Why I Am Not An Atheist

[rug]

In the July 25 issue of the New Statesman there is a feature on the replies atheists give to the question of why they do not believe. This gave equal space to non-believers, since the magazine had printed in a previous issue replies from believers.

The answers fell into a few categories. The first is "lack of evidence." For many, science can answer all the questions about why the universe is the way it is, or why we human beings behave the way we do. The second is more pointed, that religion is responsible for so much suffering in the world and has no basis in reality as it is. The third is the impossibility of believing in a loving deity when life is often incredibly cruel.

Some replies were quite inflammatory, in classic "freshman-class-atheist-prof" style. Thus, P.Z. Myers, biologist and blogger from Minnesota:

The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin' moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behavior, and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bishop-pierre-whalon/why-i-am-not-an-atheist_b_920480.html

[cleanhippie]

1. Sounds about right. The few categories, that is.

What did they expect? Lack of evidence is a compelling statement, no?

[rug]

2. He addresses each of those three objections further in.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. And I strongly disagree with the Bishop.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Problem...

"For many, science can answer all the questions about why the universe is the way it is, or why we human beings behave the way we do."

Nobody who believes in science believes that. End of straw discussion.

[Ninjaneer]

65. Seriously, +1. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. What he is saying, in basic terms, is "I believe because I believe".

so what.

[LaurenG]

5. I am not an atheist but I'm loving PZ Myers

The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin' moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behavior, and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna.

I appreciate his forthright opinions and can only imagine his classes. He has a way with words and makes me laugh.

[roguevalley]

14. his response is the atheist clown car response that is equal to the

fundamental evangelicals that everyone hates. I find him equally as repulsive because he has only distain and nothing more. The equality of people like this to religious who hate atheists just as stupidly is profound. His screed says more about him than anything else he is trying to say.

[LaurenG]

16. I can understand why it might be seen as offensive but

I don't find it offensive myself.

[roguevalley]

37. that's fine, hon. but for me it shuts down rather than opens up

conversation. It draws lines between people. that doesn't help. IMO.

[darkstar3]

44. And "hon" is a way to open conversation?

Condescension doesn't draw lines between people?

[LaurenG]

60. It was humorous and I have a few fake pastors in mind that this would apply to.

Can you see his point at all? Think pastor Hagee who would send everyone but an elite few straight to hell if it was in his power. Or think of George Bush who claimed God told him to invade Iraq. PZ Myers is calling out the misuse of power that some very mentally ill people use to control as many as possible. There is a warning in his statement. I chose not to take it out of context or read more into it than what I think he meant.

I think religion uses fear to control, I think too many people are afraid to think about their religion as if they were an atheist, to see it from the point of view of a non believer. I also think people are afraid that if they question their Bible that they might spend eternity in hell. No one should be afraid to think and consider other points of view.

[okasha]

63. I don't think Hagee is mentally ill,

or that people who are genuinely sick deserve to be classed with him. Hagee's a con man, first, last and in the middle.

It's not the Bible people are afraid to question. It's themselves, and that doesn't apply to just one category.

[LaurenG]

64. There are many types of mental illness and I don't want to get into a discussion

about the definition of mental illness or what type anyone has so I'll leave that part of your statement as is. As for the rest, I can't speak for everyone but there are many who are afraid of their Bible, after all the word of God is not to be questioned. As far as questioning ourselves, I agree with that, many people are not courageous enough to delve into their own minds.

The bottom line is that lots of people haven't been taught to think, it's the problem with much of society today.

To never question and never think about things that are outside of our comfort zones may seem safe but in reality it makes for a dull existence inside the hive.

edit typo x 2

[Goblinmonger]

18. Meyers doesn't hate religious people.

Nowhere in his statement does he say that. He hates the leaders who manipulate their followers and he hates thoughtlessness. That is the same, to you, as a preacher damning an atheist to hell?

[okasha]

26. His posts all seem to be motivated by love--

his love of his own intellect, which is sharp, and what he thinks is wit. That he comes across like a 13-year old is perhaps thus inevitable.

[roguevalley]

39. SNICKER! Agreed. Aren't you tired of it too?

[okasha]

46. Oh, yeah.

I'm a late-in-life BFA major, and while some fellow-students are my age or older, most are in their late teens and early twenties. A young man in the late-teens range who was in the same art history class once told me (and our teacher) that he'd achieved "momentary" enlightenment while watching Zeitgeist. I didn't pat him on the head or say, "You poor child," which I thought was extremely self-controlled of me. That's PZ's writing level, and the level he pitches to, I'm afraid. The whole idea is to show off how smart he is--and he is--while making his audience feel equally intelligent.

[roguevalley]

38. I am sick of people talking at each other and saying essentially

the same thing. His rant is no more helpful than a preacher damning an atheist to hell.

And it would seem interesting that anyone cares what a stupid preacher says. Anyone can say anything but it doesn't make it true. This guy shuts down conversation with his words as fast as any preacher with his bullshit. I am tired of hearing rants going at each side and nothing more. Conversation about religion and race and all the rest MUST be had. But not this way. He's as useless as any dimwit preacher to me regarding this issue. He has nothing to say that matters either.

[rug]

41. "unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behavior"

Now, who do you think he thinks engages in such behavior?

[darkstar3]

42. Reading his blog, I'd say he thinks Catholics engage in such behavior.

[rug]

48. Undoubtedly. I'm glad we agree his attention is not restricted to the leaders of religion.

Regardless, he's an ass.

[darkstar3]

58. Why, because he doesn't walk on eggshells around your precious faith?

Catholicism IS superstitious, even more so than many of the Protestant religions so beloved by material defenders here.

[rug]

61. Speaking of eggshells, you seem rather brittle when your precious icon is criticized.

I thought you outgrew your anticatholicism when you abandoned your faith. Same coin, different side.

[darkstar3]

68. Oh how classic. Referring to Catholicism in any uncomplimentary way is "anticatholicism."

Problem with the term "superstition," eh?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

73. Oh, that's right, you're a detached critic.

Do you have a problem with the term "exfundy"? I can only imagine the gyrations your mind has been through.

[Goblinmonger]

56. "he hates thoughtlessness"

Pretty much covers "unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behavior." Seems in line with what I'm saying. He wants people to be thoughtful and not just think and believe things out of tradition, fear, and superstition. Is that a bad thing?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. ''he has only distain and nothing more''

No. You're looking at him through a ''he's the enemy so everything from him must be bad'' colored glasses.

[roguevalley]

40. No. I'm looking at another asshole with a rant who offers nothing to

the conversation but his own offensive stupid bullshit. He offers nothing. That makes him equal to all the other bullshitters who use God to bludgeon people.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. Shorter you:

"I don't like him."

That's what you're saying, in essence. With more words. Not really debatable.

[Lucian]

71. I had a class with him when I went to U of MN Morris.

He was a great professor.

[xfundy]

6. Wow--must have got a lot of unrecs before I rec'd.

Some folks think their God can't do anything. Funny, that.

[trotsky]

7. Nothing but the Courtier's Reply.

The CR is apparently the best modern theology can offer. That's pretty pathetic.

[provis99]

8. so does he believe in Odin? Kali? Zeus? Ba'al?

Even the Bible admits Ba'al exists. How about the Biblical god Asheroth?
2 Chronicles 33:3-19 "For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for Baalim, and made Asheroth, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them..."

How come he's an atheist about all these gods, but not the one he personally favors? Massive hypocrite and power monger...

[dtexdem]

10. Well, to me the biggest argument against atheism is: I just don't have enough faith to be one.

Nor to be a theist either.

And I have crossed swords with P.Z. Myers on the inflammatory put-downs of theists -- as well as agnostics like myself.

One of the silliest arguments I've heard against agnosticism by an atheist is that either an atheist or a theist can be right, while an agnostic cannot be -- there is or there isn't a God. My response is that I feel that agnostics are correct where atheists and theists may be wrong: agnostics tend to think that humans cannot know. But I could be wrong about that. ;-)

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Agnosticism isn't a middle ground, I'm an agnostic atheist...

Agnostic because I don't know if there is a god or not, and think its unprovable either way, and atheist because the lack of evidence means I don't have any belief on the existence of deities.

[Goblinmonger]

19. You might want to look more into what those words actually mean.

Agnostic doesn't mean the middle ground. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

[pokerfan]

28. agnostic doesn't mean undecided

and it's not a middle ground between theism and atheism.

[ZombieHorde]

11. "Too many atheists seem to function with a pubescent version of Christianity."

Most atheists in the US are responding to the Christianity they grew up with; we are just responding to Christianity as it is presented to us. Just because some Christians lack humility on the subject of their faith, doesn't mean we invented the "pubescent version."

Of course the author's version of Christianity is extremely mature when compared to most other Christians' version. :sarcasm:

"The only point that I wish to make is that atheism, which is itself a religion by negation, has an even worse record than theisms."

Sweet, give us tax breaks.

"Nothing in the annals of religious persecutions and wars can equal the slaughters of the atheist regimes that have arisen to power since 1900."

So dishonest for two reasons. First, the author chose a date which is extremely recent when compared to religious history. Second, no evidence is offered. The treatment of women and gay people in the Middle East, Germany and Japan in WWII, various suicide attacks, the witch and gay hunts in Africa, etc., are difficult to compete with.

The rest is just emotional evidence, which is obviously ridiculous since emotional evidence usually just confirms childhood upbringing. The emotional evidence of someone raised in a Hindu society or family is most likely going to confirm Hindu beliefs, while the emotional evidence of someone raised in an Islamic society or family is most likely going to confirm Islamic beliefs.

[okasha]

13. Why is it "dishonest" to reference only "atheist regimes that have risen to power since 1900?"

Were there earlier, beneficent "atheist regimes" that you could tell us about?

[ZombieHorde]

17. Yes, Emperor Guangwu of Han and Emperor Taizu of Song. nt

[okasha]

23. Both of them notable warlords.

They may not have slaughtered on as grand a scale as say, Mao, but slaughter they did. Are you sure you want to use these guys as positive examples.

[ZombieHorde]

27. They were warlords in the same way Abraham Lincoln was a warlord. nt

[okasha]

47. Ah. Virtuous killers with righteous causes.

How much difference do you think that makes to their victims? By the way, I can't find anything that states they were atheists. Links?

[ZombieHorde]

51. China's religious affiliations at the time of their rule was Taoism and Confucius' teachings.

Both are atheistic.

If you are a pacifist, I respect that, but I am not a pacifist.

[okasha]

52. But that doesn't speak to the Emperors' opinions.

Actually, the Han Dynasty is known as a period when religion in China flourished and diversified. How do you know the Emperors' personal faiths? Because that is question you puported to answer and the claim you made--about the regime, not the populace.

[ZombieHorde]

53. If the Emperor belonged to a theistic religion, a weird thing for that time and region,

that information would most likely be known.

I know it's a numbers game, but the odds of all the decent Chinese Emperors belonging to theistic religions seems extraordinary.

[okasha]

54. Not really, given that there is a religious version of Confucianism as well.

Would you claim that JFK was a Baptist because the odds against a Catholic president were high?

You know, you could just admit that you were speculating instead of making a factual statement.

[laconicsax]

55. Is Confucianism theistic?

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

57. No, but I would say the likelyhood of JFK being a theist is extremely high.

China was dominated by atheistic beliefs. Aristocrats during the Han Dynasty even had their own version of Taoism.

[JoeyT]

15. Science can't answer all questions. It can't even answer most yet.

We may not even be asking the right questions.

Even if science couldn't answer a single question, it's still not evidence for a god or gods. If not one scientist existed in the world, there wouldn't be any more reason to believe in deities than there is now.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. I've yet to see a scientist who says that Science answers all questions.

(Except the ones made of straw and erected by the usual suspects, of course.)

[Silent3]

24. Leaving questions unanswered seems to be a very difficult concept for some people

If you talk about science, then say you don't believe in God, the concept immediately and automatically forms inside their little brains that you've just said "Science has all the answers!".

In fact, you can say the opposite, "There are plenty of things science can't answer yet, perhaps may never answer", but that won't sink in. If you don't believe in God, and you think science has any answers, by some bizarre thought process, to some people, this simply can't mean anything other than thinking science has ALL of the answers.

[pokerfan]

29. Pay no attention to the strawman argument

I think Richard Feynman said it best: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don't know anything about, but I don't have to know an answer I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na-KzVwu6es

[Silent3]

30. That Richard Feynman!

He thinks he has all the answers!!! :sarcasm:

[pokerfan]

32. He's so arrogant

Atheism is the arrogant belief that the entire billion-galaxy universe was not created for us.

[rug]

43. Which is an argument why it cannot be the conversation stopper on theism.

[darkstar3]

45. Fallacious.

[rug]

49. Gerund.

[darkstar3]

59. Your argument is still fallacious.

[rug]

62. Your argument remains a random adjective.

[NMMNG]

69. And arrogant

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. It's nice that the word ''bishop'' appears in the URL.

Saves me the trouble.

[edhopper]

25. Where his argument falls apart for me

"Where is the evidence for God? Well, by definition, there isn't any. If you could see God in a telescope or electron microscope, it wouldn't be God. Couldn't be. That would violate the theological ground rules that the 17th-century Christian developers of the scientific method set up: You cannot explain the universe by appealing to a creator. Or as the late Karl Rahner put it, "God is not a datum in the universe."

But what about Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God? Don't Christians believe because of them? Simply put, no. As the Angelic Doctor himself makes clear, he is reiterating what others have said concerning "what everyone calls 'god.'" Nothing can be proven from nature or scripture to those who do not have faith already -- at best, all we can do is defend the reasonableness of what we believe.

It is therefore unreasonable to look for scientific evidence of God's existence. Whether there is or is not a creator who subsists completely outside of the universe cannot be proven or disproven by any means, scientifically or otherwise."

So he defines God as something that is unprovable (let's not get into his gross misrepresentation of the scientific method).
But if he believes that God has or has had any effect on the Earth or Universe, if over the millennium God has actually intervened at all, why is there zero evidence of that occurring? Or does he believe that after creation, God has been absent from the world? Obviously not since he believes in the Jesus myth. So the lack of any evidence is counter to any belief in God and he is left in "I believe what I believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary."

[Angry Dragon]

31. There may be a god ........... but is that god the god of the Bible

for he even said not to have other gods before him .........
sounds like he knew of other gods ........
and the sons of gods took the daughters of men

So from this one can see there are many gods and more than one son of god

[Silent3]

33. So Bishop Whalon's case for theism basically boils down to...

• Some atheists don't always make the best case they could for atheism.
  
• Let's pretend the bad atheist arguments are the only arguments the atheists have, and throw in a "science has all the answers" straw man as a bonus.
  
• You can't prove that there isn't a God.
  
• Lack of evidence, you see, is a good thing! That's what makes faith faith!
  
• The problem of evil... um, no answer to that, just thought I'd bring it up.
  
• I've got an intuition, and gosh, it makes me feel so good.
  
• No, I'm not being irrational!
  
• Some Bible story stuff presented as if it's historical fact.
  
• Atheism is faith too, so there!

Behold the awesome power of the theologically trained mind! :eyes:

[trotsky]

34. +666

Yes, you heathen. Stand back and admire in awe!

[frogmarch]

35. the problem of evil

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/evil.html

snip:

The first answer deals with suffering as well as intentional acts of evil. Some suffering actually benefits us, and is therefore not incompatible with a loving, moral God. Physical pain teaches us our limitations and enables us to survive. When we touch a hot stove or fire and experience pain, we learn to avoid doing so in the future. Other forms of pain are the result of discipline, either from human teachers or from God himself, or are simply consequences of poor choices. Without these forms of suffering, we wouldn't learn to be moral, responsible people.

Other suffering can't so easily be viewed as beneficial, but there are reasons for it occuring. Some suffering (e.g. disease and natural disasters) is the result of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. Other forms of evil are the result of beings, both human and demonic, choosing to disobey God. Finally, it is noted that God is not passive with regards to evil, but deals with evil by bringing good out of it and ultimately punishing it and bringing it to an end.

The second answer is known as the free will defense. God created people with free will, meaning that we can choose to love and obey God or not. It wouldn't be very meaningful if we loved or obeyed God because we were unable to choose otherwise. A computer or talking doll can be made to say "I love you," but it doesn't have the same meaning as when a human freely chooses to love. Thus, in order for anyone's choice to love and follow God to be meaningful, God permits everyone to choose freely what they will do.

The problem with both of these answers is that the skeptic can ask in reply, "Why didn't God create a world in which there was no suffering or evil, instead of the present world?" Or in other words, why didn't God simply create heaven and populate it with beings who had free will but would always choose to love God and do good? There is no suffering in heaven; no one does wrong; there are no physical limitations that would cause us pain. There would be no reason for us to have physical bodies with pain receptors, for there would be nothing that could cause us injury. There would be no reason for us to experience discipline, for we would have all the moral knowledge we needed and would have no desire to do wrong. There would be no reason for testing or other forms of suffering that would result in spiritual growth, for we would be directly in God's presence all the time. There would be no need for God to punish evil at a later date if there were no evil to begin with. Finally, an omniscient God knows ahead of time who will follow him, and so he could create only those people who would choose him.

~~

And there you have it. :-)

[Humanist_Activist]

50. So basically god is evil...

Anyone who would punish the children for the actions of parents are evil.

[darkstar3]

36. Perfect. Thank you.

[Ninjaneer]

66. ...

:applause:

[NMMNG]

70. Same bull, different theist

:shrug: