Is it really that unreasonable?

Is it really that unreasonable and incomprehensible to believe that some people actually want evidence for claims before they will trust in them? This isn’t some revolutionary, radical idea that only the scummiest people on the planet, like atheists, should dare endorse. My problem is that many Christians frown upon atheists for the heinous offense of desiring some compelling evidence before wrapping their entire worldview around some epistemological stance. I personally would require extraordinary evidence before I swallowed what any religion proselytized. I know this is just a really shocking concept. Does this make me a criminal worthy of a thousand deaths? Yes, it does according to Christian dogma. I will go to my grave as a nonbeliever until I find evidence. I will change my mind in a heartbeat once that sound evidence is presented. This is what many believers fail to realize. They don't understand that most atheists would have no problem putting their trust in a religion if that religion had enough evidence to support it.

As John Loftus often quips, god knows exactly what I would require in order to believe. The Bible, in and of itself, isn’t convincing enough to believe in people walking on water or resurrecting from the dead. If it was, I would probably still be a Christian today (Although, god and I really need to talk about the stupid, nefarious shit he did to people in the Old Testament). And, as Jesus stated (John 14:12), we should be seeing even greater things today than before. Youtube or the local news could easily cover someone performing amazing feats that surpass--or at least equaled for fuck's sake--Christ’s purported miracles. Why were the disciples and Paul some of the few to get such an intimate glimpse of the supernatural? Where have these supernatural abilities gone to? If Jesus is in every believer, we can safely assume that he should be working mightily through his present-day disciples to continue the missionary work of converting the lost.

It certainly doesn’t help that every so-called faith healer has turned out to be nothing more than a counterfeit. This only further undermines my ability to believe. You have other Christians who believe that all the supernatural stuff just discontinued upon the closing of the canon of scripture. They put their trust in seemingly mundane “godly” interventions, like when god helps a surgeon perform well during a serious surgery. This seems to weaken the Christian message that was built almost exclusively on the miraculous. Indeed, nobody should have believed in this Christ back then if no miracles were presented and nobody would trust in Jesus today without such miracle stories.

My point is that there are plenty of opportunities for god to produce some sort of supernatural, miracle today that could be promulgated and demonstrated exclusively by Christians. This would eliminate the notion that some foreign god was responsible. The Bible frowns upon people requesting miracles (John 4:48). How much more important are such signs in the age of science? I suppose that the Bible threw this scripture in there because they knew that no such miracles occurred, and they needed to introduce their so-called trump card, faith.

Science makes faith an obsolete concept. In an age of scientific enlightenment, Christians and nonbelievers should demand more than stories to believe. We owe it to ourselves and the sciences to require that much. In nearly any other endeavor, most people would have no problem with you wanting evidence before devoting yourself to some cause. I would say that religion requires faith because it lacks any evidence. Faith, in the ANE, was held in the same high regard as science before we understood that real answers to seemingly impossible questions were attainable. Shouldn’t god understand that we are no longer living in such a primitive, pre-scientific state? It certainly doesn’t help that science has demolished the ability to believe in the majority of old testament stories--through biology, geology, and archaeology to name a few.

Sex, drugs and rock and roll

I’ve been listening to music coming out of the 60’s and 70’s more as of late. You know the whole “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” era. I think this is why I could never relate to it as a Christian. We were supposed to look upon that time with scorn and disgust. As an atheist, I have found some of the ideas coming out of this era particularly appealing. I really like some of the ideas that come from the song Imagine, by John Lennon. It talks about world unity, no religion and no greed. The unity brings everyone together, and there would be no border separation. I’m not sure how this would work exactly, but I appreciate the pacifism presented in the song. Anyway, it’s yet another barrier being brought down as a result of feeling enabled to open my mind to other ideas that were once restricted when living as a Christian.

Imagine, by John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky
Imagine all the people Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Christian: You are called to witness to the ends of the earth

This was the conundrum that I faced when I desired to take Christianity seriously. I wanted to be a great witness that had all the right answers. But, how can you be a great witness when you don’t have convincing evidence for what you believe in? For whatever reason, silly ole’ me tends to put more trust in evidence than in faith, and faith certainly isn’t evidence despite what Hebrews 11:1 suggests. The evidence that I was looking so desperately for was very poor.

I also don’t think there are very many good witnesses around, especially the kind that spread the message to the ends of the earth as instructed. Why is this? Sometimes I wonder if they are unconvinced as the rest of us but on a subconscious level. There may be a handful of missionaries out there, but the majority of Christians here in the states seem to live as “secret Christians”. This wasn’t what Jesus preached. In fact, many of the preachers that I have observed privately are really not much different. Jesus was vocal, putting on healing demonstrations. Jesus cast out demons. Where are the demons now? Did they just go home after Jesus left us? Most of us know that so-called demonic possession is really a case of psychiatric distress.

There seems to be this indifference amongst the Christian members. The preacher can stress the importance of witnessing, but most of them never change. Don’t actions/inactions speak louder than words? If they really believed in the demands of their Lord, why aren’t they voraciously spreading the word? I argue that there may be a disconnection between what they actually believe, and what they want to believe. It can’t just be a case of laziness. Perhaps, they just don’t understand the urgency because of their privileged circumstances. Many Christians may think that others will take care of the witnessing for them, but they are still saved since they proclaimed Christ as savior. I still think that they are living in disobedience, since Jesus made it clear that they are to witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). This isn’t a suggestion, but Christians live according to their own needs and wants just like the rest of us. If this doesn’t speak volumes than I don’t know what does.

God just isn't worth worshipping

It’s been well stated by the likes of The A-Unicornist that the only thing worse than a god that doesn’t exist is a god that might as well not exist. I would like to look at this from yet a different angle and suggest that god just isn’t worth worshipping regardless if he exists or not. I’m going to look at this from a human perspective because that happens to be the only perspective available to me. I can’t very well step into god’s shoes and look at it from his perspective. If he exists, he already knows that good and well. I’m simply going to use the brain that he supposedly gave me to assess his worthiness as a deity that deserves worship. To do this, I’m going to ask some simple questions.

First, I have to ask is a god that kills, or at least functions as an accomplice, my fellow humans worthy of my worship? I don’t think so. He lacks any respect for the species that I call my own. Throughout history, he has shown time and time again that he holds a total disregard for our species. We can look at natural disasters as a prime example. If he has omnipotence, he is capable of controlling the weather. Some Christians pray for rain, suggesting that he can turn the weather on and off as he so pleases. Yet, it goes without saying that untold numbers have died as the result of devastating tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes and many others natural disasters.

When looking at the Bible, assuming that it has any historical merit whatsoever, we find that god doesn’t hold any punches. Infants, children and women are subject to his unrestricted wrath. How can a god expect humans to respect him if he lacks any sort of respect for our species? If he is willing to destroy children, he is equally willing to destroy you at any given moment.

In many ways, god seems more like the devil than the devil. God is the one who controls everything; Satan just sits in the background and occasionally whispers diabolical thoughts into our ears. God has killed more people directly than Satan ever thought about. I can’t help but think that Satan is down there, wherever that is, eating a bag of popcorn and watching god wipe out entire civilizations. He has to be gods biggest fan. I mean just look at what god does to children. He allows African children to starve to death, he aborts babies via miscarriage, he gives children terminal cancer and the list goes on and on. God is certainly the source of unbridled suffering because he’s the one who holds all the power. The innocent depend on him to save them from the wrath of the wicked but help rarely comes. We could take the tornado that devastated Joplin, Missouri recently as a example.

The fact that god doesn’t take care of children was one of the main reasons I began my de-conversion process. There was no point in praying for others, or my own needs, when he refuses to prevent the suffering of children. It simply made no sense to pray for my petty problems when god allowed children to die of malnutrition, disease, devastation of war and natural disasters. I just do not find this god appealing or worthy of my worship. Prayer is the main way Christians communicate with god, and it became a frivolous undertaking.

20 reasons I'm not a Christian now

In no particular order:

1) God sacrificed himself to himself for the curse that he placed upon humanity. This just seems like a really retarded god.

2) The book doesn't give me that important, "Hey, this must have been written by highly inspired people that consulted with some very powerful being" feeling.

3) God's a spoiled, evil prick.

4) God kills infants/children to suit his own purposes.

5) God's failed creation. Adam and Eve were failures . The entire world failed, so god destroyed everything but Noah. The Israelites get killed off by neighboring nations and god himself until only a chosen few make it to the promised land. Warmonger anyone?

6) No geological evidence for the flood.

7) No substantial archaeological evidence for the Bible.

8) Christians are such hypocrites for the most part.

9) No reason to believe that the Bible is more believable than any other religious text.

10) No way to objectively tell what the Bible means. Fundamentalists contend that everything is literally true except for the most obviously metaphorical parts, while liberals state that most of it is just allegorical.

11) No contemporaneous sources for New Testament stories.

12) Natural disasters.

13) Science makes more sense.

14) People are gullible, think Scientology.

15) Stoning as a method of killing.

16) God doesn't try to communicate to us through the 5 senses he supposedly instilled in us.

17) Lack of evidence.

18) Christians think the must stupid, mundane things are evidence of god and his involvement in human affairs. For example, a tree by Caylee Anthony's memorial site was struck by lightning, so that implies that god was involved. Where was he when she died?

19) Statistically speaking, Christians fair no better in married relationships than non-Christians.

20) Poor education levels, unwanted pregnancies, and violence are more highly coorelated with Christians.

*Bonus* What Harris said.

Scientific Terms 101

The term “theory” is not the same in science as it is in informal exchanges. Theory doesn’t mean just some educated guess, or some idea that somebody has conjured up. Within the scientific community, a theory is something that has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. Unfortunately, scientists are sometimes guilty of using the term “theory” in a colloquial sense which only further confuses many laymen.

A good basic definition of theory- an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In looking at evolution, creationists and other naysayers like to point out that evolution is only a theory. They think that the word just means a hunch or one of many possibilities. Anyone looking at the evidence would come to a different conclusion pretty quickly. A theory and hypothesis don’t mean the same thing either.

A good basic definition of hypothesis (or hy-po-thee-sis as one caller on the Atheist Experience pronounced it…much to everyone’s amusement)-an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Most creationists would state that evolution is in the hypothesis stage even though it hasn’t been in that infant stage for 150 years. Let’s get with the times, shall we? The theory of evolution has been proven, but there are new hypotheses developed by scientists all the time. This doesn’t mean that the theory has been unproven! It simply means that we know evolution occurs, but opinion varies on HOW it occurs when looking at in from a case by case perspective. For instance, we know that humans evolved from tree dwelling apes, but we don’t necessarily know the exact conditions which prompted bipedal locomotion.

Then there are scientific laws- a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

The law of gravity and thermodynamics are popular scientific laws, but they are not the same as a theory. BOTH ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE TRUE HOWEVER!

My adversary was trying to argue with me about how evolution was far from proven. He stated that it wasn't a law yet either. We can see from the above descriptions that there was simply some confusion about what these scientific terms imply.

Is Science a Religion?

I’ve been duking it out with a Christian on the battlegrounds of Facebook after viewing a David Letterman interview with physicist Brian Greene. This fellow facebooker says that science and religion are so similar because scientists put their faith in the natural world. He says that I hold a presupposition of believing that everything can be explained within naturalistic means. Brian Greene is exercising his faith when he talks about the “very dense ball of string that started vibrating and creating everything.” When confronted, he accuses me of being naïve and “looking down” upon him.

Of course, science is nothing like religion. In fact, they hold diametrically opposing views. Christianity, for example, begins with a truth claim like, “god is real, and Jesus is his son”, and then tries to build the evidence to support that claim. Science starts with a hypothesis that may or may not be true and performs the research to determine its validity. It doesn’t start with a truth claim and declare that you must believe it regardless of how little evidence there is to support it.

There are indeed highly speculative models of how the universe came about and expanded. But, these models are not implausible nor do they necessitate the need for supernaturalistic explanations. In other words, the models would theoretically work within the confines of the universe in which we live.

When pressed for evidence, my adversary simply states that god’s work is all around us, and he doesn’t see how anyone could come to an alternate conclusion. I’m sorry that he can’t see how others fail to see god all around them, but I’m in good company. About 75% of the scientists out there reject the notion of a god too. Scientists that do the work and understand the evidence on the deepest level are not finding god anywhere. Truthfully, science continues to close the areas that god can hide as the gaps continue to fill. Christians are forced to evolve with the times or look like ignoramuses.

The Anthropic Principle states that it’s really not all that remarkable that we're here because the physical conditions on the earth must be compatible with the sentient creatures that are here to observe it, or we wouldn’t be observing it, would we? I don’t find it remarkable at all that we are here when you look at just how immense the universe is. The earth is just a small speck of dust in comparison, and it’s not at all surprising that life would emerge in some corner of the universe. I wouldn’t be surprised if some forms of life were in many areas throughout the universe, and evolution would be the guiding method behind all diversity regardless of where the life is located. We don’t have to look at the stars anymore and think that they are some kind of god, or the work of gods. We now know that there are naturalistic explanations that provide better answers. Science has paved the way to such enlightenment.

When it comes to the universe, I don’t necessarily have faith that we will ever find out all the answers. We may never know how the universe came about or if it just always existed. This still doesn’t mean that saying god did it makes the problem go away. It only intensifies the problem. We answer the mystery with a mystery. We then have the daunting task of figuring out how god came about. Who made god, and how does he operate outside of time and space? My Christian friend doesn’t seem to care if what he believes in is true. He says that there is nothing wrong with having faith. I agree but not for the reasons he is implying. I think faith is great when you get on a plane. Statistically speaking, you’re probably not going to crash, and aviation scientists have made flying very safe. But, I don’t consciously put my faith in things which have scarce evidence. This is akin to believing that you’re going to win the lottery, so you quit your job. If you don’t care about what’s true, you might as well believe in Judaism, Hinduism and Islam for starters. Also, it would serve you well to believe in the 30,000 different denominations out there with all their nuances. So, as for now, I’m the “ass” according to this guy for being arrogant and not having any room to believe in the supernatural.