The question “Why Don’t You Believe?” is often posed to me by most religious people whenever I discuss my rejection of god and religion. They bring up the same tired arguments each time, not realizing that I have (and others) utterly crushed them countless times before. But, after answering this question so many times, I have come to the realization that “Why Don’t You Believe” is not the proper question. The better question is, “Why Can’t You Believe?” Now this is a question that deserves more than just a laugh, but an entire article.
The Scientific Incompatibility
The Scientific Incompatibility is the main reason why I could never believe in anything supernatural. Biology has advanced to the point where, Evolution by natural selection has been proven for all intellectual purposes. Its quite obvious that Evolution or something awfully similar took place, and is currently taking place. The fossil record was good evidence, but the Human Genome Project more or less proves common ancestry. We know that humans, like every other living species, evolved from common ancestors (either one or multiple), that the process was slow and gradual and due to the amount of time, the improbable became possible. However, Evolution by natural selection truly only gets rid of a literal reading of the “holy” books. What about the more common, though equally wrong, metaphorical reading?
The problem with the metaphorical is slightly different, and I believe it to be an even more illogical stance. The first issue arises when one considers, which parts are metaphorical and which aren’t? There aren’t any doctrine based or well founded theological reasons to label one passage metaphorical and the next literal. People pick and choose which part they like based on modern sensitivity and common sense, but they do it on very tenuous grounds. The second issue is, if evolution is indeed true there are many complications that arise. Such as, 99.8% of the species that ever existed are already extinct, why such wastefulness? Couldn’t god just cut to the chase and just start humans from the beginning? Why even create the dinosaurs if they were just going to be extinct a few million years later? Why create humans with organs that have no function (appendix)? Why watch the species that are the ancestors to humans die slow painful deaths for hundreds of thousands of years? Why wait 4 billion years to even consider sending down messages to random people in the Middle East? I challenge my religious readers who believe in a metaphorical reading of their Holy Book to think of answers for these questions, and when they can’t, think why you can’t, for it is part of the reason I can’t believe.
Those of course are just some of the issues with regards to biology and evolution, but there are more associated with physics and astronomy. Now, why create so many stars? Why create planets that cannot and will never be suitable for life? Why create physical constants that if shifted ever so slightly can cause the only planet suitable for life to die within seconds? Why create a planet that large portions of it aren’t even able to be lived on naturally, limiting humans even further (the so called prized possessions of god). Why create moons for planets that don’t allow for life? Why create a galaxy that’s heading in our direction and will cause our extinction if it doesn’t happen prior to it? Again, these are just a few unanswerable questions that religious folk must face, yet don’t (and so they remain religious).
Praying
If there were ever a “eureka” moment with regards to my change from a Muslim to an Atheist it was while I was in prayer. As a Muslim it is considered required after the age of 16 that a person begin reading the redundant five times a day prayers. Mainly these prayers consist of constantly reminding god how good, merciful and awesome in general he is. You get a chance at the end to ask for something you want, so it is not entirely about god. To me, this kind of activity is fit for a slave or a serf. Anyone who would willingly restrict their schedule by adding these five daily annoyances simply is a servile fool. With 1.4 billion Muslims, I don’t see how these people actually think “Allah” cares about each and every one of their insignificant wishes. Also, why does god need praise five times a day? Is the fellow a bit hard on hearing and the repetition allows him to know for sure which ones are his followers? I will go one step further, god or Allah are deaf. For they surely are not listening to the prayers of their faithful, yet servile flock.
That of course is targeted largely at Islam but the same is true about the other religions and their prayer schedules. The Jews and Christians pick the day of Sunday (god’s day off apparently) to get together and pray. What’s so good about Sunday anyway? I could think of many constructive things to do on a Sunday, and none of them involve getting down on my knees and wasting time at a Church, Synagogue or Mosque. Also, I am skeptical of any god which requires its followers to constantly repeat some sort of chant of praise. Shouldn’t a persons actions during their life act as the only criteria for judgment?
The Number of Different Religions
Most religions make incompatible claims with each other. They don’t say, you can be a part Muslim and part Christian, or sometimes believe in Jesus and sometimes believe in Buddha. Rather, they say, you must believe (fill in dogma or nonsense) and that’s final. This means, your entire view of morality and the cosmos is being controlled merely by the accident of your birthplace. If I were born to Christian parents, I might be a Christian, but why does that mean Jesus is more likely than Buddha? The same question can be posed to every religious person. What is so special about their religion, and their place of birth that ONLY it gets to decide which is truth and which are lies. In science, it doesn’t work like this “geographical belief set” that religions have. Either evolution is true or it isn’t, and it makes no difference if you’re in Canada or India. The same should be true about a creator and morality, either they exist or they don’t. And if they do, surely it is not something that changes due to varying locations.
Justice (or lack there of)
Every second, someone in the world is committing a crime. Every few seconds a child dies of starvation. Murderers walk free, and mass murderers are praised and elected as leaders of nations. The poor suffer and are never able to create a better living for themselves, yet the rich dominate the world and spend more in a day than most make in a year (or even a decade). The gap between the rich and poor only grows, and the pain of poverty remains strong. We have rigged elections and criminals roaming the streets, ready to rape, murder and steal at any moment. Natural disasters kill innocent people, and wars kill even more. What kind of cruel creator would allow such injustice? Surely not a just or loving one.
Suppression of Women
The religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are truly man-made. Not just in the sense that it was humans that created them, but men in specific. In Judaism, one needs to only read the Torah to see the hatred of women, as the inferior sex. For Eve is born out a “bent rib” from Adam. She is created for the benefit and pleasure of Adam. It is she, who is more likely to be tempted and thus Satan targets her first. All of that bigotry without even leaving the book of Genesis. Leviticus also highlights the difference between male and female, for a woman who gives birth to a girl is twice as dirty as a woman who gives birth to a boy. With the concept of Christ, why is the virgin aspect of Mary stressed? What is so bad about female sexuality? Why can’t Christ be born through the normal processes that a woman goes through? Islam has an even more intense hatred of women. Women can’t even look a man in the eye who isn’t part of their family. A woman is suppose to be covered from head to toe, and veiling her beauty because it can cause “temptation.” Oddly enough these religions think they are giving respect to women, when all they do is lay the groundwork for sexism and the hatred of women.
Faith
I define faith as, “belief without material evidence.” That is a concept that I will never, and never can agree with. How can one believe in anything without evidence? Why believe in the first place, why not just take a “neutral” or “undecided” stance instead? Some would counter with Pascal’s Wager, but how would one know which god to pray to? I personally make no leap of faith whatsoever. I believe things not because I would like for them to be true, or because they are comforting, but because there is good evidence. The rejection of faith is the fundamental core belief of any free thinker, and thus it is the basis of my atheism.
Tags: anti-theism, Atheism, christian, christianity, god, islam, jew, judaism, muslim, praying, Religion, women
I came across this website recently and spent the first few minutes laughing at its entire premise. It calls itself “the trustworthy encyclopedia”…while its name clearly establishes a heavy bias. Contradiction? I suppose, but lets move on. On the page for Liberal, it lists in bullet form, 27 of the stances that liberals commonly support or believe in. So, being the godless Liberal I am, I will provide a defense for most of these opinions.
- A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
- Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
- Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as Universal Health Care
- Taxpayer-funded public education
- The denial of inherent gender differences
- Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the military
- Legalized same-sex marriage
- Implementation of affirmative action
- Political correctness
- Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
- Support of labor unions
- Teaching “comprehensive” sex-ed programs instead of abstinence-only programs.
- A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended
- Support for gun control
- Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
- Abolition of death penalty
- Environmentalism
- Disarmament treaties
- Globalism
- Opposition to an internationalist American foreign policy
- Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
- Opposition to full private property rights
- Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
- In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
- Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
- Calling anyone they agree with a “professor” regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).
Number 1, this is of course the debate between “small government” and “big government.” Most conservatives and Republicans will often argue that small government is the proper form of government, using the logic that “a government which governs least is the best government.” However, (like usual) they preach what they do not practice. Government spending has only risen under the governments of the previous conservatives, Bush Jr., Bush Sr., and Reagan. Bush Jr. over the previous eight years has spent more than any liberal would ever think of. Yet, Bill Clinton cut funding to the welfare system far more than any other Republican has. So, in actuality, this statement is false. Though, as a liberal I do support public funding of various social programs as they do indeed work in lessening the blow of poverty.
Number 2, these folk make it seem as if liberals are pro-abortion. Who is honestly pro-abortion? Who really wants to promote abortions? Liberals support public funding of health clinics, which happen to also carry out abortions. And, it is the woman’s right and choice to do whatever she pleases with her body. This is America, not some third-rate country in the Middle East, these conservatives forget we support women rights, and freedom in general (perhaps they don’t?).
Number 3. Are these people really saying they think someone who makes the minimum wage should pay the same amount of taxes as a millionaire?
Number 4, Universal Health Care. Most (if not all) advanced nations in the world currently have a system of universal health care. The reasoning behind this is rather simple, corporations don’t consider the needs of the person, and in a field that could mean life or death for many people, do you really want corporations making that call? I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d certainly rather have an organization like the government (which is responsible to the people) making the decision.
Number 5. Public funding for schools. Education is the most important aspect of childhood. A child in born in poverty will essentially have no chance at an education if it wasn’t free. Most parents struggle to pay the bill now, imagine having to spend another few thousand on their children’s education. Public funding of education is essential for the same reason that education is essential.
Number 6. What denial of inherent gender differences? Are they referring to the notion that most conservatives believe in the subjugation and suppression of woman? There aren’t any differences between the genders (besides the obvious sex organs I suppose). How hard is that to understand?
Number 7. They really want to deny a person a job in the military on the basis of sexual orientation? Smells like bigotry.
Number 8. Of course we support legalized same-sex marriage. Our government was established to protect the freedoms of its people. A person of age should have the right to marry any individual they want to.
Number 9. Generations of racism and hatred have implanted the seed of inequality. Affirmative action only reverses this inequality.
Number 10. I don’t understand the connection between liberals and political correctness. The conservatives wish to impose political correctness when someone criticizes religion or god. Liberals support the notion when it leads to hatred and bigotry. Though I personally don’t agree with this concept, freedom is nothing without the freedom of speech.
Number 11. Well of course, there is after all the constitution which builds a wall of separation of church and state. If they want their child in some school which has teacher led prayer, they should consider home schooling or private school.
Number 12. Of course liberals support labor unions, and so do the majority of people in every nation that gives rights to its workers. (this includes America)
Number 13. Denying the idea that young kids are not sexually active is delusional. So instead of denying it, let us educate children on the dangers of unprotected sex.
Number 14. Conservatives play this trick all the time. The constitution was meant to be re-interpreted and refined with time…that was the point of it. And how do they know of its original intention?
Number 15. I don’t see what point they are trying to make…As gun laws became stricter during the 90s, the national crime rate decreased by a rather large percentage. They point to all sorts of fringe research and studies yet simply don’t look at the correlation between gun control and national crime rate.
Number 16. What else should we do with prisoners? Torture? Execution?…What other reasonable option is there to rehabilitation?
Number 17. Of course the death penalty should be abolished. Not only is it inhumane and disgusting. There are multiple arguments against it. Firstly, it does not deter criminals whatsoever. Crime rates have no relation with state laws with regards to the death penalty. Secondly, what if their is a mistake in a trial, and a person is executed while they never committed the crime. You can’t get a second chance with that…and miscarriages of justice are not as rare as one would think. Thirdly, it is extremely expensive to execute a person, considering all the factors with regards to appeal. And finally, for people that are supposedly pro-life, they support the death penalty and free ownership of guns (which have no other purpose).
Number 18. This earth is all us humans have to live on. Protecting this planet from possible dangers such as global warming and deforestation will be essential to keep this planet habitable for our future generations.
Number 19. It is quite simple to make the connection between, “less bombs=less bombings.” If we could all agree to disarm and leave the concept of war in our bloody past, we would have a much more bright future.
Number 20. I suppose this is a more person to person matter, but to me, it seems as if the world is becoming more interconnected by the day. Technology has drawn us closer and closer to the point where we can talk to someone in any part of the world within minutes and be there within hours.
Number 21. It was the farewell speech that Washington gave in which he promoted isolation. While I personally don’t think that is an option in the modern world, the reason why Washington said it still is quite valid. Washington hoped that America would not become some sort of international police force, or even entangled with any other country because of the possibility of war. We have no business intervening on the behalf of other countries, and especially when those countries (such as Iraq) don’t want us there.
Number 22. The beauty of the First Amendment is that there aren’t many restrictions or exceptions to it. It means simply what it says, the freedom to say whatever one chooses to say, whenever they wish to say it. Anyone who tells you otherwise clearly wants to restrict your freedom due to some misguided belief that they have the right to.
Number 23. I don’t really understand this, I don’t see the connection between liberals and those who want to restrict people’s property rights. And the ruling that they point to doesn’t clarify this one bit.
Number 24. Isn’t it odd that the Religious right-wing want to promote “equal time” for intelligent design in public schools? They denounce the fairness doctrine (which I do too) yet promote the exact idea of it with regards to creationism and its intellectual cousin, intelligent design.
Number 25. I am not sure I need to defend this at all. Liberals are usually more intelligent than conservatives and thus they demand evidence for their beliefs. Evolution by natural selection has mountains of evidence that support the theory, and not a single shred that would contradict it. And, evolution is simply incompatible with any theory of a personal god (especially the Abrahamic god)…therefore a good understanding of evolution should lead to an atheistic or anything but theistic explanation for the cosmos and life.
Number 26. Benjamin Franklin articulated this point quite well, and so I’ll just quote him. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Number 27. This one has no basis whatsoever, and should be dismissed for its stupidity.
Tags: Conservapedia, conservative, godless liberal, liberal, liberalism
Charles Darwin was born (1809) in England into a rather wealthy family. As a young man, he attended the prestigious Edinburgh University and then Cambridge University. While he was a student at Cambridge, Darwin made the famous trip on HMS Beagle to the Galapagos Islands, and around the world. This is where he began to develop, but by no means establish, his theory of evolution. During the voyage, Darwin noticed the incredible diversity of life even amongst islands relatively close, though separated due to some sort of geological barrier. Darwin understood that there must be an explanation for this wonderful diversity beyond that of theology. But, Darwin was still convinced by William Paley’s explanation for diversity (that such complicated forms of life imply a designer). However, Darwin began to find flaws in Paley’s argument, as it simply wasn’t wide ranging enough to account for the overwhelming amount of variation between similar species.
This is where the theory of natural selection comes into play. Darwin had been developing this theory for decades, and as he began to fear an early death coupled with his peers urging him along, Darwin finally polished and published his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (On the Origin of Species). This theory was an immediate success amongst many in the scientific circles, though was rejected by the majority of the religious (due to its incompatibility with a literal reading of the Bible).
Prior to Darwin, the only rejection to creationism was largely based on rational thought. As, the question of “where did the designer come from?” still remains. After Darwin, it was much easier to reject the notion of a personal god, as the diversity of life was finally given a proper scientific theory. Evolution by Natural Selection remains to this day, the only major theory for wide variety of species and the large fossil record. It is due to Darwin (though I suppose it would have happened sooner or later) that not only can we reject a literal reading of the supposed Holy Books, but we have a much more intellectually satisfying alternate. It is for this reason, that every freethinker alive should deeply admire the works and genius of Charles Darwin.
I will leave you with some great quotes from Darwin.
“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
Tags: charles darwin, evolution, natural selection
Subscribe in a reader