Written by BGH
First and foremost it is a disbelief in a spirit-creator being who rules the universe. The idea and belief that there exists an unseen, cognitive, non-corporal, non-corporeal being that either intercedes in human affairs or abstains, is a neural process which does not operate in my mind. Efforts throughout my life to ‘feel the holy spirit’ or obtain this ‘truth’ as the faithful call it, have proven themselves to be frivolous. Though at one time many a concerted effort were made on my part to believe in and rationalize the god-being in which so many seem to have ‘faith’, it became evident I was not capable.
So, while you may see my disbelief as a rejection of your god, or a denial of what I ‘know’ in my heart, neither is true. You may preach or cite scripture, neither could ever give me the proof I desire, my disbelief is the result of a default position. It is reasonable to hold the default null posture until sufficient proof is given to convince for a change in status. There does not exist a hatred of ‘god’ that is assumed by many a believer, it is impossible to hate what one views as non-existent, but I do take issue with the actions carried out in the name of religion and the anthropomorphic attributes placed upon a supposed ‘higher being”.
Efforts to keep government secular and free of proselytization for god, whether specific or ambiguous, are not a display of hatred for your deity, merely they meant to demand an adherence to the constitution and require that the government remain neutral in the matters of faith. A display of a nativity, a menorah or any other religious symbol on, in or around a taxpayer funded government building or land by default endorses one or some faiths over others or none, immediately negating constitutional demanded neutrality.
Do not take offense at atheism as a rejection of your favorite deity, it is a disbelief in all deities and what I hate is the anthropomorphic characters described by world religions and the acts carried out in their names.
Remember: Given enough time all gods and goddesses die, they are then merely replaced with new mythology.
“Your kindness for weakness I never mistook
I worried you often,yet you understood
That life is so fleeting,these troubles won’t last
Forever”
These deities live longer than you may be giving them credit, some religions date to our earliest histories, and some religions today are just an older religion with new names.
That said, I agree about keeping religion seperate from government. For another example I don’t think the gov’t should be deciding who can marry or is married, let that be the business of the churches, too.
So, in the case of federal property not being decorated with religious symbols…
Arlington National Cemetery (federal Land) should be stripped of all of the sacred headstones which are in fact crosses? Whether you like it or not friend, you are grossly outnumbered in regards to your beliefs. While I respect these beliefs and once felt much like you, I realized something. Why believe in nothing at all when you can believe in something? That’s like turning down free pie and chips. It’s all about having a good feeling about death and an acceptance for dying. It is a different way of handling it. If you like to believe that nothing at all happens to you when you die more power to you. Personally, I would rather have false hope than no hope at all. Well worded post btw.
that’s stupid (casey). marriage is a governmental function and bestows legal rights and responsibilities. how would leaving that up to churches be separating church from state. legal documents (tax forms, for example) use the term ‘married’.
on another note, good post. 🙂 everyone is atheist in some capacity. jews do not believe in jesus as a diety, as christians do (they are a-theist in this respect). muslims do not believe in zeus as the ultimate creator, nor do christians or zoroastrians, for that matter. ‘atheists’ just take it a step further in that we don’t replace the dieties we don’t believe in with something else.
@ anthony: the majority believing something does not make it correct. (before we understood things like science, the majority thought that thunder was the result of a god being angry.) believing in things that are untrue cannot be good for society.
Atheists usually believe just in themselves.
Anthony T. Smith,
The headstones at Arlington National Cemetary are not in the shape of a cross. Each individual buried there may have a symbol of their own personal religious beliefs carved into the stone.
Have you ever read this?
http://charlespedley.blogspot.com/2009/01/impossibility-of-atheism.html
Remember a few things about your article above.
1) “Does not operate in my mind” – that is a choice – since greater atheists than you have become Christians, you just choose not to. [And looks like you had some well-intentioned by not effective help.
2) “but I do take issue with the actions carried out in the name of religion” – most of the good things we have in our society came from ‘religion’, mainly Christianity. Examples, universities, schools, hospitals, caring for the poor, caring for the handicapped, red cross [notice not a red swastika?], public schools, universitites. I could go on but let’s stop there. So you don’t like those actions carried out in the name of religion? Or if you refer to the bad ones carried out in name of religion, remember that Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot were NOT religious. Of course I am sure they are your heroes? (:-)>
3) There is no such thing as “secular”. Religion is a set of beliefs you have bound yourself to [Latin ‘religas”]. Therefore you have beliefs as outlined above. Therefore YOU TOO are religious. You are just a religious atheist. And I also TAKE ISSUE WITH ACTIONS SUCH AS THOSE OF NOTABLE ATHEISTS ABOVE CARRIED OUT BY ATHEISTS. Not yelling, just emphasizing! Everyone has a set of beliefs, some just in the head, most unwritten but evident by those who know you. We are all relgious. So you CANNOT keep governments ‘secular’ because then you have to have people running it who have no beliefs. [those are probably called zombies. Wait a minute,,, maybe THAT is why government works so poorly and wastes so much money! zombies are running it. Ahhhhhh (:-)
I guess that is enough. A hypnotist cannot hypnotize an unwilling candidate, a drunk cannot be cured until he admits he’s a drunk, an atheist cannot come to know God until he is willing. And many have become willing. Those who don’t have devised their own religion, atheism, and their own superior being, usually themselves or another well-known atheist that they look up to.
I wish you peace and long life because remember the epitaph of an atheist “All dressed up and no place to go”.
-Charles
well if you compare the constant seek of meaning in our lifes with “That’s like turning down free pie and chips” then you are giving me even more reasons to remain an atheist, because one thing that always dissapoints me is of the majority that “believes” say they do but act like they do not, treating “their” religion like free pie and chips.
Charles Pedley, your post is wrong on so many levels, I can’t possibly address them all. I’ll hit a few.
The idea that we choose not to be believers is so absurd that I can’t believe you would actually state it. You don’t choose to believe anything. You believe in something once you are convinced. Are you saying you DECIDED to believe in god? Is god’s existence not obvious enough that you had to choose to believe in him? We don’t believe because there is absolutely no evidence for god. That’s it. We aren’t putting our fingers in our ears shouting “I don’t want to believe this”. That’s idiotic. Why make the hypnotist analogy? It only hurts your argument by making religion sound like something you can’t possibly accept rationally, therefore requiring a non-critical acceptance of it.
When I was a kid, I believed there were monsters in the shadows in my bedroom at night. I didn’t need someone to tell me they were there, I believed it. Turning on the light revealed that there were, in fact, no monsters. Once the light was on and I saw there was no evidence of monsters, I no longer believed in monsters. I didn’t have to CHOOSE not to believe in monsters, just like I don’t choose not to believe in god. If god decides to show up and make himself known to me, I’ll do whatever he says. If monsters show up, I’ll be scared of them. They both hold the same likeliness in my mind.
The secularism=religion thing is plain garbage. How must you view your religion if you would equate it to non-religion for the sake of making an argument? “Religion is a set of beliefs you have bound yourself to” is a pretty weak description that you use for the sake of sneaking it in there with secularism. Why didn’t you include the parts about supernatural beings, miracles, creation, eternal punishment, angels and devils,and primitive ritual beliefs in your description? That comes along with the package. Maybe you can enlighten us with some of the sacraments of secularism? Or, perhaps, any of the secular scriptures that would cast aside women, homosexuals, or anyone who doesn’t share our secular faith? Or how about some of the secular rituals we traditionally pass down? No? What about the secular creator of the universe? Which one is it again?
Can you point out some of the horrible things done by atheists for the sake of their atheism? That is, motivated by and FOR the cause of atheism? See, that’s the difference between what BGH said and the little list you put forth. People can and do kill other people because they have interpreted their religion to command it and justify it. Atheism has no holy book, no infidels, no sin, and nobody commanding the murders of anyone who disagrees. It can’t be a motivator for such killings because it’s NOTHING. It poses no positive statement about anything. Atheism says nothing about religious belief. It doesn’t comment on politics or war or anything. It’s just a lack of belief. Those people may have been atheists (except for Hitler. Nice try on that one, but he was Christian) but they weren’t killing people “for atheism”.
Lastly, your closing had some pretty ignorant statements about atheists. “an atheist cannot come to know God until he is willing. And many have become willing. Those who don’t have devised their own religion, atheism, and their own superior being, usually themselves or another well-known atheist that they look up to.”
Please stop with this ridiculous “atheism is a religion” nonsense. The superior being part is pretty unfair. How many atheists do you actually know in your life? I’ve never heard anybody consider themselves a superior being. That’s just insulting and ridiculous. The lack of a god belief doesn’t require a replacement for the god role. Can’t you understand the idea of all of us being equal? I sure can. But then again, I’m just an atheist.
I think one of the clearest distinctions between an atheist and a “believer” is that atheists have a more open mind.
There are numerous possibilities, both scientific and religious, for how the earth was created, evolution, life after death, the origin of the bible, etc. Atheists don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve in any of these possibilities; we aren’t cheerleaders or hecklers for one idea over another. Rather, we are open to all possibilities. That’s not to say that we’re gullible and will “believe” anything. It’s just that we don’t pass judgment (something christians might want to try). For example, if a person wants to believe that a spaceship will take them to another planet when they die, then who am I to say its wrong? I don’t believe or not believe in the spaceship idea–but I can be open to the possibility AND not judge that person for believing it.
Believers have closed their minds to any other possibilities and only believe in one thing — their religion. One of the easiest ways to prove this is to look at all the various religious beliefs (Christianity, Hinduism, Judiasm, etc.). If you ask any person of “faith” which religion is the “true” religion, why of course, it’s the one they believe in. All others are wrong and those believers will surely go to “hell.” Their god, their book, their beliefs are one-size-fits-all.
Chubbyruckus made an excellent point about atheists killing in the name of atheism. The Crusades violently and visciously tried to convert hundreds of thousands of heretics, pagans, and all other non-christians for more than 700 years, all in the name of religion. The current jihad against America is another example of a religious-based terrorist action. History provides us with pretty clear information that atheists are not the ones mass murdering innocent people in the name of belief.
And Charles, I also wish you peace and a long life … sincerely.
Chubbyruckus, “you are wrong on so many counts”, say I. I can only answer one point now… no time.
“The idea that we choose not to be believers is so absurd that I can’t believe you would actually state it.”
We live in an age of computers. Everything I type is governed by principles. One of these principles is ‘the switch is either on or off’.
You are either a believer or not. You don’t come out of your mother’s womb and say, “I am not sure I like breast milk. I think I will wait until something better comes along.” Not to die means that would be a bad choice. You didn’t wait to be convinced.
You either choose to be a believer [ or not] ON or OFF. Bits and Bytes. No’s or Yes’s. Everything we do in life consists of choices.
Sometimes we have experiences which we cannot explain which suddenly change our minds like Paul in the New Testament when he was killing Christians as many are still today. Suddenly he was a believer. That happens too Muslims too. Like Mark Gabriel and others. Although normally not so fast as Paul.
There is always a choice.
I will say it again. What per cent of the world’s knowledge do you have?
Less than 1%?
Then can God exist in the 99% of the knowledge you do not have?
Of course he can, just like Madagascar. Never seen it. But I believe it is there.
Have you seen Rome? I believe it is there. When you have less than 1% of the world’s knowledge about a topic such as God, why talk about the 99% which you know nothing about?
Isn’t that rather egocentric? To not know about something which you don’t believe in but still talk about it as if you did?
The 99% speaks. We can only speak out of our knowledge authoritatively.
Pate
That is just downright silly. Atheists have a more open mind???
Do you have an open mind to believe in God? I bet you don’t.
Read about the 99% Pate. Talk about atheism and how great it is. You don’t know God or about him, so why talk out of your ignorance? [not an insult]
Charles,
Thanks for responding to my post. I was pleased to find your second offering more about the way one might come to believe in God rather than an accusation of non believers as “refusing to believe”. There are still some problems with the argument, though.
I think putting the idea of belief into a nice clean box called “choice” is a very poor way of looking at it. The idea that I have 1% of the world’s knowledge (which is very generous of you) suggests that God can exist in the other 99% may very well be true. That has nothing to do , however, with the belief in whether or not God DOES exist in that 99%. I can list and endless amount of things that can exist in that 99% (like vampires, for example) and that doesn’t give you a reason to believe in them.
I believe Rome is there as well. My belief in Rome, however, comes from a lifetime of good solid evidence for Rome. At any time, I can test this evidence and see if my beliefs were warranted. I don’t have to rely solely on an ancient collection of writings to form my decision about it. In fact, once I travel to Rome, I will no longer have belief in it. I will merely accept that it’s there from then on. (To be honest, I already accept it on account of all the evidence)
I don’t feel you’ve given any analogies that truly apply to the situation we’re arguing. In order for the breast milk analogy to apply, it would need to be more along the lines of me being born and then being told that there IS breast milk but I can’t see it or ever touch it. I would have to choose to believe in the milk or not to believe it. The difference here is that, once I locked my lips onto that nipple, It would no longer be a matter of belief. I would know there’s milk. There is no such exercise for discovering God as a reality. Like both Rome and Madagascar, we can reach solid conclusions of the existence of these things by tangible, irrefutable methods.
I’ll admit that your new post is more reasonable than your original one in the sense that you are not making baseless assumptions and accusations of atheists. I’m not interested in telling anybody that they shouldn’t believe in God. What stirs my coals is when people tell other people, wrongly, why I don’t believe in God. That’s my job, right?
I’ll close with a last mention of this 99% knowledge idea that you mentioned to me and repeated in another post. I do not deny for a second that I know almost nothing in regards to the grand amount of attainable knowledge in our universe. I’m not, however, making any positive claim about anything in the unknown 99%. I never said God does not exist and I never COULD say that without knowing everything. I said, justifiably, that I have seen no real evidence for God. I’m talking about my 1%. In my 1%, there is no convincing evidence for God that doesn’t rely on mere faith. That’s it. I don’t think you can be justified in making this argument when it doesn’t apply to my statements or my position. I understand you didn’t have time to finish addressing my post so I’ll wait for a better time for you. Until then, take care and thanks again for responding.
Thank you for the unemotional response. Don’t have much time to respond except for a bit.
Of course it is by faith. Just like you live your life by faith. If you had no faIth that the traffic would not kill you today, you would stay at home. That’s faith in something unseen.
An interesting comparison might be the faith in the stock market. People lost faith and what happened? A crash. It’s a choice. If I have no faith that the market will recover, then I would take everything out and thereby ensure my losses.
If I had no faith to start with in the market, would I invest? Of course not. The whole economic system is an exercise in faith and has made some wealthy, some wealthier and others not so wealthy.
It all takes faith and faith IS a decision.
So “mere” faith is denigrating to the principle of faith which is proven every single day. Faith that taking the medicine prescribed by the doctor is going to work or I would not take it.
My life, your life, all works on faith. And faith IS A DECISION that we make.
Do you believe there was a man by the name of Julius Caesar, Socrates, Jesus Christ? Have you seen them? No. Therefore you have faith that the documents that exist about him and what your teachers told you is true.
The amazing thing is that neither Socrates or Jesus ever wrote a thing. All the beliefs we have about them come from the reports of others. And yet who would dispute that any of these individuals existed?
See Chub, YOU have faith every single day in all kinds of things but you have DECIDED NOT to have faith in the existence of a God.
It is not for lack of evidence that exists. However it may be evidence you dispute and in so disputing, you DECIDED not to believe.
Why do you think many over-the-counter drugs work with NO scientific evidence that they will do anything? Could it be because people have faith that they will work? Of course.
I could give you a list of evidences pages long, but you could still CHOOSE to dispute the evidence.
However I will take a stab since you seem to be a much more reasonable person that most atheists I have engaged in conversation.
I am taking a chance here because the usual response is to dispute and explain away the evidence rather than examine it.
Newton discovered the principle of cause[which is probably one his laws of thermodynamics]. In other words, the very fact that science exists at all is because a scientist HAS FAITH in there being an answer to his question.
Science starts with a wonder and then a question forms like “Why is the sky blue?” or “Why did that apple fall on my head instead of falling upward and entering space?”
Then the scientist looks for evidence that might explain why. You notice that he DOES NOT look for evidence that refutes his idea? FOR not AGAINST.
So if you and I look for evidence about God existing you might say that I would be looking for evidence FOR and you AGAINST. Why? Because we already have a belief system based on evidence we have seen.
Why would an atheist look FOR evidence to show that there is a God? And what you do NOT look for, you very often will NOT FIND!
Make sense?
Okay let us get back to Newton. He thought about that apple and realized that for everything that happened there was a cause.
For every action that occurs there IS a cause or one might say PRIME MOVER that caused the action.
When computers became powerful enough, several scientists put the factors [permutations and combinations] into a computer which might cause life on earth by ACCIDENT, by chance.
They discovered no matter how many times they readjusted for other variables, that there has not been enough time in the 4+ billion years that was theorized for the earth’s existence for life to have happened by chance. How long would it take a cow-like animal to swim around in the ocean until its nostrils migrated to the top of its head? Or is it more logical to assume that this creature was born thru cosmic interference and its nostrils were on top of its head from birth.
Then one day while getting a drink of water, the animal realized that this was very handy. It could swim and only occasionally have to blow water out of its nostrils which were protected from waves.
So then we have to have that same animal mating with a bull and some of the offspring also had nostrils on the top of their head.
Otherwise how can a whale be explained?
By chance, how many offspring are likely to have the freak feature of nostrils on top of its head? You would have to ask a lot of farmers but I think if one has ever existed in the span of recorded history it would be written down somewhere if one ever existed.
Freaks of nature are by definition DIFFERENT and do not usually produce offspring like themselves.
So how could a whale be an offspring of a cow-like mammal ancestor when the chances are so slim?
However some, by faith, believe that this is what happened.
Having not taught science for several years, I am a bit rusty here but some scientists have postulated perhaps 20 billion years.
The big bang theory is so close to the primitive explanation of the earth formation that it is amazing that scientists would believe in it.
So now we see stuff. But what was the universe made out of?
Scientists say that it was formed out of a primordial explosion of energy and light.
It had a beginning. Since there has to be a cause of the formation of the universe, then the material universe at one time was immaterial, intangible.
The second law of thermodyamics predicts this beginning. The law states that left to themselves, things break down. Look around you. Have you ever seen a building improve without intervention of a causer?
Scientists believe in an expanding universe but that means it was smaller and closer at one time. There was a beginning.
Christianity gets a bad inacccurate rap for many wars and battles in society when in actuality greater acts of murder were caused by atheists or atheistic regimes such as Communist Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany have wiped out people in much greater numbers. Communist Stalin was responsible for the Ukrainian holocaust, killing even larger in numbers of people than Hitler. Lenin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il have all killed greater numbers of peoples than so-called “religious” wars but I have never heard an atheist apologize for any of them. To call Hitler a Christian is to call yourself a car just because you happened to enter a garage once. Would you like to point to ONE of his so-called “Christian” beliefs that prompted him to do what he did?
I must stop.
IF [a big “IF”] you were really interested in checking evidence then you should read ” What’s So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza or The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. I mention them realizing that I have seldom seen or heard from atheists who have ever investigated the claims of Christianity. Many who do have become Christians as a result of their findings.
I could list many of the world’s most important achievements which changed the course of civilization in a positive way for ever.
I do not have time right now to prove that these are true but if you check you will find they are.
Public education, nursing, universities, building of hospitals, having compassion for those in need [salvation army], Red Cross, Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, YMCA all come from Christian roots. From Vicent de Paul to Mother Theresa to Mark Buntain, most compassionate agencies were the contributions of Christians.
And by the way it is semantical mincing of words to try to claim that atheists did terrible things but NOT because of what they believe. Come on Chub, that is totally illogical. All actions we perform come out of our belief system whether we say so or not.
Charles,
Now we’re getting somewhere. THIS is what I’m looking for in an honest conversation about atheism.
I’d like to point out a few things (out of order) to clarify what I was stating in my first post so I don’t end up trying to defend an argument that I didn’t make.
My point about atheists who did terrible things was not to say they didn’t do them because of what they believe. I was pointing to the motive more than anything. First, I’ll clear up my point about Hitler’s Christianity. Now no one who is interested in an honest exchange on the subject would say that Hitler’s thoughts or actions were in any way indicative of the teachings of Jesus. I’ll grant that. But he DID believe in God and, regardless of how horrible and crazy he was, he considered himself a Christian. I wouldn’t count him as an example of Christianity in any stretch of the imagination but the fact that he believed in God and believed that God was behind him can, in no honest argument, give anybody the idea that he was an atheist. It’s absolutely not logical. Just because he was “doing it all wrong” doesn’t change his beliefs or his motives, as backwards and terrible as they were.
We’re looking at this in two different ways. When someone kills someone else “in the name of” something, it points to the motive for the killing. So when I make a claim that the killings done by Christians during the crusades were done in the name of their religion, it’s because the motive for said killings was to directly benefit and further the cause of their religion. It wasn’t an extra result of their actions, it was the purpose of them. I’m not simply saying that because they were Christians, they killed everybody. That would be an assumption of cause rather than motive. This is the same reason that I disagree with your atheist comparison. I don’t think you’ve pointed out how atheism was the purpose or the motive (not motivation) for any of these horrors. I understand that you may draw the conclusion that atheism could have CAUSED these people to do these things but that is not the same as saying they did them in the name of atheism. That may not sound like a big difference but it is. In this case, motive can be measured and determined regardless of the beholder’s own ideology where cause is subject to the beholder’s ideology. Do you see what I’m saying here? You’re right about Christianity getting a bad rap for the horrible deeds of man but you’re doing the same thing to atheism in the same breath. The blame for these atrocities is better laid at the feet of the men who committed them.
The reality, of course, is that none of that lends any credibility to the case for or against God. We could all be blood thirsty devil worshipers and that wouldn’t mean God wasn’t real.
I’ll leave out the evolution argument for the sake of keeping this post from becoming a novel. If you want to continue with it, by all means, we could. I’d just rather iron out some wrinkles first.
I have a better understanding of your explanation of what it means to “choose to believe” now that you have expanded on it and, for that, I’m grateful. I guess I should ask about the reason for choice in a case like this. What is the reason for choosing to believe in something that I don’t have evidence for? It’s not as simple as saying that I see the evidence but I choose not to believe it because, in reality, I still have seen no evidence. I’d like to hear some examples that might serve as positive evidence for God that we could study and make an informed decision about. The possibility of God is not evidence for him. I can say that God must have made the universe because I can’t explain it otherwise but that’s still not positive evidence for him. Is there anything you could point out to me that I’m missing?
Once again, thanks for keeping up this discussion. It’s great to have such an exchange with someone who has no shortage of words. Too often, civility runs out as soon as ideas do and we all end up losing. Take care.
“my disbelief is the result of a default position. It is reasonable to hold the default null posture until sufficient proof is given to convince for a change in status.”
Your default null posture is actually by necessity a positive assertion that:
– something came from nothing
– life from inorganic matter
– persons from impersonal
– minds from mindless
– order from orderless
– reason from the nonrational
– intelligence from non-intelligence
– morality from the nonmoral
– information without a sender
– code from a nonprogrammer
– truth from an accident
– variation from sameness
– languages from no language
Your other option is to deny the meaning of: something, life, persons, minds, order, reason, intelligence, morality, information, code, truth, variation, language. Then you shouldn’t really do much of anything.
Are these the more reasonable postures?
mrtp,
BGH’s post is a positive assertion of none of those things. You have presented us with a list of ideas and are attempting to paint them as the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the message of the original post. Why does it follow that something came from nothing? I think it was more like “First and foremost it is a disbelief in a spirit-creator being who rules the universe”. That doesn’t appear to make any positive assertion that we “came from nothing”. Each of the points in your list is equally flawed, all making claims way beyond the statement in the post. Languages from no language? Really? How does one reach such a conclusion? And what’s this truth you’re talking about that seems to have come from an accident? These words are meaningless without explanation. Please, for the sake of argument, elaborate.
I don’t take offense at atheism. I just wish so many atheists wouldn’t take offense at me or at people of faith in general.
To all Americans:I am a Mother, Grandmother and a very concerned
citizen since God (of any religion or not) was taken out of our schools.
The results, unfortunately showing tremendous increase in horrible
crimes and total lack of Respect for Life, Morals and Property.
My solution is for every citizen to demand that
Congress allows all public meetings, schools and sport events to
take a MOMENT OF REFLECTION! Allowing each individual in his or her on way to think about God, country,school,neighbors,parents, teachers and being a better person for just a minute or two. This in itself teaches respect for all forms of life on this planet.
Please give this all the publicity you can because we
must respect all mankind.
Thank you!
Thank you…………Cathy Mason
That was really good, I’m an atheist live among islamic radicals in GAZA, so i must to keep my mouth shut up , while you in the west can question any thing, lucky people you are !
I would first like to thank everyone who has submitted to this page, I know how difficult it can be to discuss one’s opinion of religion in a civil manner. For the record I am an atheist. This declaration (and I use that word purposefully) came with great thought and consideration only a few years ago, yet I’ve felt this way since as long as I can remember. I don’t ever recall a time when I really “felt” God, religion, or whatever deity/deities one would like to call it; but not for lack of trying. My mother (a devout Catholic who works in the church) had me baptized, sent me to Catholic school, had me receive communion, and was even confirmed by the church (after nearly a decade of attending Sunday school classes) – yet I still don’t feel that thing that some people feel towards religion.
All the while, I felt this nagging sensation running through the back of my mind, “Is there something wrong with me? These people seem convinced, why don’t I believe?” It was rather difficult and confusing to deal with. I don’t quite know when, but eventually, I stopped believing all-together. At first, I didn’t consider myself an atheist, just a lapse-Catholic,
Then time went by and I continued my struggle with my feelings before I finally realized that I didn’t belive. Think about it for a second – if you are given the option of: a) believing in a God, accept that things are the way they are because God designed it that way, and then move on to Heaven, or b) believe that life is too complex to have absolute solutions, wonder why things are the way that they are, devise a theory for why something happens, attempt to prove that theory is correct, prove it through experimentation publish it, and then face harsh criticism from the established community – which would you choose?
We don’t choose to reject God, instead, we choose to believe in the concept that life is a complicated organism and while it would be so much easier to sit back and put it in the hands of a deity, we have a responsibility to ourselves to solve these problems and find our own answers to our queries. Trust me when I say that it would be so much easier the other way.
There are those (although none thus far on this website) who say that secularists are trying to sway our children to go against the teachings of __________________ (insert religion here), but that is not true. I have an identical twin who was raised in the same environment with the same people and had the same basic experiences as me, yet I am atheist and he is not (by the way, we’re still best friends).
I do not reject anyone’s religion; I simply prefer not to place a seal of approval on it. I don’t like absolutes, particularly the idea of organized religion; the thought that someone has to be step-by-step in line with a conglomerate of people just makes me cringe. Just like anything else in life, I believe there is room for differences of opinion. For example, some in the Catholic Church (I’d hate to single out any religion, but it’s the one that I know the best) believe in the death penalty and some don’t – are some of these people wrong? Some believe that “Noah’s Ark” and/or the “Adam & Eve” tales are factual, others believe them to be allegory – are these people wrong? Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, Jews believe he is a prophet (but not the son of God), and Muslims believe that while he was a prophet he was not the true prophet (but still an influential figure in their religion) – which one is right?
I don’t see religion as some sort of parliamentary game of roulette – where one religion is absolutely right (17 Black), partially right (black), neither right nor wrong (hedging one’s bets on both black and red), or flat our wrong (27 Red) – I see it more as a devise that divides us rather than unites us. Newton’s laws on gravity have proven mathematical equations that than be tested and proven by anyone at anytime. The Big Bang Theory has not only been proven to be true (it was tested this summer in a lab by scientist in California) but – something religious people might not know – was devised by Catholic priest Georges Lemaître (if that doesn’t convince religious people that TBBT actually happened, I don’t know what will).
I know that the Hitler card has been brought up in the “atheism is bad” category, so answer this: If Hitler really was an atheist, then why did he believe in eradicating the Jewish people? Why did he do it and why would he care what religion they were? Who knows, but one thing is for certain; it was not atheism that caused these feelings. If anything, it was his religious upbringing (again, I’m not saying religion was involved, I’m merely stating that a non-religious person is a lot less likely to care what religion someone believes in than a religious one) and Dietrich Eckart who made him feel the way he did.
Lastly, as an atheist, I dream that one day we can come together as a society to celebrate our familiarities and interests rather than fight over our differences. If you are reading this as an American than you can appreciate the fact that our Bill of Rights allows us the freedom to celebrate our various religions. As such, to take away the rights of one religion is to take away the rights of all religions. Despite the fact that I don’t believe that one religion is superior or perhaps more correct than another, I would still fight for their right to practice their beliefs (within moderation – there would be no human sacrifices child marriages, etc. that I could support) if said rights were infringed upon. That is called compassion and understanding, something religious groups often claim yet (and I’m not saying all) sometimes forget. I refer of course to the “Good Samaritan” parable found in the Bible. I find that while many Christians know this tale, few actually follow through with its practice.
Unlike the religious clerics who pass by the beaten Jewish man, it is a Samaritan man – a man who is considered a heathen and uncivilized – who helps this man; thus proving that one does not need to be religious in order to be kind and caring to his or her fellow man. This is what I hope the statements I make on this blog will remain with our readers: that we are not so different, that we are all in this world together, and that we should find a way to co-exist without the threat of violence or bloodshed. No, I’m not a hippie, but I do believe that such things should be desired and sought after. That is what I believe in: humanity, logic, understanding, reasoning, and (above all else) peace and harmony. Coming from an atheist, is that so bad?