In defense of Atheism 2

Another post of point counterpoint in the argument over Atheism, we'll explore 3 more questions in approval of faith and blow them out of the water!

Religion is a force for good. Or people do good things BECAUSE of religion.

This is a half truth.  Of course people do good things because of their faith.  People do good things for all sorts of reasons, some of those reason aren't good at all.  The question we should ask is; Are religious reasons the best reasons for doing good things. No. Religion works from a reward standpoint.  If you do good or live by certain tenants you will go to heaven or be in god's good graces.  This leads, if you did not do these things you would not go to heaven or be in god's good graces.  How is this the highest moral objective?  Isn't doing good for its own sake better?  A humanitarian will go to Africa and feed the poor not to proselytize, like all missionary services do, but because feeding people is noble unto itself.  I find the real moral ideal is to do good because it is good. Not for divine reward.

Somewhat conversely we find just as many occurrences of evil and wrong done in the name of religion as good in the same.  I may have just made you think of an instance on your own.  One only need to pick up the news paper and read the international headlines for the latest suicide bombing or the latest mass grave uncovered.  Steven Weinberg said, "Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, it takes religion for good people to do bad things."  There is no other way to describe the suicide bombing cults or the female genital mutilation community (which is 100% religious) not to mention the Inquisition, heresy trials, and modern day jihad.  So what we have hidden in this religious force for good is also a force for evil.

The bible is true because it says so. The bible is true because it was inspired by god.


I hear this all the time and I can't understand how people don't see the logical blunder in the first statement.  Something is true because it says so?!  I can say ANYTHING, especially if its ridiculous then say its true and you would believe me?  I'm telling you now there is a teapot orbiting mars in an elliptical orbit and it was put there by the first people and this is a true statement.  Would you believe me?  What does the evidence say?  There is NO evidence what so ever to accredit this statement.  WE need to base our ideas on evidence and not word play and logic tricks.  I can then stand in front of you and say, "prove me wrong about my teapot."  Certainly we can't for technology has not gotten us to that point that we can detect any possible thing in orbit of mars but this is no argument for the veracity of my statement.  In fact we can use probabilities to guess within a high degree of certainty that it is untrue. Saying it's true only because it says so is a circular argument and by definition is invalid. The onus is not on the unbeliever, it is on the statement maker.

One day I might like to travel to the Vatican and see the Sistine Chapel.  After my visit I may be 'inspired' to write a book or make a painting, directly because of my visit.  My creative works do not have to about the chapel or even represent it in any way.  The works can be about something else entirely.  My small point here is that inspiration is not enough to prove the works have a direct connection to the origins of the inspiration.

But in defense of the bible, it is said that they were inspired by god, which is to say that this is gods word.  Even if we discount all the contradictions, which there are many, and all the inconsistencies, we are told that this, like the koran, is the perfect word of god.  I would tell you now stop and now go read the bible and tell me, is this book perfect or could we improve upon it?  I say we could easily improve on many facets of the bible from the glaring immoralities, single dimensional characters, ideas that can be interpreted in many different ways, and from what we now know, that the early christians edited the bible.  Israeli researchers and archaeologists confirm this.  If the bible, which is actually many books depending on your exact faith, is the perfect word of god, how can it also be edited by terrestrial beings? Besides all this, there is nothing in the bible or koran in which information is any more advanced than that of a 1st or 7th century man.

Entropy: The universe without god violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This argument usually entails arguing against the big bang model of cosmology.  They make the argument that the universe's energy should be decreasing, a running down towards chaos.  They say "Entropy increases as available energy decreases.  In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process".  This is true OF A CLOSED SYSTEM.  They purposefully leave that out of the discussion.  The universe is not a closed system.  They are misleading you by giving cherry picked information combined with half truths.

Our solar system from our perspective does seem fairly closed.  So lets run with this for I am attempting at an analogy.  Our Earth is also a mostly closed system.  Only energy waves and some very small bits of metal seem to every leave its surface.  Energy waves are all that is contained in the electromagnetic spectrum. Heat, light, and radar waves all shoot out into space.  But most 'stuff' remains.  IF there was no sun we could imagine how the Earth would eventually cool into a lifeless rock where entropy would increase and concentrations of material in the oceans would dilute and it would become a boring place.  But as the sun sends us energy some chaos occurs and this leads to life rising up, the Earths core being churned up, and weather allowing life to exist on all parts of the planet.  

I hope I have made the distinction clear.  That entropy is talking about closed systems and not the cosmos.  Entropy also says that chaos is more probable than order.  If you fling a pile of rocks out the window, they will land 'willy nilly' and not into a nice rock wall.  However correct this may be in relation to gasses and dilutions of salts in water and the like, this is not an argument against life in its ordered form.  Life is made possible by replicators which by definition cannot evolve towards chaos but life observes an order for it to create repeatable processes.  Just like viewing a nice rock wall is not an argument against entropy, entropy is not an argument against life.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum. Here, this video should say it all:




Remember Rick Santorum said that he wanted to 'vomit' about the principals this country was founded on. Thomas Jefferson said "build up that wall" in talking about separation of church and state.  Jefferson knew, along with the other founders, how dangerous theocracies are and that is exactly want Santorum wants to install.  It is beyond belief how he can talk in front of an audience and they clap for this. I guess this is the result when we spend a whopping 5% of GPD on education.

I really want you to watch this next video on Santorum to find out just what a mastermind this guy is and why YOU don't want him in charge.



I had always thought the argument was over. JFK used this speech the help the civil rights movement in the 60's overcome rampant segregation.  But according to Santorum these works make him throw up!  I get so mad having to hear about this guy over and over and over again on the news as if he is actually some sort of expert on these issues. What is very interesting is how he doesn't want college for you and your kids but he went to college himself! I really don't know what to say because if these videos aren't self evident, I don't know what argument would persuade you.  If your a republican vote for Ron Paul or at the least Mitt Romney. MY GOD!

I will be writing on why we need to fight for a secular state and Santorum gives me a perfect segue on this topic. If you had told me a person said what Santorum says, I would have doubted you, but see it coming from his mouth is just as unbelievable. Santorum is a person who loves having ignorant people give him praise and pandering to uninformed.  How did we get to the point in this country where ignorance is the preferred mode and stupidity trumps knowledge?!  Santorum is the perfect blend of self actualizing lies and ignorance pandering, maybe that makes him the perfect politician?

Just a little more on Jefferson's wall: http://allusionsofgrandeur.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/build-up-that-wall-mr-jefferson/

In defense of Atheism

I would like to post some point counterpoints in defense of Atheism or in the least for anti-theism.

One of the most common things a nonbeliever will hear is; What if you're wrong?

I usually understand this point to be Pascals wager or Pascals Gambit.  Pascal gives a simple cost benefit analysis to defend theism. It states that if there IS a god and you believe, you go to heaven. If there IS a god and you don't believe, you go to hell. Conversely if there isn't a god and whether you believe or not, you have lost nothing.

So that's simple, you must believe right? Well, no.  First on the rebuttle is can you actually fool god?  If a person examines the evidence, eg the bible, koran, ect., and cannot find that to be accurate or true, can he  then say he believes in a vain attempt to enter heaven? Will god not see through this deception? Wouldn't the jealous god of the bible be angry then? Obviously this makes no sense but it gets worse. How about living with self respect. Are you seriously telling me that you can extol the faith when you know it's wrong?! What kind of person would you then become? If god gave us reason and logic, would it not then be wrong to dispose of these?  Wouldn't god want us to search for truth, not settle for self imposed brain washing? It is unhealthy to knowingly believe in a lie.

Pascals wager is really a disgusting attempt at creating self delusion in expense of your self respect, dignity, humanity, health, reason, and all the little things that make us explorers of humanity and the cosmos.  This is "religious hucksterism of the cheapest, vulgarest, nastiest kind that is possible to imagine" AND all this says nothing about believing in the wrong god. Last point here, if this god is so forgiving, so loving, so smart, so wonderful why would he have no room in his 'heart' for honest, decent people who have done nothing wrong at all?

Another arguments goes like this; We would not have morality if not for god or religion.

How long have people been around gives you the easy, fast answer.  If you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, there isn't much I can do here.  If you accept that humanity has been around on the order of 100,000 plus years, it is plain to see that we would not have gotten as far as we did if morality wasn't innate.  Morality also follows cultural development and this usually have a religious element to it but as is also plain religion and the bible or koran have come only in the last 2,000 years. How did humanity get by for 98,000+ years without god? How did the jews who wandered the desert before coming upon MT. Sinai know that murder, rape, perjury, theft were not okay? Of course they knew long before then.

If we could go back say 1,000 years or during the time of the Inquisition, we would see that they followed the bible and its tenets very closely.  They persecuted witches, tortured and killed heretics, endorsed slavery and genocide on an order that would frighten and outrage us today.  We can also read the international headlines and read what most muslim countries offer us in light of gods wisdom.  Cutting off the noses and ears for women who dishonor the family, stoning people for conversing with the wrong interpreters of muhammad, and throwing battery acid in the face of women for attending school. Is muhammad's law just and reasonable, I THINK NOT!

Please don't think we need to be stuck in the bronze age of morality and wisdom of our world.  Is it not apparent that we need to understand our history and moderate our ignorance of issues and topics with care and understanding?  Do you realize modern western culture has moderated christianity to its current standing and the muslin world lags behind us only for the fact that their faith guides their society and not education, science, and reason.  Do not let faith guide your actions anymore.

Y U NO LEAVE COMMENT?

This blog is still a young blog.  June 20th. of 2011 was the first post and after Sept. I almost quit writing at all.  Aiming to forget this blog came the new year. Not quite a resolution but on more of a suggestion that I keep writing, I have been posting new topics and have kept the blog current for about 2 months now.  I have seen a dramatic increase in traffic from before with a lot of traffic occurring most recently.  Total views of this site are not anything to brag about but it has raised the questions; Does my writing reach anyone?  Do people read and care?

I have just relabeled the blog posts into a more concise listing and have come to realize that this blog may lack focus.  My aim is to have a mix of topics and still focus on 3 main issues encompassing Atheism (religion), politics, and entertainment.  After the relabeling I have noticed that many posts are under the philosophy label and this is somewhat of a catch all of coherent ideas and some inane ramblings.  Politics and entertainment both have a high content total and to keep it balanced, I will write more on Atheism; what is it, what it means, and to show its not devil worship.

This posts goal is to generate some level of feedback.  Since I am new to blogging I have no idea on what it takes to get followers or even comments out of people.  As of now not a single person has commented which isn't actually disheartening but it is somewhat like being in the dark.  I have tried to post decent content and make the page look half-well designed.  I have also begun to include more photos and embed more videos for a more entertaining site.

I have searched blog spot posts randomly by using the 'next blog' widget while logged in and many blogs seem very uninteresting.  Sometimes the page that it lands on may have only a tertiary relevance to the blog itself and this single sample is judged for better or for worse.  I can see how some of my older posts are less attractive then my current content.  So then how do I get a person to stick around a little longer?  I can see how a great many people may be put off by the Atheist topics but I try to include enough variety to hook a greater audience.  Is it working?

Tell me what YOU want to see or read about. How do YOU want this blog to look?  Tell me am I relevant to YOU?