If you could boil the constitution down to just one idea. The main principle, The point. It would have to be that the power of the government to govern comes from the people. We the people.
The rest is who gets what power and how many of this and that and then the bill of rights. We created a government that gets its power from the governed. Not an anointed King but and elected representative of the people.
So it angers me when people say there isn't or shouldn't be a separation of church and state.
The Founding Fathers saw that there had to be.
There are Governments out there that believe that their ruler was chosen by God to rule, that they have divine birthright to rule. but thats not who we are.
To say that there should not be a separation of church and state is to unravel the brilliance, the strength of the constitution. And it strikes me a power grab from an already dominate power.
I hear all the time that "this is a christian nation" usually followed by "if you don't like it leave"
But is it? Most of our Founding Fathers were deists. They believed the there was a God but that he did not/could not intervene in the ongoings of the universe.
When Thomas Jefferson was running for president the churches at the time called him an atheist. Its says something that they now wish to claim him as one of their own.
John Q. Adams swore his oath of presidency on a Law book and not the Bible.
Even Abraham lincoln (I know he is not a founding father) railed against christianity.
This however did not stop them from recognizing that most of the country was religious and christian so you do find religious undertones in their speeches and their public writings, they knew their audience.
The Treaty of Tripoli spells it out pretty plainly. (emphasis added)
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This treaty was submitted to congress and received unanimous approval before it was signed into law by John Adams. on June 10th 1797.
But even If none of that stuff was true. If all the founding Fathers we christian, that just makes it more impressive that they saw the need to separate the church fro the government.
The important fact of the matter is that the President and the Congress, the Judges and the representatives. All the Governing bodies that make up our government get their power from the people and not from God.
The minute someone starts to believe that God has given them the power to rule is the minute when they believe that the people no longer have the power to remove them.
"I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible." - Matt Dillahunty
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Morality. Right and Wrong.
Where does our morality come from? How do we know right from wrong?
It scares me when christians ask "how are you moral without God?"
I hear religious people in debates and conversations all the time suggest that atheists are rapists and murderers, that they are angry and violent because they have nothing stopping them from being that way. That atheists can have no morals because they don't believe in a higher authority.
that "without religion you can't hire enough police"
That scares us. Is the only thing stopping religious people from raping and murdering the fear of a punishment from God. I sure hope not.
Now, I haven't done any advance study into psychology, neuroscience or morality but I am a living breathing human being so lets think this through.
Morality is obviously important to the the overall survival of any social animal. One might argue that on an individual level selfishness would lead to a better chance of survival but that doesn't add up. Anytime we drive on a highway we put our lives into strafers hands and it pays to be conscientious of all the other people on the road. It even angers us when people are not conscientious to us. If people stopped obeying the laws because they felt like it the world would be a more dangerous place. We all enter this more or less unspoken agreement. I won't swerve into oncoming traffic if you don't. No one ever thinks to themselves I shouldn't swerve suddenly into traffic because God might punish me or God would look unfavorable at it. We don't do that because if people did the world would be more dangerous for all of us. We are social animals by nature and being altruistic is in everyones best interest, generally.
I have heard the argument that morality comes from God even if you don't believe in him. Where else would you get it?
If all morality comes from God, then all morality would be the same. If morality comes from God it surely wouldn't be something that I could adjust or alter to fit my desires it would be ingrained in me and everyone else. We would all have exactly the same views on what is right and what is wrong.
and you would expect religious people who are in touch with God to be more moral simply because they understand it better.
And if morality came from God then anything he said was moral and right would be.
Well, it turns out that morality isn't so black and white. We all have different takes on morality. Some things are easy. If I kick a puppy not only will anyone who sees it be repulsed and hopefully kick me back. but even I would feel guilty about it. Kicking a puppy is clearly wrong. but its when we venture into grey areas that morality becomes trickier. Its wrong to steal. Is it less wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed you hungry daughter? Is it less wrong to steal if you steal from the rich to help the needy? We are all going to have different opinions on questions like these and they are all with merit.
while morality has black and white areas it also has grey areas, areas that wouldn't exist if we got our morals from an absolute authority.
So it seems we have an innate sense of of morality passed on from being a social animal but it also is effected by our experiences, and our chemistry.
If our morals came from an absolute authority, namely the Bible, then they wouldn't change. At least not without a angelic decree of some kind. 500 years ago it was commonplace for a 30-40 year old man to marry an 11 year old girl so he could get the most children possible and this was normal and seen as moral. Today it is only seen that way in the most backwards corners of the earth. Morals evolve with society.
If the bible is the absolute authority on morality then we have some problems. The Bible 100% condones slavery. No doubt about it. Now to be clear, the bible does not say slavery is bad. It does not say "thou shalt not own another person" If it did that would be amazing. it would have been way ahead of its time and that would be quoted as reason enough to prove the Bible as being morally superior.
But just by not saying its wrong that doesn't mean the bible says it right.
Its when the bible, the word of God as written by man, Spells out how to own a slave and how to beat a slave. Thats when the bible condones slavery.
Exodus 22
"when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, then he shall be avenged. but if he survives a day or too then he is not to be avenged for he is his money"
This is God speaking to Moses. "For he is his money"
How anyone can say the bible is the source for morality with a straight face is beyond me.
Now I understand if that you gently dismiss that last part about slavery. If you believe in the the goodness of the bible then how could it support or condone slavery. and if it did then it would throw a wrench into everything. If the bible is the Foundation of your morality to accept that it condones slavery and other things as bad a slavery would be faith shattering. But the bible does condone slavery. 100%. so either Slavery was at one time a moral practice or it never was and the Bible is wrong about that. Think about that.
I have heard all kinds of twists and turns for how this is actually ok. that slaves were treated good back then and God couldn't just throwout slavery during that age. Its all bullshit. Slavery was terrible throughout history its terrible now. and what good is a moral God if he can't do something about a moral scourge.
There are plenty of awful things in the Bible besides slavery. How about God drowning millions of people. the estimated population of the earth at that time would have been about 3 million people.
Now God says they were all bad, but how many pregnant women were there? How many children under 5 years old? And God could do anything other than horribly drown them. Now I don't believe in a flood that covered the earth because there is no evidence for it at all. (thats another post all together) but if I did. Thats pretty evil. thats not a very moral thing to do. the list of immoral things that God does goes on and on. Now if you believe the bible is allegory. Then the morals taken from these stories can be good. Faith and trust and obedience. But if you believe that they actually happened then you have to believe that God is twisted and amoral or you have to be twisted and amoral yourself.
If the story of Job is an allegory then the moral is having faith in God even in times of hardship.
If its true then God killed Jobs children just to prove a point.
But if Morality comes from the bible then we should also see evidence of that in society. Are christians more likely to be good people. The answer is no.
Divorce rates in Religious states are higher than less religious states. The more religious a country in the world is the more likely it is a woman will get raped there. Atheists make up a very small percentage of inmates in prison, mush smaller than their percentage in the general population. I can point to countless reports of priests molesting children or pastors stealing money from their congregation. or studies that showed religious people on their way to a sermon on the good Sumatran stepping over and ignoring a person in need. But I don't want to have it seem like I'm making the reverse argument. that atheists are somehow more moral. No no.. I know plenty of very good decent moral people, who believe that there moral center comes from the bible. That may be only because they haven't read it, but they believe it.
There are two tenants of Christianity that have always puzzled me in regards to morality. the belief that all sins are equal i.e that lying is that same as murder, that thinking about sex with a women is exactly the same as raping her. And the Belief that no matter what the sin simply ask and you shall be forgiven. These two beliefs as staple of the christian foundation are fundamentally morally bankrupt.
Can you imagine if we ran our legal system with this code. There would be no justice. No punishment. If any time you went before a judge you just had to say sincerely "My bad sorry"
one of my favorite religious jokes illustrates why this is a ridiculous belief system.
When I was young I used to pray for god to bring me a bike.
When I got older I realized thats not how God works
so I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness
now I have a bike.
I think that there are Good people out there and there are some bad people, in all walks of life no matter your creed or color or nationality, no matter your class or your status, most people seem to be good and in most situations just and kind. And then there are some others that screw it up for everyone.
Relgion has to sell you on this idea that you need it in your life to be good to be fulfilled to see wonder and hope but its all just snake oil. You have all those things without religion.
I find it ridiculous when some says " if you don't believe in some kind of God then whats the point of living. whats the point of being good."
It reminds me of a quote from a film called Lion in Winter:
Prince Richard: [the sons - in the dungeon - think they hear Henry approach] He's here. He'll get no satisfaction out of me. He isn't going to see me beg.
Prince Geoffrey: My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all there is, it matters.
If you believe this is a dress rehearsal and all you have to do is be friends with Jesus and you get eternal life, then why does it matter how you live here. it only matters to the extent that it gets you into heaven. But if this is all there is. If you live this life and it is all you have then it matters a great deal how you live it.
Religion has to sell you on this idea that you need it in your life to be good, to be fulfilled, to see wonder and hope but its all just snake oil. You have all those things without religion.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
It scares me when christians ask "how are you moral without God?"
I hear religious people in debates and conversations all the time suggest that atheists are rapists and murderers, that they are angry and violent because they have nothing stopping them from being that way. That atheists can have no morals because they don't believe in a higher authority.
that "without religion you can't hire enough police"
That scares us. Is the only thing stopping religious people from raping and murdering the fear of a punishment from God. I sure hope not.
Now, I haven't done any advance study into psychology, neuroscience or morality but I am a living breathing human being so lets think this through.
Morality is obviously important to the the overall survival of any social animal. One might argue that on an individual level selfishness would lead to a better chance of survival but that doesn't add up. Anytime we drive on a highway we put our lives into strafers hands and it pays to be conscientious of all the other people on the road. It even angers us when people are not conscientious to us. If people stopped obeying the laws because they felt like it the world would be a more dangerous place. We all enter this more or less unspoken agreement. I won't swerve into oncoming traffic if you don't. No one ever thinks to themselves I shouldn't swerve suddenly into traffic because God might punish me or God would look unfavorable at it. We don't do that because if people did the world would be more dangerous for all of us. We are social animals by nature and being altruistic is in everyones best interest, generally.
I have heard the argument that morality comes from God even if you don't believe in him. Where else would you get it?
If all morality comes from God, then all morality would be the same. If morality comes from God it surely wouldn't be something that I could adjust or alter to fit my desires it would be ingrained in me and everyone else. We would all have exactly the same views on what is right and what is wrong.
and you would expect religious people who are in touch with God to be more moral simply because they understand it better.
And if morality came from God then anything he said was moral and right would be.
Well, it turns out that morality isn't so black and white. We all have different takes on morality. Some things are easy. If I kick a puppy not only will anyone who sees it be repulsed and hopefully kick me back. but even I would feel guilty about it. Kicking a puppy is clearly wrong. but its when we venture into grey areas that morality becomes trickier. Its wrong to steal. Is it less wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed you hungry daughter? Is it less wrong to steal if you steal from the rich to help the needy? We are all going to have different opinions on questions like these and they are all with merit.
while morality has black and white areas it also has grey areas, areas that wouldn't exist if we got our morals from an absolute authority.
So it seems we have an innate sense of of morality passed on from being a social animal but it also is effected by our experiences, and our chemistry.
If our morals came from an absolute authority, namely the Bible, then they wouldn't change. At least not without a angelic decree of some kind. 500 years ago it was commonplace for a 30-40 year old man to marry an 11 year old girl so he could get the most children possible and this was normal and seen as moral. Today it is only seen that way in the most backwards corners of the earth. Morals evolve with society.
If the bible is the absolute authority on morality then we have some problems. The Bible 100% condones slavery. No doubt about it. Now to be clear, the bible does not say slavery is bad. It does not say "thou shalt not own another person" If it did that would be amazing. it would have been way ahead of its time and that would be quoted as reason enough to prove the Bible as being morally superior.
But just by not saying its wrong that doesn't mean the bible says it right.
Its when the bible, the word of God as written by man, Spells out how to own a slave and how to beat a slave. Thats when the bible condones slavery.
Exodus 22
"when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, then he shall be avenged. but if he survives a day or too then he is not to be avenged for he is his money"
This is God speaking to Moses. "For he is his money"
How anyone can say the bible is the source for morality with a straight face is beyond me.
Now I understand if that you gently dismiss that last part about slavery. If you believe in the the goodness of the bible then how could it support or condone slavery. and if it did then it would throw a wrench into everything. If the bible is the Foundation of your morality to accept that it condones slavery and other things as bad a slavery would be faith shattering. But the bible does condone slavery. 100%. so either Slavery was at one time a moral practice or it never was and the Bible is wrong about that. Think about that.
I have heard all kinds of twists and turns for how this is actually ok. that slaves were treated good back then and God couldn't just throwout slavery during that age. Its all bullshit. Slavery was terrible throughout history its terrible now. and what good is a moral God if he can't do something about a moral scourge.
There are plenty of awful things in the Bible besides slavery. How about God drowning millions of people. the estimated population of the earth at that time would have been about 3 million people.
Now God says they were all bad, but how many pregnant women were there? How many children under 5 years old? And God could do anything other than horribly drown them. Now I don't believe in a flood that covered the earth because there is no evidence for it at all. (thats another post all together) but if I did. Thats pretty evil. thats not a very moral thing to do. the list of immoral things that God does goes on and on. Now if you believe the bible is allegory. Then the morals taken from these stories can be good. Faith and trust and obedience. But if you believe that they actually happened then you have to believe that God is twisted and amoral or you have to be twisted and amoral yourself.
If the story of Job is an allegory then the moral is having faith in God even in times of hardship.
If its true then God killed Jobs children just to prove a point.
But if Morality comes from the bible then we should also see evidence of that in society. Are christians more likely to be good people. The answer is no.
Divorce rates in Religious states are higher than less religious states. The more religious a country in the world is the more likely it is a woman will get raped there. Atheists make up a very small percentage of inmates in prison, mush smaller than their percentage in the general population. I can point to countless reports of priests molesting children or pastors stealing money from their congregation. or studies that showed religious people on their way to a sermon on the good Sumatran stepping over and ignoring a person in need. But I don't want to have it seem like I'm making the reverse argument. that atheists are somehow more moral. No no.. I know plenty of very good decent moral people, who believe that there moral center comes from the bible. That may be only because they haven't read it, but they believe it.
There are two tenants of Christianity that have always puzzled me in regards to morality. the belief that all sins are equal i.e that lying is that same as murder, that thinking about sex with a women is exactly the same as raping her. And the Belief that no matter what the sin simply ask and you shall be forgiven. These two beliefs as staple of the christian foundation are fundamentally morally bankrupt.
Can you imagine if we ran our legal system with this code. There would be no justice. No punishment. If any time you went before a judge you just had to say sincerely "My bad sorry"
one of my favorite religious jokes illustrates why this is a ridiculous belief system.
When I was young I used to pray for god to bring me a bike.
When I got older I realized thats not how God works
so I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness
now I have a bike.
I think that there are Good people out there and there are some bad people, in all walks of life no matter your creed or color or nationality, no matter your class or your status, most people seem to be good and in most situations just and kind. And then there are some others that screw it up for everyone.
Relgion has to sell you on this idea that you need it in your life to be good to be fulfilled to see wonder and hope but its all just snake oil. You have all those things without religion.
I find it ridiculous when some says " if you don't believe in some kind of God then whats the point of living. whats the point of being good."
It reminds me of a quote from a film called Lion in Winter:
Prince Richard: [the sons - in the dungeon - think they hear Henry approach] He's here. He'll get no satisfaction out of me. He isn't going to see me beg.
Prince Geoffrey: My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all there is, it matters.
If you believe this is a dress rehearsal and all you have to do is be friends with Jesus and you get eternal life, then why does it matter how you live here. it only matters to the extent that it gets you into heaven. But if this is all there is. If you live this life and it is all you have then it matters a great deal how you live it.
Religion has to sell you on this idea that you need it in your life to be good, to be fulfilled, to see wonder and hope but its all just snake oil. You have all those things without religion.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
People are wrong.
People are wrong.
Quite often in fact.
About a lot of different things. Everyone I know has been wrong at one time or another, some more than others, but every single person I can think of has been or is capable of being wrong. So people can be wrong. and not just intellectually, people can be emotionally wrong. That bad feeling or gut feeling can be wrong. It can sometimes be right but its not always right.
This is, I think, obvious to anyone who has ever met someone else.
Now most people aren't wrong about everything, just something. Something they feel or think is just plain incorrect.
So tell me something.....what are you wrong about?
oh come on... you can't think of anything that you are wrong about. but you must be wrong about something.
Not that you were wrong about.. that you are wrong about right now.
Yeah, I can't do it either.
Now we can't possible be the two smartest people on the planet. We can't be right about everything. No one is. We all have the capacity to be totally wrong about things.
So what could I be wrong about. This I think is a very important question, and nothing should be out of bounds for this question. The more important the belief, the more important that I know its true.
"As many true things." I called my blog that for a reason. I value truth. but how do you know if something is true or not. Nothing in this world has come close to as strong a track record as the scientific method. Ask questions, research the evidence, form predictions, gather data, analyze and draw conclusions. But the most important part is to be open to whatever the answer is, even if it isn't what you hoped and what you wanted.
Every atheist I know, if you ask them what could convince them to believe would be able to give you a list of things. What it would take to convince them. I could give you my list.
Every scientist in a lab could tell you what it would take to prove their hypothesis wrong. What it would take to disprove all their work. But being wrong in science isn't a bad thing, it reinforces what we know to be true. And when something that we believed was true is proven incorrect science rejoices at the news that something false was found and something true replaced it. Science moves forward. Science has never claimed to be correct about everything, it claims to be the most correct it can be with the information it has.
Kinda like us.
I can't think of a single thing that I am wrong about.....right now. because if I knew I was wrong I would change my mind.
When every I ask a believer what it would take to convince them they are wrong the answer is almost always, "Nothing, nothing could convince me I am wrong"
No progress can ever be made from that position.
When it comes to finding answers, science tries to look at the facts, the details, and follow them to a conclusion. While religion (namely the personal God religions) Start with a conclusion and look for answers to support what they already can't be swayed from.
This was perfectly illustrated in a debate between Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Ken Ham believes the world was flooded for a whole year. believes this with all his heart. He looks for only evidence that would support his concrete belief. and would absolutely disregard any facts that don't fit his model.
Bill Nye understands evolution. No belief required but if real evidence, proven testable verifiable evidence surfaced that contradicted evolution, proved it wrong and supported something else. He would change his mind. Thats how it works, thats why science progresses quickly.
At the end of the debate someone asked both debaters, "What could convince you you are wrong?"
Ken Ham said nothing could convince him and Bill Nye said evidence.
Religion makes doubt a sin. Knowledge a sin. Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge. That was her sin. There couldn't be a more clear message than that.
Science requires it. It requires doubt. It requires knowledge.
To be 100% sure to the point that you will not consider any evidence that doesn't support your claim is a form of extremism. That makes Ken Ham and Ray Comfort extremists. Now I think Ken and Ray are good people who have no intention of harming others but I don't think their positions do no harm.
Be cautious of anything that claims to have the answer 100% of the time. Be cautious of anything that can not be convinced it might be wrong.
What could I be wrong about? Why do I believe this? Am I right, if so why? Can I defend my position?
These are all questions I ask myself about anything, especially if it is important.
Quite often in fact.
About a lot of different things. Everyone I know has been wrong at one time or another, some more than others, but every single person I can think of has been or is capable of being wrong. So people can be wrong. and not just intellectually, people can be emotionally wrong. That bad feeling or gut feeling can be wrong. It can sometimes be right but its not always right.
This is, I think, obvious to anyone who has ever met someone else.
Now most people aren't wrong about everything, just something. Something they feel or think is just plain incorrect.
So tell me something.....what are you wrong about?
oh come on... you can't think of anything that you are wrong about. but you must be wrong about something.
Not that you were wrong about.. that you are wrong about right now.
Yeah, I can't do it either.
Now we can't possible be the two smartest people on the planet. We can't be right about everything. No one is. We all have the capacity to be totally wrong about things.
So what could I be wrong about. This I think is a very important question, and nothing should be out of bounds for this question. The more important the belief, the more important that I know its true.
"As many true things." I called my blog that for a reason. I value truth. but how do you know if something is true or not. Nothing in this world has come close to as strong a track record as the scientific method. Ask questions, research the evidence, form predictions, gather data, analyze and draw conclusions. But the most important part is to be open to whatever the answer is, even if it isn't what you hoped and what you wanted.
Every atheist I know, if you ask them what could convince them to believe would be able to give you a list of things. What it would take to convince them. I could give you my list.
Every scientist in a lab could tell you what it would take to prove their hypothesis wrong. What it would take to disprove all their work. But being wrong in science isn't a bad thing, it reinforces what we know to be true. And when something that we believed was true is proven incorrect science rejoices at the news that something false was found and something true replaced it. Science moves forward. Science has never claimed to be correct about everything, it claims to be the most correct it can be with the information it has.
Kinda like us.
I can't think of a single thing that I am wrong about.....right now. because if I knew I was wrong I would change my mind.
When every I ask a believer what it would take to convince them they are wrong the answer is almost always, "Nothing, nothing could convince me I am wrong"
No progress can ever be made from that position.
When it comes to finding answers, science tries to look at the facts, the details, and follow them to a conclusion. While religion (namely the personal God religions) Start with a conclusion and look for answers to support what they already can't be swayed from.
This was perfectly illustrated in a debate between Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Ken Ham believes the world was flooded for a whole year. believes this with all his heart. He looks for only evidence that would support his concrete belief. and would absolutely disregard any facts that don't fit his model.
Bill Nye understands evolution. No belief required but if real evidence, proven testable verifiable evidence surfaced that contradicted evolution, proved it wrong and supported something else. He would change his mind. Thats how it works, thats why science progresses quickly.
At the end of the debate someone asked both debaters, "What could convince you you are wrong?"
Ken Ham said nothing could convince him and Bill Nye said evidence.
Religion makes doubt a sin. Knowledge a sin. Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge. That was her sin. There couldn't be a more clear message than that.
Science requires it. It requires doubt. It requires knowledge.
To be 100% sure to the point that you will not consider any evidence that doesn't support your claim is a form of extremism. That makes Ken Ham and Ray Comfort extremists. Now I think Ken and Ray are good people who have no intention of harming others but I don't think their positions do no harm.
Be cautious of anything that claims to have the answer 100% of the time. Be cautious of anything that can not be convinced it might be wrong.
What could I be wrong about? Why do I believe this? Am I right, if so why? Can I defend my position?
These are all questions I ask myself about anything, especially if it is important.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Debating a Theist/ Big God or Little God and the Problem of Evil
There are two general positions that theists will use when in a debate on the existence of God so far as I have seen or experienced. I like to think of them as big God or little God or impersonal God and personal God.
Big God is the position of " Don't you believe there is something greater than yourself. something that governs the universe, some force that holds the universe together"
This is the type of God that an Atheist can never prove does not exist. We may not see a need for this God to explain how the universe works but someone can always claim that this God is guiding the laws of nature that we perceive. When they do this however they relegate their God to a position of insignificance. If God is somehow outside the realm of reality and detection then he is unable to make a contribution. You can say God wrote the laws of nature and I can't prove that wrong but if you begin to claim that God can rewrite the laws of nature or HAS rewritten the laws of nature, well thats another story.
Thats when we get to little God. This is the God that watches over you and has a direct effect on the world around us. This is the God that listens to prayers and forbids you from masterbation. This God to me is easily dismissible. As an atheist I can't prove that a Big God doesn't exist but there is no evidence to suggest that one does. The burden of prove is on the person making the claim and since there is not sufficient evidence to claim there is a big God then I'll withhold my belief.
The Little God makes some interesting and I think testable claims. If God has a direct influence on the lives of his followers then we should see evidence of this in the world. For example:
Do christians.... (I'm using christians because its the religion in am most knowledgeable about but this would be true for any religion that believes in a personal God) Do christians Live significantly longer lives? Do they receive things they pray for? Do they tend to live through major accidents that non-believers would not live through? Does God help them when they are in trouble? or other similar types of questions. The answer to these questions seems to be a resounding no. If every church going christian I knew lived to be 250 years old or more, as though their personal God changed the rules of nature just for them, then I would certainly begin to consider the existence of their personal God. If believers never seemed to die at a young age and tragedy never seemed to befall them, I would begin to question. But that brings me to the biggest problem I think theists have yet to be able to provide even the slightest of an acceptable answer to; the problem of evil.
There are earthquakes and tsunamis that kill millions of people; people with lives, with children. these things don't have to happen. A powerful and personal God that can command nature could stop them but doesn't.
But to me the most severe, the most horrible, words can not describe the evil of Ariel Castro.
In 2002 Ariel Castro abducted three different girls, one 21 years old, one 16 years old and one 14 years old. He held them captive in his house for TEN years. He beat them for TEN years, he raped them for TEN years. The girls became pregnant and in at least one case gave birth to the rapists child. During this time Ariel Castro drove a school bus for an elementary school. His daughter was friends with one of his abductees before the abduction, and Ariel even attended vigils for her, knowing she was locked in his home. He even posted to his Facebook wall "miracles can happen, God is Good"
This man is evil to be sure. and deserves more punishment than I am capable of imagining. Hell is too light a punishment and death too easy.
Imagine the cries these girls must have made. Imagine the pleas for help that went unanswered for TEN years. If someone believes in a God that has a hand in this world, then they have to believe he could have stopped this and choose not to. If there is a God then he listened to those prayers for TEN years before deciding... ok thats enough of this. He sat back and watched as this abductor of children drove a school bus. He heard their prayers and ignored them. There is no excuse, no context in which this is acceptable. If God uses these methods to test his creations or strengthen his subjects then I for one would not worship such a monster but instead dedicate my life to fighting it.
How can anyone defend their personal God in the evidence of this kind of evil. I wish Ariel Castro was the only example but of course he is not.
There is a Joke that several Christians have told me, a joke that is supposed to illustrate how God works.
I'll spare you the lengthy version but here is the quick version.
A woman sits in her home and a policeman comes to her door and says "hey there is a flood coming you better evacuate" and she says " No thanks, God will protect me."
Another policeman comes and says " hey the flood is here you need to evacuate your home"
she says " No, God will Protect me"
Her street floods and and she climbs on her roof and a boat comes by and man in the boat says "get in the boat come to safety" and she says "No, God will protect me"
the waters rise and a helicopter comes and lowers a rope. She turns it away saying "No, God will protect me"
She dies and when she sees God she asks "why did you not protect me"
God replies "I sent two policemen a boat and a helicopter what more do you want"
Couldn't God have sent a cable tv repair man or a gas line inspector, Couldn't God have a neighbor look over the fence. Ten years. I for one think there is plenty of evidence in this world that an interventionist God does not exist.
Big God is the position of " Don't you believe there is something greater than yourself. something that governs the universe, some force that holds the universe together"
This is the type of God that an Atheist can never prove does not exist. We may not see a need for this God to explain how the universe works but someone can always claim that this God is guiding the laws of nature that we perceive. When they do this however they relegate their God to a position of insignificance. If God is somehow outside the realm of reality and detection then he is unable to make a contribution. You can say God wrote the laws of nature and I can't prove that wrong but if you begin to claim that God can rewrite the laws of nature or HAS rewritten the laws of nature, well thats another story.
Thats when we get to little God. This is the God that watches over you and has a direct effect on the world around us. This is the God that listens to prayers and forbids you from masterbation. This God to me is easily dismissible. As an atheist I can't prove that a Big God doesn't exist but there is no evidence to suggest that one does. The burden of prove is on the person making the claim and since there is not sufficient evidence to claim there is a big God then I'll withhold my belief.
The Little God makes some interesting and I think testable claims. If God has a direct influence on the lives of his followers then we should see evidence of this in the world. For example:
Do christians.... (I'm using christians because its the religion in am most knowledgeable about but this would be true for any religion that believes in a personal God) Do christians Live significantly longer lives? Do they receive things they pray for? Do they tend to live through major accidents that non-believers would not live through? Does God help them when they are in trouble? or other similar types of questions. The answer to these questions seems to be a resounding no. If every church going christian I knew lived to be 250 years old or more, as though their personal God changed the rules of nature just for them, then I would certainly begin to consider the existence of their personal God. If believers never seemed to die at a young age and tragedy never seemed to befall them, I would begin to question. But that brings me to the biggest problem I think theists have yet to be able to provide even the slightest of an acceptable answer to; the problem of evil.
There are earthquakes and tsunamis that kill millions of people; people with lives, with children. these things don't have to happen. A powerful and personal God that can command nature could stop them but doesn't.
But to me the most severe, the most horrible, words can not describe the evil of Ariel Castro.
In 2002 Ariel Castro abducted three different girls, one 21 years old, one 16 years old and one 14 years old. He held them captive in his house for TEN years. He beat them for TEN years, he raped them for TEN years. The girls became pregnant and in at least one case gave birth to the rapists child. During this time Ariel Castro drove a school bus for an elementary school. His daughter was friends with one of his abductees before the abduction, and Ariel even attended vigils for her, knowing she was locked in his home. He even posted to his Facebook wall "miracles can happen, God is Good"
This man is evil to be sure. and deserves more punishment than I am capable of imagining. Hell is too light a punishment and death too easy.
Imagine the cries these girls must have made. Imagine the pleas for help that went unanswered for TEN years. If someone believes in a God that has a hand in this world, then they have to believe he could have stopped this and choose not to. If there is a God then he listened to those prayers for TEN years before deciding... ok thats enough of this. He sat back and watched as this abductor of children drove a school bus. He heard their prayers and ignored them. There is no excuse, no context in which this is acceptable. If God uses these methods to test his creations or strengthen his subjects then I for one would not worship such a monster but instead dedicate my life to fighting it.
How can anyone defend their personal God in the evidence of this kind of evil. I wish Ariel Castro was the only example but of course he is not.
There is a Joke that several Christians have told me, a joke that is supposed to illustrate how God works.
I'll spare you the lengthy version but here is the quick version.
A woman sits in her home and a policeman comes to her door and says "hey there is a flood coming you better evacuate" and she says " No thanks, God will protect me."
Another policeman comes and says " hey the flood is here you need to evacuate your home"
she says " No, God will Protect me"
Her street floods and and she climbs on her roof and a boat comes by and man in the boat says "get in the boat come to safety" and she says "No, God will protect me"
the waters rise and a helicopter comes and lowers a rope. She turns it away saying "No, God will protect me"
She dies and when she sees God she asks "why did you not protect me"
God replies "I sent two policemen a boat and a helicopter what more do you want"
Couldn't God have sent a cable tv repair man or a gas line inspector, Couldn't God have a neighbor look over the fence. Ten years. I for one think there is plenty of evidence in this world that an interventionist God does not exist.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Evolution VS. Creationism
Evolution vs creationism. Decades of research, thousands of books, papers and studies with mountains of supporting evidence versus one book.... no evidence. Evolution did not set out to destroy religion. It in fact cares nothing of it. Evolution has nothing to do with religion.
However It seems to have almost accidentally dismantled Christianity.
However It seems to have almost accidentally dismantled Christianity.
I have only recently come to this conclusion. Previously I would have said it was perfectly fine for a Christian to believe in evolution. To believe that evolution was the method in which God created complex things. That evolution is guided by God. I know many Christians who believe just that.
But after watching a debate on the subject. I had an epiphany. A moment of clarity, in which I realized that evolution and Christianity are not compatible.
To be clear here, not evolution and God are incompatible, but evolution and christianity.
Evolution explains how complexity came to be. It is not a belief but a understanding. One does not believe in evolution. You either understand it or you don't. It explains how complex organisms came to be complex. It is supported by an immense amount of evidence.
Christianity explains how we got here in a different way.
Christianity explains we are all direct descendants of Adam and Eve. That the universe was created in 6 days.
If you accept evolution as fact you dismiss Adam and Eve as a story.
If you dismiss Adam and Eve you lose the fall of man and original sin.
Without original sin you lose Jesus. At least he had nothing to die for.
Without original sin the church can't tell you that you are born a sinner. That you are born broken and that only the church can fix you.
Evolution sends shockwaves throughout Christianity that I hadn't fully realized.
I now understand why creationists are so passionate when it comes to fighting evolution and sneaking creationism into schools. Why they need to lie and misrepresent the facts of evolution to children. (and to themselves)
Their entire religion is at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)