innocence and a lot of other forms of justice, it showed people to care more for their brethren through appreciation of the human soul, introduced customs and views on sexuality, raising of children, etc... now true, the middle ages had some harsher customs but you must be be careful how to characterize them. The people of that time were as much shocked with murder as we are today and nobody was allowed to find a heretic on the street, kill him and escape justice just because the victim wasn't Catholic. If those times had cruel lords, we have cruel corporations as so many cracked articles will tell you. Few heretics were actually kileld and only those who actually apostosized from the Church. Burning them may be bad by our own standards but we still kill people and give the death penalty, we still put them in prisons, etc... we just stopped imprisoning heretics and treating ehresy as a sign of treason. Although that will not stop the Church from rightfully condemning and stripping ehretics of their ecclesiastical office.
Religion both creates, advances and expresses morality. It also influenced morality as I as I showed and no matter what that douche Dawkins says, we will always be under the influence of Christianity. We're not like monkeys who after 2000 years still don't know that its not right to eat one of your own.
I think atheists also need to stop saying "If religion didn't exist, there wouldn't be any war." Granted, mostly younger/less-experienced atheists who probably listened to John Lennon's "Imagine" a few too many times are the ones saying this, but it's just ridiculous.
ReplyNobody can know exactly how history would have turned out without religion, for one. Most any speculation about a religionless world is just that... speculation. Secondly, I imagine that the only real difference would be that presidents/kings/tribal leaders/dictators would use some OTHER reason to invade each other's countries and kill each other. Money, territory, didn't like the way that dude looked at me, etc.
Granted. But this doesn't change the fact that religion is and has been needlessly dividing humanity into opposing groups.
Claiming "any war" is false--every war is ultimately about scarcity and competition over resources, whether that's land, oil, or minds. The Crusades were ultimately about which group should have control over (holy) land. But there's no denying that such group division would not have existed without the theo-political divide.