10 Questions For Every Atheist

Ah todaychristian, and all the other sibling sites that try and defend the Christian belief system. If it weren't for you, I'd have more of my fiction book and blogs done... oh well

Today I am answering the seemingly honest questions below;
http://todaychristian.net/10-questions-every-atheist/

1.       How Did You Become an Atheist?
Rational honest personal inquiry into what I believed and why, I am writing a book and a passage to another book on this, so expect it fleshed out in future. But that is the short of it.

2.       What happens when we die?
What happened before you where born? Curtain close, the end basically.

3.       What if you’re wrong? And there is a Heaven? And there is a HELL!
This is pascals wager, I have answered it in this blog several times. Basically it boils down to if I am wrong I am wrong and will accept my error. If God is truly good then he/she will see the good life I led with the evidence I had and not be annoyed by the lack of belief I had due to available evidence.

4.       Without God, where do you get your morality from?
Answered this one before too, but really WITH God, where do religious people get it from, it would seem there God's morality is very flawed. I am not just good without religion, but in-spite of it.

5.       If there is no God, can we do what we want? Are we free to murder and rape? While good deeds are unrewarded?
No we can't do what we want. Society has rules, you break those rules and you are removed from society. Good deeds are there own reward was what I was always taught as a child, if you are asking for a reward you are ultimately doing it for very selfish reasons, is that what you want me to describe heaven as, then so-be-it.

6.       If there is no god, how does your life have any meaning?
Yes, so much. Love, my children, my job, my friends, my writing, my reading. I see meaning in so many things, sometimes it is overwhelming, I don't need an external artificial source for this meaning.

7.       Where did the universe come from?Everything so far points to natural causes. We may never know; I'd rather have unanswerable questions than unquestionable answers.

8.       What about miracles? What all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?
What about them, what about all the people who claim to have a connection with Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Woden, what about those who claim to have seen Shiva or Vishnu?

9.       What’s your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris?
Very good writers, experts in their fields, but ultimately humans, with human failings. I'd rather take the advice of one of them though, one that is willing to revise there position on anything given sufficient evidence, over someone who wouldn't.

10.   If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion?
This is demonstrably false, the word atheist is of Greek origin, with atheistic writings dating back before the supposed time of Jesus, and tribes and societal groups with no god concept. Even if I grant this as true, so what, almost every society that ever existed has engaged in War, does that make it right?

Stirring the pot

Peter Boghossian recently tweeted that "Questioning that one can be proud to be gay is a leftist blasphemy. #justbornthatway"

While in the strictest definition of proud this could be conceived as correct, although the definition starts with proud of one's accomplishments, it finishes with proud of what ones own qualities. But on even a cursory glance at some of the literature around the pride movement the error is quickly found. Just as some people aren't proud for being an atheist, skeptical or human, people aren't proud for being Gay in the strict definition of the term, or for that matter proud for being anywhere else in the sexual spectrum.
They are proud for coming to terms with it in a predominantly heterosexual, binary gendered society, they are proud for coming out in such a hostile environment to not only gain support from non-LGBTI people but to make it easier for others to come out. This kind of pride sounds really familiar, oh wait a minute these are the same arguments for coming out as an atheist, for having the reason rally, or any number of Celebrations of reason etc.

I agree with Boghossians premise, to quote a great philosopher that came before him "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." - Bertrand Russell
But I think Boghossian may have missed the mark on this one, and in doing so has gotten off side a large part of the community that would invariably be opposed to some of the same things he is opposed to, yes you can be LGBTI and religious, but I think if you do you have a short and forgiving memory for the persecution you suffered under religious hands.

Greta Christiana writes a more thorough refutation here.

Ray Comfort

If you don't know who Ray is, I will spare you a link to his videos. But he is known colloquially as Bananaman, and here is the humorous video that was done when he won the 2009 Crockoduck award, really I'd rather give traffic to the excellent Potholer54 than living waters, or whatever Money making scheme Ray has dreamt up.

So Ray, has a line he uses a lot in his videos and "debates", I say debates as he doesn't really debate, just soapboxes and proselytises, he is good "fun". You would think he is a comedy act if you didn't know it was for real.
Anyway here is his general line of argument, with Ray in bold, and the unwitting respondent following on.

Have you ever said a lie? Yes.
have you ever stolen anything? Yes.
Have you ever taken the lords name in vain? Yes
Have you ever looked at a woman/man with lust? Yes
So, Jesus says if you look at a woman with lust, then you have committed adultery in your heart.
By your own omission you are a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterers at heart. If God judges you by the standards of the ten commandments where are you going, heaven or hell? Hell/Don't think God would send his loving children to hell (followed by then you think Hitler is in heaven*)
How are you going to escape the damnation of hell? Don't know 
Because you know the bible says the wages of sin is death. But there is a way out, God gave his only son for your sin, so you have to accept Jesus into your life and confess your sin, then you can have everlasting life.

************************************

I am always surprised that this gives people even the supposed Atheists on his videos a moment where they seem to pause and reflect on it, almost deciding well hey I may as well believe just in case hey... or the old "I have to get right with my faith" line. It is Pascals wager, badly disguised in a long form to baffle people.

I have written the below to counter it;

Have you ever stolen from someone you are not at war with? Yes
Have you ever been a coward? Yes
Have you ever Betrayed anyone? Yes

Then by your own omission you are a thieving, cowardly, betrayer. And by those standards, Woden would send you to Heck to be tormented. So where do you think you are going? (don't wait for an answer, think what would Ray do... beyond creative editing aka lying)

But there is hope, if you trust in Thor who petitioned Woden on man kinds behalf, if you fight with bravery and honour, and die in a battle while upholding these standards then you will not enter Heck, the Valkyries will rescue you to Valhalla to drink mead with Woden for all eternity.

Obviously few believe this now, and even if they do I see very few Nordes marching off to a Just war (is there any such thing now-a-days?). It is a perfect refutation of Ray's dumbed down Pascals wager, but he will never hear it, or respond with... "oh but how many people actually believe in Woden or Thor", an Argument ad Populum, a logical fallacy, Woden and Thor are just as likely to be True (if not a little more so as their claim is less than omnipotence) than Yahweh and Jesus.

*The counter to is Hitler in heaven is an easy one... How many people did Hitler kill, in the order of tens of millions right, do you think even killing tens of millions deserves an eternal torment and torture... if so then you are lacking in empathy as I doubt any person could sentence even the worst person to an unjust amount of torture for their crimes, let the crime fit the punishment, eternal can never fit a crime carried out in a limited time such as a human lifetime.

This was just a quick post, I am working on a couple big ones at the moment, a takedown of the some (hehe) Catholic apologetics, and a skeptics annotated catechism, and a full on book (I have written way to much and self-editing is hard)... So yeah posts may be a little sporadic.

Rebuttal to reasons atheism is stupid

Sometimes I read an article and get incensed enough I have to write a reply, the below did that for me, don't worry they are the same arguments you have heard for years; http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/11/5-reasons-atheism-stupid-2/

Lets start with the opening, yes the bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God... it also said; "anyone who claims another is a fool is in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22. So I guess that writer of Psalms and this writer are going to hell if it exists.
I shouldn't need to point out that an insult is the lowest form of attack, a simple ad hominem attack, with no merit. I agree that ideas need to be challenged and they can be insulted, but if you ever complain about someone calling your beliefs stupid then you have no right to put that label on someone Else's lack of belief... even if your beliefs include a talking snake, a talking donkey or a being who sent them self to earth to atone for their creations sin that offended itself, to appease itself so it wouldn't send its creation to a hell it created or allowed to be created... If we are going to go on stupid, surely buying the story of a virgin birth is stupid, surely buying the water into wine, walking on water, and the posthumous empty promise of punishment or reward is right up there with the stupidest things mankind has ever believed. But I digress, lets get into it.

1 - The existence of the universe.

Yes the universe exists, wow that must be proof of God... uh no, it would clearly be better evidence for the existence of God if we humans existed in a space that was not a universe, say a floating realm where all our need where met...

The analogy here with the ball is silly, we have explanations for how balls come into existence from existing matter, as do we for planets, stars, galaxies and the entire visible universe, they are all natural explanations. Sure the explanation for the initial conditions the singularity are not yet known, but it is more honest to start with "I don't know" and search for an answer than to start with "Magic pixies started the universe off" and then only look at things that confirm your assumption.

Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies.

2 - The Big bang.

The universe contracting back and forth forever isn't quite settled, some evidence is pointing to that it may in fact be part of a multiverse. Regardless if all of this fails to bring sufficient evidence, you can't say "I don't know"..."therefore God", as this will put your God in the ever receding pocket of ignorance that its forebears occupied, ignorance such as Thor being responsible for lightning (sorry Thor, you are totally the reason for lightning), a giant wolf eating the sun during eclipses, and the earth being held aloft by a giant tree.

Atheists I know are happy with whichever way the evidence points, atheists like Bill Nye and Matt Dillahunty have both said all it would take to convince them that their position on God/s is wrong is evidence, theists like Ken Ham just said nothing could convince him his position is wrong, which is more intellectually honest.

So again to take your argument and give it undue merit, lets say the universe had a definite beginning 13.8billion years ago, not the 6-10,000 that creationists argue, not the length of time humans have been around as a literal interpretation of the bible suggests, but 13.8billion years ago. OK, so what, it doesn't have to have a supernatural cause, everything so far observed has had a natural cause why should this be any different. There are plenty of possible causes from quantum mechanics to the bounce theory of universe inflation deflation, all of them infinitely more likely than a timeless, spaceless pixie... sorry God.

Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies, which are both a lot less likely than natural causes we have observed.
3 - The design of the universe.

There is a bit of an argument to authority here, just because one previously atheist cosmologist now believes in God, doesn’t mean there is any evidence in modern physics or cosmology to point to God. In fact to counter your argument to authority with an argument ad populum (argument to numbers), 70% of the USA’s national institute of science, doesn’t believe in a personal God, Hawking has said God is un-needed and Victor Stenger has written a very good book debunking these cosmological constants need to be just perfect for life to exist. The truth is we just don’t know, life could actually be more likely in a universe with different constants, or it could be worse, we don’t have another universe accessible to us with these different constants in place in which to test your hypothesis that life is only viable in universe with constants with these particular values.

No one is suggesting that life came about by chance, no biologist or physicist I have ever spoken to is that naïve. Natural selection seems to be a driving force for biological life. The constants being the way they are may not be chance, they may not be able to be any different. There is a principle called the anthropic principal, which basically states that the universe is capable of supporting life because we are here to observe it, eg I have seen these arguments before, because I tend to read websites with these arguments. It would be more amazing and confounding if we existed in world incapable of supporting life, or if everywhere was capable I mean the 99.999% of the universe that is extremely hostile to us the vacuum of space, the radiation… if all that was not there and the entire universe was habitable then your argument would hold more water, at present it is weak.

My favourite quote on this is from Douglas Adams;

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in -  an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”

The universe doesn’t appear at all designed for us, surely if it were designed for us the entirety of space would contain breathable air, no deadly radiation. It is as likely for a God to exist that created the universe like this as it is for a tornado to whip through a scrap yard and build a 1979 Valiant charger.

4 – The design of mankind.

We don’t know what the first life was, just like a lot of first things they aren’t around anymore. The other issues is microscopic weak early cells don’t fossilise or leave much of a trace. Darwin was likely right, the first life was likely simple, probably not even DNA at all, but RNA like viruses that contain half the information that DNA does. I am no biologist, but they are currently looking at non-biological replication, such as rusts and the like that are leading us to some interesting conclusions. Again why does life have to start with a supernatural cause, when every other thing we have witnessed gets started with a natural cause.

Yes Dawkins is right a single DNA molecule has a lot of information, but he didn’t suggest that just popped into existence one day, that is the theists claim. He proposes as do a whole swath of scientists investigating abiogenesis that life took millennia to form even the simplest of single celled bacteria. DNA is not data, or code or a message. It is just chemistry writ large, it only has a code that we have assigned to it, a message due to the way we or amino acids interpret it. Therefore DNA didn’t require a mind, just as chemistry doesn’t, therefore God doesn’t need to exists.

5 – The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Which historians have come to a consensus that Jesus even existed. A consensus means all the historians agree, this is simply false; there are plenty as listed below;

These all have their own cases, the Nazareth bit of the name is supposedly a town, that didn’t exist till well after Jesus’ death, the time line in the gospels is wrong, the story inconsistent between the gospels, as well as known forgeries and additions, look up “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” for some fun, a section that there is almost consensus on it being a forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Saying that the willingness to die for ones beliefs validates them is also wrong, the suicide bombers the world over are willing to die for their beliefs, the Romans fought and died for their Gods as did the Greeks, Egyptians and others.

Again an argument to authority here, a historian can’t explain the rise of the popularity of Christianity unless Jesus rose from the dead… I can’t explain the rise in the popularity and wealth of the Mormon church unless Joseph Smith did get those golden plates and speak to the angel Moroni, I can’t explain the rise of Islam so quickly across the middle east unless Mohammed did speak to the angel Gabriel. These are erroneous arguments, the popularity of an idea even the quick rise in popularity does not lend any credence to the claim.

Not all of the previously mentioned claims of religions can be true, but they can all be wrong.

The best idea is to way the existing evidence for a claim with the logical possibilities or impossibilities of that claim, say if I claim I have a mobile phone. It is not that impossible a claim so you may accept it out of hand, say I am God and you can see the logical impossibilities in this statement (why do I bother working, why aren't I killing the first born of Egypt etc), and you can also weigh this with the fact I have given no evidence of my God-like abilities and you can dismiss my claim. This is all that an atheist does with religions.

Advance Australia fair

Well another Australia day has come and gone, and it has made me think of a couple things. There was a lot of Australian pride on display out and about. I am proud to be Australian, but I think our patriotism is moving towards Jingoism, towards aggressive stop the boats, keep em in Indonesian waters attitudes. What's next getting our kids to stand, hand on heart every day reciting a pledge of our undying narrow-minded love for Australia. I can see it now, Teacher: Lets all stand to say the Australian pledge of allegiance. Students: Aussie, Aussie, Aussie... OI, OI, OI.

I usually think of Socrates when I see people adorned in the Australian flag, or the boxing kangaroo. Socrates supposedly said said "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world", I think we need to remember that, and try and tear down the barriers of nationality.

The second thing I was thinking of is related to the first, a particular member of Sydney atheists is an "illegal" refugee, meaning they came here after not being able to get to the embassy in their home country to apply to refugee status. This person is extremely intelligent, fast becoming very articulate in English and would be an enormous asset to this country. However there is no precedent for leaving your home country due to non-belief... sure if you believe differently to your home country then you are welcome here, even if you have no intention of contributing to society or integrating. But surely non-believers could just fake it right? Forget about the possible punishments in some of these countries if your non-belief is found out, or you show any sign of independent and rational thought...

Then while I was thinking of what could possibly done to help this person and many others that are out there I hear the oft unheard second verse of our national anthem and the below bars stuck out at me;

"For those who've come across the seas, We've boundless plains to share"

Maybe we need to change those lines...
Maybe we need to actually evaluate peoples cases a bit better and keep up on current reasons for refugees, it won't be long before we have homosexual refugees fleeing Russia's draconian homophobic laws, and non-believing refugees from the Middle Eastern, European, and African theocracies. As the aforementioned persons case is a tenuous one, I have spared details. But perhaps if everyone could write their local member, write the newspapers and let them know that non-believers are being persecuted and are likely to come here as refugees, then maybe awareness can be raised and this is the last time we lose someone who is not just a nice person, but would be a boon for any country.

Muslim paedophilia Slur

Atheism a road to paedophilia?
Yep, that is the bow that was drawn at a recent debate between Sydney atheists and Sydney's Muslim students association. The debaters on our side as I am sure I would have been where flabbergasted by this, or simply missed it amongst the barrage of other non-sequiturs and logical fallacies.

Let’s get to the crux of it. Their argument is that basically, atheists have no moral arbitrator so thus anything is eventually acceptable. Why they didn't use some less heinous crime is beyond me, may be a psychologist can weigh in on why they would deem this as an action they would take if they felt there was no divine policemen to keep them in check.
OK so if there is no moral enforcer, no God(s) who can define moral law then moral law needs to be defined as we go along. This comes back to Euthyphros dilemma; Is something good because God deems it so, or does God do things that are only good. If you pick the first then God could arbitrarily change the rules, could all of a sudden decide that killing your own child is morally good... don't laugh he did this to Abraham, Jephthah, the 42 children that God kills with bears and his own son, if you believe the bible.
If you take the second option, then Morality is over and above God, and God is not omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good) as he is deemed by some, all-be-it not by some Muslims.

So you either are worshipping a being that deems murder is good on its whim, or cannot change morality and thus morality arises independently of this being.

Let’s look where the atheist view gets us, independently arisen morality.
I will state first up I believe that morality is objective, meaning that the same morality doesn't necessarily hold for all situations. For example I think murder is abhorrent and wrong... but if I was thrust into combat I would fight and kill to save me and my families lives.
I think rape is wrong (actually above murder, but that is personal disgust), but can see that the Angler fish in which the male effectively rapes the female as the only means of perpetuating their species is not morally as wrong as letting the species die out.
I think you get the picture, morality in life is a grey area, you need to think about things a bit and not be moraly lazy, besides who wouldn't steal a loaf of bread to feed their starving family.

Society, to work in cohesion develops rules however. We don't need to rape to survive as a species, so it is outlawed, leniency is shown the thief doing so out of necessity, killing in self-defence is also shown leniency. These rules have been built up over time in secular legal systems all over the world, independently of each other, and often times independently of religion.

Now to the argument of paedophilia. Most societies deem sex between consenting individuals as OK, if there is no consent then it is simply rape.
I believe every country has an age of consent, and this is deemed by their legal institution as the age at which a child can make possible life changing decisions, such as moving out on their own, or consenting to sexual intercourse, this varies country to country which is a little odd, but interestingly averages around 16 years of age.
This makes sense as children are naive, they are overly trusting and they are easily influenced/ picking an age that allows for mental maturation in a majority of children, allows for these decisions to be made with greater foresight. If they can't consent then it is against their will and thus rape, where paedophilia is just rape of a minor.
So for our society paedophilia is rightly outlawed.

But let’s create a hypothetical world, one where a disease causes all males of the intelligent species inhabiting this world to be sterile shortly after they first become sterile, long before mental maturation, lets also say IVF for whatever reason is not discovered or doesn't work.
A law maybe passed that enforces these young boys to continue the species is it wrong, in our eyes, yes. In this species eyes they wouldn't exist without it.

This post was mirrored from sydneyatheists.org

Argument from morality

We have been invited to debate in the coming months, below are my arguments against the Christian standard argument from morality that I used in our mock debate.

Christians and other religious people will often argue that without religion how can you be moral? Where do you get your morality from if not from God above? I am here to argue that not only do we get our morals from elsewhere, but that being moral without God is actually a higher good.

It is said we get our morals from the bible, but this is patently not true. The bible endorses slavery, (Leviticus 25,45, Exodus 21, NT: Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2), murder (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm) and all of the so called seven deadly sins. Even where it makes moral judgements they are not moral. Of the Ten Commandments, only 2 are actually against the law, and these are only punishable by the civil gaol time in Australia, not the death sentence that most of the commandments call for.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is a nice thought and a damn site better than the 10 commandments, but it has a huge flaw. What if the person living by this law is a sadomasochist deriving pleasure from others pain, or even enjoying pain being inflicted on themselves? I don’t want to be cut and tortured but they wouldn’t be breaking this golden rule. The better version of this rule; do unto other as they would have you do unto them.

What about turn the other cheek, again excellent sentiment. But something that wouldn’t get you far if you practised it against an invading force.

Love your neighbour as yourself, is lovely as well. But it devalues your own worth, and doesn’t cover the aforementioned issue of an invading force made up of people you may consider your neighbours. It also doesn’t put more emphasis on kin, is it moral to save your 20 year old fit and healthy neighbour from a house fire over your helpless 6month old child or invalid parent? Regardless who would begrudge a person saving their wife or child over a stranger?

Evolutionary psychologists will say that morals developed so that we could survive as a species that lived in communities. If you criminal and everyone knows you are a criminal, then come winter when you and your children are hungry, your neighbours are less likely to give you some of their food and thus you are less likely for your possibly criminal genes to pass on. This can be seen as moral actions can be performed by animals of lesser intelligence than us. Dogs are known to defend and tolerate children's rough behaviour. Dogs have also been seen to risk their own life to rescue a dog or person they don’t even know. Piranhas one of the most vicious of fish, even during a feeding frenzy will not attack other piranhas. Ducks that sometimes eat fish have been known to feed them a share of their bread or grain. All these are animals, according to Christian religions not imbued with a soul and not capable of determining right from wrong. Yet somehow they act kindly and morally.

There are some cases were being amoral are of benefit though. Look at the Mongol hoards, or early warring tribes. If you lacked empathy the very definition of a psychopath then you would do very well in one of these cases, thus having a likelihood of passing on your genes. But society now frowns upon violence and crime, we have built up laws to defend the weak and punish the criminal. Psychopaths still exist though and have been shown to show no empathy for their actions to another human being, only seeing them as barriers to getting what they want, these place a challenge for the argument of morality coming from God as Psychopaths can be shown from birth to lack empathy and thus have no moral compass that one would imagine should be imbued by the divine. David Koresh (Waco TX), Timothy McVeigh (OK Bombing) and Marshall Applewhite (Heavens Gate) are all examples of people that have been posthumously claimed as having Psychopathy and using religion to further their goals.

Morality that has been built up over time can be seen in our current legal system here in Australia and similarly in most developed countries. Guidelines such as innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, evidence beyond reasonable doubt. All of these guidelines have been built up through trial and error, developed from earlier legal systems. These tried cases then build up our body of law, if an event occurs that is not illegal and brought to a court of law and tried and found to fail the test of law then a precedent is set and it can only be repealed through further cases to prove the act was not immoral.

There is a famous dilemma called Euthyphro’s dilemma. Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? Either answer has issues; if God can change what is Good then all of a sudden he can deem infanticide good, as he did with Abraham before reneging and Jephthah (Judges 11:30-40) where he followed through. If God only does good because it is good, then morality and good are outside of God and there is morality above and beyond God.

Let’s take the example of two young Children. One knows his parent is watching and is gentle and kind, sharing their toys with their younger sibling, oh how sweet you say. The other child doesn’t know their parent is watching and is sweet and kind to their sibling in the same way. I put it to you that the greater good is the child who does good while no one is watching, with no possibility of reward or fear of reprisal. So it is with non-believers who don’t believe there is anyone on high watching them and keeping score as they work in their community to make the world a better place, volunteer their time and money to educate or help people with their lives.

So I say we are moral not because of religion but despite it.

This post was mirrored from sydneyatheists.org