Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-Bertrand Russell
I thought it would be fitting to begin with the famous Russell's Teapot. It basically states that the burdon of proof lies with those who make claims, not with those who deny them. Typically in any case when one makes a claim they are charged with the task of providing evidence, however it seems that christianity is immune to the scientific method. Why? Because it's faith? Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof". When one states that they believe in a deity (or anything else for that matter) due to their faith, they only change the subject from why they believe to why they have faith, usually at this point an attempt is made to make the challenger feel guilty for not having the same level of faith as though faith is a vital human quality that the lack of is something to be pitied. Faith is simply believing something is true because you want it to be true regardless to available evidence. Sorry, real life doesn't work that way. If I were to believe that the stars are made of chocolate pudding and was somehow able to convince a majority of the population, it does not mean the stars are actually made of a delicious dessert. The facts are immune to faith, not the other way around. If the only way you can assert your beliefs is faith, you are admitting that they cannot be taken on their own merits. If something is factual, we use logic and reasoning to prove it backed with available evidence, just believing is not enough. So, where is the proof that God exists? I often hear "I know in my heart God is there." You must understand that saying that is basically the same as saying "I refuse to logically think about it because I am emotionally attached to the idea and I will not acknowledge evidence to the contrary due to my inability to accept my own mortality." The only evidence anyone has ever been able to show me (other than an old dusty book written by unknown authors centuries ago) are accounts of experiences of which are easily explained with a minimal understanding of psychology and mental illness (at one point in the Bible a man attempts to murder his son because a voice in his head told him to) or coincidences (which is not evidence). A lot of first hand accounts and related stories cannot even be acredited to God if you think about the circumstances. For example, hypothetically, a man is hungry and doesn't have food, a second person sees that he is hungry and gives him a good meal to satisfy his hunger. If the man is a christian, he will most likely credit God for providing the nourishment. However, if you think about it, a person, not God, gave that person some food, he didn't have to but he chose to do it because it was the right thing to do. Why is God receiving credit for providing food? If God really had the power to prevent hunger, why did he allow that man to go hungry in the first place? Why do so many people around the globe starve when God has the power to provide them with food whenever he so chooses? Why do people suffer when God can alleviate their suffering at anytime? To have the ability to alleviate suffering and choosing not to seems to me downright evil. Another common scenario which is often acredited to devine interjection is when someone has a successful medical procedure preformed upon them. Medical science has come a long way in the past hundred years or so, so more people are living longer and healthier lives then they did only a hundred years ago. However when someone has surgery and it's successful, God is often given credit. A doctor performed the surgery, not God, scientists are responsible for furthering medical science, not God. If anything, religion often seems to hinder medical science, for example, stem cell research. I ask the age old question, you begin to choke, which would you rather have me do, pray for you or perfom the heimlick?
Another argument for God's existence I often hear is that we know the universe was created by the Big Bang. However, we don't know what caused it to happen, so there must have been some devine force that set it in motion. Nothing comes from nothing, that is a known fact, so God must have had a hand in the creation of the universe. This argument is fundamentally flawed. What is basically being said here is that we don't know how something happened so it must have been God, case closed, we can stop searching now. This is rediculous, there are a lot of things we don't know, that's why we use science to discover what we don't know. Science knows it doesn't know everything, if it did, it would stop. Saying that if we don't know how something happened is evidence for God's intervention does nothing but hinder future progress. On that note, I would like to say now that one's lack of understanding of scientific concepts is not evidence for anything, just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's impossible to understand.
Back to my question, why is religion immune to questioning? I can question any other hypothesis or theory but religion seems to be off limits, a taboo if you will. Only a few people seem to be willing to cover the subject. If one's faith is strong enough, why do they get so offended when someone questions what they believe or point out the flaws in their religion? Surely if one's beliefs are grounded in reality they would be able to validate them in some way. It all comes back to evidence. There is no evidence to support the claims christianity makes and there is an astounding amount of evidence against it. The catholic church claims the earth is only six thousand years old, yet it is a known fact that the earth is billions of years old. Of course there is a lot of stuff in the bible that is flat out wrong but i'll get to that later. I think Salman Rushdie said it best when he said "The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune to criticism, satire, derision, contempt, [your] freedom of thought becomes impossible" and I agree wholeheartedly, when religion becomes immune to questioning we are giving up our right to make an individual choice.
Usually when I request evidence to support christianity, i'm asked for evidence refuting the existence of God. I'm not the one making claims of magical invisible men in the sky, why is it my responsibility to disprove it? As we've already established, the burdon of proof lies with those that make claims. Let's try a classic exercise. Try providing evidence that there is not an invisible and silent unicorn currently present in the room you are currently in at this moment. By the way, you cannot feel this unicorn, if you touch it you will pass right through it without feeling a thing, which doesn't matter however due to the fact that this unicorn knows your every move and can silently evade you. This unicorn has no detectable temperature so you cannot just measure it's body heat. Seriously, prove there is no unicorn in the room with you. Sure, it would be complete nonsense to believe in such a creature being present but it cannot be proven it doesn't exist. The same applies to God.
Here is a subject I hear a lot about, the morality contained within the pages of the Bible. I'm often told that even if I don't believe in a literal God, I should still accept the Bible due to it's code of ethics and morality. It is often cited as the definitive source of goodness in human beings and apparently without it we would crumble into chaos. It is even said that it's the very source of morality in the modern world.
First of all, I would like to state that there are some good tidbits of morality in the Bible, such as loving your neighbor as you love yourself and turning the other cheek. I'm not contesting that there are some good guidelines for decent living contained within those pages. However, it also contains a lot of not so good guidelines for living as well, and as far as I’m concerned, seeing only the good in religion doesn't make you an optimist, it make you an idiot.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Colossians 3:18
Do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
Timothy 2:12
So the Bible clearly states that women have no basic rights, they are the property of their husbands and must do what they say. They are not allowed to have any kind of authority or to even speak unless they are spoken to. This is obviously gender discrimination.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
Deuteronomy 22:28–29
That's right, look it up, it's in there. If a man rapes a virgin, he has to pay her father off then marry her. As we already established, a woman is the property of her husband and must follow his every command. The Bible makes no comment on whether or not the girl has any say (she probably doesn't). Needless to say, this would be a devastatingly traumatic experience for this unfortunate girl, first to be raped then to become her rapist's slave for the rest of her natural life.
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
So now I’m expected to believe that if a woman is raped in a city she is to be executed along with her rapist because she didn't scream loud enough?! This is ludicrous!
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
Okay, I guess the girl gets to live if she happens to get raped in a field and nobody is around to hear, but not in a city...
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son. Then shall his father and his mother, bring him out unto the elders of his city and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
So this book of morality is telling me that if I have a son who rebels against me, I have to have him killed?! I always thought that it was normal for kids to go through some sort of a rebellious phase, I know I did. Makes you wonder what ever happened to thou shall not kill. To believe that this is a moral act is simply ridiculous. What sane and loving parent would ever have his or her child executed just because he or she disagreed with you? This is coming from the same book that is often accredited as being humanity's source of morality and ethics.
Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of you, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments on you, and the whole remnant of you will I scatter into all the winds.
Ezekiel 5:10
I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
Jeremiah 19:9
So I guess cannibalism is okay too?
Their little children will be smashed to death right before their eyes.
Isaiah 13:16
So killing children is fine?!
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.
1 Peter 2:18
Slavery's just fine too.
Anyone who supports the use of the Bible as a literal guide for moral living is a lunatic. The book is chock-full of incidents of cruelty and injustice. Even the God character himself seems to be of rather questionable ethics, he kills almost everyone on the planet via flood, condones genocide, condones murder, condones rape, directly murders multiple individuals (including children), and so on. He threatens to throw people into a burning lake of fire where they will suffer for all eternity simply for not loving him unconditionally. In fact there are many reasons in the Bible that warrant an eternity of burning pain, up to and including simply considering the existence of other gods. I would also like to point out that God intentionally created Hell for the express purpose of having people suffer for all time. He created Hell as a place to put people to suffer, simply because he doesn't like the way they think or which day they choose to work or even what they choose to do with their genitals, and he will not hesitate to put us there, but he loves us unconditionally. Honestly, this sound more like the ravings of a psychopath then of a being who truly loves us.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things.
Joshua 23:15
Wait a minute, God, this being that is the essence of all that is good and holy is the one who is bringing all this evil upon us? Isaiah 45:7 clearly states that God himself creates evil and Joshua 23:15 states that God intentionally inflicts that evil on the world. Just how is this the work of a benevolent being who loves all of us unconditionally? The Bible itself clearly states that he is the source of evil in this world, that he knowingly and willfully allows us to be inflicted by it. We are expected to mimic this beings sense of morals?!
Atheists are often asked how people will know not to murder, rape, and commit other atrocious acts without religion telling them it is immoral to do so. I find this argument terrifying, you are basically stating that the only thing separating yourself from Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Albert Fish, and many other evil people is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being who demands that you mutilate your genitals. This is not very reassuring if you attempt to make this argument from a position of superior morality. It is also noteworthy to point out that more people have been murdered in the name of religion then for any other reason combined. However on the other end of the spectrum, Warren Buffett, the third most wealthy person in the world, who is an atheist, has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth to charity. Bill Gates, second richest person in the world, also an atheist, has donated over $26,000,000,000 to charity. Pat Robertson, the worlds wealthiest evangelical christian, has given almost nothing to charity in his entire career and utilizes slave labor in a diamond mine in Africa. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who's the most moral here.
I've noticed that it seems that all you have to do in christianity to be absolved of your sins is to simply pray and ask God for forgiveness and all is well, like you've never committed them at all. I find this to be quite scary. A christian can commit any number of atrocities against his or her fellow man and it's okay because their imaginary friend tells them it's okay. It seems to me that this idea is simply a refusal to admit that they are responsible for their own actions. We atheists don't get that option, we know we are responsible for our own actions. There's no deity to forgive us and make us feel better about ourselves when we choose to do wrong, we know we chose to do it and nobody's to blame but ourselves. I'm not denying that there are decent and moral christians in the world, I have met a good number of them. What I am saying is that those who cite the Bible as the source of human decency are simply wrong. Most atheists are decent and moral people even without the threat of eternal torment. They are good people simply because it's just the right thing to do, not because an invisible man in the sky said to do so in a dusty old book of questionable origin.
There's a common misconception that the bible is completely true and infallible. It is often believed by christians to be completely factual. I am willing to bet that the majority of people who state this has never read the book in it's entirety and thus are in no position to comment on the subject. I believe this also ties in with my argument on the lack of evidence due to the fact that many of statements in the Bible have been disproved by modern science, yet many christians choose to blindly accept the Bible over science despite that science is backed by real evidence, even to the point of thinking that science is some sort of satanic enemy that exists solely for the purpose of ensuring that as many people go to Hell as possible. This is simply ridiculous. Science exists to discover the truth about the world we live in and everything in it. To believe otherwise is ignorance at it's worst. It would seem as though some people just refuse to accept reason.
Even in the creation story of Genesis there are numerous fallacies. The story clearly conflicts with the order of events that are indicated by the evidence and of course, common sense.
And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
Genesis 1:3
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:4
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:5
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:11-12
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:16-18
The first thing God does in the Bible is to create light simply by stating that he desired it. He then proceeds to “divide” light from darkness. Darkness is not a physical thing that can be isolated or manipulated, it's merely the absence of light. He then designates this separation as night and day and there is even an evening and a morning as well as establishing that these events took place in a day despite the lack of a sun to mark such events. He then creates plant life. Later he creates the sun and the moon, he then creates the stars as an afterthought, in reality the sun is a star. Am I expected to believe that God created light before light sources? Where was this light emanating from? It is then stated that one of the purposes of creating the sun and the moon is to separate light from darkness, but didn't he already do that in 1:4? Why would he need a solution to a problem he already solved? He also created plants before a light source to drive their photosynthesis, also, wouldn't those plants simply freeze? The sun is also our heat source. Modern science now know that the sun came about well before the planets (which the creation story makes no mention of) yet the Bible states the opposite. Clearly whoever wrote this story had little to no knowledge of astronomy or astrophysics.
And that was only a part of the first page. The Bible is chock-full of statements that have been proven to be false. My question is, why put so much faith in a book that has been proven to be wrong? Doesn't that destroy it's credibility? Why not that same amount of respect for science which proves how our universe works? For example, evolution. I am a firm supporter of the theory of evolution, not because I want it to be true but because the evidence supports it. When it comes down to it, facts are facts. It doesn't matter if 1% or 100% of people believe, the facts are immune to flimsy belief systems. Truth is not a democracy. Just because some well-financed group doesn't like the idea doesn't change anything, all it does is limit people's minds to the big picture. Religion, with their insistence that we abandon our scientific progression simply because what we find contradicts what they have been telling us for a thousand years, is holding society back.
A number of christians will say that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically. For example let's take the story of Adam and Eve. God Creates Adam, the first human, by molding him out of dirt and breathing life into him (and this is supposed to be the logical alternative to evolution). He then as an afterthought removes one of his ribs and uses it to build a female version of him. So God created a male but neglected to create a female? Then why make Adam a male at all?! This is also a common explanation of why men supposedly have one less rib then women, which is untrue, men and women have an equal number of ribs. A talking snake, which is often said to be Satan though no indication is given to this end, convinces Eve to eat from a magical tree. She then convinces Adam to do the same. Because of these events God kicks everyone out of the Garden of Eden, places angels to guard it (where is this place today?) and proceeds to instill a number of punishments. Many christians say that this story is a metaphor. Then why all the emphasis on original sin? Why employ an extravagant scheme that involves God impregnating a teenage girl so that he can be reborn as himself so he can sacrifice himself to himself so humanity can be forgiven for this original sin if it didn't actually happen? Why not just forgive us? Why does he hold us accountable for what Adam and Eve did? For that matter, if God is omnipotent as it is claimed, why did he place a tree that he didn't want us eating from in the middle of Eden knowing that we would eat from it? Why does he need that tree anyway? This story makes no logical sense, and the sad thing is this story is the foundation of christianity. To say that it's metaphorical is to say it's not true, but the entire religion hinges on this moment. This story was intended to be literal, but it defies logic. If this didn't happen then there is no purpose to the rest of the Bible. So you have the choice of forcing yourself to believe in a scientifically impossible story or believe it didn't actually happen thus destroying the importance of the rest of the Bible. I personally choose to accept it as it truly is, a flimsy work of fiction.
So if christianity is scientifically flawed, offers no evidence to support itself, and forces guidelines for life that are immoral and destructive to modern society, why do people dedicate their lives to it? The only reason I can think of is indoctrination. You take any devout christian, or any religion for that matter, and chances are they were raised since birth to believe it without question. In fact, most churches will go to great lengths to indoctrinate children at the earliest possible age, often with positive reinforcements in the form of candy or toys. So what is indoctrination anyway? Indoctrination is brainwashing, plain and simple. It's making people, especially young children not yet capable of making their own informed decisions, think how you want them to think. Every single christian on the planet is a christian because that's what was taught to them. Ever notice that there are no primitive tribes with little or no contact with civilization who are christian? That's because they've never been given reason to believe in outlandish tales. If you are a christian, chances are your parents were as well. In fact you are most likely christian because your parents taught you to be, and as a result you now believe (without evidence) in God. Now what if your parents were not christian? Would you be? Probably not. Nobody is born religious, nobody has ever been born with a working knowledge of christianity, and nobody has ever been born with a concise knowledge of biblical scripture. It is impossible to become a christian unless you are taught to become one. That brings me to another point. God will send people to Hell just for having never heard of him. It is apparently your fault if you happen to be born in an area that doesn't teach the Bible and you will be punished for it, wouldn't it make more sense for god to reveal himself? For a being who wants us to know him he sure makes it difficult to do so, this doesn't seem like the actions of a being who wants to be worshiped. For that matter, why doesn't God just reveal himself to the world? Why rely on people passing stories down for generations (every retelling acquiring subtle or extreme changes to the underlying story) and offering absolutely no evidence for his own existence and punish those who think there's something fishy about the whole thing? If God truly loves us as the faith constantly states, why doesn't he provide with a reason to believe, or just not punish those who don't believe?
The only reason people even believe in God is because the previous generation has conditioned them to think that way. I find it suspicious that everyone thinks that the religion taught to them by their parents is the true religion and all others are false. Ever wonder why America is predominately christian while the middle-east is predominately muslim? It's because those in their respected area have been told since birth that their religion is the correct religion and all others are false, so when they have children that's what they teach them, then their children teach their children and so on. The only real reason anyone thinks their religion is the true religion is because that's what they were taught to believe it as a child. If you are an american and you know christianity is the one true religion, would you think the same thing if you were by chance born in India or Iran? No, you would not, because your parents and the society you were raised in would have taught you otherwise. The only reason people believe in a certain deity or deities is because they were conditioned to believe them, they were brainwashed.
If by some bizarre happening we were to lose all the information we have, including our memories, and had to start all over from scratch, we would be able to rediscover everything science has uncovered over our existence. That story about the rib-woman and the magical tree on the other hand...
On a final note, I am fully aware that I am never going to get through to everyone, in fact, I will not be able to get through to the vast majority of religious fanatics. How can anyone possibly use logic and reasoning to convince anyone who is not grounded in logic or reason? Even the Bible itself says to denounce reason and to not use logic. You simply cannot change some people's minds, they are so attached to their ideas that they refuse to think about it and even confuse that refusal with victory. These are a people that despite the fact that over eighty percent of americans are christian, believe that they are a persecuted minority. Most even honestly believe that there is some kind of war that society is waging on them. This reasoning, or lack thereof, is absurd! There is simply no reason involve with religion. There are even american states where it is illegal to run for public office if you are an atheist. There are places where it is illegal to operated a business on a sunday just to prevent you from diverting the cash flow from churches. Yet they believe there is a war on God and they are the minority. We live in a society where christians are not only able but encouraged to worship openly and freely. They can go on the media and tell everyone that homosexuals are evil and going to Hell and the only good atheist is a dead atheist, yet I am the disrespectful one when I refuse to take part in their delusions, I am the disrespectful one when I voice my beliefs simply because they contradict their beliefs, I am the disrespectful one when I point out the flaws in their reasoning or with their holy book. It's perfectly okay to stop me in the street and tell me what i'm supposed to believe in and to tell me i'm evil and going to Hell but i'm the disrespectful one but when I ask that I be able to just live my life without being hounded by fanatics. If they tell me that i'm not allowed to have a choice with what I can do or not do with my own body, they're just being good christians, but when I choose to so much as disagree with them, i'm infringing of their rights. They don't want the government to tell them what to do but they want the church to tell other what to do, they're pro-life but also pro death penalty. They're against birth control but they're also against abortion, They want unfit parents to raise their kids but also want to cut social fund that help these people, then they want to punish those parents for not being able to raise a child they knew they couldn't raise because they've made it impossible. I know not all christians believe that but that's what's happening in America because a few wealthy fundamentalist christians are in charge, and they're not doing it because it's good for America, they're doing it because it's what their church wants. George Bush Sr. has been quoted as saying “I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, not should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” These are our leaders, these are the people who create the laws we have to live under. George W. Bush has actually been quoted saying that he's going to war with Iraq because God told him to. It is a sad and terrifying time for free-thinking americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment