more on atheism
It’s funny how often Atheists hear the same argument from Agnostics. That Atheism requires faith in and of itself because it espouses that there is definitively no god, and that Agnostism is really the only reasonable belief since it is open to any new evidence of the supernatural. Even the typically very intelligent and very reasonable Robin from our own comments wrote in response to my ‘What to do if you meet an atheist’ post, “because it is so difficut to prove the absence of something, agnosticism albeit lame, trumps atheism.”
I’d like to argue for a minute that this is completely wrong. Robin of all people should know better: He’s practically a scientist. He’s a mathematician, a statistician, and a data miner by trade and enthusiasm. He knows more than most of us all that the math doesn’t lie.
Lack of results is, in and of itself, evidence. It is not lack of evidence. If I throw a ball up in the air 5000 times, it will return to the ground every single time. To assert that opinion requires no faith. The LAWS of physics mandate that the ball WILL fall. Some might argue that these so-called LAWS are certainly devised by men and can be subject to interpretation, adjustment, or even error. These people are wrong. Reasonable people recognize that if a particular behavior can be predicted and observed, without fail, over and over again it become truth. Of course there is the all-important scientific method and all sorts of other rules governing exactly how a theory can become a law, but the simple fact is, that ball is never, ever, ever going to hang there in the sky. The scientific AGNOSTIC would argue that he is open to believing the ball MIGHT float in the air if anyone ever shows him video of said levitation.
And this really is the heart of all matters isn’t it. There are no miracles. There are no physics defying, water-walking carpenters. No raised dead or wined waters. There is no scientific EVIDENCE of a higher being, a creator, an influencer, or an afterlife. None. All of humanity has been waiting for thousands of years without a credible shred of evidence. How many more prayers for world peace, cured cancer, or food on a table have to go unanswered?
At what point does modern religion go the way of Zeus and Hercules? There was no more or less evidence for them as there is for Allah or Jesus, yet you would laugh a believer of Poseidon off any stage, and you’d arrest someone that sacrificed a cow in the street to Thor. Maybe it goes away when reasonable people let go of the last remaining fear they have of becoming dirt when they’re dead and begin to close the door that is currently open for all these possibilities of the supernatural. It is time to say that there is NO evidence because it doesn’t exist.
Robin, agnosticism IS lame, precisely because it leaves the door open under that guise of making you sound more reasonable. You think it makes you sound like you are open to new evidence. Hell, open to ANY evidence of the almighty. But when do you say, “I’ve seen enough, the ball is always coming down.”? I say NOW, because too fucking much is at stake.
DiClerico with a left hook!
I disagree with you and agree with Robin: agonsticism is the only reasonable and scientific position.
When you don’t have enough information about a situation, you say ‘I don’t have enough info to make a decision…can I get some more please?’
This is exactly the same thing. There is plenty we don’t know about the world, about the universe and about the laws that govern it: you’re right…a ball will fall to the ground. And a bumble bee will fly, even though it shouldn’t. My point is, and this is demonstrable, the more we know, the more questions we have. Some people are gratified by the wealth of knowledge we’ve acquired, others are humbled by the abundance we have yet to fathom.
I could keep giving examples substantiating agnosticism as the reasonable position to have, but your post isn’t really about that. It’s about how agnostics are equated with being passive…hedging their bets and in doing so, lending credence to fanatics. And you’re rightly appalled by the atrocities performed in the name of religion. I’ve answered the first part of that, namely I’m an agnostic because I haven’t seen any particularly compelling evidence on either side of the fence (and, I’m sorry, but lack of results cannot be evidence). As for the second part, religion is like anything else with mass appeal: it’s used to manipulate the masses. And I can give you about fifty examples of atrocities performed without a religious agenda anywhere on the horizon. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge genocide? Sectarianism in Bosnia and Northern Ireland? Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
That said, I will concede that religious people can be enablers for atrocities, a lot more readily than rationalists. But the purpose of the believers and their abuse of this belief cannot be used as evidence in the absence of a deity. They’re simply unrelated.
I agree with Mo, in response to your diatribe against agnostics. I also feel that all of these beliefs fall under some sort of dogma. You have a set of beliefs that you defend with great vigor. I do not really see agnostics or atheists as any different from people that worship a god, as they hold science and theory up as their figure head.
I’m on Chris’ side here. 100 percent.
The atrocities Mo cites are irrelevant. Anytime a conflict happens when the instigator isn’t religious, people lay the blame with atheism when money, power etc. were likely the cause. So let’s not even mention that stuff. The absence of a God in the mind of a mass murderer is not the root cause. Stalin and Hitler DID NOT commit acts of evil BECAUSE they were atheist. They did it because they were Mike Tyson crazy.
Mo says “I’m an agnostic because I haven’t seen any particularly compelling evidence on either side of the fence…”
If you haven’t seen or read enough evidence to prove that God and religion is man-made then you should watch/read more. Between the death of Jesus and the Gospels, there’s a gap of 40 years. If no one wrote a book on 9/11 for 40 years, do you think it would be an accurate enough account to let it rule human lives for thousands of years?
Atheists are accused by the religious of being close-minded, when it’s quite the opposite. Religious people are as close-minded as it gets, hence their repulsion of atheists. Agnostics are closed-minded too. Once you let go of the childish bullshit that is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and God you will enjoy more spiritual freedom than your religious, agnostic buddies.
There’s plenty of evidence out there, but believers and agnostics choose to ignore it or just plain make shit up (see: creationism).
As for J, atheism is not a belief. Is it a dogma when you refuse to believe in Santa? No. You don’t see any difference in people who are atheist or religious??? Fuck me, open your eyes.
Unless religion goes the way of alchemy, etc. mankind is in serious trouble. Go ahead, give a nuke to a bunch of atheists and a bunch of religious zealots and see who uses it first.
I see no difference as to the level of close-mindedness between any of the belief structures. The force and passion behind an atheist’s beliefs against religion are as fervent and narrow-minded as many religious people that I know. I do not know if that is true with all atheists or just the ones that I know. And atheism is a belief, whether you want to see it as such or not really does not change what it is.
I do not think people often blame the Nazi death camps on a lack of religion in Hitler’s life, and while I recognize that religions have often been used as a reason to justify mass atrocities, other equally absurd secular reasons have been used to justify such things.
Atheists are “fervent” because the beliefs of religious people are putting our lives, our very existence at stake. At the same time, religious people need not worry that atheists will bring about the end of mankind. They hate atheists because they challenge their world view, but the atheist poses them no real physical danger.
Personally, I’m tired of the misery caused by religion. Infants have their genitalia mutilated; women have no rights; children are sexually abused by people damaged by sexual repression; homosexuals are persecuted and occasionally murdered; children are denied scientific truth in the classroom; oh yeah, and millions of Muslims want the infidels dead, and many Christians think Global Warming is acceptable because it’s a sign of the end times. I could go on, but that’s enough isn’t it?
Non-believers have co-existed happily with believers (not the other way around) for hundreds of years because the damage religion could do was limited. In the very near future, a handful of religious nuts will be able to carry out mass murder on an unimaginable scale. That should scare you.
There is simply no need for religion. It exists because the weaker of our species cannot accept death and needs comfort. Morality does not come from religion. Perhaps you were raised / indoctrinated / brainwashed into believing that it does, but it doesn’t. Heck, half the time religious people do good things merely to appease their god instead of doing something good for the sake of it.
If atheists seem angry, I’ll leave you with this girl’s explanation because, albeit lengthy, she spells it out perfectly (and I’m too lazy to type more)…
Why are atheists angry?
[I]Because anger is always necessary.
Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it… all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness.
I mean, why the hell else would people bother to mobilize social movements? Social movements are hard. They take time, they take energy, they sometimes take serious risk of life and limb, community and career. Nobody would fucking bother if they weren’t furious about something.
So when you tell an atheist (or for that matter, a woman or a queer or a person of color or whatever) not to be so angry, you are, in essence, telling us to disempower ourselves. You’re telling us to lay down one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal. You’re telling us to lay down a tool that no social change movement has ever been able to do without. You’re telling us to be polite and diplomatic, when history shows that polite diplomacy in a social change movement works far, far better when it’s coupled with passionate anger. In a battle between David and Goliath, you’re telling David to put down his slingshot and just… I don’t know. Gnaw Goliath on the ankles or something.
I’ll acknowledge that anger is a difficult tool in a social movement. A dangerous one even. It can make people act rashly; it can make it harder to think clearly; it can make people treat potential allies as enemies. In the worst-case scenario, it can even lead to violence. Anger is valid, it’s valuable, it’s necessary… but it can also misfire, and badly.
But unless we’re actually endangering or harming somebody, it is not up to believers to tell atheists when we should and should not use this tool. It is not up to believers to tell atheists that we’re going too far with the anger and need to calm down. Any more than it’s up to white people to say it to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to queers. When it comes from believers, it’s not helpful. It’s patronizing. It comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it’s just going to make us angrier.[/I]
Oh, and J, answer this…
Which is more close-minded?
a) The Earth is less than 10,000 years-old and man was created since then in God’s image.
b) Jesus did not walk on water and there is no Hell.
Are you saying they are on a par? The believer and the atheist are just as close-minded? I just don’t see how atheists can be considered close-minded simply because they choose not to believe in the supernatural. That makes no sense to me.
Chris,
I’m running out of yellow paper…
It’s really relative to what you believe believing in a god is. The laws of physics exist, we exist, you can argue that the laws of our universe are god. Almost all religion is dumbed down to saying a god with the ability to create our universe would give a shit about our independent lives and listen to us when we ask for outlandish favors and requests. And even worse, when we do so, defy the laws he created in order to satisfy us. Fuck that…
I believe in what I know, physics exist, matter exists, souls don’t, gods speaking to me don’t. I was raised in a hard-core, speaking in tongues, god can change everything family and never in my life do I remember ever hearing god.
But at this point I’d rather talk about something intellectual rather than debate gods existence. If you can’t even get past the thought of god not existing at least by any religious definition you’re only one step above not believing in santa clause anymore.
Your inability to see another people’s perspective because you are too blinded by your own, exemplifies my point. Thank you. And your excessive use of “yellow paper” only carries it further. Again, thank you.
Your inability to express anything worthwhile in your last comment, other than passive aggressiveness, says it all.
Oh, and you’re welcome.
I don’t really have a problem with your anger, Andrew. I’m angry at the sheer scale and inhumanity of the atrocities I see on the news and read about in the papers and the internets, as well. So is J, so is Chris and so is everyone I know.
I don’t see how you can connect them to religion at a greater incidence than say, greed (slavery) or ignorance (KKK) or ideological fervour (Cambodia).
I suppose it should bother me that you and Chris think agnostics are stupid or in denial or, worse, afraid to commit to what they really think, but the truth is it doesn’t. I might be wrong and I’m kind of in awe of your certainty that you’re right and I am wrong.
But only for a second. If you think about it, that’s essentially what agnostics are saying: I might be wrong. Whereas most atheists (ones I know personally and writers I’ve read like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins) always project certainty.
That kind of certainty is almost, as J pointed out…religious.
Also, if you think the world would be free of atrocities if we were all atheists, you’re sadly mistaken. Naive, even.
[Reposted as originally posted under wrong subject. I, unlike His Holiness, am fallible.]
May I propose a fourth way? Call it, if you like, athgnostism.
If religion is on the right, and atheism is on the left, with agnostism bang in the middle it’s, well, sort of, hanging somewhere above them all.
If the right yells: ‘I believe!’
And the left counters: ‘I don’t!’
While the middle murmurs: ‘Erm, I’m not sure…’
Then the athgnostiscs amongst us merely tut. Because, when all’s said and done, we really don’t care.
‘Let the baby have his bottle’, quoth Homer Simpson (the closest we athgnostics have to a prophet).
Or not. Tut.
Or, if I dare: ‘Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.’
Just leaveth me the fuck out of it.
Because what you choose to believe – or not; or disbelieve – or not; what you remain undecided upon – or not. Well, that’s your concern. I really – really – don’t give a shit. Nor should I. And – here’s the kicker, folks – the same rules should apply in reverse.
So please, whatever it is you believe in, disbelieve in, or are simply unsure about…it’s all good. Just keep it to yourself. Don’t witness, proselyte, or in any way try and bring me around to your way of thinking. I will, gratefully, return the favour. And then we can all just keep on keeping on.
Which, for some of us, will mean being downright evil, racist, bigoted, misanthropic sons (or daughters) of bitches. While others amongst us may rise above it all and reach for the limits of our true potential – at the same time neither believing, disbelieving, nor, frankly, caring whether we should be thanking god for our progress.
Just like the bumblebee. And, the above notwithstanding, bumblebees are perfectly aerodynamic. Funny how otherwise well-informed people can be taken in by widely-accepted myth.
Read into that what you will.
“Your inability to see another people’s perspective because you are too blinded by your own, exemplifies my point.”
What a stereo-typical religious response.
Andrew pretty much nails every point I could make.
My only insight is how religious my family is. I’ve learned to cope with it. I have no animosity or anger towards them for it. I’ve also decided not to tell them how I feel. They still assume I’m a “strong christian.” If they ever asked me I’d tell them my feelings but I believe in peace and happiness overall, cause this life is all we have. Nobody can in any way prove otherwise.
If my parents knew how I really felt they wouldn’t hate me but they would be rather angry, disappointed and constantly pray that I change. What good is it for me to tell them. I know how they are, and I believe we’re all going to the same place when we die so what’s the difference. I choose to keep them happy over enforcing my beliefs.
So how am I the angry one? Any half-way intelligent atheist or agnostic would be the same.
I am as open minded as could be and if I saw an ounce of truth in any religion I would be on my hands and knees, maybe…
It blows my fucking mind that religion has gone as far as it has. How many people it has killed, how it is responsible for majority of the bad in the world. I have nothing to prove to anyone.
The only reason for my writing is how fascinated with the idiocy of religion and how the “saved” so blatantly lie to convince themselves and others about their beliefs and if you don’t agree with them you’re burning in hell.
Ahh I could go on and on, I need to meet more atheists!
Mike55,
If everyone could believe what they want and it wouldn’t affect anyone, I’d be all for your philosophy. But sticking your head in the sand while religion affects BILLIONS of people adversely is hardly a noble stance to take. If everyone took your mind-your-own-business approach, slavery might still exist, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote, etc.
Mo,
Atheists are open-minded in the sense that if you show us a miracle, we’ll change our minds and say “You know what? It IS possible.” I am certain that religion is man-made but if you show me evidence to the contrary, I have the capacity to admit I am wrong. At present, however, all of the evidence suggests the content of the Bible (and the other books) is mostly fiction. So why would I choose to believe in something when there is not a single reason to do so? Being scared to die and desperately hoping there’s something after this life is not a valid reason to believe in a god.
I don’t think agnostics are stupid. I also know some incredibly smart religious people. After all, my brother-in-law is a priest. He’s very open to discussing this subject, unlike others, and I respect that.
As for your other point, if religion were ever left behind, and I have no delusions that mankind ever will leave it behind, I am not naive enough to believe there would be no violence. I’d wager there would be 99% less wars though. You certainly wouldn’t see many suicide bombers if you take away the promise of virgins in the afterlife.
The point of all this, is that I WISH people would abandon religion and merely embrace each other as fellow humans. It shouldn’t matter what color you are, or where you were born, or what book your parents shoved down your throat as a child… We’re all in this together, and no bearded fella in the sky is looking out for you or giving a shit about your daily life. If you believe such an entity exists, you’re egotistical and solipsist. No, the universe does not revolve around you.
Sorry I wasted more yellow paper, J, but I find religion and atheism fascinating and important topics to discuss…
Thanks, Tyler. I was getting lonely out here. Thanks for sharing your personal experience and backing me up.
I am psyched to have encouraged a lively debate, but I think you’re missing the point of my post completely. It was never meant to evangelize atheism as much as to argue against the idea that Agnosticism somehow “trumps” it. I agree with a lot of you on a lot of points, but I fear the anger and arguing masks the real importance of the ‘philosophy of reason’, if you’ll allow me to coin a term for this point.
Sam Harris recently argued that Atheists labeling themselves Atheists are doing themselves a grave injustice. The idea that “we” need to call ourselves something, organize, and evangelize is very much just like the religions we condemn.
Philosophy of reason says that we should use our brains to decide right from wrong. We should raise our children to know the difference, to be good people, to treat their fellow man with dignity and respect, to “do unto other as you have them do unto you,” to make decisions based on facts and evidence, and to live every day of this life as if it were your last. Not because of fear of an invisible and all-powerful god, but because it’s the right thing to do, it benefits everyone, and it makes sense.
As for agnosticism vs. atheism, I’ll just say that if any Atheist witnessed a bearded man walk across the water to turn water into wine, they would re-evaluate their position. The simple fact is that no such thing has ever happened and so we HAVE to believe that there is nothing out there. If the line between these two ideas is somehow about response to evidence, then there is no line. Agnostics say they are open to new ideas, new evidence, etc, and leave the door open that there might be something out there. Atheists say there is no evidence and so there is no god. BUT, if there was a plague of frogs or somehow cancer started evaporating after good, hearty prayers, EVERONE would take notice, and Atheists would say, “Oops, we were wrong.” (But that’s not going to happen.)
My personal beliefs are not important to any of you. However, the problem comes from decisions that are being made that affect all of our lives based on belief. This is where I disagree with Mike. Keeping to one’s self is fine for the shopping mall, I agree, but when it come to politics, public policy, funding for science, wars on terror, and women’s right to their own bodies, we have to care. It’s not the fanatics that make these decisions. When 40% of the US believes God created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago, where does that leave our decision-making ability? If these people believe Jesus is coming back to save us then how can we possibly make the right decision about war with Iraq. These are the people electing the George Bushes. These are the people influencing the courts to take away a woman’s right to choose. These are people hindering stem cell research because they think 8 cells is a life with a soul.
If it’s not OK to stand up and shout, “You aren’t paying attention to the facts!” then we are doomed. Not because the majority of atrocities committed in the history of the world were done in the name of religion, but because the majority of decisions being made now are flat out wrong, ill-informed, and based on fantasy.
It is not OK to tell my children that humans rode on the back of dinosaurs at the Creationism museum. It is not OK that public money helped pay for that place. It is not OK that my money reads “in God we trust.” It is not OK that 10 commandments hang in the courthouses. It is not OK hinder scientific research that could help end cancer or AIDS or worse. It is not OK to discourage the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa. It is not OK. But for those that believe in God and for those that think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, these are OK.
The bottom line is simple. I believe God does not exist based on evidence, but that doesn’t matter. If there was a way to separate what you believe in from how you act, I would have no problem with believing whatever they wanted to. But that’s not the case. Brain-washed sheep are making decisions by ignoring the evidence and saying 10 Hail Mary’s, and I simply cannot accept it. It is our job to continue to argue for reason, evidence, scientific method, and common sense. With some luck and about a thousand years, maybe Jesus, Buddha, Allah, and Yahweh will go the way of Zeus and Poseidon. If not, we are in for a hell of a bumpy ride, if we even make it that far.
Okay, now I only agree with Chris 99 percent.
Where I disagree is with regards to the term “atheism.” Sam Harris bombed when he spoke at the Atheist Alliance because of his rally against using that label. The argument FOR the term is that you need a united front to push back against the religious masses. Were it not for abolitionists banding together under that name, they may not have succeeded. Therefore, I believe it’s up to a new generation of atheists to alter the perception of the very term. Atheists can be nice, normal, charitable people so the scorn they receive is criminally undeserved.
If you don’t believe in a god, you are an atheist. Embrace that and be proud. You are not a lemming. You are free. And you’re not going to hell because there isn’t one.
Other than that, everything else Chris said is spot-on. Now let’s cut up some stem-cells and save some lives shall we?
Andrew – I appreciate the reply, but can’t help but feel that you’re missing the point I’m trying to make. (Which, more likely than not, is my fault. I’m a more than a bit pissed, you see.)
The point, then, isn’t about sticking your head in the sand. It’s more about using what’s inside your head to progress along the path in which your head is taking you. Good, bad, or indifferent, the truth, as they say, will out. And whichever path proves to be yours (or DiClerico’s, or the Pope’s, or Lauren Hill’s) really shouldn’t impact on me, or anyone else for that matter.
Right up until the point where it does…in which case, we (the collective ‘we’) will seek redress. My inclusion of ‘Do as thou wilt…’ (The so-called Crowley Thelema) was neither as throwaway nor as pretentious as it might have seemed (and not nearly as pretentious as the inclusion of ts definition, here):
“Crowley wrote that the Law is not a license to indulge in casual whim or to mindlessly accept cultural mores, but is rather a mandate to discover and manifest one’s True Will.”
Without wishing to come across all Satanist (which would sort of defeat the object), to my mind the Great Beast was on to something.
Yes, religion does affect billions of people. My point is that it shouldn’t, unless the concerned individual so chooses. Simplistic, idealistic and wholly impractical? Yes. But, as I said, I am a bit pissed. Not to mention notoriously simplistic, idealistic and impractical.
Oh, and that thing about women voting? That really worked out, didn’t it?
I will leave you by quoting the great Stephen Colbert. How does he describe agnostics…?
“Atheists without balls.”
—
tyler, i’m an atheist and i grew up in a pentecostal household too.
chris is one of two people i know who isn’t afraid to call himself an atheist. i have friends who say insulting and heretical things about god, churches, other religions but whenever i ask them they say, “oh no, i’m not an atheist… there’s got to be something out there…”
why? why does something have to be out there? doesn’t make sense to me.
juicy discussion. i got to pay better attention. if there is a god, he-she’s been far too passive for my taste, allowing the human race to run amuck, or far too manipulative, speaking privately to each of us and managing to convince more than a few listeners to run amuck in his-her name. these rather too fervent believers are data. so much for a lack of evidence.
my son has convinced me that the little voice which i hear within is genetically encoded, a tribal imperative resulting from natural selection. thus, i doubt all religions. i was a member of the ethical cultural society for a few years — plenty of good atheists there — but got distracted whilst getting divorced.
i view intolerance as the issue which we need to eradicate, not religion.
okay, not religion, per se. if a religion and its followers are intolerant, then begone with it. whew.
Did the universe create itself before it existed or after it existed?
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
I read this book a number of years ago and I would read it on the ferry, the train and the bus. People who saw the title would give me a funny look or a look of disgust. I did’t give a shit becuase it was fine for them to read their bible or Koran or whatever the fuck they were reading. I didn’t give a shit, but my book? Blasphemy!
If you have the time, read Mr. Russell’s essay. Tell me what you think.
Did the universe create its self before it existed or after it existed.
Sorry about the double post.
If we keep debating - I’m sure we’ll figure this one out.