An Angry Atheist Fights Back

An Angry Atheist Fights Back…

I’d like to illuminate something which is quite frustrating for people who aren’t Christian; there is a rather palpable double-standard which seems to exist in the minds of many Christians (for that matter, probably most religious people). As such, it’s been my experience that most Christians – which, by the way, they’re the majority in the United States – like to squeal the “intolerance” word anytime one of us “soulless atheists” dares to question even the smallest morsel of their precious ideology. Christians seem to have the mentality that their beliefs are somehow “out of bounds” or untouchable for the rest of us; that we’re offending if we even ask the slightest question regarding their religious dogma. As the author Sam Harris has always said, “Religion somehow gets a pass.” On the other hand, most Christians won’t hesitate for even a moment when making such insensitive proclamations as, “Morals come only from God,” and that, “It’s impossible for atheists to be ethical.” Of course this is complete and unqualified twaddle, yet the reality is quite likely in reverse. By way of example: Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Baker, Catholic Priests and the “Prince of Evil” himself, Jerry Falwell. Having said that and before anyone simply dismisses me as an angry atheist, let me elucidate a very significant point; I am an angry atheist! Why is it that practically one-third of the United State’s population is Christian yet they continuously get to whine and cry that they’re being discriminated against or harassed? Why is that a good number of Christians are the most insensitive and misinformed people I’ve ever had the misfortune of meeting? Why do most Christians lack even the most fundamental skills in the use of logic and reasoning? I have a theory; when one suffers from a dearth of factual knowledge, then it’s quite easy to absorb and believe non-factual information because one doesn’t have anything in which to compare it against.

So, in keeping with my role of “angry atheist,” I’d like to point out a couple more examples of infant-like reasoning that I’ve observed in the course of this thread. As Jim pointed out, this entire thread began as a result of the film, “Zeitgeist” and to some degree or other I’d like to remain on that track. Now, having read a book or two in my time, I’ve come to know a little about the origin of myth and myth’s twin brother, religion. As such, there’s little question that many of the so-called “facts” which were presented in “Zeitgeist” were either incorrect or bent to fit the producer’s outcome. One small example, the Egyptian god, Horus is not the sun god, that’s the role of Ra. Nonetheless, anyone who doubts that there hasn’t been cross-pollination and outright plagiarism amongst the world’s various religions must have been living in a vacuum. Although, I am generally opposed to conspiracy theories, in general – not merely for the sake of opposition itself, but because they’re usually not backed by any sufficient evidence, there were some compelling arguments nevertheless. This, however, doesn’t completely nullify many of the major points made in part one of “Zeitgeist.” Also, as I noted earlier, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with defending one’s position – as long as it is done according to the rules of logic and evidence. As such, I’d like to examine some very poor reasoning – which is usually indicative that a Christian is about – that I’ve observed in this particular thread.

In his or her zealous defense of Christianity, 123 made some rather appallingly deficient and banal remarks in regard to his or her attacks on this film. For example, “I’m a christian [sic] person and I can ensure everyone that they can’t prove anyone that god doesn’t exist by saying: People in the old days always said that the old scholars were wrong.” Ok, first of all, if 123 took time to examine the prose he or she used in this sentence then surely he or she would have recognized that it’s rife with syntactical and grammatical error. For me, this illustrates either a disordered mind and/or the inability to correctly synthesize his or her thoughts. That aside, how exactly is 123 going to prove what he or she has postulated? 123 is proposing that merely because – I am assuming that he or she is referring to the Atomists of ancient Greece – the “old scholars” were correct about the particulate nature of air, that, ergo, they’re correct about the nature of God. Not so fast, here! This is exactly the type of invalid reasoning which I quite often observe from the minds of Christian apologists, and this is exactly what I’d like to examine in a little more detail.

There is a chasm of difference between postulating that the air we breathe is composed of particulate matter, and that God exists. Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that merely because the “old scholars” were correct about air that they were correct about the nature of God. In fact, if it were expressed as an Aristotelian syllogism, this is how it’d look:

a. The “old scholars” postulated air consists of minute particles.

b. The “old scholars” were correct in this assertion.

c. The “old scholars” postulated that God exists.

d. God is like air, small and undetectable.

e. Ergo, because the “old scholars” were correct about the nature of air, they are correct about the nature of God.

As any moron with a half-gram of “gray matter” can easily understand, one conclusion does not follow from the other. Furthermore, there’s a chasm of difference between the assertion air is composed of particulate matter, and the postulate, God exists. Why? It’s simple, as the hypothesis air is composed of particulate matter is a scientifically-testable and verifiable question, the hypothesis that God exists, is not. God is not and has never been a scientifically-testable postulate, so these inane attempts from Christian “scientists” who use the principles of empiricism and the scientific method are, at best, laughable. The Catholic Biologist, Michael Behe, in his incorrect attempts to prove that the eye is “irreducibly complex” forgets one simple but obvious point. So what! Simply because an organ is complex doesn’t mean that it was designed by God, but this does prove to be an example of how many Christians with an agenda will bend facts to fit their theories. A true scientist would never dream of doing this. Furthermore, doesn’t the very fact that Christians are attempting to use empiricism to prove God’s existence go against one of the most important tenets of Christianity, that being the concept of faith?

Now let’s examine some of 123’s additional comments in a little more detail. In fact, this one is my favorite, “It’s the very same principle with God, we cannot see him but he does exist (that’s why no one can or has the right to point that God doesn’t exist).” Okay, let me get this straight, we can’t see God but we know he exists … how exactly? To know that something exists, we have to be able to detect it through our senses, if not, then, this is beyond the realm of science. Now, I suppose that 123 will direct me back to the notion of faith or some other extra-sensory ability, but having faith that something exists is entirely different from knowing something exists. Secondly, as yet, there’s not a stitch of evidence to support any claims regarding ESP. As such, this reasoning does not withstand the scrutiny imposed by reason and science. It’s likely that I’ll get some metaphysical notion “that we just feel God’s presence.” Really, what exactly does this feel like? I feel like a ham sandwich… More seriously, how can we reach the conclusion that God exists because I believe or feel that he exists? It’s simple, we can’t but all-too-often we fool ourselves into believing such nonsense. To 123’s last point: allow me to dispel the myth that a true atheist isn’t making the claim that God doesn’t exist, we’re refuting your claim that he does exist. As such, the burden of proof lies with the claimant (Christians). Take for example that I claim “Suzy” owes me one-million dollars. How do you think “Suzy” might reply to my claim? Exactly, she would demand proof, but what if I countered, “Prove that you don’t!” How do you think she could go about proving this negative claim, she couldn’t. So, it doesn’t work when Christians say, “Prove God doesn’t exist,” I don’t have to! Christians have to prove he does exist.

Now another fellow “blogger” had this to say, “This is precisely why I like to keep my opinoins [sic] to myself because I feel regardless of what we all believe, it is our right to believe just that and there is not [sic] point in arguing about it.” Aside from being a run-on sentence, is she suggesting that there isn’t any point in having open-discourse and debate about subjects which are important to us? I couldn’t disagree more, but I’d (with the help of the philosopher, Jamie Whyte) like to dispel another widely-accepted myth; that we have the “right to our opinion.” Before anyone jumps out of their seat, let me explain. Simply because someone holds such and such opinion doesn’t mean ipso facto that it’s correct, nor does it oblige me to agree with or accept it. Furthermore, most people use the “right to their opinion” statement preemptively. In his book, “Crimes Against Logic,” Jamie Whyte points out, “They [debaters] do so just at that point in an argument when they otherwise would be forced to admit error and change their position.” In fact, I find the tired statement that “I have a right to my opinion” is employed simply as an excuse. It’s either an admission that one can no longer adequately defend one’s position, or it’s from the mistaken belief that any one opinion is as good as another. However, based on the principles of empiricism and reason, we know that this simply isn’t the case. Some opinions are clearly and decisively much better than others. Which ones, you ask? Well, clearly it’s those opinions which have been reached after careful examination of available evidence and/or by using and adhering to the principles of reason. Otherwise, I can make anything up. For example, a purple genie dethroned God and is now in charge of the universe. Well, prove me wrong. As you can see, there isn’t any more evidence for God than there is for my purple genie.

I saved the very best for last. In fact, my fellow-blogger, Chris, possesses the reasoning skills of the average kindergartner. I quote, “Has anyone on this website “non believers” ever seek god with there WHOLE heart like he wants you to do????” First of all, one question mark is sufficient. Secondly, God would be capitalized (and I think he meant “their”), but why would I search for anything with an organ that doesn’t possess the capacity to do anything other than to pump blood? Honestly, is this the sort of drivel that now passes for reasoning? Does Chris really think that this inane and completely obtuse statement is going to convince a free-thinking human being to “seek” God? Seriously, however, we all know that it’s impossible for one to think with anything other than a brain, and if we’re willing to accept unsubstantiated and nonsensical claims (like Chris’), then this is likely tells us something about the condition of our brain; or at least our education. What Chris is really saying is this: put aside your logic, forget empirical evidence and just go with it. Poppycock, what a cowardly and dishonest perspective! Why would any person want to be a part of something that lacks any substantial foundation or basis? Why is it so difficult to accept that this is likely it, and that we’re pretty much worm-food after we’ve died? I’ll bet dimes to doughnuts that I’m fairly delicious, and, look on the bright side; I’ll make a lot of worms very happy. That aside, most human beings are very self-centered and selfish, so they can’t imagine not existing at some point, and this is the gist of it all, isn’t it? There’s a great quote from a book called ,”God’s Laughter,” and in it there’s a quote which pertains to the myth regarding Einstein’s supposed conversion to Christianity which I’d like to leave everyone with:

God is, for Einstein, incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. This personal God may be a spiritual comfort for simple souls because one can approach Him, the omnipotent, protective, rewarding, punishing, superior Father, with all one’s worries, wishes, and need for consolation. But nobody who has gained insight into the general structure of nature can consider seriously a humanized Heavenly Father to whom man addresses only his egotistical yearnings – of which the desire for eternal salvation is, in fact, the most selfish (Gerhard Staguhn).

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!