Teenage Atheist

An exuent.

2011-08-30T15:40:00.000+01:00

As you may or may not have noticed, I have been more or less absent from the blog for the past few months. I apologise if I left anyone hanging for a post or response, I have been enjoying my final few months of peace before my return to school. As it happens, I am also heading into an aggravatingly important academic year which will be deciding my college and course placement. Because of this, I am regretful to admit that this means that my absence will only continue.

My ethos for the year is simple: work hard, play hard, and I plan to stick to it. Unfortunately, even though I thoroughly enjoy blogging, it falls under neither heading and so you won't be seeing much of me for a number of months. I must give priority to school and, of course, I must have some form of escapism (outside of writing/blogging), hence the 'play hard' addendum.

I do, however, plan to return. Whether it be under this alias or another, I will be blogging again at a later date. I guess I just enjoy it too much. I've put too much effort into this blog to take it down, so don't forget to browse the archives!

So, before I impart, farewell for now readers! Stay sound, reasonable and happy! Take pride in your atheism and spread ripples of logic where ever you can.

Peace out!

What happens when faith overvalues evidence...

2011-07-05T16:08:00.000+01:00

I came across this randomly the other day. It's a quirky and comical way of demonstrating the fallacy of faith so I figured I'd share. I don't know who the author is so I can't credit, but enjoy it anyway.

Why we bother... Guest Post

2011-06-25T12:05:00.000+01:00

Here's a wonderful guest post written by Isaac Wolfe from the Sexy Atheist. Enjoy!
___

It was Christmas night, 2009, when I finally decided that my threshold for bullshit had gotten clogged, and so help me I would clean it out with my bare hands.

I laid in my sister’s bed – the only bed in the house – underneath three duvets, as my sister couldn’t afford to heat the house much above 50°, the absolute minimum. From the living room, I could hear the sobs of my sister (who slept on the couch) as well – she had received a very offensive gift from our father. Tears slid down my face, and I absolutely wept, feeling that I was responsible for the whole predicament. Actually, I kind of was.

What the hell, world.

After a long, harrowing spiral, I had finally crashed with a bang on the floor of a bottomless pit. Months ago, I had lived in a fancy, middle class house with my father, complete with a plasma TV, a grand piano, and a mother-fucking chandelier. Now I lived in a three room apartment with my sister – a bedroom, a bathroom, and a living room / kitchen. We’ve subsided on rice, ramen noodles, and extremely salty canned food. Exclusively.

I was scared shitless about the future. So, I did something very instinctual, and, well, rather hypocritical.

Prayed.

That’s right, I, Isaac Wolfe, atheist and sexy teen extraordinaire, prayed. It was a funny sight, really. Wearing nothing more than my boxers, I was just a curled-up lump on a mattress. Enjoy:

I’m pretty sure you don’t exist, but hey, there’s no harm trying, right? It’s me. Yeah, that kid who got caught skinny dipping in the creek that one time – but seriously, you don’t expect families to have picnics that far upstream! But, that’s besides the point.

The reason I’m here tonight, is, well, because I’m kind of in a predicament right now. A suckish one. I've heard you're omnipotent and all, so I suppose you know the details. Wanna, uh, help me out? If it's no trouble?

Um. Thanks.

Bye.

…Are you still there? I said bye. Get off the line.

///

So how did I end up in this sticky situation? Well, let’s start at the beginning.

For most of my life, I lived with my mother. We loved each other, absolutely and irrevocably. So, when an opportunity came up in Florida, which involved a lifestyle she had always dreamed of but didn’t include me, I severed ties with her in the only way that would work: telling her that I couldn’t stand living with her, that I was moving to my father’s house and she was leaving to Florida, that’s that. I followed through, and so did she.

Unfortunately, there was a problem. My father was – is – a fundamentalist, conservative Christian with anger problems to match. That was all fine and dandy at the time – my mom was a casual Catholic, and I supposed that I loosely believed in God as well, so it wasn’t too different. The only contrasting thing was that now I had to go to church every Sunday, instead perhaps a couple time a year. That was fine with me – Christianity was fascinating, especially the reactions it invoked. I was content for a time, and so was my father.

Until I figured out that my attraction to other men wasn’t just a phase.

Until, at the local library, I picked up a book called The God Delusion in passive interest.

Until my father, after installing spyware on my laptop, found out what these two things had resulted in.

And that was that. After enduring screaming and threats, a forced encounter with a ‘re-orientation therapist’ who tried to tell me that my sexuality was to be feared and hated, and finally a physical encounter, I was out on the cold October streets, with nothing more than a duffel bag full of clothes and a backpack full of textbooks.

I had basically nowhere to go – my mom was essentially excised from my life, and telling any of my friends about the whole ordeal would likely culminate with an investigation by child services, destroying any chance of me seeing my father again. However, in a burst of intuition, I walked to a café on the other side of town, where I waited for my sister to arrive at her shift. Without even requiring an explanation, she took me in.

We survived, barely, my sister working overtime, paying not for only one mouth but two. In school, contrary to intuitive thought, my grades skyrocketed as I put on a fake cheerful mien to erase any suspicion that something in my home life was awry.

Which, eventually, brings us back to Christmas night, and my adventure praying to a non-existent sugar daddy. Gift-wise, that night, I received a journal and some shabby books of my sister’s that I could have borrowed any time I wanted. My sister, from our father, received a five dollar bill taped to a piece of paper that condemned her for harboring me and told her that she was going to Hell.

As you may have guessed, after my plea for help, I waited.

And I waited.

And you know what happened, babycakes? Absolutely nothing.

So, after crying some more and waiting for my sister’s sobs to turn into snores, I put on some clothes and walked across town to my father’s house, where I snuck in through the window (unlocked, just as I had left it) and took the laptop from my room (which I had left there, for some stupid reason). And then, when I got back to my sister’s apartment, I opened the laptop, connected to the Wi-Fi of the nearby McDonalds, and sent off about ten e–mails to the first businesses I had come across online, telling them that their websites were dull and that I wanted to rewrite them for a small price.

None of them responded. Except for one.

Within a week, I was two-hundred dollars richer. I surprised my sister by whisking her out to a fancy Italian restaurant, and telling her to order anything her little heart desired, except for the mushroom raviolis because god, seriously, they’re disgusting. And then from there, everything got awesome. Web copywriting became an actual source of income, and my sister and I stopped living like weird Asian hobos.

Now, you’re probably wondering: what the hell is the moral of this story?

A while ago, I received an e-mail from a man, who compared me to an odd bunny rabbit that liked to jump up and down and point out that the tooth fairy wasn’t real. I’m an atheist too, he wrote, but I don’t understand why you’re trying to take away religion from people. It might not be your cup of tea, but why try to get rid of it for the people it means something to?

That’s where my story comes in handy. We atheist bloggers are not trying to exterminate religion as a whole (usually), we’re trying to exterminate the kind that causes people to attack their children, the kind that makes people fly themselves into the side of buildings. Are you a liberal Christian who can differentiate between what’s obviously a reflection of the social times in the Bible and what’s the core message? Awesome, you rock, join the party.

People like Raithie and I aren’t trying to be some big meanies taking away some precious part of your life. We’re just trying to prevent sob stories like this, by giving people the ammunition and awareness to determine their beliefs with, or if necessary, fight with.

The fact of the matter is that there are many kids in the situations similar to that I described, and the fact of the matter is that they probably aren’t as bad ass as me and they won’t find a way to fix it.

And, as sad as it is, at the end of the day, some god will not come down and fix their lives for them.

Exams be calling

2011-05-17T22:22:00.000+01:00

It's that time of the year again.

So the reason for my inactivity lately isn't because I've grown lazy or disinterested in the blog; it's those damn exams. Ick. They'll be over within two weeks, however, so I hope to return to my regular posting schedule afterwards.

I realise my posting schedule has been quite choppy recently, and for that, I apologise.

However, I will be back soon!

Ciao.

A question for theists

2011-05-07T22:51:00.000+01:00

If no god existed, would you still want to believe in one?

The most interesting question still remains to be "if you're parents were Hindus instead of Christians, would you still be a Christian?" (presuming it is a Christian who is answering).

However, the former is still an interesting musing, methinks. Willful delusion certainly gets you out of the nasties and I think it could be revelatory of one of the motivations behind belief, of course, assuming the answerer is honest with themselves. Regardless, I think it's a worthwhile pondering and I'd be interested to hear a theists point of view on such a question.

Is trusting a scientist an act of faith?

2011-04-26T14:52:00.000+01:00

An interesting comment came up on one of my posts recently. I figured it would be more appropriate to address it as a post as opposed to it getting lost in the comments section given the regularity I hear such a remark.

"Let's be real. You are proud that you "don't believe". However, if you are 17 years old as you say you are, you have not had the time to develop the scientific skills to prove what you claim to believe about evolution (as a source of life, the universe, and everything). Nor have you had the time to objectively examine the possibility of the existence of God or gods. You are exercising the same amount of faith as a devoutly religious person. So instead of saying that you don’t believe in God/gods, you would be more accurate to say that science is your god, seeing that you have chosen to blindly believe what scientist (or school teachers) have said. You have accepted the “findings” of others without applying the discipline to objectively search out the matter for yourself."

I'll deal with the first paragraph for now.

"Nor have you had the time to objectively examine the possibility of the existence of God or gods. You are exercising the same amount of faith as a devoutly religious person."

Objectively examine? I don't see any evidence and I have most certainly looked. If you can supply me with substantiated and incontrovertible evidence, I will most gladly accept the existence of your particular god. As for the semantic arguments for deities, I find none of them in any way compelling and most can and have, in fact, be quite easily refuted.

My apprehension to believe without evidence or reason to is not an act of faith. It is simply me not being selective as what I apply my skepticism to. My unbelief in pixies, for instance, is not a faith based position. I will remain skeptical of their existence until you can successfully persuade me that they do indeed exist. I await evidence.

"you would be more accurate to say that science is your god, seeing that you have chosen to blindly believe what scientist (or school teachers) have said. You have accepted the “findings” of others without applying the discipline to objectively search out the matter for yourself."

Now that's quite presumptuous.

Firstly, I follow logic and reason. I look at what's presented to me and base my understanding on the proof and sensicality of the material that I am presented with. Science is certainly not my "god".

Secondly, I don't need to have a life experience to be reasonable or logical. Logic is not dependent on age, and my age has nothing to do with it.

Thirdly, nobody trusts individual scientists. Scientists are people, and people are all-too commonly subject to bias and error. However, science as a process is a different thing altogether. It is based upon contemporary and critical peer review of each and every scientists findings. Because of the competition involved between these individuals, all trying to scrutinise and disprove another's hypothesis whilst validating their own, the truth emerges.

If someone was able to completely annihilate the theory of evolution with a revolutionary idea that was corroborated by substantial evidence, it would enter the cold and calculating process of peer review. If it survived this overwhelmingly rigourous and wonderfully critical (and also, unending) process, it would then be accepted as a valid hypothesis and researchers would proceed to integrate the old knowledge with the new data. It's a refreshingly self-corrective process.

Due to the exacting nature of the scientific method and the ruthless and uncompromising procedure of peer review, truth is able to seep through the cracks of human error and vested interests.

I trust this method and it proves itself everyday.

Faith has nothing to do with it.

The Problem of Evil and the Free Will predicament

2011-04-15T21:47:00.000+01:00

Aside from the blinding lack of evidence within any and every assertion inducing the supernatural, the problem of evil and suffering is one of the most pronounced stumbling block for most religions. Trying to reconcile the flaws of this world with a supposedly benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being serves to be a profoundly difficult conundrum for theists to satisfactorily resolve.

Of course, Epicurus realised this over 2000 years ago, and expressed it more than sufficiently, too:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

As a quick addendum to the above argument, here's a piece from a wikipedia article concerning the problem of evil:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The typical theist response usually goes along the lines of free will. For instance, if a god were to remove our capacity for committing evil (or just evil in general) it would thus inhibit our ability to choose to do good, ergo no true free will.

However, I have a number of objections to this.

Firstly, and most importantly, there is no evil in natural suffering, unless of course someone enabled it to happen. If a rockslide crushes a town or a tornado demolishes a living area, there was never any malevolent intention for it to happen. There was no devising or scheming on natures part, there was no underlying motive and there were no decisions made for it to occur. It just happened. Without deliberation. Without purpose.

As you should see, it has nothing to do with free will. It is an entirely unintentional event. It is also entirely preventable and with zero impact on free will. Yet rock slides and other natural disasters occur every day. Why? Does god enjoy watching his lego blocks crumble? Does he not consider it unjust that he is allowing millions to suffer from excruciating agonies and to die mercilessly and unnecessarily because he is, for whatever reason, unwilling to give us a world that doesn't spontaneously erupt every so often? Where is the benevolence in enabling such unnecessary misery?

There is none. If God could prevent such atrocities, and if he doesn't, he is accountable for his inaction which results in the deaths of billions. He is responsible. Designing a world susceptible to such disasters and then inflicting their influence upon his creations by allowing them to happen does not fit well on the resume of an all loving entity.

There are many more questions I could ask. None of which can be thoroughly resolved unless adopting the perspective that there is in fact no god to allow for this to happen in the first place. Well, either that or gods a royal prick.

Secondly, not intervening when someone is suffering from the evil of another individual because you're concerned about their "free will" is not an admirable characteristic. Allowing a child to be abused for the sake of the abusers freedom to do so is NOT acceptable. It is NOT benevolent. It is NOT the right thing to do. I really can't stress that enough.

If I knew of a child that was being physically and sexually abused, would you consider me a good person if my excuse for refusing to take action was: "oh, well I didn't want to take away the free will of the parents, you see. Forcing them to succumb to the law would turn them into robots without any choice of their own. It's better if they choose to do the right thing on their own."? No. Of course you wouldn't. You would cast me, and rightly so, as a despicable person who is just as malignant and pathetic as the parents abusing their child.

Yet, this is not how people view gods position on the issue. People disregard the rights and free will of the actual child being abused in favour of the free will of the abuser by defending this "free will" stance. I sincerely object to this. I find it abhorrent.

Thirdly, is god omniscient and omnipotent? Is it then not reasonable to assume that an all knowing, all powerful individual would be able to create a perfectly harmonised and peaceful world without affecting free will? If not, you'll have to redefine the terms of his omniscience and omnipotence. They seem to be limited.

Lastly, you cannot absolve the creator of responsibility if the creation succumbs to the nature that was originally instilled by the creator. If someone programs a computer to design and propagate viruses and malware, you blame the programmer, not the program. As Lawrence Louis of American Atheists says; "If the creation (i.e human beings) transgresses law established by the creator, it is due to the weakness that was instilled in the creation by the creator. Adam and Eve would not be weak enough to succumb to the temptation of the serpent unless they were created weak."
___

If such a being exists, it is not worthy of praise or rituals. A being who sets up his faulty creations for such horrific suffering and then using this as a basis of judgement is nothing but an over powerful, malicious tyrant. I will not bow to anyone that willingly allows what I see in this world daily to happen. Such a being deserves nothing.

It's time to stop the pretence

2011-04-01T20:11:00.000+01:00

I haven't had time to put together a blog post, so instead, I humbly offer up this essay I wrote last year. If you find it waffly at times, I had a page limit to reach and a designated title to stick to...

Given title: "Let's stop all this pretence! Let's tell each other the unvarnished truth for a change!"

Little white lies are everywhere. They're so darn tempting that we can't help but incessantly fall prey to their irresistible allure. We never tell Mary that her dress is actually hideous for instance, or that it was her that was completely out of line last weekend. No, instead we choose to coat the truth in a thick lathering of misinformation and deliberate omission; crafting a rich broth of blatant and bubbling mis truths. This is done usually out of a desire to prevent offence and to conform to an imposed societal etiquette; but it's also of vital necessity for a general social cohesion.

Humans are communal creatures. Our durability as a species is a result of us living as a collective unit. It is therefore essential to suppress the volatility that would undoubtedly erupt if humans were to express all of our basal and abrasive ponderings to others. So, it's understandable that evolution would endow us with a sufficient sensitivity to cautiously tread around peoples egos and to comfort them through the flimsy guise of falsehood. However, this inherent and ingrained sense of responsibility to console others by means of deliberate misrepresentation seems to have evolved to an extent that we persistently lie to even ourselves. The most dominant being the pretence of religion.

Humanities most valuable asset is the mind: its capacity and enigma is astounding. Our lumps of grey matter, safely encased within our cranium, allow us to experience overwhelming emotion and curiousity, to cultivate novel and vastly complex ideas, to innovate, to advance and to understand. It also deems us worthy to gift us with one of the most powerful and cutting instruments in our mental toolkit: logic. People use and appreciate the effects if this immaterial implement every single day. Its influence stretches from deciding upon the best way to organise the teacups in your dishwasher to sending astronauts to the faraway reaches of the cosmos. It demands reasoning and evidential support, and because of this, it works. It is the basis of civilisation and it allows the world as we know it to be.

Yet, somehow, as soon as religion and mortality are considered, all requirements of logic and standard reasoning go out the window. People immediately discard all semblance of skepticism and rationality when it comes to their own particular brand of fairytale, it seems. Tell someone that an invisible, flying and undetectable squirrel follows you around all day and you'll be met with nothing but ridicule. They'll rightfully demand substantiated proof, and until you comply with sufficient corroboration, they will inevitably continue to laugh and jeer. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", they'll proudly recite, and then by the next breath, blindly profess their legalistic loyalty to the one tiny, and just as unfounded, segment of Christianity that they happen to subscribe to by pure chance of birth. It's a dumbfounding contradiction.

So, then why are these fundamental axioms so readily dismissed once religion becomes involved? Why can't we accept the ugly and unvarnished truth, in exchange for a glimpse at the thrilling rawness of reality? To me, the answer is simple. Religion stems from a very primal and influential fear. When brooding over our own mortal predicament, rationalities answer - that your essence fades alongside your palpable self - becomes disconcertingly unappealing. No one wants to hear of dissolving into nothingness. No one wants a void of unending vacuity. This answer, this blunt reality, however unlovely and unromantic, is all logic has to offer on the subject. So people reject this utterly distasteful notion, and instead, allow their own revulsion over the prospect to fully justify its impossibility without indulging in any of the typical routines of reason. Fueled by our own intrinsic abhorrence over our all too delicate existence, we desperately cling to the soothing and whimsical fantasies religion has to offer.
Simply put, we lie to ourselves in order to glaze and soften a profoundly unpleasant reality.

However appealing and fanciful this sugar-coated notion may be, it's nothing but a child-like pretence, and frankly, the world deserves better. Is it not enough that we, such a select few and despite such astronomical odds, are the ones who get to appreciate the monumental privilege that it is to simply be? How presumptuous must one be to demand or assume eternity, when so many get only nothingness? This thought obviously isn't of concern for some. Yet there's a definite value, as well as a liberating honesty, in settling with this far from fantastical truth. Realising the fleeting and fragile nature of our glimpse at life, is the only way to truly understand its rarity and significance. Its constantly lingering presence may cast an unwelcome shadow at times, but it's a stark and much needed reminder to truly value our brief witness to the cosmos.

Its time to stop the pretence.

Thanking God... a dark satire.

2011-03-20T18:10:00.000Z

So I decided to joyously compile a list of well deserved thanks to this oh-so wonderful and all-embracing Man in the Sky. It's important to acknowledge where credit is due, you see.

Thanks for creating me an atheist with evidential standards for belief, not complying to them and then expecting me not to be one. My existence has revolted your followers for thousands of years and they have of course acted in accordance with this divinely endorsed revulsion. It sure hurt a lot, but thanks for the recognition!

Thanks for all the stories of death and torture and bigotry as supplied by your lovely book. All of those threats of a fiery Hell, genocidal purges, misogyny and homophobia provided me with some excellent light reading. Pity you didn't know that your followers would take your divine words to heart. Or did you, with all that omniscience and stuffs? Oh well, thanks anyway!

Thanks for all those misogynistic laws, too, like ordering women to keep silent, understand our unworthiness and to just be generally submissive so that we can be abused without kicking up a fuss. Without all that heavenly designated sexism, us women might have actually thought that we were equal to our male superiors. What a horrifying thought.

I heard that over 99.8% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. I get bored easily, so thanks for maintaining such a nice variety, even if it is through ruthless and entirely unnecessary destruction and death. I never liked those dinosaurs, anyway. We're way prettier!

Regarding all those terrible tornadoes and earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanoes and asteroids and blizzards and avalanches and famines and droughts and landslides and all those other terrifying natural disasters, well... by your standards, they all seem pretty preventable to me... seems like an awful waste of life... but what do I know? My distaste for human suffering is obviously just ignorant. And I do admire how you express your love so mysteriously and with such a relentless creativity! I am humbled - thanks!

Thanks for encouraging blind and unquestioned faith in replace of human reason. It's so much easier just to let you do the thinking for us. We don't need silly things like space ships or human rights or cancer cures, anyway! We have you and your commandments!

Sometimes I don't always understand why you permit, much less create, diseases and the like, mainly due to all the unnecessary misery and despair. But then I remember, you're just testing us all! Thanks for the thought!

Sometimes, I also don't understand why you neglect 3/4 of the population. But then I realise that I couldn't fully appreciate my own situation without a suitable contrast. Seeing all the needless death and destruction happening elsewhere is obviously your plan to make me realise how lucky I am. I feel kind of bad for the others, but thanks for keeping me safe... instead of millions of others... I guess?

And lastly, before I go, thanks for putting such nice little stories about creation in your book, by the way. Genesis is just so much easier to grasp than stupid things like evolution. Those dumb scientists need to realise that there's more to life than "evidence", jeez. We have your book, after all!

Thanks!

For all the crazies out there, this is a satire. And no, I'm not trying to be rude. Next time you thank your God, think of all the people that aren't thanking him and their reasons as to why they are not. Selective intervention does NOT equate to omni benevolence. Thanking God for the success of your trivial pursuits whilst ignoring all of the horrors others are forced to endure, is just insulting. If you're going to "thank him", don't forget those that can't.

Science saved my soul

2011-03-16T18:01:00.000Z

I realise that I had another video post not long ago, but I came across this gem and felt that I would be selfish if I didn't share it. You may have already seen it already, but regardless, enjoy it.

Off skiing again... sorry!

2011-03-04T20:44:00.000Z

Well, as it turns out I'm off skiing again on Saturday, folks. So yay for me, but not so much yay for the blog. What with packing and finishing off some homework, I won't be able to get a post up this weekend, with the possibility of missing one next week too, but I will certainly try.

So, I'll get back to you all soon. Don't forget about me!

Oh, and while I'm gone, admire this photo from last year and be jealous. Alternatively, just get lost in the below .gif. I swear that I've lost countless hours gazing into its cuteness.

Farewell, for now!

Celebrating religious holidays without religion.

2011-02-27T17:47:00.000Z

What is your opinion on "secular religion", such as secular judaism or atheistic paganism, where people reject a religions supernatural claims but celebrate its holidays and rituals?

I was asked this on my Formspring recently.

I celebrate Christmas: I love the season. It's a perfect mid-winter festival; an excuse to celebrate & create some memories. It's purely a secular holiday for me.

Participating in such "religious" holidays or rituals can be enjoyable, therapeutic and of course; secular. It's a wonderful opportunity for some celebration and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Someone (gordongoblin) responded with a nice insight in the comments to my recent Christmas post:

"I disagree that Christmas is religious any more than Thursday is. It is a linguistic remnant that the name of a god is wedged into the name, nothing more. Christmas belongs to everyone now, just like Thursday does."

I think that sums up everything there is to say quite succinctly. So what do YOU celebrate that has its origins or is typically associated with religion? I'm curious.

.

A poetic demolition

2011-02-21T22:30:00.000Z

A friend showed this to me recently, and despite my initial apprehension, I was quite impressed.

For those that haven't seen it, skip to 2:06 or 2:39 to get the ball rolling. Keep watching, it's actually done quite well.

Enjoy.

The Dictionary Atheist scuffle

2011-02-11T19:15:00.000Z

There has been a flurry of excitement and discussion within the atheist community lately regarding one of PZ Myers recent blog posts where he professes his hatred towards "dictionary atheists", ie, those that, according to Myers, announce that:

"Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term."

I figured I'd go ahead and voice my response for the funsies, even though I am a bit late on the taking. Oops on my part. Anyway, here goes.

For starters, lets examine the actual definition of atheism. I'll take the standard: "the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

If you meet this criteria, you're an atheist. Period. Anything else is additional. Let's continue.

"As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else"

To the individual, this is entirely correct. My atheism isn't simply a definition, but a part of my identity. I associate my atheism with a myriad of my own personal values and life experiences. It must have connections to other aspects of my being in order for the doubt to seed and enable me to reach its conclusion, and so it is definitely more than a singular "platonic ideal" floating around within my psyche. But, my own route and interpretation of atheism is frankly, irrelevant. It doesn't affect the meaning of the term atheism, at all. My "version" is not applicable to all people that lack a belief in deities, which is essentially the only thing that atheism itself entails. It isn't compatible with the collective, and can thus quickly be considered irrelevant.

"If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing."

Agreed. I don't understand why or know of anyone who would respond with a dictionary in that scenario, but I get the point he's making. I have explanations and reasoning for my atheism and it is hence more than mere unbelief, which is all there is to the definition. Yet once again, my reasoning is not universal.
If someone asks of my position regarding deities and religions, describing myself as an atheist perfectly suffices the question. If they request further elaboration regarding my motivation or logic behind my stance, I will comply with much more than the standard definition. When I do this, however, I have left the confines of atheism, which is but a particular branch of my worldview, and am now indulging in other areas of this view that contributed to my atheism but are not indicative of it.

As Myers later acknowledges, atheism is simply a consequence of a worldview. It is not the root of it. Any paths and attitudes adopted to attain this outcome are merely contributory: they are not necessarily values of atheism.

"My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values."

People become atheists because of certain values, but these values don't necessitate atheism. Following this, it doesn't make sense to try to conflate them with atheism itself. Regarding the second sentence, I have to agree with vjack of Atheist Revolution: "Nobody is claiming that the atheist movement is nothing more than people who lack theistic belief. Nobody. But the atheist movement is about a hell of a lot more than just atheism! Atheism (i.e., the lack of belief in gods) is not by itself bringing people to conferences to hear PZ speak, to donate money to political causes, or to join freethought organizations. We come together because we give a damn about social justice, separation of church and state, civil rights, etc. And yet, none of this is part of the definition of atheism."

Myers later clarifies his position in a follow up post:

"I'm not redefining atheism, nor am I declaring the dictionary wrong: I'm saying it is insufficient. Also, no one is a Dictionary Atheist, and the folly lies in pretending that you are one... Everyone who is an atheist is so because of other, prior ideas."

Once again, I'm in agreement with this. Yet, I don't know of anyone who would consider a one line definition a sufficientl summary of their atheism. Obviously, it is derived from a rich tapestry of prior ideas and often means far more than any single sentence could evince. But, these are individual and separate concepts. "Dictionary atheism" is not the extent of someones atheism, merely the only common factor between all atheists. As someone succinctly worded it in the comments of Myers response post, "Atheism is the conclusion, not the philosophy." and as vjack of Atheist Revolution puts it: "we should instead view it [atheism] as one of many building blocks supporting our worldviews."

The root of religion.

2011-02-03T20:48:00.000Z

A few weeks back, I was in school at lunch time chatting to a group of friends. Since a number of my friends are, what they describe as "spiritual", the conversation turned to ghosts. I was surprised by one particular girls answer as I wouldn't have tagged her to be a ghost-believer. I usually find the most fruitful discussions evolve from getting the believer to answer to their own beliefs, and so, rather than going off on my own tangent, I simply questioned her. The conversation (roughly...) went as follows...

Me: So, why do you believe in ghosts?
Girl: Your soul/spirit/essence has to go somewhere.
Me: But why do you believe in a soul?
Girl: You need a soul to get to an afterlife.
Me: But why does there need to be an afterlife?
Girl: ... You can't just cease to exist.
Me: Why not...?
Girl: (recoils at the implication) ... I don't know... You just can't.

Dominos. With a semblance of skepticism and a persistent curiousity, her argument crumbled. What she considered to be deductive reasoning and a rationalisation of her beliefs, was based upon a wispy, unresolving and frankly, hollow, "I don't know". What a foundation. The follow up, equally shallow and meaningless, is simply an appeal to an emotion. Existence, like to the rest of humanity, is pretty damn significant to her and even imagining the thought of true nothingness, is difficult. She has allowed her own personal distaste over the prospect to fully justify its impossibility without indulging in any further explanation. Her 'logic' is simple: she doesn't like it, she doesn't want it, and that settles it.

I admit, it humoured me to watch the pillars of her reasoning disintegrate. 'Why', that wonderful, valuable and ever-so promising monosyllabic word, swiftly and acutely sliced through every single layer of her argument with graceful ease, revealing the root of her pronounced faith: death. A fear of it, more precisely. And so the foundation of her entire rationale, connecting ghostly apparitions to the ubiquitous ponderings of what happens after life, is based upon nothing but an emotion. A raw, unreasoned and unquestioned feeling - the instinctual (and perfectly natural) revulsion over the prospect of her own demise. And that's it - although she wouldn't like to admit it and most certainly would never phrase it in such a cutting fashion, but that's the base of her beliefs; the root of religion.

We all have an innate biological drive for survival. Without it, you quickly plummet from natural selections favour; dissolving your propensity for a genetic legacy. This inherent and overwhelmingly powerful aversion to death (particularly in a dangerous situation, of course), is essentially your DNAs motivation to survive long enough for you to be able to successfully serve as vehicle to carry your genes to the next generation. This crude and visceral disposition is the base of the fear and causes things like adrenalin rushes and crazy heart rates. Since we are sentient beings capable of abstract thought, we can also fear death on an intellectual level: by realising and appreciating the significance and temporal nature of our being, and therefore contemplating the idea of our non-existence.

So, as result of all that biology and philosophy, our end answer is that death truly sucks and is to be avoided at all costs.

A mask to the eerie...
And here is where religion steps in to save the day, or more appropriately, delude the uninformed. Most religions come packaged with a very shiny and colourful lure - the promise of your survival past this finite world. Whether that be perpetual bliss in the clouds, unending misery down under or some form of continuous reincarnation, where some essence of you gets the privilege of lingering on in this earthly domain and simply continuing to be; it sure trumps cold, hard, mortal reality. This intrinsic abhorrence of our own delicate existence is soothed by the whimsical fantasies religion has to offer. It hazes the truth, subdues the fear and masks the inevitable finality that is death.

Since the scope of religion is narrowing due to the progress of science, theists have a lingering tendency to put death at the base of their reasoning. After all, it's an integral part of our humanity; something which we fight against with every breath. It deserves significance.
Believers no longer rely on gods to grow their crops or to explain why rainbows exist: science provides acceptable explanations for such occurences, yet, for the most part, death remains in the realm of the supernatural. In such minds, it's untouchable by science. People just don't want to hear of a void of nothingness. They don't want to accept sciences explanation this time round. Death is simply something most people don't want rationalised.

It's the perfect root for religion to rest upon.

Atheist or Theist? [Poll]

2011-01-15T13:45:00.001Z

And so this blogs first poll is a success. It received a substantial amount of votes, making it quite easy for me to deduce the nature my readership and viewers: atheist. Unsurprising, really, considering the theme of the blog, but it would have been interesting to see atleast less of a gaping disparity between the atheist & theistic camps.

Atheist: 858 votes (80%)

Agnostic: 117 votes (11%)

Theist: 48 votes (4%)

Other: 39 votes (3%)

Total votes: 1062

The new poll, "Should atheism have a symbol?" is up and running (as well as my take on the matter) - so please cast your opinions on the right! If you selected "maybe..." or just have a line of reasoning that led you to a yes or no, an elaboration in the comments here could be interesting.
___

Have an idea for a worthy poll? Respond below or contact me!

Should atheism have a symbol?

2011-01-12T19:54:00.000Z

I was asked recently whether or not atheism should have a symbol on my Formspring account. It's an interesting question and worth pondering.

Symbols are subjective representations that mean different things for different people. They help to unify a group of individuals by placing them under a single banner or cause, often instilling a tremendous sense of solidarity. Yet, I don't think that atheism should have a symbol.

Before I begin, there are many atheist organisations that do have symbols, American Atheists or Atheist Ireland, for example. This is because these are official organisations.

But, atheism isn't an organisation. It isn't a movement. The only thing connecting us atheists together is our shared lack of belief in deities. It is not a religion that needs symbolising, it is not a belief - only the rejection of one, and hell, it's not even a positive assertion, merely the default position of unbelief held after being confronted with one.
As Cliff Walker puts it, "atheism is but a minor aspect of any atheist's identity, saying only what is not." We don't see designated symbols for things like aflyingteapotism or the people that don't like luminous shoe laces, so why should atheism need one?

Of course, I'm sure many ardent atheists will readily answer this and with very convincing arguments. Atheism is indeed simply the reaction to an unfounded claim, but at the same time, it is different. Religion is a prevalent force in modern times, and as atheists, we're perpetually bombarded by its effects and proclamations, and often victims or observers of its divisive, primitive and hateful bigotry. Things like the Crusades, the Inquisition and the condemnation of individual thought and scientific progress make atheism all the more important. The treatment of Galileo, the attitude towards stem cell research, the outrageously ignorant and foul declarations against the use of condoms, resulting in millions of completely unnecessary and easily avoidable deaths due to the spreading of aids, religions undying compulsion to interefere and intervene in state affairs, its promotion of homophobia, misogyny and general bigotry, and of course, its treatment of atheists. (For a well articulated and dynamic compilation of reasons on atheists and anger, see here.) All these things justify an atheists desire for a more formal opposition towards religion, and certainly differentiate things like aflyingteapotism from atheism.

But, atheism still isn't an organisation. The dismantling of religions power and intrusive inclinations are up to the society - secularisation is what we need, and this comes about through time and education. By allocating a symbol to represent the entirety of atheism, you are effectively equating yourself to a religion, and the mindless drones religion breeds will latch vehemently to this seeming correlation. By instating a symbol, atheism becomes more of an organisation, which shouldn't be what atheism, the default human condition, is about. By implementing a formal symbol or logo, it'll encourage the herd "us versus them" mentality and would make the transition from believer to unbeliever seem like a bigger gap, and could even turn away potential candidates.

Religion is the root of a lot of bad things in society and history, but atheism itself isn't the force to combat it, and designating atheism a symbol won't get us anywhere. As atheists, we're individuals who encourage and appreciate rational thought. That's it. We don't need a symbol.
___

So what do you think, should atheism have a symbol?

Unintelligent Design: Blind Cave Fish

2010-12-27T20:33:00.002Z

When discussing evolution with Creationists, I love to bring up the case of the Mexican Tetra, more commonly known as Blind Cave Fish. These fishy critters are wondrous emblems of the blind processes of evolution and prove to be conspicuous hollows in the Intelligent Design movement.

So, what are these things...?
Blind Cave Fish, are, well, blind cave fish. They are characterised by their lack of pigmentation (resulting in a pale/pink coating) and their absence of eyes. What makes them so interesting to study is that they used to have eyes, and even the die-hard YECs will acquiesce to this reality. Of course, this is due to the fact that the fish are born with partially developed ones. However, this construction soon comes to an abrupt halt, a layer of skin forms over them and the eyes disintegrate to become the useless vestiges of an image-filled past. Why, you ask? Well, that's due to their habitat: as suggested by their names, they live in caves. These caverns are dark places; devoid of lighting and rendering a set of optics as merely aesthetic accessories in its somber depths. It is thus safe to say that any orbs of light sensitive cells are now thoroughly unnecessary due to the complete and overbearing absence of light. And so, it's unsurprising to find these animals without a pair of functioning optics. To the creationist, however, it's a bit of tiffy. Why would their oh-so-immaculate designer create blind fish, with partially formed eyes, and then grow flaps over them?

Ah, so what exactly happened...?
As we have already established, the fishes dwellings are lightless environments, making navigating by light detection impossible and rendering photon-receptors irrelevant. However, they didn't always live in such conditions - which is why they still contain the remnants of their ancestors eyes (and why they begin to form in the embryo). For whatever reason, selection pressures pushed them towards caves, and there they survived and prospered, passing their genes through the generations and gradually lessening their dependence on the spherical tissue we know to be eyes.

However, the cause of the eye loss is not known with any specificity. It could be due to energy constraints or efficiency: the formation and maintenance of an eye is quite a costly procedure. By preventing the construction of the now superfluous organs, the creature is otherwise unaffected and the energy and resources can be expended elsewhere in more useful body structures and tissues. This is called economical adaptation, and although it makes sense, it doesn't seem entirely applicable to our Blind Cave Fish. This is mainly due to the knowledge that whilst embryos, they initially develop the framework for eye construction, which later degenerate, which isn't exactly economically ideal. We can explain the messiness of this in a similar way to that of the human eye or the giraffes recurrent laryngeal nerve, evolution can't backtrack. It can only overwrite past revolutions.

Another explanation is that out of random chance, some Mexican Tetra don't fully develop eyes (due to broken genes, etc.) and this spread throughout the population despite not having any particular benefit or disadvantage. This could have happened due to the mutation that caused the eyes to cease developing being coupled with another advantageous mutation or simple genetic drift. This is referred to as being the neutral theory, but once again - it doesn't seem to be a satisfying explanation. The Blind Cave Fish don't have broken genes, and according to PZ Myers, "transplanting a lens from a cavefish species with eyes to the blind cavefish embryo is enough to rescue the eye, which then develops into a perfect and functional visual organ."

There is another solution discussed here, which is based on based on pleiotropy and developmental interactions. You can look those up elsewhere.

And so, we don't know with certainty that exact details of the transition - but we know that it happened. It could have been for any of the above reasons, perhaps even them all playing some role, as well as to simple factors such as how the eyes consist of delicate tissue which has a potential for injury and possibly infection. Despite not knowing the specifics (how could we?), we have a general understanding of the concept and we can recognise the fingerprint the fragmented processes of natural selection have left us.

The Creationist response...

...is quite hilarious. They initially assert that such anomalies don't comply with evolution, because, apparently, evolution can only work towards complexity. This is just willful ignorance and anyone who spews such garbage has absolutely no idea what they're talking about and deserve nothing but laughter. I shouldn't even bother explain this, but here it is: evolution is just adaptation. It goes whatever the hell way is necessary. Whether that be a progression to complexity or a regression to simplicity doesn't matter in the least. Suitability to the environment is all that matters.

Or, the Creationist misses the point entirely by stating the fish work perfectly for what they do. Duh. The point is they still have the remnants of eyes. With all that unnecessary baggage and energy wastage, this Creationists designer isn't very eco-friendly.

Another is just a case of severe intellectual dishonesty. In this article, a creationist tries to dismantle the correlations between evolution and the Mexican Tetra. It only reinforces the veracity of the process.

For instance, the author or the article actually outlines natural selection at work whilst trying to explain how the "Curse" caused copying errors which eventually resulted in the eyeless fish.

"The eyed fish would thus have a lesser chance of surviving to produce offspring. Those fish carrying the ‘eyeless’ genetic defect would have a greater chance of passing it on to the next generation, so it would not take many generations under such circumstances for all the fish to be of the ‘eyeless’ type."

Yeah, that's natural selection in a nutshell, and given enough time, will inevitably lead to complex or more adapted structures.

"It is not showing us how the first stages of a new, complex adaptation could arise"

Oh yes, the "no new information" non-argument, as outlined and refuted here (and in countless other locations). Regardless, evolution works both ways, it doesn't matter what way you look at the process. If a system can mutate, this mutation will interact with other genes etc., which will result in novel combinations and thus, novel material. Whether this causes a reduction in overall complexity or whether it causes a progression towards more complex structures doesn't matter, it is still the same process at work.
___

Sorry for the length of this one. I don't know what happened.

This atheists Christmas.

2010-12-23T10:46:00.001Z

I've seen some atheists be annoyed or even at times offended by Christmas and its followers greetings. I understand their reasoning, particularly if they live in woo-inundated areas, but I still love the season.

The religious origins of Christmas are meaningless to me. I don't feel offended when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas!", it may mask an assumption that I am indeed a Christian, but I just see it as a seasonal greeting. And the cribs and Jebus carols don't bother me in the least.

(My cat doesn't approve, however.)

Aside from the exams that notoriously precede the holiday, I love Christmas. I love seeing the tree sitting cozily in the corner and smelling that christmas tree smell. I love how nearly everyone is on holiday and are usually in good spirits because of it. I love the general social scene that surrounds it. The snow, the nice food, knowing that skiing usually follows it, I love it all. It may be typical, but I love the simplicity and unoriginality of it all. It's such a break from the rest of the year.

I don't follow any of the traditions to commemorate baby Jebus, I simply abide by some of them because they're what I associate with Christmas. I thoroughly enjoy the annual pedantic Christmas tree hunt for the best and most awesome tree and I love when people are over for a big Christmas feast. Now I'm not that big on turkey, but the blackberry crumble afterwards more than makes up for it. And of course - I'm stuck in the terrible habit of agreeing to go surfing on the 26th with one of my buddies. It's never a good idea, yet I can't pass it up...

And so, my Christmas is a happy one. And things don't seem too different this year, thankfully. Exams are over, it's a winter wonderland outside, I can smell the tree from where I write this and I'm off skiing & snowboarding in a few weeks with friends. Life is good. And so is Christmas.

Happy holidays, folks.

ARGH

2010-12-12T21:08:00.000Z

I just wanted to apologise for the lack of posting recently. I promise, I haven't forgotten! I've just been excruciatingly busy with school and christmas exam study and tree buying and gift shopping and essay writing and maths. Lots of maths. Ugh.

The exams start on Thursday and are finished as of next Wednesday, regular posting should resume from then onwards! There may be a brief hiccup at the beginning of January due to skiing, but things should return to normality quickly.

To my few readers, thanks for sticking with my ramblings. You're awesome.

Christopher Hitchens Debate

2010-11-21T20:24:00.002Z

I found some free time and sat down to watch this recent series of a debate with Hitchens and Dembski. It's long (10 videos, I believe) but even if you just sit through one - you should enjoy it. It's interesting & thought provoking (on Hitchens part, I can't say much for the other guy) with plenty of kickass classic Hitch moments.

Enjoy!

On a sidenote, sorry for the lack of posts recently - Christmas exams are approaching... As for news - I hit 17 a few weeks ago, woo!

The sky is not a canvas.

2010-11-01T14:02:00.001Z

"How can there be a painting without a painter?"

As I look at this picture, my symmetry infatuated mind is struggling to avoid making comparisons to a work of art. It wants to stare at the unreachable, the incomprehensible; and then compare its being to the mere product of a man.

But my mind can't resist.

When I stare at this celestial cloud, I see a rich, bountiful colour pallet. In the darkened edges of the photo, I see the painting technique Sfumato - the blurring of detail to give the illusion of depth. On the strands and arms of the gaseous entity, I can see the fine swishes and strokes of a paint brush. I can visualise water slowly rustling its way through the canvas, causing the paint to trickle and blurring the once distinctions of colour to a wispy, nebulous art form.
If I look further, past my own mentally superimposed painting effects, I see shapes. They may be hazy and indistinct, but my mind - hardwired to spot patterns - connects a few dots and rationalises the lifeless cloud to form shapes and images I recognise. Due to this enforced abstraction, I see a cloaked figure standing upon a precipice; gazing across a glimmering brightness. Beneath the whiffs of dust and gas that my brain has recognised as a cliff, I see taunting silhouettes that remind me of dragons and storybook villains. Hell, I'm pretty sure I even see a seahorse.

But why am I bothering to tell you this?

Because this anthropomorphism is everywhere. It's great for recognition and understanding (which is probably why we tend to do it), but it distorts our whole concept of nature. The sky is not a canvas. There are no faces in the clouds. A nebula is not a whim of some heavenly figure, but a product of interstellar gases. Our vast universe is not a divine creation, but a wonderful consequence of physics. Our history is not the immutable dictation of any higher being, it is a random, and in our existences case, extremely fortunate, stream of insignificant events.

And this fact doesn't dim the beauty of it. Pointing at the overwhelming complexity and brilliance of the universe, and declaring it to be the mere whim of whatever god you happen to profess, is just insulting.

But people often do this. They gasp at the enigmatic, the inexplicable, and then use these unknowns (or their own ignorance) as a compass to God, or other private beliefs. For instance, one of the most common reasons I get when I ask someone why they believe in God, is the argument from design, going along the lines of...

"But the world is just too magnificent, too complicated, too refined and ordered, for it to have come around by a string of random accidents. There must be a designer, and that designer is God!"

...This is what happens when we look at a sunset and think of a painting.

"A painting without a painter..."
There's nothing wrong with marvelling over nature and considering its purely naturalistic constitution and formation as unfathomable. As long as you don't fall into the classic pit hole of seeing it directly as a creation, there's no harm in comparing it to that of a product of a conscious designer. It's just important to remember that it's not.

A painting is defined as something created using paints by a painter, meaning that by its very definition, it is the product of a designer (the same applies for a building/sculpture/creation etc.). So, to use this argument to prove the necessity of a creator of the universe, is begging the question. The premise - that the universe is a creation - is flawed at worst, and postulation at best, and therefore whatever deductive reasoning followed can safely be considered irrelevant.

You can't prove that the universe has a creator by simply defining it as a creation that needs a creator. Circular reasoning is circular. You first must prove your initial assumption - that the universe requires a creator - and then prove why your particular creator/cause is the most suitable.

The universe just is, and is best described as a happy consequence resulting from the laws and processes that we understand through science. Since there's no requirement for a creator yet known, and nor does it look likely, you're better off clearing away the haze of supernatural bluffs using good 'ol Occam's Razor and stare nature in the eye in all its naturalistic glory. Don't insult it with primitive preachings and all-too-human meanderings; the sky is not a canvas - and thank goodness it isn't.
___

I realise my atheist readers know this already, but "how can there be a painting without a painter?!" is just too annoying for it to be left untouched. Thoughts?

Godless certainty

2010-10-23T21:29:00.000+01:00

It isn't uncommon for me to be accused of as arrogant due to my atheism. I (apparently) foolishly and presumptuously dismiss all possible notions of a creator and that a true skeptic would at least acknowledge the possibility of a god.

Bollocks.

There's such a thing as reality, and although it's a nuisance for such theists, I, as an atheist, feel intellectually obliged to adhere to it. And of course, one must implement it into their positions.

Pesky absolutes...
I don't know with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist. I can never know that. Science can only take us so far when it comes to absolute certainties. We can follow the gradient and edge as close as possible to such certainty, but we can never reach an absolute. In this regard, we're all agnostics. But agnostic, meaning without knowledge, doesn't thoroughly define your position. It merely explains how the proposition of an unfalsifiable being can not be disproved, which for obvious reasons, is true. So until I am shown evidence of the extraordinary claim that is God, I'll count myself as an atheist.

Okay - so we've established absolute certainties are off the table, but that this doesn't disallow us from creeping as close as possible to them. After all, we launch shuttles into space by nearing such certainties all the time. It's how science works. So, although I'm open minded to the possibility of there being a god, I find it far, far beyond unlikely. The complete lack of evidential support is too indicative in itself for my skeptical mind to accept it. Yet, my certainty goes further than this. If I was to ignore my evidential demands for a moment, I'd still remain doubtful of the existence of such a being. Why all the suffering? The imperfections? The lack of viable, logical arguments for the existence of such a being? The tangled and contradictory beliefs? The seemingly selective interventions? Or whats with all those false prophecies, immoral scriptural teachings and those millions of gods people have believed in with the same tenacious veracity that the monotheistic followers profess nowadays? Or of course, how god is simply, and most importantly, unnecessary...
There are just too many holes for me to embrace such a nonsensical and unfounded concept. So, my degree of certainty for my atheism is pushed to the far (near absolute) end of the scale. I'm as convinced as my fallible humanity will allow.

"But you still don't know for sure that God doesn't exist!"

If "sure" means with 100% certainty, then yes, I don't. But hey, you can't be so certain that an invisible, dancing leprechaun doesn't exist either. Or Odin. Or an immaterial, three headed flying banana man. And this is where implementing reality to your positions comes in.

Anyone could randomly concoct and mash together some incoherent grunts to form a name, splash it with some traits and then use the quoted logic to force the recognition of its possibility upon all the non believers.
And that's quite absurd. One rightly dismisses such bald assertions until proven. The saying is "innocent, until proven guilty", after all.

But lets sweep this aside for a moment and ponder upon something interesting. Does our capacity to dream and visualize something, somehow allow for the possibility of it to materialize to an actual reality? Do all of our most random, baseless and abstract thoughts really have the potential to exist in the naturalistic universe?

At the end of the day, it all comes down to evidence. Cold, hard and verifiable proof. And this inconvenient requirement separates gods from teapots, fact from fiction and atheism from theism.

So, overall, I'm pretty damn certain of my atheism. But give me proof, and I'll reconsider.

Double standards...
There's one more point I want to ponder regarding the proclaimed certainty theists demand from us atheists, and its that of a double standard.
Am I convinced by the theory of gravity? Definitely. Evolution? Yup. Am I convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that I have a €2 coin sitting next to my keyboard, as I write this? I am. But can I say with an absolute, unconditional and unequivocal certainty that it is, or that the theories I mentioned will never be superseded or modified? Of course not, and yet I accept them. Why? Well, they conform quite sufficiently with my evidential requirements and standards, knowledge and intellect - they make sense, and I have no reason to deny them. They explain the evidence and there are no competing theories even remotely close to stealing the spotlight.

And so I am certain.

So, why would my position on the God hypothesis be any different? Why does the rejection of the supernatural require such a definitive certainty that we don't even apply it to any real life scenarios?

It doesn't.
___

Be you atheist or theist, how certain are you?

Because Jesus loves you.

2010-10-02T22:47:00.010+01:00

This photo is depressing. Yet, it's the only thing that seems to get through to Christians when they come out with outlandish things such as "Jesus loves me, he helped me get through my homework / soccer match last night!"

I try to avoid using too much emotion when posting, but why would an all loving God allow this to happen? I cannot even find the words to express how horrific it is... Any Christian who declares that God helped them through a broken leg or heartbreak should be ashamed of themselves.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

I fear nothingness

2010-09-19T17:56:00.002+01:00

"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries, we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades, we must close our eyes again." - Richard Dawkins

Since I've entered the atheist blogosphere, I've come across a number of posts regarding facing death as an atheist. Some are them are incredible pieces of writing, and I agree with and applaud them for being so inspiring. Yet, I can't seem to accept it as rationally as the rest of you do.

"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.” - Isaac Asimov

I can't argue with the logic of this. It's flawless and profound in its simplicity. Death is the end of my existence, and without existence, I cannot fear. I won't ever even realise that I have died, I may only notice the moments preceding it: I can only miss being alive while I am alive. I will never actually experience the end since there is nothing to be aware of, and yet despite this logic, the thought of death still terrifies me. Perhaps it's my greatest irrationality.

It's the thought of not existing that gets me, that all that is me will just flicker out of existence. My memories, my thoughts; everything that I am and have been will just dissolve into a never ending nothingness. And to me, that is a bleak, bleak notion. I love existing. I adore thinking of, observing and experiencing this precious life. I love hearing the beautiful sounds, seeing the magnificent sights and feeling the overwhelming emotions that make us human. I love having something to to call a me and simply being. I don't like the idea of returning to a void of nothing.

I want to witness the future. I want to watch science unravel the mysteries of the cosmos, conquer disease and sickness and possibly engage in some form of extra-terrestrial contact. I want to exist and continue on existing! But, alas, wishes alone cannot materialise. I must accept the inevitable finality it imposes, however much I dislike the notion. Here, I can empathise with the theists position. I understand the allure of the afterlife and how difficult and unappealing the atheists view can be (for some). But, I will not let my logic succumb to wishful thinking and emotionalism. I cannot, and will not, abandon what I know to be true in replace of my desire for a happy ending. I'll opt for reality over fantasy every time, however dreary the consequences it poses.

"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain

Undoubtedly, this is completely true. Up until roughly sixteen years ago, I never existed. And this hasn't affected me in the least. However, now, I do exist. And that's where it changes. Now that I've had a taste of this wonderful existence, now that I've enjoyed the monumental and astronomically unlikely privilege of being, I don't want to leave. After all, parents are never scared of harm coming to their children until they are born. Lovers never worry about losing the other until they meet. Unless you have something, you can't truly understand the effects of losing it.
I'll admit that this analogy is slightly strained. When one loses something within life, they are aware of it and thus experience the loss. When one loses life, you cannot be aware of it as you are no longer conscious. You lose the capacity to miss and feel anything, and thus, you cannot miss life once death has taken over. But, since we have not yet ceased to be, we can imagine the loss (and of course experience it indirectly) and still hold the desire to live. Now that I have the opportunity to life, I don't want it taken away.

The thought of losing existence is terrifying, because life is all we really have. Once that has been snuffed out, we have absolutely nothing. We are no longer anything. Once our circuiting has switched off; the entirety of you - your memories, personality, habits, quirks and history, is gone. It's like a lamp switch except that there's nothing to turn it back on. The moment your brain flicks off, you're lost forever. You've faded into an eternity of nothingness, remembered only by the legacy and bones you've left behind. Even if we were able to restart you brain somehow, the mind that is you is still dead. Everything that is you, is gone.

An unbroken thread
There is an upside to this, although I feel that it pales in comparison to the stark realisation of death. One day, I will cease to be. My body will decompose and the impulses in my brain that allow for my consciousness will slow down and eventually stop. The atoms that momentarily coalesced to become me, will disperse and return to form other beings and organisms of the Earth, perhaps even reaching the rest of the cosmos. After all, this has happened to every being and structure in the universe. As Carl Sagan puts it, we are merely "star stuff": the sentient, astounding results of nuclear fusion within stars and scattered by ancient stellar explosions. The atoms in my right arm were probably even formed in a different star than those found in my left hand. Perhaps even in a different galaxy. And these stars themselves are the results of a cohesion of Nebulas, those breathtaking cosmic gas clouds people love to awe over. And I definitely think that's there's a beauty in this; us being children of stars, eventually returning home, only without us to realise it.

The time limit death imposes forces us to truly appreciate the rarity and significance of the fleeting glimpse that we get of life. It motivates us to not dwindle and waste time worrying over the unavoidable or the trivialities of life. Its presence serves as a reminder to embrace our temporary awareness; to truly value our brief witness to the cosmos.

There's no point in masking it with promises of eternal bliss and whimsical fantasies. We have a much more awe-inspiring history than any religion can offer. We're "star stuff" after all, and whether we like it or not, we will return to just that.