About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

I first saw this on Jewsish Atheists Blog (always worth a visit) so thought that I would replicate it here. Checkout Foilwoman too for her take on things....

Why do you not believe in God?

The complete and utter lack of evidence to support that belief.

Where do your morals come from?

Many places. An individuals moral beliefs originate in their culture, upbringing, education and peer relationships, life experience and probably a sprinkling of genetic inheritance. This is why different people have different ideas about morality and have different moral beliefs. This is also why different cultures have different moralities and why moral ideas change over time. Morals are human constructs developed over thousands of years in particular cultures.

What is the meaning of life?

A better question would be ‘Is there a Meaning to Life?’ However, there is no single Meaning to anyone’s life. Meaning is created either by what we do, what we seek or is borrowed from the various religions or ideologies humans have created over the millennia.

Is atheism a religion?

Not by any reasonable definition of religion. Religions are by necessity a product of supernatural thinking. Atheism explicitly rejects the supernatural.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

I try to reason my way out of things as well as talking to friends and family about it. I really can’t see the point of praying for help. Even if God did exist what would be the point? If my life and everything that happens in it is part of God’s Will then the bad times are all part of His plan too. Why would He change His plan just because I ask Him to?

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Only if they want to. There is no good reason why they should go ‘out of their way’ to do so but they should not be afraid to debate the question of Gods existence in a robust manner.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

Only technically. The atrocities committed by the Nazi’s, the Soviet Communists and the Communist Chinese where all about power – not religion or anti-religion. They each in their own way saw organised religion as a danger to their power base so made efforts to remove it, as they did to other powerful or potentially powerful groups. They may have not believed in God but I would argue that this was not their motivation for the millions of people they killed. Any ideology that views those who do not adhere to it as substantially less than human and has the power to do something about it will ineviatably lead to deaths on this scale.

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

Easily. Billions of people over time have been wrong about many of their beliefs. Also you need to ask yourself which God are they talking about? Presumably the many millions who are Christians passionately believe that the Muslims are wrong? Also the many millions of Hindus believe that the Buddhists are wrong? You could say that all of these groups believe in ‘something’ but that something is very different from faith to faith. Not all of them can be right but they can all be wrong.

Why does the universe exist?

The Universe does not exist for a reason – any reason. Clearly the Universe *does* exist but it is a natural object and therefore does not have any purpose or goal. It just IS.

How did life originate?

No one knows yet. But I suspect that life first emerged in water about 400 million years after the Earth was formed. Certain chemicals naturally bond with each other and, after enough time when the right conditions existed passed over the ‘gap’ between lifeless and life. From then on Natural Selection took over. 4 billion years later… here we are! The details are still debatable but I certainly see no need to add anything like God into the mix. Life emerged here naturally and has undoubtedly done the same throughout the Galaxy and the rest of the Universe too.

Is all religion harmful?

On balance I would have to say yes. Clearly though it is not all bad. A lot of good work has been done in the name of religion to say nothing of the great art, architecture and music produced in its name. However, religion has been (and still is) clearly responsible for much human suffering both directly and indirectly. It has been resonsible for holding back scientific endeavour and still clouds many peoples minds with ideas that in another time and place will be seen as pure nonsense.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?

Not much. I don’t subscribe to the idea that moderates protect extremists by their very existence. Applied universally this would mean that social-democrats give hardline communists some kind of justification just by their mere existence. This is clearly nonsensical. But what moderates should be doing is speaking out against their more extreme bretherin. Any kind of extremism (and not just of the religious type) gives all adherents a bad name. If moderates ‘called them’ on their views and actions more it would isolate them and maybe make extreme views somewhat less acceptable.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

Many things – but nothing that can’t be replaced by non-religious non-supernatural beliefs.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

Well, if He’s the wrathful jealous God of the Old Testament then I’m in trouble [grin]. But if He’s the loving forgiving God of the New Testament I’m pretty sure that He would forgive me!

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

Clearly not. The three big World Religions are based on writtings sometimes thousands of years old. Things have moved on in many ways since then. So I think it somewhat inappropriate to stone people for breaking ancient laws or instituting other barbaric means of jurisprudence. Once people bring ancient beliefs into the modern public arena they should expect the same level of respect as any other belief system be that political or philosophic. Religious belief should not be a no-go area for argument just because its religious.

Are atheists smarter than theists?

Belief in God (or otherwise) is not a matter of intelligence. Smart people believe in God and stupid people are atheists – but equally intelligence people are atheists and dumb people believe in God. There does seem to be some correlation between educational standards and belief (basically the higher the education the less belief) but this is not always true. Belief is more complicated than that.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

If Jesus did exist (which is debatable) there is no reason why I, as an atheist, would have to ‘deal’ with him. He may have been an ancient Jewish teacher and ‘wise’ man. That has little relevance to me. Of course I do not believe he was divine. If he could be shown to have existed my very first thought would be “So what”.

Would the world be better off without any religion?

Yes. The various functions of religion can be undertaken by other means. There is enough philosophy in the world already to address peoples so-called ‘spiritual’ needs without recourse to any supernatural agency. Without the many illusions (and delusions) associated with religion people would be free to pursue activities to improve their lives here and now rather than to wait for a ‘better life’ after they die. If people accepted their own mortality maybe they would be less willing to kill themselves and others in the name of frankly silly beliefs. At least one would hope so.

What happens when we die?

Presumably this means ‘after’ we die? That’s it. Lights Out, Goodnight, Game Over. No Heaven (or afterlife of any kind). No reincarnation. No Hell. Nothing.

11 comments:

dbackdad said...

I'd do a post like this, but I cannot find a single point where I would differ from you very much. Nice post.

Jewish Atheist said...

"Jewsish" is a fun-sounding word. ;-)

CyberKitten said...

dbackdad said: Nice post.

Thanks. I got the questions from JA. The answers took me 3-4 days to work on.

JA said: "Jewsish" is a fun-sounding word. ;-)

[grin]. So much for spell checking!

Laughing Boy said...

Why do you not believe in God? The complete and utter lack of evidence to support that belief.

I accept that the 'utter lack of evidence' (i.e., observation or experimentation, right?) for some belief makes that belief untenable for you. But, as far as I know, there's an utter lack of such evidence to believe that...

...Certain chemicals naturally bond with each other and, after enough time when the right conditions existed passed over the ‘gap’ between lifeless and life.

If you have evidence please let me know, I'd be very interested—unless it's the discredited Miller-Ulrey experiment, then don't bother. Any such evidence would significantly moderate my anti-naturalism stance. In fact, I think good evidence would silence nearly every thoughtful Christian apologist in the business. Now's your chance.

Are atheists smarter than theists?

I appreciated your answer on this one. Very few responses that I read over at JA showed any such balance.

Laughing Boy said...

Oh, one more thing...

If Jesus did exist (which is debatable)...

Well, anything is debatable. But you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of credible historians who'd be willing to take the 'Jesus Myth' side these days. I know you have little regard for expert opinion so I'll spare you the long list of atheist and agnostic experts who think it's not really debatable at all; I'll just give you one, from atheist Michael Grant who's opinion is typical:

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars. In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: I accept that the 'utter lack of evidence' (i.e., observation or experimentation, right?) for some belief makes that belief untenable for you. But, as far as I know, there's an utter lack of such evidence to believe that...

Erm.. Observation mainly...... [grin].

Well, I am certainly unaware of any credible evidence to support the belief in the existence of God (or supernatural agencies in general). Obviously I cannot know everything about the subject even if I spent my whole life researching it so I may have possibly missed something. Do you have any evidence for His existence? I'm sure both people who read this Blog would like to see it - I know I that would.

laughing boy said: If you have evidence please let me know, I'd be very interested.

As I said to begin with "No one knows" how life originated. But I expect that when we find out the process will be a natural one. I understand that one group of biologists is close to 'building' a bacteria from its component parts - which would be a huge breakthrough. After that it will be a case of building the component parts themselves and so on. I expect that in the none too distant future we will be able to build life-forms from their constituant chemicals. If we can accomplish that in a lab in the next few decades I have no problem thinking that natural non-directed processes could do the same over millions of years.

laughing boy said: I appreciated your answer on this one. Very few responses that I read over at JA showed any such balance.

Belief in any proposition is not directly related to intelligence. Many of the greatest human minds have believed in what we now view as incredible things. Simple intelligence is not the issue here. There *is* apparently a strong link between higher education and atheism but it is far from given that highly educated people will inevitably be atheists - though it does put paid to the 'argument' that we are naturally theistic. Belief in anything is a complex phenomena not a crude one simply related to someones IQ. That at least to me is obvious.

laughing boy said: Well, anything is debatable. But you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of credible historians who'd be willing to take the 'Jesus Myth' side these days.

Jesus probably existed as an historial character, though there is some doubt over that - as there is over other historical figures. The point I was trying to make is that the fact that Jesus existed is of no significance to me. I don't understand why it should be. After all I (obviously) do not believe that he was the son of God so why should his existence have any great impact on my life? It's irrelevant.

Ken Comer said...

Laughing Boy said...

Oh, one more thing...

If Jesus did exist (which is debatable)...

Well, anything is debatable.


You have to clarify what you mean by "Jesus" when you start to defend his existence. Was there a rabbi named Jesus who said a lot of the things attributed to him in the New Testament? Maybe.

Was there a Jesus who did *all* of the impossible and frequently conflicting things described in the modern translations of the New Testament? If so, would modern critical study back up tales of his existence by noting unusual accounts in contemporary Roman or Jewish accounts? No and no.

CyberKitten said...

theologix - Agreeing that Jesus probably existed as an historical figure does not mean that it is also true that every action attributed ti him is also an historical fact.

There are many reasons why miracles (etc) have been associated with the figure of Jesus. There are however no reasons to believe any of it.

Oh and I do dismiss the Supernatural.... I am an atheist after all!

CyberKitten said...

theologix said: If the New Testament documents are found historically accurate in the other areas, why the distinction?

Historical novels are accurate in places too. That doesn't mean that everything within them is equally accurate.

theologix said: Yet you disallow one reason as being that they actually happened, without offering a reason why.

Because I don't believe in supernatural agenices or events. There is no credible evidence to support the idea.

theologix said: Except for the fact that the NT is found reliable in every other aspect, and the fact that extra-Biblical historical documents attest the miracles (to name but two reasons).

Well, I can't debate the detail with you as I have neither read the NT (or the Bible in general) nor have I studied the subject. However, I seriously doubt that the NT could be called a reliable source of information. Firstly it is a propaganda piece for Christianity so that makes it immediately suspect. Also there are the contradictions - between the four Gospels for examle - then there is the fact that most of the book (if not all of it) was written long after the actual 'events' were have supposed to have taken place. Coupled with translation errors, amendments (both approved and accidental), editing and the removal of texts considered to be heretical I question the idea of the NT reliability. Some of the events portrayed in the NT may have been historical - but this in no way lends credence to any supernatural occurence mentioned in the text.

theologix said: Your dismissal has no bearing on their possibility, probability, or historical reliability. You'll need good reasons for your dismissal if you want it to be a rational statement.

My dismissal is based on my lack of belief in supernatural events. This rests on the fact that I am unaware of any credible evidence to support the proposition that the supernatural exists. There is no evidence for ghosts, Gods or miracles - hence I do not believe in any of them.

CyberKitten said...

theologix said: The Bible is not a historical novel, so the comparison is not valid.

I believe that it is. You seemed to be implying that because some sections of the NT appear to be accurate that this leads credence to other parts being accurate too. This is not the case - as my novel example pointed out.

theologix said: As I mentioned, there is historical evidence written by enemies to Christianity.

Even if such writting exist what exactly do they prove? That the enemies of Christianity *believed* that Jesus performed the miracles that were being credited to him. They do not prove that the miracles themselves took place.

theologix said: I thank you for your frankness, though I'm sure you are aware of what this does to you ability to speak on the subject.

Well, I could hardly say that I had knowledge of the subject and 'get away with' it for long. I imagine that you know more about the Bible and Christianity than I *ever* will. Saying that, how long would it take to find out that I was 'winging it'? Not very long I wagger. BTW - I have also never read 'On the Origin of Species' by Darwin or hundreds of other books.... Life is too short to read even all of the important books...

But as I said previously I cannot debate this subject in detail with you as I am ignorant of much of the detail or even understanding of the subject area for that matter - I have said many times that religion simply bemuses me. I can only reflect my thoughts on the subject after the most general and briefest of exposure to it.

theologix said: Please show me obvious contradiction... I'm yet to see one. (Please note that addition of information from one source to another is not a contradiction, for example, there could be one angel at the tomb and another account says there is more than one.)

Isn't that a contradiction? Aren't there numerous discrepencies between the Gospel accounts? I'll try and dig out some concrete examples at some point - though no doubt you have answers to all the 'classics' ready to hand.

theologix said: Most are placed within one generation of the events.

That's a *long* time. Can you imagine having seen a car smash... and being asked about it 25 years later? How much of your memory would be accurate? That being the case - how can we take for granted what Jesus was supposed to have said & done?

theologix said: Translation errors can't really the blamed on the authors. And we have enough manuscripts to compare to know what was originally there.

To an extent......

theologix said: No texts were removed from canon. There were meetings to keep unscriptural works from being added to the canon. This is a huge difference.

Maybe so - but what was left out and why? Who decided and why? How was it decided which texts made it into the canon?

theologix said: You can question all you like, but I would really suggest you read it before making such assumptions as you have made.

It's not exactly high up on my reading list priorities.

theologix said: But this is an admittance that you have no support for your belief that Jesus did not perform what He was said to perform.

Oh, I believe that I have every reason to support my *disbelief* in miracles and much else besides.

theologix said:Take care.

I try to.......

CyberKitten said...

theologix said: And you have not proved they didn't.

I don't have to. If I had to disprove every assertion made by people I would spend the rest of my life having to do so - and still not get done. Do I have to *prove* that the Norse Gods do not exist... or unicorns? I don't think so. Nor do I need to *prove* that God does not exist. I merely state that I do not *believe* He exists.

theologix said: The question was whether extra-Biblical Jewish or Roman documents would support the claims of the Bible.

Why should they? Even if they are eye-witness accounts of miracles why should I believe them? People, especially crowds of people, are fooled by magicians on a daily basis. In fact they pay good money to be fooled. Just because they have no explanation for what they saw - and being of the time being much more open to the idea - declare it a miracle. That doesn't mean that a miracle *actually* happened.

theologix said: And I will never infer that this is a reflection on your intellect or rationality, etc... It does, however, reflect your ability to speak on the subject(s).

Of course. I cannot speak with authority on a subject I know little about. That's obvious.

theologix said: As a matter of fact, I read a lot from secular scientists on that subject, along with a lot of secular philosophy. I figure I should know the subject matter I am publicly decrying.

If only more Christians had your attitude!

theologix said: The testimony was written within the timeframe that the eyewitnesses (many of who were named) could verify the story. The testimony also goes to great lengths to ask the immediate audence to go and verify for themselves.

If the testimony was only written down decades after the event how can the audience 'verify it for themselves'?

theologix said: We can take for granted the major points of Jesus' claims because they are documented in the Talmud and other historical documents.

No we can't 'take it for granted'. I most certainly do not!

theologix said: And yet starting a public blog that claims it is wrong is a high priority?

I am indeed an Atheist who Blogs but this is not a Blog about Atheism - or religion for that matter. I have an interest in religion (and with magical thinking in general) but it is not my primary interest. If you browse through my Blog you'll see posts on many things. So I would hardly call my questioning of the Bible either a high priority in my life or on this Blog.

theologix said: Not big deal. It's all semantics, I guess.

Only in a way. My normal response to supernatural claims is "I don't believe it". Sometimes (depending on my mood) I might be more positive and say that I believe that 'X' did not happen or does not exist. What I cannot say (with any honesty or conviction) is that I *know* that 'X' did not happen or does not exist. I hope that makes my position clearer?

theologix said: I hope I haven't already worn out my welcome. I do enjoy your writing and out interaction.

Feel free to hang around for as long as you like. I too like a good debate - though I will get bored and cranky from time to time - having to answer the same questions over and over can 'get' to me... [grin]. But you're not the first Christian to set up residence here & I doubt that you'll be the last. I hope that you enjoy your time while you're here.