Recently a Christian friend said, when I expressed skepticism about the healing power of prayer, "I have directly experienced two instances where somebody was healed through prayer, so I know it happens."
He gave me the details. One was a girl who was unable to walk. One session of prayer at church, and she walked normally. The other was a young man with a terrible eye injury. My friend (a minister) prayed over him during church services, and the next day his eye was normal.
All stories I have heard of healing through faith suffer from the logical fallacy called "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"), that is, the fallacy of assuming that because event A was followed by event B, A was the cause (or even the only possible cause) of B. Believers in faith healing assume (illogically) that because prayer was followed by healing, the prayer was the cause (through God, of course) of the recovery. This belief is encouraged when there appears to be no natural explanation for the recovery.
This is also an example of another logical fallacy, called "the false dilemma," which asserts that one must choose between only two explanations for something, when other possible explanations exist. When a remarkable recovery cannot be easily explained by doctors, this fallacy then asserts that one must accept the only other offered explanation (prayer) as the correct explanation. This ignores the possibility (and likelihood) that the recovery is simply unexplainable. It also ignores the fact that many people, including atheists, experience remarkable and unusual recoveries without prayer at all - recoveries which are equally puzzling to doctors. Remember that even placebos sometimes have a healing effect.
A woman in my family who has been atheist for many years was diagnosed in her early 20s with chronic kidney disease, with only 3% of one kidney functioning, and 10% of the other. She was given only a few years to live. She is now in her late 60s, in generally good health, her remaining kidneys functioning satisfactorily. The doctors have no explanation for it. Notice that if the family had been believers in the power of prayer, we would have been on our knees daily right after the diagnosis, begging God for her survival. And today we would be crediting prayer (and the God who caused her disease in the first place) with her good health.
Notice that healings that are attributed to prayer are always the kind of health problem that sometimes, and perhaps only rarely, improve with no treatment. Prayer never seems to work in the case of amputated limbs, or actual death. And it is odd that even devout Christians seek professional medical treatment, even though they are promised by their god that they can cure the sick by faith (presumably by faith alone). Mark 16:18, James 5:15.
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Wrapped Up In Rapture
Well, the day has come and gone. The day that was advertised to be the last day of the world as we know it, May 21, 2011 - advertised in expensive billboards and full-page newspapers ads, personal messages, pamphlets, websites and radio programs. A self-proclaimed prophet or Bible expert in California named Camping had calculated from his study of the Bible that the "Rapture" that many Christians believe in was going to begin with earthquakes about six p.m. on Saturday of the 21st.
So, what happened, Brother Camping? Thousands of people spent millions of their dollars promoting your crazy prophecy, and it was a big fizzle. I hope your face is red and that you are on your knees right now, asking your imaginary God to forgive you for being such a fool and fake.
And for those who actually believed what Rev. Camping was telling you, aren't you just as ashamed? When are you going to stop being so gullible that you believe guys who claim they know what is in God's mind? Don't you have enough sense, when somebody starts saying something like "God says..." or "I know that God wants...", that you say to yourself, "Don't listen to the guy - he's hallucinating." And when are you going to give up trying to use that collection of primitive writings called the Bible as a guide for living or a handbook of the universe?
Here's my message for everybody who expected to be in heaven today: "First, don't be so gullible any more. And second, life is full of disappointments, and this is one of them for you. But cheer up! After all, it's not like it's the end of the world!"
So, what happened, Brother Camping? Thousands of people spent millions of their dollars promoting your crazy prophecy, and it was a big fizzle. I hope your face is red and that you are on your knees right now, asking your imaginary God to forgive you for being such a fool and fake.
And for those who actually believed what Rev. Camping was telling you, aren't you just as ashamed? When are you going to stop being so gullible that you believe guys who claim they know what is in God's mind? Don't you have enough sense, when somebody starts saying something like "God says..." or "I know that God wants...", that you say to yourself, "Don't listen to the guy - he's hallucinating." And when are you going to give up trying to use that collection of primitive writings called the Bible as a guide for living or a handbook of the universe?
Here's my message for everybody who expected to be in heaven today: "First, don't be so gullible any more. And second, life is full of disappointments, and this is one of them for you. But cheer up! After all, it's not like it's the end of the world!"
Saturday, April 30, 2011
About Faith
Religious people, especially religious leaders, talk a lot about "faith." They try to tell us that it's a good thing. "Have faith!" they say. They even tell us that it's the best way to believe (they even say "to know") certain things. Like whether Jesus died for your sins, or whether the gospel stories are true, or whether Jesus rose from the dead.
Actually, it's the ONLY way you can believe some of the things that religion wants you to believe. But is that a good thing?
"Faith" is also the only way you can believe things that aren't true. It's the only way you can believe in fairies, or Santa Claus, or that the earth is hollow or flat. Yes, there are people who fervently believe such things. And they do it using faith.
As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believin' in things you know ain't so." Or, more precisely, things that you SHOULD know ain't so, if you took the time to think and do some research. And even the Bible tells us that we should check everything out and only keep whatever passes the test (Saint Paul, I Thessalonians 5:21).
There are a lot of religious claims that you cannot, by the nature of things, check out. You cannot check whether God really doesn't want you to eat pork, or to work on the Sabbath. No way can you find out whether Uncle Jack really is in hell, or whether Grandma is really in heaven with the angels. But we have good ways of finding out whether the earth is only a few thousand years old, or whether there were no human beings until about six thousand years ago, or whether a great flood covered the entire earth a few thousand years ago. It's foolish to rely on "faith" to deny the facts of reality.
"Faith" is really just a nicer-sounding word for "credulity" or "gullibility." Christians tell you, "If you have enough faith, you can believe that Jesus died for your sins, that he rose from the dead, that if you have that faith, and believe that, and regularly partake of the tokens of his body and his blood, you can look forward to being with him forever in heaven."
Here's the translation: "If you are gullible enough, you can believe that the cruel death of an Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago relieves your guilt for anything you've done wrong, that this rabbi came back to life after dying, and if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, you will have a wonderful life, but only after you're really dead. But you have to be gullible enough, the more gullible the better!"
"Faith" is the same thing that swindlers and conmen use to get money out of people. "Believe me, and you will get rich - eventually, some day!" How is the swindler any different from the preacher or the priest? The only difference is that most swindlers do know that they are lying. Many preachers and priests are just as much gullible victims as most believers. But they cannot be excused. They should have been less gullible themselves.
Actually, it's the ONLY way you can believe some of the things that religion wants you to believe. But is that a good thing?
"Faith" is also the only way you can believe things that aren't true. It's the only way you can believe in fairies, or Santa Claus, or that the earth is hollow or flat. Yes, there are people who fervently believe such things. And they do it using faith.
As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believin' in things you know ain't so." Or, more precisely, things that you SHOULD know ain't so, if you took the time to think and do some research. And even the Bible tells us that we should check everything out and only keep whatever passes the test (Saint Paul, I Thessalonians 5:21).
There are a lot of religious claims that you cannot, by the nature of things, check out. You cannot check whether God really doesn't want you to eat pork, or to work on the Sabbath. No way can you find out whether Uncle Jack really is in hell, or whether Grandma is really in heaven with the angels. But we have good ways of finding out whether the earth is only a few thousand years old, or whether there were no human beings until about six thousand years ago, or whether a great flood covered the entire earth a few thousand years ago. It's foolish to rely on "faith" to deny the facts of reality.
"Faith" is really just a nicer-sounding word for "credulity" or "gullibility." Christians tell you, "If you have enough faith, you can believe that Jesus died for your sins, that he rose from the dead, that if you have that faith, and believe that, and regularly partake of the tokens of his body and his blood, you can look forward to being with him forever in heaven."
Here's the translation: "If you are gullible enough, you can believe that the cruel death of an Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago relieves your guilt for anything you've done wrong, that this rabbi came back to life after dying, and if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, you will have a wonderful life, but only after you're really dead. But you have to be gullible enough, the more gullible the better!"
"Faith" is the same thing that swindlers and conmen use to get money out of people. "Believe me, and you will get rich - eventually, some day!" How is the swindler any different from the preacher or the priest? The only difference is that most swindlers do know that they are lying. Many preachers and priests are just as much gullible victims as most believers. But they cannot be excused. They should have been less gullible themselves.
Friday, April 29, 2011
About That Resurrection
At Easter Christians celebrate the resurrection of the man-god Jesus from the dead. The man whom the Romans executed for treason - claiming that he would establish a Jewish "kingdom of God" and thus implicitly overthrow the Roman rule of Palestine - supposedly came back to life after lying dead in a tomb for two nights (according to the Gospels) or three nights (according to Paul). And then he rose visibly into heaven, just like the Emperor Augustus had done (but Jesus didn't need a chariot like the Roman did).
What evidence is there that Jesus really came back to life? The evidence is pretty slim, and convincing only to Christians.
First of all, there is no contemporary evidence of the resurrection at all. None. That is, there is no documentation, no writing from the time of the supposed events that even mentions them. The only accounts are much, much later. Are they reliable? Are they even believable?
Paul was writing about 25 or 30 years after the crucifixion, and he was admittedly not there. He writes nothing else about Jesus' life or even his teachings. He only reports (based on what?) that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. He says that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, but he gives no details of that, and nobody else reports this astonishing event. He claims that Jesus came to him in a vision, but like the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, he can't get the details right every time he tells it (in one version his companions heard the voice but saw nothing, in another they saw the vision but heard nothing).
None of the gospel writers were actually there. Whatever their identities (many scholars doubt that the real authors were the men whose names are attached to them), they were writing several decades after the events, and their accounts of those Easter week events are moving, but contradictory. Their purpose in writing is propaganda, and like all propagandists, they do not hesitate to embellish, invent, and sensationalize. Any attorney cross-examining them would tear their "testimony" to shreds. Conclusion: not reliable.
There is no doubt that five decades after Jesus' death there were many who believed that he had risen from the dead. Is that any kind of reliable evidence? Hardly. People - especially superstitious people (and that was certainly a superstitious age, when even well-educated people believed in magic and miracles) - believe all kinds of things for which there is no evidence. Peddlers of religion and quack medicine call this "faith" and if they can convince someone that "faith" is a good thing, they have found a buyer.
What are the facts? 1. People who are dead don't come back to life, except in fairy tales and legends (Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, etc.). 2. People will believe any absurd thing, if you promise them something (like "you too can come back to life, if you just believe that Jesus did!"). Don't fall for it!
What evidence is there that Jesus really came back to life? The evidence is pretty slim, and convincing only to Christians.
First of all, there is no contemporary evidence of the resurrection at all. None. That is, there is no documentation, no writing from the time of the supposed events that even mentions them. The only accounts are much, much later. Are they reliable? Are they even believable?
Paul was writing about 25 or 30 years after the crucifixion, and he was admittedly not there. He writes nothing else about Jesus' life or even his teachings. He only reports (based on what?) that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. He says that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, but he gives no details of that, and nobody else reports this astonishing event. He claims that Jesus came to him in a vision, but like the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, he can't get the details right every time he tells it (in one version his companions heard the voice but saw nothing, in another they saw the vision but heard nothing).
None of the gospel writers were actually there. Whatever their identities (many scholars doubt that the real authors were the men whose names are attached to them), they were writing several decades after the events, and their accounts of those Easter week events are moving, but contradictory. Their purpose in writing is propaganda, and like all propagandists, they do not hesitate to embellish, invent, and sensationalize. Any attorney cross-examining them would tear their "testimony" to shreds. Conclusion: not reliable.
There is no doubt that five decades after Jesus' death there were many who believed that he had risen from the dead. Is that any kind of reliable evidence? Hardly. People - especially superstitious people (and that was certainly a superstitious age, when even well-educated people believed in magic and miracles) - believe all kinds of things for which there is no evidence. Peddlers of religion and quack medicine call this "faith" and if they can convince someone that "faith" is a good thing, they have found a buyer.
What are the facts? 1. People who are dead don't come back to life, except in fairy tales and legends (Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, etc.). 2. People will believe any absurd thing, if you promise them something (like "you too can come back to life, if you just believe that Jesus did!"). Don't fall for it!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Christians want to "put Christ back into Christmas"?
[Sorry for the blog neglect the last few months!]
Every year about this time the Christians start making a big thing about how "Christmas" is about Christ, because "Christ" is in the name of the holiday. "Put Christ back in Christmas!" they insist. It isn't good enough to wish someone "Happy holidays!" It has to be "Merry CHRISTmas!"
These members of the word-police want to force all of us to celebrate this universal holiday at the time of the winter solstice in their way, or no way. They overlook quite a few facts that really make their attitude ridiculous:
- The holiday was a pagan holiday long before the Christians adopted it. It celebrated the solstice (the sun turning in the sky, the days beginning to get longer rather than shorter) and the many pagan gods to whom the solstice was attributed, such as Mithras (also called "the Unconquered Sun").
- Many Christians condemned (and still condemn) the celebration of the holiday, including the early Christian settlers of New England, precisely because of its non-Christian (pagan) origin.
- Jesus was not born in December, but more likely in the spring, if shepherds really were watching their flocks by night. Mithras, however, was born on December 25, according to legend.
And what does the name of a day really have to do with the purpose or meaning of the day? If Christians insist that the name "Christmas" requires a particular interpretation, including memorializing their god on that day, then we heathens must also insist that Wednesday be acknowledged as what its name says: Woden's Day. Woden is, of course, the king of the gods in the original Norse and Germanic religions. And much of the rest of the week is in honor of the pagan gods as well. Tuesday honors Tiu, the Norse god of war. Thursday belongs to Thor, the god of thunder. And Friday is the day to honor the goddess Freia, goddess of beauty.
So I say, let the Christians have December 25 if they are willing to let us heathens have all the days that are named after the original gods.
They can still hold their Bible-study sessions on Woden's day, and at the end of the week express their thanks by saying "Thank god it's Freya's day!"
Let's put the gods back in the weekdays!
Every year about this time the Christians start making a big thing about how "Christmas" is about Christ, because "Christ" is in the name of the holiday. "Put Christ back in Christmas!" they insist. It isn't good enough to wish someone "Happy holidays!" It has to be "Merry CHRISTmas!"
These members of the word-police want to force all of us to celebrate this universal holiday at the time of the winter solstice in their way, or no way. They overlook quite a few facts that really make their attitude ridiculous:
- The holiday was a pagan holiday long before the Christians adopted it. It celebrated the solstice (the sun turning in the sky, the days beginning to get longer rather than shorter) and the many pagan gods to whom the solstice was attributed, such as Mithras (also called "the Unconquered Sun").
- Many Christians condemned (and still condemn) the celebration of the holiday, including the early Christian settlers of New England, precisely because of its non-Christian (pagan) origin.
- Jesus was not born in December, but more likely in the spring, if shepherds really were watching their flocks by night. Mithras, however, was born on December 25, according to legend.
And what does the name of a day really have to do with the purpose or meaning of the day? If Christians insist that the name "Christmas" requires a particular interpretation, including memorializing their god on that day, then we heathens must also insist that Wednesday be acknowledged as what its name says: Woden's Day. Woden is, of course, the king of the gods in the original Norse and Germanic religions. And much of the rest of the week is in honor of the pagan gods as well. Tuesday honors Tiu, the Norse god of war. Thursday belongs to Thor, the god of thunder. And Friday is the day to honor the goddess Freia, goddess of beauty.
So I say, let the Christians have December 25 if they are willing to let us heathens have all the days that are named after the original gods.
They can still hold their Bible-study sessions on Woden's day, and at the end of the week express their thanks by saying "Thank god it's Freya's day!"
Let's put the gods back in the weekdays!
Monday, June 1, 2009
More Problems About God
Most believers in God claim that God is "perfect." Usually they do not seem to draw the ultimate conclusions from saying that, but simply use the word without thinking of the implications.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? The Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible which are usually translated as "perfect" mean complete, faultless, whole, plain, finished, honest.
The same believers usually claim that God has always existed. That is, there was never a time when God did not exist. And, we must assume, there was never a time in God's existence when he was not perfect. Believers insist that God never changes, so he must have always been perfect.
Believers can cite scriptural passages to support all these claims: God is perfect, God has always been perfect, God does not change.
But then believers go on to say things about God that deny his being perfect.
Why would a perfect God create a universe? Imagine God, in the eternities before he created the universe. What was he doing? Remember, he was perfect. He needed nothing, he wanted for nothing. He was perfectly content, since if he was not content with himself, it would imply that he was needing something else. What would a perfect being, perfectly content, need? Nothing. It would be inconsistent with the idea of perfection to use the verb "want" with a perfect being as the subject, as in "God wanted to create mankind..." Merely saying that amounts to an admission that God was not perfect.
Even if God's wanting to create something he did not already have does not make us doubt God's perfection, how about the universe that he created? One would think that a perfect creator would create a perfect creation. But everyone, even believers, admits that the universe is not perfect. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which is the existence of evil. Can a perfect God create evil? (Some Bible passages even admit that God can do evil: Ex 32:14, Job 42:11, Amos 3:6.) Or (just as bad) allow evil to exist and continue to exist? Believers try to excuse God for creating (or allowing) evil by asserting that God gave his creatures "free will" and is therefore not responsible for the evil done by his creations. But would a perfect being deserve to be called perfect (especially "perfectly good") to have created such imperfect creatures that they were not also perfectly good, and thus incapable of doing evil?
Let's look again at the perfect God before he created anything. What was he doing? Since he had not yet created anything, there was nothing for him to be acting upon or even contemplating. He was the only thing that existed. Was he just thinking? About what? He can only have been thinking about himself. (Can you be perfect and narcissistic?) He cannot have gotten bored, since that would imply dissatisfaction and incompleteness. Perhaps time did not yet exist. That would have helped, since nothing - absolutely nothing - would have been happening. There would have been no "moment to moment." Was God simply planning something in his mind? Not possible, since God does not change. What was in his mind cannot have varied - it must have always been there. And change can take place only over time, and time did not yet exist. Or maybe it did.
So why did God decide at some particular moment to create the universe? If he was perfect, and unchanging, he cannot have decided anything of the sort. He would have simply remained the perfect, complete, solitary, timeless being that he was, frozen, immobile, in a single timeless state.
It seems that the existence of the universe, rather than being evidence for the existence of God (as many believers assert) is instead evidence that the perfect God they believe in does not exist, and never did.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why believing in God is difficult
One of the big reasons that makes it difficult to lend any credence to a belief in God (and I'm referring here to the God that Christians and Jews worship) is that nobody can say much about God without finally talking in absurdities and contradictions.
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
If you ask probing questions of a believer about the God they worship, you very quickly get some statement like, "We cannot understand God's ways," or "God is inscrutable," or "We will learn the answer to that in the next life."
So why should we respect or venerate (worship) such a being whom we cannot possibly understand or even describe in a sensible way? Simply out of abject fear?
Examples:
God is supposed to be all-knowing (omniscient), knowing the future as well as the past. He also is all-powerful (omnipotent), able to do anything he wants. Apparently, then, he knows exactly what all of us are going to do (sin!) and he does nothing about it. He created a universe (supposedly for his own glory and satisfaction) and peopled it with creatures who he knew would disobey him and therefore he would have to condemn them to eternal torment.
If I were writing a computer program and knew it was going to crash when I ran it, I would not be a very good programmer.
God is supposed to love us, since he created us. But he sends storms, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and all kinds of natural disasters to destroy and kill us. After having promised in the Bible that he would protect us from harm.
It makes about as much sense as worshipping a stone idol or a good luck charm. Actually, less.
Any believers out there who can clear this up (without telling me I simply have to "have faith")?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Why do you choose to be an atheist?"
A Christian recently congratulated me on having given up the religion of my youth (which he rightly viewed as a "cult"), but then asked me quite puzzled, "But why did you choose atheism as its replacement?"
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Here is another misconception many believers have about atheists. They think that one chooses to be an atheist the same way one chooses to buy a Dodge or a Ford or a Toyota - it's just a matter of preference or taste. And probably many Christians do choose their denomination in the same way: they try ("test-drive") the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and decide which one they like better. And if a new pastor takes over and they don't like him, they switch.
Atheism is not like that. It is not an affirmative choice. One does not simply decide to be an atheist. Atheism is the natural and quite involuntary result of examining the evidences and doctrines about God and realizing that they don't make sense. Once you realize that, you are an atheist, willy-nilly. It's not a choice.
I suppose I could have asked this Christian, "Why do you choose not to believe in fairies? I can understand why you don't believe in gnomes or leprechauns, but what do you have against fairies?"
In a way it is like your realization that you are mortal, and one day you are going to die. It may not be a pleasant realization, but it is unavoidable. You don't choose that. You actually have no choice in the matter. Maybe I should have asked the Christian, "Why do you believe that someday you are going to die? Why not believe that the angel of death will pass you by?"
Of course, he might say, "Well, I AM going to live forever, with the God I believe in!" Hmm, yes, but you have to die to get there, don't you?
Friday, January 30, 2009
More About Atheists
Here are a few more misconceptions about atheists.
"Atheists are rebelling against God." Since atheists do not have a belief in any gods, such a statement makes no sense. Only believers could possibly rebel against their own god, and only believers make this statement about atheists. It would make as much sense to accuse a Christian of "rebelling against Wotan, Thor and Freya."
"Atheists hate God." Same problem as above. You can't hate something that you do not believe actually exists. Some atheists may hate the IDEA of "God" but that it quite different from hating God. Only a believer in God can possibly hate him (or her, or it). When you stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, did you hate the Tooth Fairy? Of course not!
"There are no atheists in foxholes!" This statement is used by believers to cast doubt on the sincerity and firmness of an atheist's nonbelief when in a crisis situation. It is not based on any evidence. In fact, many atheists have served in the military, under fire, without feeling the need to acknowledge the existence of any god. There is even an organization of atheists in the military: The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
For an excellent analysis of the falsity of the assertion, see this link: http://tinyurl.com/6reake
"Atheists want to take over the government and control our society!" I find this accusation bitterly ironic when it comes from a devout Christian. All atheists want is that NO special group - believers or non-believers - determines how our society functions. But many Christians are working very hard to make Christianity the basis for all the rules and customs of our society.
I suppose the Christian fear of atheists becoming too influential is based on the following facts:
"Atheists are rebelling against God." Since atheists do not have a belief in any gods, such a statement makes no sense. Only believers could possibly rebel against their own god, and only believers make this statement about atheists. It would make as much sense to accuse a Christian of "rebelling against Wotan, Thor and Freya."
"Atheists hate God." Same problem as above. You can't hate something that you do not believe actually exists. Some atheists may hate the IDEA of "God" but that it quite different from hating God. Only a believer in God can possibly hate him (or her, or it). When you stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, did you hate the Tooth Fairy? Of course not!
"There are no atheists in foxholes!" This statement is used by believers to cast doubt on the sincerity and firmness of an atheist's nonbelief when in a crisis situation. It is not based on any evidence. In fact, many atheists have served in the military, under fire, without feeling the need to acknowledge the existence of any god. There is even an organization of atheists in the military: The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
For an excellent analysis of the falsity of the assertion, see this link: http://tinyurl.com/6reake
"Atheists want to take over the government and control our society!" I find this accusation bitterly ironic when it comes from a devout Christian. All atheists want is that NO special group - believers or non-believers - determines how our society functions. But many Christians are working very hard to make Christianity the basis for all the rules and customs of our society.
I suppose the Christian fear of atheists becoming too influential is based on the following facts:
- Almost all members of Congress are atheists.
- That is because it is almost impossible to get elected to public office unless you affirm your lack of faith in God.
- Both houses of Congress open each day's session with remarks from a professional atheist (whose salary is paid by the government) to the effect that no belief in God will influence the deliberations.
- All our money says: "We trust in ourselves because there is no God."
- School children start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the phrase: "...one nation, without God,..."
- Government offices are closed one day a week, the day when most atheists attend their atheist meetings (Wednesday).
- Towns all across America are dotted with atheist meeting-houses, where atheists gather once a week to bolster their lack of belief in God.
- Believers who want to get married, but don't want a judge to perform the ceremony, have to find a professional atheist to do it, since God-believing ministers are not allowed to perform weddings.
- When taking a formal oath, it is customary to place the left hand on a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
- Each unit of the military has a professional atheist attached to it, to minister to military personnel and conduct atheist meetings. They are paid a salary by the government.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
All About Atheists
Many people have quite mistaken ideas about atheists. Usually it is because they don't really understand what an atheist is, and what an atheist is not. Which is a shame, because it's really quite simple.
First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?
All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.
And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.
Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.
"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.
"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).
"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.
"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?
"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.
First of all, one must understand what a "theist" is. A theist is anybody who believes in God, or a god, or gods, or some deity. Got that?
All right, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist. The "a-" in "atheist" is just the Greek prefix that means "not" or "non-," so that an atheist is a non-theist, that is, one who does not have a belief in God, or a god, or gods, or any deity.
And that is ALL you can say about atheists. To say any more is to make unwarranted assertions. Because atheists are not a group, and have ONLY that one thing in common: non-belief in a deity.
Here are some unwarranted assertsions that people (usually theists) make about atheists.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist." No, although some atheists may make this claim, not all atheists do. Many non-believers realize that such an assertion is unnecessary. The reasons people have no belief in God may vary, from "I don't know" to "I don't care" to "I don't see any convincing evidence that would allow me to believe." Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. We all entered the world as atheists.
"Atheists have no moral guidance." Belief in God has nothing to do with whether one is moral or not. A theist's morality may well be based on a belief in God (and God's rules), but workable moral codes can be derived without such a belief. And they are often more humane than moral codes based on religion. Probably the majority of atheists are good people, good citizens, and good neighbors. Statistics indicate that poor moral conduct (teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual abuse of children, violent crime, etc.) seems to be much more common in highly religious areas (the American "Bible belt") than in areas that are more secular (northern Europe). And the population of American prisons is overwhelmingly religious, with atheists making up only a tiny minority of the criminal population, far less than their proportion of the population at large.
"Atheists believe that death ends everything." Although many atheists hold this view, not all do, since belief in an afterlife has nothing to do necessarily with a belief in God. The Jewish Sadducees, for example, believed in God, but did not believe in an afterlife. And Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but have very little to say about the existence of God. Some atheists, like Buddhists, believe in reincarnation (which does not depend on a belief in God).
"Atheists see no purpose in life." This mistaken notion is probably a corollary to the previous mistaken notion. Again, whether one sees a purpose in life has nothing to do necessarily with belief in God. Many atheists lead happy, purposeful lives. Especially when an atheist believes (as many do) that death is the end, it seems to give even more purpose to the precious lifetime that we do have.
"Atheists hate religion and churches." Many atheists may feel this way, but many do not. Most atheists probably feel sorry for believers. And many probably are angry at the human misery that has often been caused in the name of some God. But surely we all should be angry at that, shouldn't we, believer and non-believer alike?
"If someone simply doesn't know whether to believe in God, he is an agnostic, not an atheist." Remember that "a-theist" merely means "non-theist." If someone says, "I really don't know whether there is a God" (the position of someone who claims to be "agnostic"), he is implying that he does not now have a belief in God. So an agnostic is merely a sub-set of atheist.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
On the way to hell
Several of my Christian friends are quite concerned for me, I am an atheist. I do not believe in any kind of god, and I do not believe any of the stuff Christians claim about Jesus: that he was the son of God, that he was the Jews' promised Messiah, that he gave his life to atone for the sins of humanity.
Specifically, I don't believe that it does any good to "accept" Jesus as my personal savior. I see no reason to do so. So I don't. (I think it makes more sense to rely on my Fairy Godmother.)
And that means - according to my "born-again" friends - that I am going to hell. I will burn forever in the lake of fire and brimstone, tormented beyond imagination, for all eternity, for ever and ever. What a beautiful and joyful religion!
If one were going to believe in an afterlife, where good people are rewarded and evil people are punished, I can see where that would make some sense. And, as I read the Bible, that seems to be what many passages in the Bible say: we will be judged by what we have done, whether it was good or evil. At least that makes sense, and seems to be the sort of thing a "just" god would use as his standard of judging.
But no, that isn't the way it works, say my friends. Everything depends on whether you "accept Christ." I have asked them, just to make sure I did not misunderstand, "So you are saying that a man who has lived an evil life, committing all kinds of crimes, murders and other evils, who repents and decides to believe in Christ just a week before he is excecuted, will go to heaven?" "Yes, if he truly repents and truly believes."
"But an atheist like me, who has lived his entire life as a good person, helping the needy, obeying the laws, loving his fellow man, and generally contributing to the betterment of humanity, but who sincerely thinks the whole Christ thing is absurd, will suffer eternal torment?" "Yes. It may not seem fair, but that's the way God works, and who are we to question God?"
I will admit that other Christian friends are much kinder, and assure me that somehow God will find a place for atheists in his heaven. I don't think they have read their Bible or listened to the sermons at church, though.
Some of my Christian friends assure me that they are praying for me to see the light and come to Jesus. It doesn't seem to be working. But it doesn't seem to change their belief in the power of prayer.
Specifically, I don't believe that it does any good to "accept" Jesus as my personal savior. I see no reason to do so. So I don't. (I think it makes more sense to rely on my Fairy Godmother.)
And that means - according to my "born-again" friends - that I am going to hell. I will burn forever in the lake of fire and brimstone, tormented beyond imagination, for all eternity, for ever and ever. What a beautiful and joyful religion!
If one were going to believe in an afterlife, where good people are rewarded and evil people are punished, I can see where that would make some sense. And, as I read the Bible, that seems to be what many passages in the Bible say: we will be judged by what we have done, whether it was good or evil. At least that makes sense, and seems to be the sort of thing a "just" god would use as his standard of judging.
But no, that isn't the way it works, say my friends. Everything depends on whether you "accept Christ." I have asked them, just to make sure I did not misunderstand, "So you are saying that a man who has lived an evil life, committing all kinds of crimes, murders and other evils, who repents and decides to believe in Christ just a week before he is excecuted, will go to heaven?" "Yes, if he truly repents and truly believes."
"But an atheist like me, who has lived his entire life as a good person, helping the needy, obeying the laws, loving his fellow man, and generally contributing to the betterment of humanity, but who sincerely thinks the whole Christ thing is absurd, will suffer eternal torment?" "Yes. It may not seem fair, but that's the way God works, and who are we to question God?"
I will admit that other Christian friends are much kinder, and assure me that somehow God will find a place for atheists in his heaven. I don't think they have read their Bible or listened to the sermons at church, though.
Some of my Christian friends assure me that they are praying for me to see the light and come to Jesus. It doesn't seem to be working. But it doesn't seem to change their belief in the power of prayer.
Friday, January 2, 2009
What Good is Faith?
Religious faith can be a dangerous thing. Not always, of course, but all too often. It was religious faith that motivated the slaughter of the Crusades and the cruelties of the Inquisition. Religious faith was what led the men to hijack the airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers. In more subtle ways, it is religious faith which often binds people to false ideas, false hopes, and confining creeds.
I see two benefits (and only two) from religious faith.
For some, faith gives a glimmer of hope (even if unjustified) that there is something better than the world in which we find ourselves, an indifferent and sometimes threatening world, with which many of us are unable to cope if left entirely to ourselves and our fellow humans. It is very comforting, I am sure, to tell yourself that some supernatural, all-powerful being (who naturally has your best interests at heart) is watching over everything and directing it for your benefit. And that if you ask him (or her, or it) nicely enough, and pleadingly enough, and if you are very, very good and faithful, the laws of nature, of cause-and-effect, will be temporarily suspended for you. And even if your pleading does not get the result you desire, it must be a comfort to know that the creator and CEO of the entire universe at least considered your request. And to know that it was probably your own fault that your request was not granted.
But many believers do indeed find this comfort, and I do not begrudge them that. The only slight annoyance I feel is that as a result the believers generally think that we non-believers are poor, miserable, frightened, and sorry souls, joyless and pointless. Nothing could be further from the truth, based on my personal acquaintance with hundreds of atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists. Almost all are happy, well-adjusted, accepting of the limitations of what we can accomplish in the world, but willing to assume the responsibilities of doing what we CAN do, with human (and only human) effort, rather than looking to the heavens for help while we sit on our praying hands.
The second benefit of religious faith was expressed well to me by a Christian friend. He assured me that before he "found Christ" he was a wife-beating, cheating, alcoholic son-of-a-bitch who did not care about anybody but himself. "You would not want to have known me then!" he told me. He went on to say that the only thing that kept him even half-way decent was his religious faith that God did not want him to do all those bad things.
I realized then the great value religious faith has for society, since it keeps people like my friend from being an annoyance and danger to the rest of us. I have had other believers (mostly Christians) assure me that if it weren't for their religious faith, they would be seducing the neighbor's wife, robbing convenience stores, kicking the dog, and grabbing old ladies' purses. "Thank God you believe!" I tell them. "You make life better for the rest of us" (who do not need the threat of divine punishment in order to avoid robbing a bank or raping a cheerleader).
So religious faith is what protects us from those Christians.
But that's it. That's all I can see as benefits of faith. And there are so many drawbacks, if you can possibly do without it.
I see two benefits (and only two) from religious faith.
For some, faith gives a glimmer of hope (even if unjustified) that there is something better than the world in which we find ourselves, an indifferent and sometimes threatening world, with which many of us are unable to cope if left entirely to ourselves and our fellow humans. It is very comforting, I am sure, to tell yourself that some supernatural, all-powerful being (who naturally has your best interests at heart) is watching over everything and directing it for your benefit. And that if you ask him (or her, or it) nicely enough, and pleadingly enough, and if you are very, very good and faithful, the laws of nature, of cause-and-effect, will be temporarily suspended for you. And even if your pleading does not get the result you desire, it must be a comfort to know that the creator and CEO of the entire universe at least considered your request. And to know that it was probably your own fault that your request was not granted.
But many believers do indeed find this comfort, and I do not begrudge them that. The only slight annoyance I feel is that as a result the believers generally think that we non-believers are poor, miserable, frightened, and sorry souls, joyless and pointless. Nothing could be further from the truth, based on my personal acquaintance with hundreds of atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists. Almost all are happy, well-adjusted, accepting of the limitations of what we can accomplish in the world, but willing to assume the responsibilities of doing what we CAN do, with human (and only human) effort, rather than looking to the heavens for help while we sit on our praying hands.
The second benefit of religious faith was expressed well to me by a Christian friend. He assured me that before he "found Christ" he was a wife-beating, cheating, alcoholic son-of-a-bitch who did not care about anybody but himself. "You would not want to have known me then!" he told me. He went on to say that the only thing that kept him even half-way decent was his religious faith that God did not want him to do all those bad things.
I realized then the great value religious faith has for society, since it keeps people like my friend from being an annoyance and danger to the rest of us. I have had other believers (mostly Christians) assure me that if it weren't for their religious faith, they would be seducing the neighbor's wife, robbing convenience stores, kicking the dog, and grabbing old ladies' purses. "Thank God you believe!" I tell them. "You make life better for the rest of us" (who do not need the threat of divine punishment in order to avoid robbing a bank or raping a cheerleader).
So religious faith is what protects us from those Christians.
But that's it. That's all I can see as benefits of faith. And there are so many drawbacks, if you can possibly do without it.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
A New Year, A New Blog
This blog will be a tiny voice to counteract the faith-heavy voices that presently seem to dominate our society: the frequent letters to the editor urging us to turn back to God (the Christian God, of course!) as the cure for all society's ills; the suggestion that since this nation has a majority of Christian citizens, the majority should rule and make all the laws conform to Christian doctrine and practice (much like the Taliban imposed Islamic law on Afghanistan).
This blog will try to speak for that all-too-silent minority, which is one of the last minorities in our country to suffer the prejudice which used to be directed at women, non-white races, homosexuals, and immigrants. Those groups are gradually becoming accepted into society. The non-believers still are victims of prejudice. When polls indicate that voters in America would be more likely to vote for a qualified Muslim than for a qualified atheist, we see that prejudice at work. And yet non-believers are the fourth-largest group in the world, as far as religious belief goes (after Christians, Muslims and Hindus).
This blog will try to speak for that all-too-silent minority, which is one of the last minorities in our country to suffer the prejudice which used to be directed at women, non-white races, homosexuals, and immigrants. Those groups are gradually becoming accepted into society. The non-believers still are victims of prejudice. When polls indicate that voters in America would be more likely to vote for a qualified Muslim than for a qualified atheist, we see that prejudice at work. And yet non-believers are the fourth-largest group in the world, as far as religious belief goes (after Christians, Muslims and Hindus).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)