~Stephen F. Roberts
I saw [the above quote] posted by TBONE today on http://mediamatters.org/columns/201001050042
Before I go any further, let me say that I am not a “true” atheist. I'm solidly agnostic. God might or might not exist. I don’t know, and can’t know, therefore it would be reckless of me to CONCLUDE anything. What I DO know is that the most learned theologian in the world today, knows no more about God(s) than I do. All they have over me is a vast repertoire of knowledge regarding what man has believed about God(s) over the centuries. And seeing how much it’s changed? Why on earth should I believe in merely the most recent one to come along? If 500 years from now, Scientology becomes the dominant religion in the world, I hope that the atheist of that day are able to read this: I WAS AROUND WHEN THEY WERE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF KOOKS AND CULTISTS AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, IT’S ALL BULLSHIT.
And in reality, it really is ALL bullshit. Every religion ever concieved asks you to believe something that's either impossible or at a minimum something that there is no evidence, at all, to support.
But the opening quote is arguably the best way to debate atheism with a religious person. Or, if they’re not buying it, try this:
1) Ask them if they believe in ZEUS, RA or ODIN. Not worship now, but do they believe in the existence of these deities as actual, living entities?
2) Once you both agree that the idea of ZUEA/RA/ODIN being REAL is absurd, ask them WHY, and remind them that their reason should not be one that could be applied equally to God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah /etc…
3) Flip it: Ask them for an argument supporting the exsistance of God (etc…) that could not be used equally to support the exsistance of Zeus (etc…)
It logically can’t be done. To argue for the exsistance of something without evidence is to accept the theoretical exsistance of ANYTHING... without evidence!
Believe in Angels? What about Demons? Why those and not Goblins, Unicorns or Leprechauns?
Well... I know why. Because that would be absurd, right?
(See three step process above)
Now... in truth? I don't care what YOU believe. I really don't. Believe whatever you want. I won't mock; in fact you'll find I'll be very respectful of it, just as long as you don't try to call science, or history and for God's sake don't try to use the government (or the schools) to force me (or my children) to go along with it.
That's all we ask. If denying you the right to wage war on our non-belief constitutes us waging war on your belief, then so be it. I'll just list that among the millions of absurd things religion asks that you believe.
Athiests have the same beleif you just stated as being an agnostic. It something humans can't know. It is untestable. You can't have a serious conversation with a religious person because inherently by associating with religion they claim "to know." An athiest, unlike an agnostic would not wish it to be true. I agree with hitchens,that the term athiest should not even exist and if it did then it would apply to everyone since as you stated above an athiest would beleive in just one less god. There is no term for someone who does not beleive in alchemy.
ReplyDeleteI only think it is ok to mock religion because I beleive its going to be the dividing wedge that will ultimately cause human extinction if it is not eradicated completely from the human psyche.( does this help my cause? No. But neither does any other appproach I have seen work to convert so to speak someone into not beleiving) Most athiest or at least intellectual athiests don't conclude anything either. They just say it is highly unlikely to be true because once again you can't disprove it completely just as you can't disprove any claim that is untestable with the tools or inate senses we have developed as a species.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteAtheist... Agnostic... Meh... I'm not big into labels myself, I'm just defining my philosophy relative to how I've heard the terms argued - it's just that I've met (self-proclaimed) atheists who think they can KNOW that God does not exsist. And these people just couldn't accept that you can't KNOW this. The need (out of fear, maybe?) to feel certainty about that which you cannot possibly BE certain, is a flaw shared by both the religious and the narrow brand of atheism that I found myself arguing with recently.
But you're right, and I won't argue about being lebelled one or the other. To me they amount to the same thing. Some people treat them in an almost 'sacred' way, some could care less. If I have to distiguish the two? I draw the line at the degree of certainty that I percieve each group as having.
As for 'mocking religion'? LOL. Oh I'm certainly no stranger to THAT. On a macro-scale, I have a long online history of being absolutely savage to it. But when dealing with an individual, I tend to mirror the respect of the person I'm dealing with. If they can recognize that their belief is good for them and them alone, I'll let them have it. To the extent that they wish to infect it on the rest of us? I can get pretty nasty pretty quick.
Organized religion has very few philosophical objectors stronger than me!
And my 'religion' is science. SO I totaly get what you're saying. It's basically the way I look at things as well: The 'null hypothesis' is that something DOES NOT EXSIST, and you can't reject that hypothesis until you have some evidence that it DOES. The burden of proof is not to proove non-exsistence, but rather to provide SOME evidence of existance. And it wouldn't take much, but in 10,000 years humanity has yet to produce ANY.
Thanks for your comment.
You're such a grotesque person. I saw your hatred on MediaMatters and followed this link and I see you're a backward hatemongering Atheist, the kind that makes the rest of us look bad.
ReplyDeleteGet therapy.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which "hatred on MM" you're referring too, I mean there's SO MUCH (puh-lease,) but if you ever want to discuss something specific with me, feel free to post here and I'll guarentee you I'll respond. If you prefer, send me an email, and I'll gladly do a write-up on it: niceguy9418@usa.com
Also... Please clarify: What exactly is "backwards" or "hatemongering" HERE? (In THIS post? Seriously?) Surely not merely my lack of faith, seeing how you refer to the "rest of us;" which I take to mean "Atheists." (Though I suspect "conservatives" is closer to the truth of what you call "us." And making them look bad is about as difficult as putting on a hat.)
I mean... If you just wanted to troll in and attack me... couldn't you have done a better job of it? I mean seriously. You really don't even give me anything to work with here. Pathetic.
You guys throw around "hate" like you accuse us of throwing around "racism." They only difference is, when we do it, we cite actual EXAMPLES and offer actual EVIDENCE. I seriously wonder if you even READ my post here.
So try again. And for Christ's sake do your homework next time.
Happy New Year, Eddie, you ole hatemonger.
ReplyDeleteGood post, but I don't think you're going to get any converts. The reason, in my opinion, is that reason is irrelevant to the topic. Most religions that I'm aware of require what St. Paul (I think) calls an "act of faith." You must, to be "saved," choose to believe that which is unlikely and unproveable.
In other words, you don't believe in your religion because it's true, you believe it because you believe it. The tautology there is logic-proof.
Until the word "god" is meaningfully defined, it is 100% certain - a mere tautology - that "god" does not refer to anything (that exists or that does not).
ReplyDeleteI contend that the vast majority of people that believe in the existence of a "god" - if not every last one of them - have no intelligible concept of what a "god" is supposed to be.
strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism
peas
Conchobhar,
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. And that's fine, really. I don't think anyone should be debating the immaterial. Whatever people want to believe for themselves? Hey: The Constituition guarentees them that right. And I wouldn't change it for the world. If they want to let someone brainwash them with a bunch of medieval susperstitious nonsense? That's their right and their choice. I only get interested when they get withing 100 miles of legal forcing it onto someone else, thus taking away their right to believe (or not) as the choose.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting link, and unfortunately more than I have to to read, digest, and comment on properly at this time. (Sorry!) But I will definitely give it a full read over the next week or so. Looks like really good stuff... DEEP stuff. I'll be sure to check it out thoroughly. Thanks!
I am religious and a better person for it. If my religion does not make me a better person it is a crappy religion. I love the Lord my God with all my heart but hear me when I say this...I want the wall between church and state to be high and wide. I want God taken out of the pledge of allegiance and am firmly opposed to prayer in school. My religion tells me simply to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and vist the sick and prisoners and very cleary my religion tells me to give in secret for my God who is in secret will see me. Clearly the face of misdirected religion goes against this directive. The sanctimonious, critical, intolerant, and very public rhetoric of my religion is to me no example at all. It is what I do that matters...I dont think I get bonus points for recognizing anyone else's sin. I am lucky to recognize my own. I am just a simple person and not likely to win any big arguments over the existence of God...I believe but don't need you to believe. I hear a lot of foolishness out of the mouths of religious leaders or politicians..well I have said some foolish things myself...but at least I am responsible for my own foolishness. I don't care much for being judged because some goofball Christian said something completely dorky...like the devil saying ok he would take the deal to free Haiti from the French or that we are a "Christian" nation or that gays are an abomination. I don't have to prove God exists. I have to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the sick and prisoners. I have to love my neighbor. It is a commandment and not a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteSorry to rant so long. I like the things you have written..what I have read so far anyway. You pretty calmly take apart some cons! I hope you have room for a member of the religious left.
Oh there's always room for ANYONE as principled as you are, sir! There may not be any room in my life for RELIGION, and it may just be that I'm that much WORSE OFF for it... But what you say here is ABSOLUTELY the way I wish ALL PEOPLE, of ANY FAITH would view their religion! You have taken the best that religion offers and, like a doctor honoring his hypocratic oath: You DO NO HARM with it.
ReplyDeleteI actually HATE people like you, because you make it so much harder for to take on religion! LOL, I'm so kidding! But seriously? Yeah, the problem is that the "more religious" (if that's even the right way to say it) someone gets, the less likely they are to be LIKE YOU.
And I do, in my more rational and philosophical moment reralize that it's Politics that has corrupted Religion (or at least the Religion of the Right) as much as the other way around. But YOU, sir, have it right: In your religion you see a RESPONSIBILITY, rather than a MANDATE; PRINCIPLES instead of RATIONALIZATION; and HUMILITY rather than ARROGANCE.
You're life's philosophy and spiritual outlook are truly admirable.
Thanks for your comment.