Tuesday, 1 September 2015

Free will, a loving god, and hell

I know it's not a view shared by *all* followers of the big two religions but there are a lot of people who tell me that because I'm an atheist I'll end up in hell. 

They'll often point this out after telling me how much god loves me, which I find odd. 

God loves me, he wants me to spend eternity with him in heaven, but he can't force me to do it. I need to believe via my own free will (though with God appearing directly to many people in the bible, and many believers today claiming to have had a personal revelation, the 'must believe on faith alone' condition seems to be a somewhat fluid rule). 

If I believe of my own free will, he'll reveal himself to me, I'll be a believer for life, and will be with him in the afterlife. 

Should I not believe I'll be judged accordingly and will spend the rest of eternity (a fairly long time) in a lake of fire, possibly being tortured, certainly not enjoying it. 

Theists tell me that it's my choice to go to hell. Because I refuse to believe, I'm putting myself in hell. 

What needs to be remembered here is that this 'believe on faith alone' condition is one that God put in place himself, and he put it in place *knowing* in advance that billions and billions of people would be condemned to eternity in hell because of it. One must wonder why he decided to place this 'on faith alone' condition on being 'saved'.

There are two things God knows. One: What it will take for me to believe he's real. Two whether or not this will happen before I die. 

If I die before God gives me reason to believe, how is me not believing my fault, given he knows what it will take me to believe, but refuses to provide it? 

People believe in God for different reasons. For some it's pure faith, for others they believe they've had a personal revelation. There are some who've had life changing experiences and they think God was responsible. For all these people God has made them in a way that allows them to believe - he's met their 'belief criteria'. Why not meet mine? 

If I believe the theists, the following is true: god loves me unconditionally, and loves me for ever. I don't know about you, but if I loved someone unconditionally and forever, I'd do all I could to prevent them from being burnt in hell for eternity (if I thought hell was real). God? Not so much. 

God would rather I burn in hell than he prove himself to me. Why? I'm not sure. Is me believing on faith alone really that important? How does he make the case that me, or anyone, burning in hell for eternity is 'better' than us being in heaven? 

It's not like God himself is being forced by some other overlord to honour this obligation. This is a rule *he* has put in place. It is his own condition that says I have to believe on faith alone, and he put that condition in place knowing I wouldn't be able to meet it.

Yet theists still claim I 'choose' hell? 

If it's given that I'm doing what God knows I'm going to do, and he knowingly made me in a way that means I can't believe on faith alone, and he put the condition of requiring faith for entry into heaven, how exactly is my own free will sending me to hell? 

If God is real, and he wants me to spend eternity in heaven rather than hell, he could get that done in an instant. He chooses not to. If I end up in hell (I won't) it's because *God* chose that path for me. 

A question that could be asked here is 'what does god get out of it?' When we let a child do something we'd rather they didn't, it's often to teach a lesson. For example, you might tell a toddler three times not to touch the glass on the front of the oven, because it's hot. If they attempt to touch it for the fourth time, you might let them, knowing that you're there on standby ready to deal with the outcome, but knowing they'll learn once and for all not to touch the oven, and they'll do it when you can look after them afterwards and they'll do it with the tip of their finger and not their whole hand. 

Sending someone to hell has no such benefit. One cannot learn from this and do better next time. There is no next time. Sending a non-believer to hell is nothing but pure punishment. Punishment forever. Punishment for the 'crime' of not believing that a god exists. 

How does an 'all loving' god justify a person having 80 (maybe) years of life on earth, with its own ups and downs, at times its own misery, just to then spend eternity in hell? 

The parent of the toddler above might justify the scorched tip of a finger by pointing out the new found knowledge that the oven is, in fact, hot. But for god, he's creating people to spend a temporary period on earth and then the rest of forever in hell. Doing this does *not* come under the umbrella of 'all loving'. 

Creating people simply to send them to hell, which, if the story is true, is what God is doing, is monstrous, not loving. 

Thursday, 27 August 2015

Morality from God?

We atheists often get asked, if there's no god, where do we get our morality from? 

We may answer by talking about the evolutionary origins and benefits of things such as empathy. 

But it raises a question - if there *is* a god, from where do people get their morality? 

Any theist will tell you that they get their morality from the god in which they happen to believe. It is he (it's always a he these days) who decides what is right, what is wrong, and it's up to us to follow that. Seems reasonable. Well, no, it doesn't. But it does seem straight forward. 

However there is an issue. Without an inherent ability to tell right from wrong, or at least allocate right and wrong, how does one decide that the morality dictated to them by a god is, in fact, good? If a person has no ability to know right from wrong, without being told, then it's impossible for them to know that the morality they're following is 'good'. They become automatons, unthinkingly doing what is dictated, making no decision themselves, making no judgement calls, or moral decisions. 

The problem with this kind of mindless obedience is that it can lead to thinking like this: 
One can only hope that Andrew P either 1: Is joking (as tasteless as it might be) or 2: Never hears 'voices' in his head telling him to kill. 

I will speculate here and suggest that if I spoke to Andrew about his declaration that he would murder on behalf of his god, he would say that he *knows* his god is good and *knows* that his god would never get him to do anything that's morally questionable. In such a situation, wouldn't it be better that Andrew's morality was based more on empathy, understanding, discussion, and logic, rather than voices in his head? 

Continuing with the speculation, I would question as to how Andrew knows his god is good. Having looked at a few more of Andrew's tweets, I think he'd say that the god in which he believes can't lie and he knows this because the god in which he believes has told him that he, god, cannot lie. 

Hopefully you already see the problem. A god who *can* lie, if such god were to exist, could say anything - including that it cannot lie. The statement 'I cannot lie' cannot be believed on its own.

It will be argued here that it's not just that the god in question has said that it cannot lie, but it is the very nature of this god that it cannot lie (that a being outside of nature has a nature is somewhat paradoxical). The obvious question that follows is: Who has defined this nature of 'god'? 

If it was the god itself, then we've still no reason to believe it. Any god capable of lying is capable of denying its ability to lie. If it is the believer that has defined this characteristic then the entire premise falls apart. 'I believe in a God who cannot lie, therefore the God in which I believe cannot lie' is pure nonsense and would be immediately recognised as such by anyone with entry level logic skills. They have simply defined into 'existence' a god that fits their preconceived ideas of what a god ought to be. 

What does this amount to? 

Simply put, someone who believes in a god that gives them their morality has no way of knowing whether or not that morality is good, has no way of knowing whether or not they've been lied to about that morality being good and, at least in some examples, has no justification for *not* murdering people en masse, if they believe their god has commanded them to do so. 

I don't see this as the kind of morality that should be trumpeting itself as superior. 

Monday, 17 August 2015

What evidence would I need in order to accept God exists?

It's a question that atheists get asked a lot: What evidence would I need in order to accept God exists? 

It's hard to answer, because I personally have no concept of gods or goddesses. I'm not sure I should be saying anything because I don't define what a god is nor what it's capable of - believers do that. 

To me, asking an atheist what evidence they'd need to accept the existence of a god or goddess is like me asking you what evidence you'd need to accept the existence of a Gnorleyark. Until I define a Gnorleyark for you, how could you know?

I have said before (thanks to Matt Dillahunty) that I don't know what evidence would prove to me that a god or goddess exists - but the god or goddess does. So pray to them, ask them what that evidence is, then, when you have the answer, get back to me. 

But I feel now that lets them off the hook too lightly, because they're likely to tell me that they think no evidence would convince me, no matter what they came back with. 

So when the evidence question comes up now, before I can answer, I need to clarify something with them. Something that (hopefully) makes them think a little, and makes them see the situation from my point of view. A sceptical, critically thinking point of view. 

I may refine the question in the future, but for now it's this: 

What detectable, verifiable, testable, or measurable qualities, properties, or characteristics does a god or goddess possess which unambiguously and conclusively shows that it's not a product of human imagination?

If they can't answer this, then I can comfortably point out they can provide no evidence to convince me of their claim. 

Theists often tell me that their god is outside the physical, outside of space, and outside of time. What does that leave? What's remaining that qualifies as 'existence'? There may be a state of 'being' that is outside of what we know as reality, but if there is...how can we detect and verify it? Right now, as far as I know, we can't. To me, this shows that the properties of 'God' have nothing in common with reality. There's a reason for that. 

Tuesday, 21 July 2015

10 poor reasons to believe god exists

These are some of the arguments for God that come up most often. No particular order. 

1: Other people believe it. 
Although there may be many people who share your belief. There are at least 5 billion people who don't. At least 1.6 billion people have an alternate belief. You can't all be right. but you can all be wrong. 

2: My parents told me to believe. 
They also told you to believe Santa is real (maybe) or the tooth fairy. Not only have your parents lied to you, but their reasons for believing also fall under one or more of the poor reasons listed here. We've evolved to listen to our parents because some of their advice is good (don't touch the fire, watch where you're walking) but to believe them in everything, without question is questionable. 

3: I can't explain 'x' without God. 
People used to think that about lightning and earthquakes too. We can explain them now and guess what? No god required. What you don't understand is not proof that a god exists. For 'x' to be proof of god, you need to show that it *is* god, not that you can't imagine how it isn't. 

4: The prophecies in the bible/scientific revelations in the Qu'ran prove the book is from God. 
Biblical prophecy is vague and easily retrofitted. Sure, Israel became a nation, but did it really take a godly prophecy to predict it? Could a hopeful Hebrew have suggested it? Of course. The science in the Qu'ran is inaccurate (eg where sperm comes from, two kinds of water not mixing) The 'science' in the Qu'ran is consistent with what was known at the time. 

5: It's called FAITH!
Yeah, it is. As long as you recognise that faith, and good reasons to believe, are different things. As above, at least 1.6 Billion people have 'faith' that a different story is true. Faith gets people to fly planes into buildings thinking they've got 72 virgins waiting for them. Faith lets people eat a wafer thinking it's *literally* the flesh of a Jewish carpenter that lived 2000 years ago. Faith makes people throw virgins into volcanoes thinking it'll appease the god within. Faith makes people think a man rose from the dead is a better explanation than 'something else happened'. Faith may make you feel good, but it's not a pathway to truth. 

6: All cultures have developed a god - there must be something in it. 
There's no doubt humans have a hunger for answers. We crave explanations for what we can observe. The scientific method is the best way we've come up with to find those explanations. But the scientific method is recent. It wasn't around 2000+ years ago when gods and goddesses where being invented. A primitive mind thinking that thunder was the result of an angry god is understandable, but gods and goddesses were the answers we came up with when we didn't know better. We know better now. It's funny how the number of gods and goddesses we invent has slowed since the scientific method was developed. 

7: Without God, we wouldn't know right from wrong. (Morality) 
Says who? This is really just a stab in the dark and could easily be the 'x' in point 3. Non-human animals show traits that we call morality. The show compassion, cooperation, and empathy. They have a sense of 'fairness' and they look after each other when required. These are evolved traits and are easily shown to be beneficial to the species. No one has demonstrated that a god is required. 

8: Evolution is a religion (is false, can't happen etc.). 
Even if this were true (and it's not) it doesn't matter. Disproving evolution would in no way prove that gods and goddesses exist. All disproving evolution would do (if it could be done) is show that evolution doesn't happen. 

9: I feel something when I pray/worship. 
Sure you do. But people have feelings like that at concerts, and sporting events too. There's nothing concrete to suggest that this is an internal feeling caused by god or Jesus or whomever. More likely it's really just your body having a reaction to you having a good time.

10: There MUST be something more...
Saying it, wanting it to be true doesn't make it so. Sure we may want to see our loved ones when we die. Sure we may get a warm fuzzy feeling at the idea that we're here for a purpose greater than ourselves and that even after we die we'll somehow carry on. Some people may even like the idea that our existence makes a god happy and that's good enough reason to be alive. But wanting all those things to be true, doesn't make them true. 'Must' is a definite position. You need to demonstrate that it's true not just assert it and expect people to believe. When people say 'must' in this context, they're really saying 'I really hope there is'. 

There's also Look around you! 
I wrote a whole blog on this very topic. See it here

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Kaaba Rainbow and the resulting kerfuffle.

After the historic Supreme court decision in the United State there was something of a global flood, although it wasn't a torrent of water sent from the sky by an angry god wanting to wipe out humanity. Instead it was a flood of colour. Rainbows to be precise. 

Social media was awash with profile pictures that now had a rainbow coloured overlay. I made the change to my Facebook picture, but decided I'd save changing my twitter picture for when Australia finally catches up and legalises same-sex marriage here. 

The changes weren't limited to regular users of social media either. The New York City mayor's office changed its avatar, as did the twitter accounts of the 500px photography group, the Australian bank Westpac, and a host of other companies including heavy weights Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter positively acknowledged the decision in one way or another. 

The rainbows were seen in the real world too. Several landmarks were beautifully lit up in rainbow colours, 

Including the Empire State Building: 

and not insignificantly the White House temporarily became the Rainbow House. 
The building that, from what I saw, caused the biggest stir on twitter, and I later learnt it caused a big stir on Facebook too, was a building that wasn't lit up in rainbow colours at all. At least not really. It was a photoshopped image of the Kaaba at Mecca in Saudi Arabia. 

It was posted by the Twitter account @AtheistRepublic and you may not be surprised to learn that the reaction wasn't completely favourable. Here's the image: 

Who gets offended by rainbows? You know who. Muslims. Not all, but plenty. 

Atheist Republic have shared some of the responses at a post on their website. There are some graphic images, but you can see it here

I saw the tweet myself and retweeted it. I let @AtheistRepublic know that I liked what they'd done and then, after it had been up for a while, I tweeted the picture myself saying it was some fine work by @AtheistRepublic. 

It didn't take long before I was receiving responses from Muslims too. 

The first was (I think the original has been deleted): 
And this 

Pretty tame compared to what @AtheistRepublic were receiving. 

What I find ironic was in some of the tweets I was being insulted at the very same time that Muslim's were demanding that I respect their religion. 

A friend of mine asked me what I get out of insulting someone else's religion. I told her that my goal was not to upset Muslims, but for Muslims to realise that this was not worth being upset about. But as for what I get out of it, I told her, that another religious person learns that not everyone treats their religion as special. Not everyone bows to their demands that their religion should be respected. 

Out of curiosity I approached Armin Navabi from Atheist Republic for his reaction to the reaction. 

I started by asking Armin why he created the picture. Armin replied, "Legalizing gay marriage in the United States was a step in the right direction. This image was meant to serve as a reminder that there are many others that still living under fear of persecution, physical violence and even death for who they are." Fair enough, if you ask me. 

When I asked Armin if he was aware, when he posted it, Muslims would be offended, he said "Not as much as this. We usually remind people that if our content is offensive to them, a good solution is for them to just not look at it." 

I thought the question my friend asked me about what I get out of insulting someone else's religion was a good one, so I asked Armin the same. "We wanted to encourage our fellow activists to keep fighting for equality everywhere." Concluding "Our audience are atheists not Muslims." It does raise the question what, if anything is sacred? 

I tend to agree with Tim Minchin:  
"If you want to imbue earthly objects with supernatural agency that’s your right, and for that matter I would do a shitty placard and march beside you in the streets to defend your right to hold sacred what you will but I personally don’t think that that means you get to tell other people what they should hold sacred."
So as much as Muslims might find the Kaaba sacred, they don't get to demand that atheists also find it sacred. We're under no obligation to treat it how they demand. 

People might want to make the point here that not all Muslims have reacted like this, and they're right. One of them left a comment: 

Ahmed got it right. Fahad, not so much (highlight, mine)

Was it the intention of Atheist Republic to upset Muslims with this picture? 

"This was posted on an atheist Facebook page, an atheist Twitter account, website etc. Offended Muslims that come to atheist websites and get offended are either looking for reasons to get offended or need to learn how to block content that they wish not to be exposed to." 

Armin seems unapologetic, and I must say, I agree with him. Firstly, it's okay for atheists to make content for atheists. There is certainly enough religious content being made for religious people. Secondly, this isn't insulting a person. It's not telling someone they're the son of a whore or that they're so fat they have their own climate. 

The picture in question is not, in fact, insulting anyone. As with the Empire State Building, The White House or any of the other landmarks that were lit up to be rainbow coloured, this picture is a celebration. Rather than being offended, Muslims should be making moves to have it happen for real. 

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

The "Why are there still monkeys?" Question

This post first appeared as a guest post on the WWJTD blog, here 

If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

It's a question we've all seen before. Sometimes it's asked genuinely. Really. 

If it is genuine, and it's often hard to tell, it should be answered genuinely. In and of itself, it's not a stupid question. It's a question that someone who accepts evolution needs to be able to answer. 

I answered it once by engaging the person who asked, sending him some links to some introductory evolution articles, and suggested he have a read.  

He tweeted back to me three days later, thanking me for the information and saying that he now accepted evolution because he now understood it. He still follows me on twitter to this day. He said it was hard, because he'd been raised as a creationist, but he wanted to learn. I call that a win for education. 

But it's not always like that. 

Often the 'why are there still monkeys' question is a slur. It's a 'gotcha' used to bring the theory of evolution to its knees. 

What I love about this is that people *actually* think this defeats evolution. I can't work out which of two things they're trying to highlight. 

Are they suggesting...
1: That biologists haven't noticed monkeys are still around?
2: Biologists *have* noticed that monkeys are still around, but are hoping no one else has? 

Imagine it, 150+ years worth of scientific study, thousands of people studying evolution right now, millions of papers written, millions of fossils analysed, and all this gets undone by some internet nong asking why there are still monkeys? Someone somewhere thinks this will happen. 

In case you need to know why there are still monkeys, this video is the best explanation I've seen: 

If you see the question - don't automatically call the person a fool or make fun of them. Ask them if they'd really like to know why there are still monkeys. If they would, explain it to them. You might be surprised by the result. 

Other Evolution posts:

Open letter to argumentative evolution deniers: http://mrozatheist.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/an-open-letter-to-argumentative.html

Scientific World in Shock! Evolution Proved False! http://mrozatheist.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/scientific-world-in-shock-evolution.html

Friday, 5 June 2015

Argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum or The Argument from popularity is the logical fallacy that concludes a proposition is true because most, or many, people believe it.

The problem with this argument is not that it's fallacious. Actually, that's not right. The problem with this argument is that it's fallacious. The *other* problem with this logical fallacy is that it works. Often.

Picture yourself on the 20th floor of an office building. One of your colleagues, a known joker perhaps, stands at the window, looking out. They turn to you smiling, and say 'there's something you need to see out here...' You're probably not going to look. You'll probably think they're having you on.

Now imagine you look up from your seat and there are 25 colleagues looking out the window. One of them notices you, says to come and look. You might...you might not. But this causes everyone else to notice you, and they *all* tell you there's something you've got to see out the window. Do you go? Of course you do.

If all your friends tell you to watch a movie, listen to a band, or watch a TV show because it's great...you're more likely to.

If you're born into a community where a high percentage of the population believes in a god or gods or goddesses, good chance you will to. Especially if they raise you as though you believe, without ever letting you question it. I know, because happened to me.

When I started my twitter account there was a meme that went around about the similarities between Jesus and Horus. Both born of a virgin, both born on December 25th, both raised someone from the dead. The list goes on citing more than 10 similarities.

Here's one version of it:

I remember thinking it seemed suspect. I tried to find someone who had verified the claims but couldn't. I could only find people repeating them. So whenever I saw atheists using this comparison (and there were plenty) I'd tell them I wasn't sure it was true. Another look today shows only people repeating it, or the odd person questioning it or asking for confirmation. I can't find anyone giving good evidence to confirm these claims.

It got to the point where so many atheists were sending it out that people assumed it was true. The popularity was the problem. Not enough people bothered to check.

So beware of the argument from popularity. Not just from the other side, but also from those who agree with you.

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

The Christian message

When I was growing up, I believed there was a god, so did everyone around me. I was probably over 10 before I knew there were people who didn't think God was real.

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and that ruined everything for everyone, forever, apparently. Kind of sucks that God put the tree there knowing Adam and Eve would eat from it, therefore condemning all mankind. Why not just put the tree outside the Garden of Eden? 

Talk to an everyday Christian and I'm sure they'll tell you the Christian message is about love and helping people. They'll cite the charities set up and run by Christians, groups that go out and feed the homeless, Christian orphanages, Christian hospitals, and so on. 

They won't tell you that in many cases, before the homeless person can receive a meal, they have to listen to a sermon about how bad they are, and that they need Jesus to save them. They won't tell you that there are dozens of secular charities all over the world helping people too. People helping people is a human trait, not a Christian one. 

If the Christian message was *just* about help and love, even if it did come with a bit of 'y'all need Jesus' it would probably be an overall good thing.

Although individual Christians may differ, the Christian message is one of homophobia, sexism, fear, and shame. 

From a paper titled "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" By Phil Zuckerman 
Concerning the acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights, atheists and secular people again stand out (Linneman and Clendenen 2009; Hayes 1995b). When compared with the religious, non-religious people are far more accepting of homosexuality and supportive of gay rights and gay marriage (Sherkat et al. 2007; Burdette et al. 2005; Lewis 2003; Loftus 2001; Roof and McKinney 1987), and are far less likely to be homophobic or harbor negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Altemeyer 2009; Rowatt et al. 2006; Schulte and Battle 2004; Aubyn et al. 1999; VanderStoep and Green 1988; Kunkel and Temple 1992). According to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey (2008), 60 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans support gay marriage, compared to roughly 26 percent of Protestants and 42 percent of Catholics. According to Newport (2008), 76 percent of Americans who never or seldom attend church consider homosexuality morally acceptable, compared with 21 percent of weekly and 43 percent of monthly church attenders
In 2013 the Vatican ex-communicated Fr Greg Reynolds, an Australian priest who is supportive of marriage equality.1 

In 2012, before Australian Parliament voted on the subject, Christian church leaders (Anglican, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox) had messages against marriage equality read out to, or distributed to congregations, across Sydney.2

Passages from the bible such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 have anti-homosexual messages. The details above show that that message is getting through. 

It's significant to note that not only are the non-religious far less likely to be against marriage equality, but among the Christians, those who attend church less often, are also less likely to be against marriage equality. The Christian message *is* anti-gay. When you find a Christian who is not homophobic, it's despite what Christianity tells them, not because of it. 

The prime example, among many, of sexism is the bible is 1 Timothy 2 11:12
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Exodus 21:7 Leviticus 12 1:8 Leviticus 21:9 are three more of many examples. 

There is an interesting defence of 1 Timothy 2 11:12 (and God being against women in general) here by Lenny Esposito. Lenny concludes that God is not against women because...Men are entrusted with leading the church. Women are entrusted with bearing children and providing them with a Godly and secure home life so they may become Godly adults making an impact on our society.
I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds pretty sexist. 

There are plenty of Christians who aren't sexist. I would guess that every Christian I know personally isn't sexist (at least, not overtly). But they're not sexist despite what Christianity teaches them, not because of it. To this day there are no female priests in the Catholic church. 

I grew up terrified of hell. I was worried that anything I could do would send me there. I knew Jesus wanted to save me from hell, of course, but what if I didn't pray right? What if I did 10 things wrong but forgot one, so only asked for forgiveness for 9 of them? Would Jesus still save me from hell, even if I forgot to ask?

It didn't take another person to be around for the worry to be present either, because God was everywhere, he was always watching. Whatever I did, he was there. It felt like he was just waiting for me to slip up. I was all too familiar with him wiping out the planet because he regretted making humans in the first place. Why would I be spared if he regretted making me? 

Hell was the hardest thing for me to give up when I left religion. What a thing to do to a child? 

Christianity seems to survive on a culture of fear. Fear of hell. Fear of God. Combine this with the shame they force on you for being human, the idea that you *deserve* hell for being who you are, and the Christian message here is a terrifying one. One that tells people to hate themselves for being human.

The Christian message is centred on our flaws. On how being human means being sinful. That we need to beg for forgiveness for being born human, and that if we don't we're hell bound. Christianity tells us that homosexuality is wrong, that women just aren't as good as men. It's message is that we are slaves to God. We're here to please him, and we're meaningless without him. 

Maybe there is a bit of love and goodness in the Christian message, but from my experience, the balance definitely falls on the side of the awful. 

1 http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2013/09/24/vatican-excommunicates-gay-supportive-australian-priest

Friday, 22 May 2015

Respecting Christian beliefs.

Dear Christians, 

When you ask me to respect your beliefs, what is it you're asking me to respect? 

Is it the idea that I deserve to spend eternity in hell just because I don't share your belief? 

Is it the idea that, because a woman was tricked into eating a piece of fruit, by a *talking 
snake*, that all of humanity is subsequently flawed and full of 'sin'? 

Is it the idea that when your god regretted making humans, he killed them all, including all babies and children, and killed all the animals? 

Should I respect the idea of forcing children to live in fear of hell?

Are you asking me to respect the idea that homosexuality is an abomination and that if a man lies with a man, as with a woman, he deserves to die? 

Is it the idea that I can beat my slaves as much as I like - providing I don't beat them so badly that they die within three days? 

Are you asking me to respect the idea that I shouldn't suffer a witch to live? 

Do you want me to respect the idea that a rapist, or a murderer, can get into heaven, as long as they find Jesus and are saved, but I can't get into heaven as an atheist? 

Is it the idea that to save humanity from his very own plan, god sent himself to Earth, as his own son, to then sacrifice himself as his son, to himself as his father, in order to save us from hell...which is his idea and plan in the first place? 

Am I to respect your belief that it's more important that a child is raped, than your god impact the free will of the rapist? 

Are you wanting me to respect the idea that a human sacrifice is the only pathway your god could have chosen in order to get people into heaven? 

Is it the idea that when allegedly presented with an empty tomb, you think the explanation of 'a man rose from the dead' is more reasonable than 'something else happened'? 

Sorry to tell you, as much as you think I should respect your beliefs, I just can't. 

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Stupid atheist beliefs meme.

You know the one. I'm sure of it. But, in case you don't...

I see it quite often and I'm sure you do too. Most recently in this tweet directed to me: 

As you well know, this meme is wrong on every level. I'm going to write a deconstruction to send to anyone who sends me this in the future. 

"Atheism: The belief..."
Wrong. Although there's always discussion around this, atheism is not the belief of anything. It's just not believing there's a god. 

"that there was nothing..."
I don't know what was there before the big bang happened. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. Was it nothing? Was it a 'singularity'? Was it a 'kind' of nothing that physicists see differently to how others see nothing? Speculation abounds. But I don't know anyone who says it was 'nothing'. How can 'nothing' exist? 

"and nothing happened to the nothing"
One of the more ludicrous lines in the meme. I'm not sure what happened, but clearly 'something' happened. 

"and then nothing magically exploded for no reason,"
I didn't 'magically' explode. It didn't even explode, it expanded. And it wasn't, of course, for no reason. The Lawrence Krauss hypothesis 'A Universe From Nothing' explains a possibility to do with events at the quantum level. I don't understand it fully. I suspect no one does, maybe even Krauss himself. But what we can understand for sure, it wasn't magic. That's the theistic position. 

"creating everything"
No, not 'everything'. Initially it was mainly helium and deuterium. It's not like we think iPods came out of the big bang. Unless this means 'everything that was in existence at this time'. This this may be the only correct part of the meme. 

"and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever"
Actually it didn't 'rearrange' itself. Gravity took effect. Over a very long period of time, stars formed, then went supernova. Elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, things essential for life, and evolution, were created in stars, not the big bang. The explosions of stars sent these heavier elements into the universe, for gravity to again have an impact on. The process repeated for billions of years. Eventually galaxies and solar systems, with planets like our own, formed. Some planets are no more than rocks, some have atmospheres and environments, some a gaseous giants. This is explainable naturally, and very well understood. No magic required. Also, whatsoever is one word.

"into self-replicating bits"
'Self-replicating bits' did come into existence, but it was in specific environments for reasons which are explained and understood by chemistry, not a mysterious rearrangement of cosmic dust. Combinations of heat and electricity and other environmental factors caused amino acids and proteins to form in oceans that were not like today's oceans that existed in environments not like today's environment. These cells are the building blocks of life from which tiny, single-celled, replicating organisms formed. It didn't happen magically, again, that is the theistic position. 

"which then turned into dinosaurs."
No. Just plain wrong. Life first appeared on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. When the Earth was about 1 billion years old. Dinosaurs first appeared in the Triassic period, which was about 231 million years ago. So the 'self-replicating bits' didn't 'turn into dinosaurs'. It was a process of evolution which took about 3.2 *billion* years to happen. 3.2 billion years worth of slight changes from generation to generation to get from self-replicating cells to what we know as dinosaurs. This meme idiotically makes it seem like we think it happened in one step.

"Makes perfect sense"
When you remove the stupidity of the original meme and replace it with facts and reality, yes, it does make perfect sense. 

It's a funny kind of feeling to be told what you think is stupid, but an adult, who in 2015, thinks we're all doomed because a woman who was made from a rib, was talked into eating a magic piece of fruit. 

By a snake. 

Feel free to send this through to anyone who sends you that meme :)