Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why do you oppose religion?

I often get asked why I would oppose religion and God. Christians usually couch the question in such a way as to imply it is purely for rebellion against the creator and thereby justify their assumption that I will spend eternity in Hell. Lol. The truth is more profound than that simple shell game and can be found in the problem of evil.

If you ask a theist, "why are some people rich and others desperately poor" or "why do some people go to good schools and others get neglected" then you will get the usual response, "God has morally sufficient reasons for creating these inequalities". In other words, the theists religion causes the theist to simply accept inequality in the world as the work of God. Alternatively, they will state that such inequality is the result of man's sin. Again, there is a carte blanche acceptance of inequalities in our society on the basis of reasoning underpinned by their beliefs. Of course, those inequalities in this world do not matter because of the promise of the afterlife.

If we follow this premise we see that the theist is unquestioning of power in the past, at present and into the future. The theist loses the capcity to question authority because it is "God's will". But we know that in order for society to change for the better there must be an element of questioning of authority and the present circumstances. Religion just removes the theists voice from the discussion. Thus, I oppose religion because it pacifies people from determining their own destiny.

Think though of the irony of the situation. The deal made by theists is to accept their fate and in exchange they are offered an eternity in the afterlife, a place where no-one has been and no-one can find without having never to return. It is the sale of real estate that doesn't exist in exchange for everything you have in the world. I feel sorry for theists, they have been duped and have become the unknowing projectors of their mind destroying poison onto other people. They do not realise their choice and accordingly, they are lost.

12 comments:

David Gee said...

The truth is more profound than that simple shell game and can be found in the problem of evil.

You begin with a problem Alex and the blather that follows is no more clear, despite its vitriol. The problem of evil is a quandry to the Theist this is true but it is a larger problem for you and other atheists. Good and Evil refer to an absolute standard of good and evil, you only have your subjective opinion of the world (and that produced by a long string of accidental interactions). The fact that there is Evil and Good leave the atheist with a striking problem - why should you protest at these things at all? Why does it matter to you if evolutionary theory is true and they are just another specimen subject to natural selection? They just happen to have gotten a raw deal from the world... what is that to you? I would rather have the problem and mystery of God being good and the world evil in parts than your sterile faith.

Again, there is a carte blanche acceptance of inequalities in our society on the basis of reasoning underpinned by their beliefs.

The history of social activism of Christians makes a mockery of this statement. By the way how many philantrophic social reforms where instituted when the atheist regimes of the past were in power? Stalin? Hitler? Mao? Maybe Musolini? No not really.... so the evidence points in the oposite direction to your claim. Atheist appear more likely to accept the status quo rather than Theists.

CASE - now with holiness said...

The fact that there is Evil and Good leave the atheist with a striking problem - why should you protest at these things at all?

Because people do not make the world better if they accept it as it is. Thats the point of the article.

Why does it matter to you if evolutionary theory is true and they are just another specimen subject to natural selection?

Because it is the best available explanation for life on this planet. It is taught in schools and universities for that reason. I only raise it because it is attacked by creationists.

Understanding the world allows us to bring about change for the better.

They just happen to have gotten a raw deal from the world... what is that to you?

We have the power to make the world a better place together, but only together. Unfortunately, the forces that divide mankind also prevent us from effectively improving the standards for all. Religion is only one of those forces.

Furthermore, you should note that just because our observations reveal that man evolved by natural selection, that does not mean that we must now adhere to natural selection. We can, with our big minds, remedy the barabarous nature of the selection process.

I would rather have the problem and mystery of God being good and the world evil in parts than your sterile faith.

Then you are lost.

Not to mention, atheism is not a faith - nor is it sterile.

The history of social activism of Christians makes a mockery of this statement.

You must be kidding. Christianity's resolution for the poverty problem was the poorhouse/workhouse. Read Oliver Twist if you want to see the end result of Christian social activism. Have you never wondered what we took from Marx (an atheist) - its called the social welfare system. Christians in 1800 years could not create such a system.

By the way how many philantrophic social reforms where instituted when the atheist regimes of the past were in power?

The United States Department of Foreign Affairs (Secular organisation) is the largest contributor of aid to impoverished nations.

Medicines Sans Frontiers (Secular organisation) is the largest provider of medical services
to the third world.

Warren Buffet (Reformed Jew, atheist) is the largest personal donator of money to third world nations.

Stalin? Hitler? Mao? Maybe Musolini? No not really.... so the evidence points in the oposite direction to your claim. Atheist appear more likely to accept the status quo rather than Theists.

You missed Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung.

This is one of the oldest fallacies in christian dogma. You equate one atheist with another, and yet, when I say that you are responsible for the acts of the Catholic Church, you cry out, they are not true christians. The fact is that many of these men did oppose organised religion - for that we can have no doubt (albeit, Hitler was a catholic and not an atheist). But, we cannot say that these men were particularily rational - something pointed out by Sam Harris in Letters to a Christian Nation. These men required all people to worship them, they institute/d propoganda campaigns that projected these men to the status of demigods. Kim Il Sung, for instance, had his palaces built so that his bed would sit at exactly 500 meters above sea level - that is crazy.

These men committed atrocities not because they were atheists but rather because they were irrational power mongers. No different to Charlemagne, Bornhemond, Constantine, Napolean or the Kings of Europe in World War 1. Those men all professed Christianity and committed terrible atrocities in the name of Jesus (whether he would have accepted those things or not is a different question). Nonetheless, they were not crazy because of religion - rather, religion was the amenuthesis by which they implemented their evil schemes.

Ryan Hemelaar said...

Alex, you are yet to respond to David Gee's evolution article, we are all beginning to think that you can't answer it. If so, then you are going to have to give up evolution. Well, that is if you want to be rational...It's a great time to start. :p

David Gee said...

Furthermore, you should note that just because our observations reveal that man evolved by natural selection.... We can, with our big minds, remedy the barabarous nature of the selection process.

Our observations reveal... were is the evidence that evolution stands as a theory at all? Let alone the poor evidence for human evolution (mostly we have fosils that are chimps, apes, human or fraud, nothing in between yet). You also are yet to show me how it is that you come up with a sacrificial empathy via evolutionary theory. If you have no support for your conjecture then I will have to assume it is your opinion only - which then discounts the first half of your response here.

Not to mention, atheism is not a faith - nor is it sterile.

Last time I checked no human has absolute knowledge of the universe. Therefore all atheists are taking the absence of God on faith. Its OK Alex I can understand your psychological need for atheistic faith. The sterile bit was just my opinion so thats fine if you want to disaggree.

David Gee said...

The United States Department of Foreign Affairs (Secular organisation)....Medicines Sans Frontiers (Secular organisation)....Warren Buffet (Reformed Jew, atheist)

Hmm... two secular organisations and an individual - I don't see any regimes here Alex.

David Gee said...

You must be kidding. Christianity's resolution for the poverty problem was the poorhouse/workhouse.

On this one you are either ignorant or just plain lying Alex. The pages of history are filled with the hundreds of thousands of Christian: orphanages, free hospitals, widows refuges, housing and employment projects for the homeless, free treatment for leprousy, prison/factory reform projects, projects to rehabilitate the drunk and drug user. Need I also mention the fact that slavery in Britain was abolished almost exclusively due to the work of one man - William Wilberforce BECAUSE as a Christian he could not stand the abuses of the slave trade.

The Christian ethic of service goes far beyond the work house and despite it's abuses the work house was a positive thing for many as they were not just given a handout but also meaningful work to do.

Like I said the history books make a mockery of your comments.

CASE - now with holiness said...

Actually, slavery in britain was abolitioned by the decision of Justice Murray in Sommersetts Case in 1772. Wilberforce became involved in the abolition of slavery in the colonies of the British Empire and on British Shipping with Slave Trade Act of 1807. He was only asked to become involved because the Committee for Abolition of Slavery consisted primarily of Quakers who were barred from election to the House of Commons on the grounds of being dissenters. Furthermore, the 1807 Act only prevented the sale and purchase of slaves, slaves were still held in British colonies until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 (8 years after Wilberforce left the Parliament). Notwithstanding this, I do honour those acts.

I think your comments regarding christian service neglect the individual nature of the particular person. You are assuming that a good person is good because of christianity and that is fallacious. Surely a person can be good and christian at the same time just as one can be good and atheist, good and muslim, etc, etc. I find there to be no correlation between the religious belief of the person and the likelihood of them doing a good thing. In fact, I note that as many anti-abolishonists appealed to religion as abolishonists.

Furthermore, I note that late 16th and early 17th century britain entertained an almost homogenous religious culture, with the bare exceptions being Jewish immigrants. In fact, as I understand it, speaking against the state church was a crime in that period, would certainly have precluded one from polite company and that, those statutes including the criminialisation of blasphemy remained until only recently, 2007 I think. It is therefore, not suprising that a disproportionately high number of people carrying out both good and bad works were christians.

Again, you have ignored my salient message in regards to Marxist writings, that is, it sets out the obligations of government to provide widespread services to the community. That is, hospitals, schools etc provided by religious groups are not as effective as those provided by government. Here, Marx (the godless atheist that he was) recognised that government has a responsibility to all members of society. From this, we have developed the modern state, where the poor/work house mentality of menialisation of certain members of society was removed in favour of allowing greater fairness and equality among members of the community. (PS: If you read Marx's works, you will see that he does not envision the communist state in the same way it was presented by Lenin and Stalin).

The fact is, your religion does not determine whether you are good or bad. Furthermore, your religion does not neccesarily help you in relation to being good or bad. However, your religion does keep you submissive to the powers that are and for this reason, those with religious conviction are lost.

CASE - now with holiness said...

Soz, typo - I meant abolished in the first line, how embarrasing.

By the way, are quakers christian in your eyes? Im just wondering cause the Catholics were also strong proponents of abolishing slavery and I understand they aren't considered christian by your group.

Also, I note that Japan (non christian) was the first country to abolish slavery (16th century, I think).

Furthermore, the United States Government and Australian Government, plus most of Europe barring England are secular regimes.

David Gee said...

I think your comments regarding christian service neglect the individual nature of the particular person.....

Ah yes, we're back to subjective goodness again! Alex my point is that Christians do these good things as a direct result of what they believe. You know "as much as you have done this for the least of these my brothers", "love your neighbour as yourself" and the list goes on. My point that you insist on dancing around is that Christians are socially active and philantrophic BECAUSE they are Christians, it is commanded by their faith and their Lord. Which is the exact oposite of what you originally propounded - that religion causes people to accept all sorts of social injustices.

Furthermore, I note that late 16th and early 17th century britain entertained an almost homogenous religious culture, with the bare exceptions being Jewish immigrants.

What? Who said I was talking about britain in the 16-17th century?

Again, you have ignored my salient message in regards to Marxist writings....

I'll make you a deal Alex - you answer my two points on empathy and evolution and I'll answer your comment on Marxism... what do you say?

BTW Christians following the command "love your nieghbour as yourself" by definition have a responsibility to all members of society.

The fact is, your religion does not determine whether you are good or bad.

Hmm again you are refering to something that does determine this and refusing to bring out what it is.... why is that Alex?

David Gee said...

No response on the evolutionary cause for empathy Alex?

Unless you give something soon I might have to take this as a concession that you have no evolutionary cause or evidence to back your position. In which case I would recommend you consider carefully why you care about others!

CASE - now with holiness said...

Unless you give something soon I might have to take this as a concession that you have no evolutionary cause or evidence to back your position. In which case I would recommend you consider carefully why you care about others!

Neither fair nor honest. How honourable.

I have been very busy at work recently and just haven't had time to get back to you. I will when I get a chance, but that is likely to be on the weekend. Sorry, its just really hectic at the moment.

David Gee said...

Neither fair nor honest. How honourable.

Ah you are busy, all you need have said is so... I will await your response that you have avioded making for several posts despite having time then to write lengthy responses.

BTW I don't recall you being either patient or fair in your comments re the "E.coli debate" when I was slow to respond... "Sniff, sniff" do you smell that Alex? Its the scent of hypocrisy.