Posts Tagged ‘Atheism’
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) answered 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.
Let me start by stating clearly my goal and what exactly I am arguing against. If you read this blog at all, you will know that when I refer to god, I specifically mean the Abarahamic god. I am also not attempting to argue against the existence of god, but rather I am arguing for the improbability of a Abrahamic god. My purpose here is give why I believe an intellectual person cannot be a theist, and more specifically, one who follows an Abrahamic god.
The Scientific Incompatibility
The Scientific Incompatibility is the main reason why I could never believe in a theistic god. Biology has advanced to the point where, Evolution by natural selection is a fact of the Earth’s history (and also a theory). Its quite obvious that Evolution or something awfully similar took place, and is currently taking place as we speak (perhaps at a faster rate than ever before). The fossil record is very good evidence, but the Human Genome Project implies some sort of 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 reality. However, Evolution by natural selection only gets rid of a literal reading of the “holy” books. What about the more common, though also wrong, metaphorical reading?
The problem with the metaphorical is slightly different, and I believe it to be an even more bizarre 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 illiterate, delusional fools 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 are, of course are just some of the issues with regards to biology and evolution, but there are many more associated with physics and astronomy. For when you reject evolution, you are essentially rejecting the rest of modern science as well. Now, why create so many stars? Why create planets that cannot and will most likely never be suitable for life? Why create physical constants that if shifted ever so slightly can cause the only planet suitable for life to go extinct 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 daily five prayers. These prayers consist of constantly reminding god how good, merciful and awesome in general it 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 god 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 there is surely no god 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 pick Friday and Christians pick the day of Sunday (god’s day off apparently) to get together and pray. I could think of many constructive things to do on a Sunday, and none of them involve getting down on my knees 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 Odin. Rather, they say, you must believe (fill in dogma or nonsense) and that’s final. This means, your concepts of morality and the cosmos are 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 Odin? 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. Another reason why this is interesting is because I have noted that Muslims argue against Christianity with usually the same reasons that I argue against both. What I don’t understand is why they don’t apply this same thinking to their religions, why do they think their religion is any different just because it was the religion of their parents or community.
With regards to reality, it doesn’t work like this “geographical belief set” that religions have put forth. 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, either it exists or it does not, there really is little middle ground on this matter. So if one of these gods actually does exist, surely it is not something that changes due to your lattitude and longitude.
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 Christianity, 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? Personally, I believe things not because I would like for them to be true, or because they are comforting, but because there is good evidence. If the evidence is pending or just not very good, then one should just accept that more research needs to be done and leave it at that. 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
Atheism and Islam have a rather odd relationship. According to the Quran, the punishment for atheists is quite clear and obvious:
4:18 The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom.”
But according to a Muslim “scholar” it is easier to convert an Atheist than it is to convert a theist of another god/religion. Dr. Zakir Naik apparently must not know that if you post things on the Internet, everyone can see them, and thus anyone can refute them. At the Islam 101 website, Dr. Naik has submitted an article which he titles “Proving the Existence of Allah to an Atheist.” This is a very tall order, and something that his third-rate intellectual ability does not even come close to succeeding at. His article is at this link. Now let us begin to disect his article from the top, and expose such a fake intellectual.
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, ” My special congratulations to you”, because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers.
He begins with how arrogant he is in his belief…and how condescending he is. With regards to the blind belief, why does not the same apply to Islam? Why are only other religions blindly following their religion? Does he articulate that? (do I even need an answer to that?)…
My Muslim brothers may question me, “Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?” The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.
Oddly enough, I believe the the Islamic creed is exactly two words too long.
My first question to the atheist will be: “What is the definition of God?” For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.
What if one is a former Muslim and denies the concept and existence of allah?
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
Is he saying that current scientific knowledge can prove the existence of god AND that this god authored a few books a few centuries back?
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, ” Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
I suppose this is all white noise…but I assume he is talking about the world and a creator. If he is, surely he should be aware of Evolution by Natural Selection.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
This is probably a highlight of the entire article…he actually thinks he is using real probability to prove his points. He provides not a single source of where it says the Earth is spherical. Secondly, how is at all scientific to make up a random number at 30? And really, who thought that the world was “quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal…” Honestly was there ever a single person who thought of those choices? And, the theory of the spherical Earth is nearly a thousand years older than Islam. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Again with this nonsense, he provides no sources for his claim about the Quran. Secondly…we have already dismissed this 1/30 nonsense.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
More with this probability nonsense, I can’t believe this guy is actually serious and even found a publisher to publish his book.
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.
His entire claim relies on the probability that is probably one of the absolute worst arguments I have ever read. Thus, the this statement he makes is null and void as it rests on data that is worthless.
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.
We know the first part, and he first said the he could prove that god exists and god authored the Quran, and now he is saying he can’t. And the same book that claims this god can’t be proof of the god itself.
But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.
He is essentially arguing that because the Quran is old, that is therefore more likely to be true. Does this mean that Greek mythology is even more true than the Quran…(and likewise for older religions)
We have thus disected and anihilated his entire article. This man is a supposed scholar and respect by millions of people yet he can’t even put togeather a coherant article about god and atheism.
Tags: Atheism, god, islam, Religion
Due to the immense popularity of the first part of “Great Quotes for Atheists/Non-Believers,” I have come back with another list of great quotes for the atheist/agnostic/non-believer!
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? “
- Douglas Adams
“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”
- Douglas Adams
“I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I don’t have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.”
- Isaac Asimov
“Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods. It has been the most serious and significant occupation of his sojourn in the world.”
- John Burroughs
“[...] since the order of world is regulated by death, perhaps is it better for God we do not believe in him and we fight with all our might against death, without raising our eyes heavenward where he keeps silent.”
- Albert Camus
“I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.”
- George Carlin
“The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history”
- Noam Chomsky
“Isn’t killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?”
- Arthur C. Clarke
“I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose.”
- Clarence Darrow
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
- Richard Dawkins
“I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.”
- Thomas Edison
“I don’t try to imagine a personal god; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.”
- Albert Einstein
“The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.”
- Sigmund Freud
“A believer is a bird in a cage, a freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing.”
- Robert G. Ingersoll
“A man is not moral because he is obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of perceived obligation… “
- Robert G. Ingersoll
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”
- Karl Marx
“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”
- Karl Marx
“Religion deserves no more respect than a pile of garbage.”
- H. L. Mencken
“Religion, like poetry, is simply a concerted effort to deny the most obvious realities.”
- H. L. Mencken
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
- John Stuart Mill
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
“God is dead: but considering the state Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
“Jesus died too soon. If he had lived to my age he would have repudiated his doctrine.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
“All religions begin with a revolt against morality, and perish when morality conquers them.”
- George Bernard Shaw
“A miracle signifies nothing more than an event… the cause of which cannot be explained by another familiar instance, or…. which the narrator is unable to explain.”
- Baruch Spinoza
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.”
- Voltaire
“Did science promise happiness? I do not believe it. It promised truth, and the question is to know if we will ever make happiness with truth.”
- Emile Zola
Tags: agnostic, agnosticism, Atheism, atheism quotes, atheist, atheist quotes, church, deism, god, great quotes, quotes, Religion
The God Delusion, a 2006 book by British Scientist Richard Dawkins is the exact opposite of a casual read. From the opening chapters, the book challenges the reader to rethink their beliefs and question why they ever thought that way in the first place. This is where the differences between The God Delusion and your run of the mill religious/”inspirational” books begin (and there’s quite a few of them), but certainly not where it ends. The God Delusion is simply not meant for a close minded person, for it requires the reader to do exactly what the Bible or the Quran don’t, and that is to think for themselves.
First Chapter - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer
The book begins by differentiating Einsteinian “religion” and theistic religion. This book intends to debate the former and not the latter. That distinction is one that needs to be made prior to the bulk of the argument. As, the concept of Deism or Pantheism is light years away from theistic religion…though very often they are grouped together as if they are very similar in nature, when in fact they are not. It then addresses the odd cultural norm of respect given to faith. Many people believe things that are a matter of faith should be respected blindly and never questioned. We can debate all sorts of topics, from sports to politics, but when it comes to faith…one must do so “respectfully.” This cultural norm has allowed religion to get away with mind boggling stupidity.
Second Chapter - The God Hypothesis
This chapter largely deals with the claim of a god. First it discusses how monotheism is not much of an advancement from polytheism, and how one needs to simply subtract one more god from monotheism to reach a real intellectual stance, atheism. It then dismisses the claim that many folk in America make that the founding fathers were Christians and the constitution was written with a Christian god in mind. That is a claim that’s very often made, yet never substantiated, (as it couldn’t be)…The men who are considered the founding fathers were in fact children of the Enlightenment, and largely could be considered Deists rather than theists. The rest of the chapter is devoted to other such claims which are also false.
Third Chapter - Arguments For god’s Existence
The third chapter is rather self explanatory, it deals with various claims made to support god’s existence. These claims include, Thomas Aquinas “proofs,” The ontological argument, The argument from beauty, The argument from personal experience, The argument from scripture, The argument from admired religious scientists, Pascal’s Wager and Bayesian arguments. Most arguments you have heard for god’s existence often take root in those groups, and Dawkins promptly negates all these arguments as being possible to prove god’s existence.
Fourth Chapter - Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
Many people stop right at the point that, “we can’t completely disprove god, therefore we should leave the topic alone.” That is of course is a rather weak thing, because if our ancestors thought the same way, we would still be thinking that lightning was part of god’s will. This chapter provides the reasoning to go from a(n) Agnostic, Deistic or Pantheistic stance all the way to the Atheistic world view.
Fifth Chapter - The Roots Of Religion
A common argument for the possibility of the existence of a god is one that states, “religion is a human universal, therefore god must exist in some form.” Again, the premise is correct yet the conclusion is off the mark entirely. That is of course the problem with much of the religious thought, the premise is the search for truth, and the conclusion is that, “I don’t know, therefore god did it…” When will people realize that even if you say “god did it,” that doesn’t explain anything at all. Back to the book itself, in the bulk of this chapter, Dawkins explores the history of religion, its purpose for human survival and its development over thousands of years. It is a very interesting chapter for anyone who is possibly enticed by the argument of its universality.
Sixth Chapter - The Roots of Morality, Why Are We Good?
Another very interesting chapter, very similar to the previous chapter, except with regards to morality. An argument that many religious moderates use is the one from morality. They believe that, without the “great” monotheism’s, we wouldn’t know right from wrong. The moral precepts left by the history of religion is why society on the whole is good, therefore religion might be physically true, but it serves a great purpose. Again, a horrible argument, though a much weaker stance than most others. If you have ever read Dawkins’ earlier work such as, The Selfish Gene, one can get a good grasp of how this chapter starts. Morality is beneficial for individual human survival and, thus evolution by natural selection would keep it going. The argument Dawkins makes is far more complex than just that, and is grounded in more biological facts, but that is the jist of it. He then discusses the argument raised in the book “The Brothers Karamazov,” and that is, “why be good if there is no god.” That is such a despicable question, and an insult to humans, it other words, the question is asking, “Would you murder you neighbor if you knew there was no ultimate punishment?”…If you really are stopped from killing and raping due to your belief in god’s existence, you are not moral, and actually quite the opposite.
Seventh Chapter - The “Good” Book And The Changing Moral Zeitgeist
Every chapter in this book has been great, and it does not let up here either. This chapter talks about the morality (or lack thereof) within the supposed “good” book. It continues to demonstrate how any decent religious person would have to pick and choose which parts of the “good” book to accept, and which to leave aside. This cherry picking is extremely interesting, as unconsciously, people realize that certain parts are moral and certain parts are immortal. This judgement that seemingly any religious person has is available to everyone. So it is therefore established, religion gets our morality from us, not the other way around. It then delves into the wickedness of the New Testament, often regarded as a much more moral book that the Old Testament. While obviously the New Testament is an upgrade over its predecessor, its morality isn’t very praiseworthy either. The notion of Heaven and Hell that is promoted is a specific aspect in which the New Testament is actually more wicked. It then discusses a few eye opening studies and statistics which really put things into perspective. The chapter closes with refuting the old, “Hitler and Stalin were Atheists…” I wont even give that argument any refutation as it is baseless and false, though Dawkins does quite masterfully.
Eighth Chapter - What’s So Wrong With Religion? Why be So Hostile?
An earlier chapter advances the view of the Atheist, and this chapter advances the view of the Anti-Theist as well as the justification of vocal criticism of religion. Most readers of this blog will already know why I am personally hostile to religion, and faith in general, but Dawkins adds quite a few more reasons: the religious right and their opposition to the teaching of science, stem cell research and homosexuality. He then articulates a point made by American Author, Sam Harris, and that is how moderation provides a cloak for extremism. The major argument is against faith, as faith is a cop-out of thinking, it allows people to take actions without really thinking them over, or just assuming they are right because god or their preacher said so. We have already seen the disastrous effects that faith can have when met with modernity, and thus the position to oppose religion in the public sphere is advanced as vital for modernity.
Ninth Chapter - Childhood, Abuse And The Escape From Religion
This chapter is very similar to my blog post on Child Abuse and Religion, as this is what that blog post is based upon. Dawkins takes issue with the labeling of young children, likening it to a form of child abuse. By not giving a child a chance to label (or not label) themselves, the parents are in effect stunting the child’s growth as a thinker and person. By automatically giving them a label, they make it that much harder for the child to escape the religion later in life. Dawkins often talks about how the Feminists employed a campaign of “consciousness-raising” and that is exactly what this chapter does. We wouldn’t dare call a child of racist parent a racist child, yet we accept that parents can label their own children on their own beliefs. Dawkins does say that we must of course educate children on religion, as one cannot understand modern history without it, but not allowing a child to choose which religion, or even no religion they want to follow is indeed a form of child abuse.
Tenth Chapter - A Much Needed Gap?
Many Atheists say they miss their former religion, almost like a missing limb. They wish they could believe, but simply cannot given the evidence otherwise and the lack of evidence for god’s existence. They miss the feeling of community and inspiration. They say that only religion can fill that gap, but is that really true. Of course I would affirm it is not true. Religion makes people feel good, and it provides quite a deal of comfort. My personal issue with such a stance is that, it means nothing, just because it feels good means absolutely nothing. Wouldn’t it be much more comforting to know the truth? Doesn’t knowledge of the real universe provide so much more awe and inspiration? I would maintain that it does, and a religious explanation of the universe actually cheapens the truth. This book review is thus over, but I will end with the beautiful ending of The God Delusion By Richard Dawkins.
How should we interpret Haldane’s ‘queerer than we can
suppose’? Queerer than can, in principle, be supposed? Or just
queerer than we can suppose, given the limitation of our brains’
evolutionary apprenticeship in Middle World? Could we, by training
and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle World, tear off
our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive - as well as just
mathematical - understanding of the very small, the very large, and
the very fast? I genuinely don’t know the answer, but I am thrilled
to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of
understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there
are no limits.
Tags: anti-theism, Atheism, christianity, dawkins, deism, delusion, god, islam, Religion, richarddawkins, thegoddelusion, theism
Ever so often, one of the major news websites post a really obscure and random news article. This is the epitome of such. 
According to the article, a fellow who goes by the name “god” was arrested outside a church…selling cocaine. The mans full name is “god Lucky Howard,” and was apparently under close watch for many months prior to his actual arrest. When they searched his home after the arrest, the police found more cocaine, 22 grams to be exact. He is now being held on a bond of $86,500.
So what can we take from this blog? god is a black cocaine dealer who makes money out of those who attend church or lurk near church grounds.
Source: Yahoo
Tags: Atheism, church, cocaine, drugs, god
Subscribe in a reader