My Essay Against Religion for English Class
Offline *It's a long read, I know, but in my opinion it's worth it. If you can, try to find anything to make it better or something I can improve on before I turn it in on Monday! Thank you!*
Irrationality Abounds
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring” (Carl Sagan). In my early years I was required to go to church. I acquiesced, absentmindedly, and I fumbled about through the Sunday school lessons and the congregations. The one thing I remember vividly about church was the free food they had there. Little did I know is that I was being molded and shaped by the leaders of that church. I was being force fed lies, backed into a wall by the ultimatum of being damned to an eternity of painful fiery hell if I did not conform to the doctrine they placed in front of me, whipped into partaking from it. The ultimatum they gave me, believe or go to hell scares small children. It so happens to scare many adults too, unwilling to give up their irrational, delusion inducing imaginary friend. Some may say I’m crossing a line; upsetting an unwritten, unspoken social taboo. I say that is a steaming pile of feces. It is acceptable, often encouraged to debate and openly discuss sports teams or politics. That’s perfectly fine to talk about those things in society and everyday life. I just replace presidents and linebackers with religion and superstition (those two go hand in hand). Religion, in my opinion, is the worst thing to happen to this world. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. Isn’t that ironic, because doesn’t the commandments say not to commit murder? Religion has had influence over the most prolific and horrid murderers in history. For example, Adolf Hitler, who eradicated over six million Jews, once said “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter”. People, mainly bible thumpers, who use Hitler as the opposite of my argument, saying that atheism gives murderers and those who advocate genocide moral support to do so, are ignoring history when they say Hitler was an atheist, when he himself confessed his Christian faith and belief in God. Over the course of the rest of this essay there will be multitudes of illogical, irrational and contradictory questions and observations concerning the nature of God, the belief system of religion, and other aspects which really yank my chain as a logical scientist. As a critical thinker and as a scientist who can only accept things that come with evidence, I feel it is my job to speak out against this fallacious and totally irrational concept of religion, faith and God.
First off, as many Christians who I talk to frequently point out to me, God is omniscient and omnipotent; which means all-knowing and all-powerful respectively. The nature of God is somewhat of a paradox for me. For example, the bible often says “then the Lord saw…”, but he’s omniscient, didn’t he see beforehand? When I get told that I’m going to Hell for being atheist, I retort without a moment’s hesitation, “If God wanted me to love him and worship him, then why did he make me atheist?” They respond, almost one hundred percent of the time, with the fact that “our Father” (so God is male? But I get told by the same people God has no gender) gave us free will. If he gave us free will, that means he does not have a Divine Plan, because we can do exactly the opposite of what God wants. Furthermore, how can God “want” something if he is omnipotent, meaning when he created the Universe, he could have just made it so we do the thing he apparently “wanted”, but if we don’t do that thing he “wants”, then we are damned to Hell for eternity because we are defying God which in turn means we’re sinning. My question is this: why didn’t God just make us do the things he wants so he wouldn’t have to go to all the trouble of punishing us for sinning because we didn’t do the thing he wanted, when in the first place he could have easily made us do the exact thing he wanted us to do! Another thing I have trouble understanding is that God made us in his image. It couldn’t have been a moral or physical one, because God has no morals (because he is perfect) and is not physical. Therefore, one would suspect he made us in his exact image, one that cannot sin and is perfect. Oops, looks like that one didn’t work out (yet if he’s omnipotent how did he mess up that one?). To make it easier for people like me to believe in Him, why didn’t he make something so fantastic and “miraculous” as we would be fools not to believe in Him? For example, instead of the Ten Commandments, why couldn’t he have sent down a message with Moses that went something like this: “Two lines intertwined is the recipe for life”. That hints at deoxyribonucleic acid, the stuff of life. Or: “The fourth world from the fire is rusty”. That indicates Mars, which is a scientific fact is covered with rust. Instead, he sends down ambiguous details that if you asked someone who’s never heard of religion would scoff in amusement. Another flaw in the nature of God is the whole idea of him flooding the earth to remove evil. Evil came right back, in the event that Noah got drunk immediately after finding land, then shouldn’t God have known this since he is omniscient? So why did he bother flooding the earth when he could have just not created evil in the first place? Speaking of Noah, how did he fit all the animals on the Ark? Every insect, every bug, every mammal, every fish and every plant he fit on the Ark? How did it not sink into the water? Some say God used his divine powers to hold it up. Why couldn’t God just fashion Noah an Ark out of metal, some tough, sturdy metal, which is found on earth by the way, and whip up some contraption to keep it safe instead of working all that time for 40 days and nights keeping it aloft, because afterall, he made us out of dirt (but why is there still dirt on the earth then?), and I suppose since he is omnipotent he could just whip up something for Noah? To add to that, how did God kill sea creatures during the flood? How does one go about drowning fish? And did Noah even bring fish onto the Ark? If he didn’t, how could they still be alive now? So I guess he did bring them on, but were they salt or fresh, because a salt water fish would die in fresh, and fresh would die in salt, so it had to be one or the other, but yet both are still alive and kicking (swimming) today. Speaking of the flood, the highest rainfall ever recorded was in 1947 in the Reunion Islands during a severe tropical storm in a 24 hour period and that was only 47 inches. To cover the mountain tops (5.6 miles is Mount Everest) it would need to rain at a rate of 372 inches per hour over the entire surface of the earth. Where would all that water come from? And where did it all go? And wouldn’t the tides and dynamics of the earth be so out of equilibrium that the globe would be unstable and just topple off into the rest of the cosmos like a basketball falling off a unskilled player’s finger? While we’re still on the subject of death, what happens when we die? To those living before 5000 BC, before reading and writing were invented, how were ones able to worship God and get into heaven? I guess they’re all burning in Hell… The opposite of death is life, and God created man to “Rule over fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Gen 1:28). Then how is it possible, if our omniscient and omnipotent God created man to rule over every living thing that moves (I guess this is how some back up their reasons to kill in the name of God, even if it is over other humans, they move after all), that some animals are able to devour humans, such as a bear or a shark? That’s just another illogical aspect of religion and the nature of God which irks me. In addition, what is this talk of Jesus making the ultimate sacrifice? If Jesus is a part of God, that makes him both omniscient and omnipotent, thus making him aware that he would be resurrected from the dead and going and leading the Kingdom of Heaven. Where is the sacrifice? If there are any Christians reading this, they will probably be telling me to go read the bible and try to believe and accept God for who he is. You know there are people out there like that. Okay, I agree, and this is what I will do. Take a close listen to what I’m about to say. In 1 John 4:8, it reads “God is love”. In 1 Corinthians 13:4 it reads, “Love is not jealous”. But in Exodus 20:5 it says “I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God”. Follow those in that order and it takes you on a one way ticket to Hell because that just logically proved God does not exist. How can God be jealous when love is not jealous and God is love? God equals love, love does not equal jealousy, yet God equals jealous? It just does not logically follow. I guess those bible thumpers didn’t want me to read it after all. Talk about your own medicine…
The way some people use religion to get ahead in life disgusts me, for example, they consider Leviticus to be “old law” therefore they don’t obey it any more. Then why is it, when they say homosexuality as an “abomination”, they use Leviticus to defend that belief? Another irrational way they think is that they love to defend God’s “love”, is that they say baby’s who die go to Heaven. Then why are they so against abortion? All God is depriving them of is the chance to sin and the opportunity to go to Hell. Either that or God expects unborn fetuses to worship Jesus… In an attempt to inject a little humor into this humbling and logic inducing essay, I will continue on. “Atheism is a non-prophet organization” (George Carlin). Also, ten to twenty percent of all women who find out they are pregnant suffer a miscarriage. It is also estimated that all pregnancies end in a miscarriage about fourteen to fifty percent of the time. Take into account that this is all according to God’s Plan, doesn’t this make God the world’s number one provider of abortions? Another example of faith thinkers in the world today happens to be when they say “God bless America”, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But seeing as how Bin Laden and the terrorists were just carrying out God’s Plan (he after all, did make one), then if God did bless America, why would those attacks happen in the first place? This is a logical conundrum, somewhat like how athletes who win give thanks to God, as if they think he picked them when he could have easily given the loser the same equal opportunity to win.
I think a good way to wrap up this essay is to have another few examples of religion’s irrationality. Jesus loved doing this, so I’m willing to bet religious people will enjoy this too! Many people tell me I will “burn in Hell”. That’s all fine and dandy, but how can my soul burn seeing as how it is not a physical entity? It’s important to note that some Christians will say we are given new bodies after death, which urges the question: what is the point of a soul or spirit at all then? Another irrational hazard imposed on us is that in the “Last Days” Jesus is supposed to appear to us in the clouds. How are the people at the other end of the world supposed to see him? Or the people who work underground or those in deep space? Are there going to be millions of Jesus’ all staring down at us in the clouds? What about those in places where there are no clouds, and the sky is all blue for as far as the eye can see? The biggest thing that irks me about religion is that it is usually always anti science. If it were not for science, the world would still be overcome with polio, and children would be dying off one by one. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works. We interrogate nature using it. It has helped improve our lives so much; it’s laughable to say the world would be better without it. If anything, science humbles us. Carl Sagan once said “If we long to believe the sun rises and sets for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?” I don’t think it does, because it humbles us on the deepest of scales. We are so small compared to the vastness of the Cosmos; it’s almost a disrespect to think that a God who created it only cares about us.
My point is religion is an irrational and illogical way of thinking. If you think deeply, you’ll find there is no proof for God. God is nothing without faith, and faith is the belief without evidence. So if any Christian or any other religious person for that matter says there is proof for God, you can look them straight in the eye and without blinking tell them you just proved God does not exist. Douglas Adams, author of the esteemed Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series, once said “’I refuse to prove I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’” As a child, I was too immature and my critical mind was not developed enough to understand the lies I was being fed, and the ultimatum I was given to either believe, or spend an eternity in Hell. This is why if I ever have children, they will not go anywhere near a church until they are old enough to think for themselves, and if that is what they want to do, then so be it, it’s their choice and they’re accountable for it. But if one grows up with the lies, it is hard to break out of it and come to the realization that life with religion is a life full of lies and irrationality. Religion suppresses any type of thinking, critical and logical, and promotes a life of anti-knowledge (Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating off the Tree of “Knowledge” ). This world would be a better place if it wasn’t for religion and the irrational thinking it promotes. Dogma is the worst thing that has ever happened to this world. As Richard Dawkins so duly noted “Be thankful you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.” In my opinion, the belief in God is irrational and illogical, and to be so irrational leads to delusion; which I think the belief in God purely is. The Christian God can’t make up his mind on anything, and the fact that he is both omniscient and omnipotent leads us down a path of irrationality and illogic, and the contradictions in the bible clearly show that. “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies living at the bottom of it too?” (Douglas Adams). I sincerely believe the world would be a better place if religion was not existent. The religion of today will be the myth of tomorrow. Religion is nothing more than the story by which scared and ignorant historians gauged the universe to console them. Science has uncovered things in physics that back then, people would see as miracles. The hypothesis that Jesus was an extraterrestrial using advanced technology to pull of these miracles has the same odds that Jesus was the son of God. Religion, specifically Christianity, in my opinion, is nothing more than a fairy tale and has no place in today’s society. It is the root of all the world’s problems, because the two billion people who make up the two greatest religions on earth think they can tell the other four billion people of the world what to do. They threaten us with eternal damnation for “straying” off the divine path. They frequently tell me I need to find Jesus. I didn’t know he was lost.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
- Login to post comments
And yes, I used some of the questions posed in the Atheist vs Theist forum by Sapient (the 89 question one). Those were very helpful!
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Clap Clap Clap Bravo . . . . Bravo. Seriously Great job writing this.
Thanks! I hope my teacher doesn't flunk me by getting too offended. I think she's Jewish...
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Use as many references as possible. I've found that it's harder for a teacher to fail you if you reference other people's work.
It's actually an extra credit essay.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
hi alaskan atheist i think you need to work on some things for essay.
i think you can condense some things and put more research into others
but it think it best for me to save those for later
In all actuality, I think the Jewish people have the largest number of Atheists and skeptics. There was a thread on these forums about that somewhere.
But anyway, an enjoyable read and a good essay.
Like you, I am also an admirer oif Dawkins and Sagan.
However, out of all the Four Horsemen of the Atheist Movement. I think that I count Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett as my two favorites. Particularly Hitchens. I have always gotten great joy out of his debates and his books.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
As much as one would like to think academia is about thinking for oneself, teachers are still human, and many take that position because of the power it gives them.
Everyone here knows what you are saying, but don't be surprised if you get a bad grade. Objectivity flies out the window when someone picks on a taboo.
I might have pointed out "Question with boldness", Thomas Jefferson and "Blasphemy laws are the first sign of tyranny" Lord Acton. Jefferson also once equated the virgin birth to Minerva being born out of Jupiter.
So while you are right in blasting religion in it's political mingling and gang warfare in history, it would also help to quote great minds, even Einstein in his last letter before he died called the Abraham tradition "Nobel but childish".
When you bring up historical figures who were against tyranny and willing to question even the sacred the believer has less they can argue with about you being a bigot or being mean.
Your essay is par for the course for us. But we are not the one's grading you.
You'd get an A from me, but I'm not your teacher. I'd only suggest next time you include the positives like the ability to question. Basically what I say is "If we never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves." I'd include the positives of science, like now knowing what DNA is and the ability to calculate the distance between stars and galaxies and how fast our celestial systems move.
It is because someone said "That is not true" that we now know that the earth is not flat.
So while rightfully placing superstition into the graveyard of myth, I'd at the same time say something positive about skepticism and testing claims and why our species is better off because of those things.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Good points Brian.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Hi AA,
I know you won't take what I have to say since I am a Chrisitan, but I truly want you to be a better atheism. Your essay sucked.
First off, you started with a conditional clause. It would be better. Basically, you essay said that you would PREFER if there were no God, without giving what is generally called atheist evidence that there is no God.
2nd, you must define a varity of gods and refute all of them. If you merely refute one of them, that does not make you an atheist.
So since this is a huge problem, I would suggest that you state it in a logical form of validity. Obviously the soundness will be incorrect, but the teacher ought to note your attempt at using logic correctly, and would at least give you a passing grade if anything.
As for now, your essay has more holes in it then a Golf Course.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I am quite sure he is crushed by your assessment. If you want to use golf analogies, you have the mentality of Putt Putt, popular, but by no means professional.
He has the green jacket, you however cant even get your ball past a stupid windmill.
How does it feel to be property Fido?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Brian,
That may have been the nicesest post you've done with me. Sure you tried to bant with me, but I see no hint of anger. You seem calm and somewhat relaxed.
I think I'm growing on you.
I will accept your friendship?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Nonsense. For one thing, the essay started out with a quotation from a famous person. That is a way to "suck" the reader into your essay to tell them your own thoughts on the matter. What's more, the quote was not a conditional clause.
As for your second point, one could not NAME all of the gods who have ever existed on earth, let alone refute each and every one individually. Stick to popular ones - the ones your audience will likely understand. In the US and most of the Western world, that is Christianity, and possibly some basic understanding of Judaism by some readers, and indepth knowledge of it held by a few readers. Only a few understand Islam, and most of those will not be likely to talk about it since the 9/11 bombings and other terrorism done in the name of that religion.
There's more lack-of-evidence for God than what is often given as "atheistic evidence" that there is no God. It shows original thinking!
It's a good essay. It's not professional quality suitable for publication as it is, but the ideas are there so that it could be edited to that quality.
How's my proselytizing? Call 1-800-FANATIC
Beth
Excellent read, great work! I fixed the formatting in the first post for you, thanks so much for posting it here!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
You raise many good points here in a fairly free sort of form. As you no doubt realise, dealing with an issue like theism is a challenging subject for a single essay, let alone an entire book.
Needs a bit of a proof for tightness and tenses and whatnot but nothing too serious. I hope you get to read it to your class...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
great job.
Lots of excellent points and thanks for the laugh at the end.
I look forward to hearing what your teacher thought. Have you submitted it yet?
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Hi,
In philosophy this is known by it's technical term as duhh. Thus by definition, since one cannot even KNOW all the claims of all gods, let alone refute them, then by definition (technically speaking) it is impossible to be an atheist.
For one to assert zero Gods, they must be aware of the gods they are refuting. Since they are not empirically omnipresent and thus omniscient, then by definition, they cannot be atheist.
Their claim for atheism today is a lazy way to make a claim that can't hold water. Sapient even realizes this (at times) when he admits to being an atheistic agnostic.
That's like saying I'm a Christian Occulitist. This forum is extremely absurd. Even Bob Spencer 1 after refuting his claims he ignored me and blindly held to that which is not, atheism.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You can't refute that which is only asserted in the first place.
Your claim that there has to be at least one god is certainly no less absurd than claiming there are none, get in the van I have candy.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
"Knowing" of a claim is simple dip shit.
ANYONE can make a claim
"Snarfwidgets are real"
There, now you know of "snarfwidgets"
Anyone can read a claim and hear a claim. I know of claims of Thor and Vishnu.
Your bloodthirsty sky daddy is well known AS A CLAIM. Knowing of claims and demonstrating a claim beyond personal bias is a completely different matter.
Here is how your bullshit works:
"My god is real. He will win and defeat everyone."
Take a number dip shit. Your super hero motif is not special. Deity claims are like assholes, everyone has one.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hello Brian,
I've explained this on numerous occasions. You either forget or else you ran out of medication. The first principle and the validity of the argument must also correspond to the soundness of the premises. The proof I use is the correspondence of the claim to the real. Since this is consistent, this is a demonstration of the premieses thus making the argument both valid and sound.
This is of course simplified since you tend to constantly forget. So I do not simply make an assertion. I make an argument and have proof. Though it is not the same kind of proof as unintelligent oIf r the secular.
If I wanted to be Non-Biblical and adhere to empiricism like most professing Christians, then I would use the 5 Theistic Proofs for the Existence of God.
They are generally empirically with a few exceptions. However, these arguments I believe are invalid not to unsound. The transcendental argument is both valid and sound (among other arguments).
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Hey Sapient or any other moderators, I can't seem to figure out how to edit the original post, so can you please (ASAP!!)? I realized I have to turn this in to turnitin.com, and to not see this plagarized because I posted this on here, could you please remove it ASAP? Thanks!
AA
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
I once turned something in which I had already posted on here. I talked to my teacher before hand and told her that I had already posted it on the internet, and because I told her in advanced she had no problem with it.
Edit: P.S. My teacher also used turnitin.com as well. Things writen on this site do in fact show up on turnitin.com.
Great job, Alaskan Atheist. Good luck!
(I could go all nitpicky on a few minor points, but I think overall you deserve kudos for clearly and concisely expressing your points and understanding of the topic. My nitpicks would not really be helpful. Instead, I think I should say that I very much enjoyed reading it and you seem to have an excellent grasp of the issues.)
Hi, AA. We could move it temporarily to Freethinkers Anonymous (which would hide it from search spiders), but when I realized that you are the author and thus you cannot really be committing plagiarism, I decided to leave it here for now.
Just let your teacher know you had posted it here, and there will be no problem. You can't plagiarize yourself!
If you're still unsure and want it moved, let us know. Honestly, I think it'll be perfectly fine if you let her know it's here already, as RatDog did.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
no, it's not. it's very easy to dismiss their claims out of hand without knowing anything about them. it's the same as when a mormon knocks on my door and i immediately slam it in his fucking face as soon as i ascertain who he is and what he wants. i'm not a "potential mormon" or even just an "i don't know about mormonism" kind of guy. i'm a full out "no fucking way in hell i'll ever be a mormon--not interested" kind of guy.
same as if yahweh or jesus or allah or whoever came to my door today. even if i saw him in all his splendor and knew for sure he existed, i'd still slam the door in his fucking face. why? because i don't give a damn how big his cosmic, extra-temporal penis is--i'm not interested. if he's petty enough to bother me to try to coerce me into stroking his ego, let him throw me in hell. it would only show me how much of a dipshit he is.
i would not believe he's any kind of "god"--just a being with infinite power to be a dipshit. let me talk to the yahweh of the hebrew bible, and i'll tell him up front i'm an atheist.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
This is a nice sentiment but let's be truthful here. If a "god" actually showed up on my doorstep and I knew it with absolute certainty I might be more into changing my mode of thought. Maybe there is something divine about all the genocide and bs in the bible if this were so. I mean, here the dude is and I don't particularly want to burn in a fire for a minute let alone an eternity.
I'll rail against the god of the bible because I know it's a man (men whatever) with petty little man wants and desires and people propogate this ancient bs today forcibly cherry picking scripture as we slowly struggle to progress past it yet keep it "near and dear". It is choking progress at this point where I personally will grant that it may very well have helped to get us as far as we are now, the training wheels need to go.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
my whole point is that any god who would be so insecure and petty as to try to frighten me into "believing" in him would automatically get a "fuck you" from me, regardless. any being worthy of the appellation "god" wouldn't even take a second to consider or care whether i believe in or worship him. i mean, if i'm not even that petty, surely god can manage not to be either.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Hi IW,
Since atheism uses the absurd method of empiricism as a way to know, and they even admit that the known is really not the known, but is probable, but address the probable as the known with no reference to ratio of error of the probable, then logically speaking, what I say IS TRUE.
Since empiricism must be via experience, then you must experience EVERY SINGLE "religion" before you declare yourself an atheist. Since the atheism on this website really isn't atheism (it's agnosticism), it weakens your case more.
So your statement is false, and my statement is true. Be consistent.
Hi Rob,
If God showed up at your doorstep, and you knew it with absolute certainty? You cannot know anything with absolute certainty. If your mode of knowing (empiricism) even admits this, then you must know outside that mode that allows absolutely certainty which then would not consistent of God at your door.
I do admit, that wimpy inconsistent Christians tend to cherry pick at times. A fair claim. But a CONSISTENT Christian does not do this. Do not judge the system by those who follow it in error, but rather those who follow it in truth.
The word progress is an atheistic word that means the elimination of Christianity, and the coming of a communistic revolution to kill all Christians, and to enslave the masses. Thus since Christianity is for intelligence, this must be stopped, and this is what is meant towards "Progress."
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
As a general critique, this essay seems more like a drive by shooting of a fundamentalist Christian church than it does a atomic bomb drop on the whole of religion.... (I'm not really sure what the central thesis is though to be honest. I'm only assuming it...)
I have no problem with rhetorical questions... but there's way to many in this essay, and they are answered in a manner that does not really substantiate the central thesis of the essay...
I might focus the essay on a particular aspect of theism if you're going for theism in general or a particular aspect of Christianity....
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
UBuntU,
Where've you been I missed you. Isn't Ubunt a computer software of some kind? Anyway, I said a critique, and that was approached not very well but an atheist says it.
Hypocrites. I still love you guys though.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I recommend reading my English essay on religion. Not that yours sucked (it didn't, and I liked it), but it could use a bit of refinement.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_endangers_humanity_and_its_future
Of course, for all I know the curriculum where you are is looking for something other than the curriculum I went through.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Nicely done essay.
You remind me of ME, when I was your age -- and now I'm 63. That's my granddaughter in the picture! I hope you will channel your energy into your work as an astronomer and/or teacher, and wish you all the best. Remember, the meaning of the word "atheism" describes something you are not -- it's up to you to forge what you are and bring it to the world with intelligence .
As a young astronomer, you might enjoy one of my projects -- http://www.observeexhibit.org .
All best, be strong and keep following your path,
- Stephen Nowlin, aka roseweed
roseweed
_______________________________________________
Everything that happens, happens somehow.
Thank you! I will do my best to perpetuate the humbling nature of science and astronomy to future generations as best I can.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Hi Roseweeed,
Well technically speaking, Atheism is not a term that can "exist." But non-technically speaking, atheism as a term brings to it certain consequences via the denial of God (or lack of) thus forming a worldview from negation. It is a vaccum worldview os fragmentation and chaos.
As an astronomy. You should check out my two good friends. They are also both astronomers and they are both 6 day Christian Creationist.
Psaris Spike - creationastronomy.com
Dan Faulkner - http://usclancaster.sc.edu/faculty/faulkner/
Perhaps upon reading actual scientist since science is only possible via the Chrisitan model towards the philosophy of science, perhaps you may actually learn some science in the meanwhile.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Carl Sagan's in Hell!!!
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Without empiricism, there could be no conclusion that 'everything that begins to exist, has a cause', which is used as the basis for the tautology to argue that everything points to a prime mover, which is a complete logical fallacy, when one understands the simple concepts of systems and environments.
No.
Your statements and attacks are merely rhetorical, as well as hypocritical.
Theists desperately try and use empirical 'proofs' to convince that they're claims are accurate.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi, Jean -- thanks for the response. I feel sorry for you, trapped in your tight little world of superstition. Do your astronomer creationist friends believe the universe was created 6,000 years ago? If that were true, we could see no light from a celestial body further away than 6,000 light years. Which would mean all the light we can observe in the cosmos, all the thousands of galaxies, star clusters, planets, everything, is crammed into a space equal to no more than six-tenths the distance across just our Milky Way Galaxy. No doubt you're a nice guy, and certainly passionate -- but you're delusional.
roseweed
_______________________________________________
Everything that happens, happens somehow.
LOL! Talk about getting owned...
And Jean - if Carl Sagan is in Hell, then I am Huck Finn and Carl is Tom Sawyer. (I'm sure a literate, intelligent person like yourself will get that reference...)
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
Hi Roseweed
Now you are either being dishonest, or you have been brainwashed. You are forced to only be via original science and not origin science as an astronomer. This is important since secular astronomers do not have the secular framework model (to the same degree) as geologists.
Before I give you the answer, let me help you understand the problem with the big bang model from an astronomical view. Let's discuss the Horizon Problem.
In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years.
In the big bang model, the universe begins in a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different location. For example if we were to use the analogy of the hot and cold, while close proximity in the beginning, today they are separated.
However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, the variation of temperature supposedly in the big bang have the same temperature today. We know this because of the “ (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.
The problem is this: How did points varient temperatures come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, the one energy (hot) can give energy to the other in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, temperature 1 and temperature 2 have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.
Now I now there are models to try to cover up this embarrassment. The Inflationary models. Depending on if you use this most popular pathetic model that breaks down, or another one, pick your excuse for my refutation.
Regarding the light of stars. The text does not distinguish between the actually light of the stars or the function of creation of stars. However, if we are to assume the light from the stars reaching earth we can discuss time dilation. Also in reference to cosmic local time verse cosmic universal time, there must be a qualification. I can speak on this further since evidence supports that the speed of light is slower then it was 300 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago. More on this later perhaps.
Yes, these Christian Astronomers are all 6 day Creationists, which means that the earth was created around 6 to 10,000 years ago. You're just parroting the University Meal of Intellectual Dung so that you can get your pay check. Be honest, hypothetically speaking if you studied the creatiionist data, and became a Christionist, you would be fired from your job (if you're not retired).
So you are forced to believe in a lie (secular evolutionary model) in order to get a pay check, and in order to publish papers in the circles that you do.
This is what is known in philosophy as a coward and a hypocrite. You won't even look at the evidence due to this conjecture.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
And you are being forced to believe in a lie (Christianity) in order to NOT get sent to Hell when you die.
We can do it too.
Go read your fairy tales. Fiction a day keeps surrealism at bay...
AA
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
For someone who has openly claimed to be a Professor, you'd expect that plagiarism would be the last thing a 'teacher' would do but attempt to pass off someone else's work as their own.
Everything you just posted is directly copied from Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., Astrophysics
http://www.astroillume.com/?p=79
In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years.
In the big bang model, the universe begins in a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different location. For example if we were to use the analogy of the hot and cold, while close proximity in the beginning, today they are separated.
However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, the variation of temperature supposedly in the big bang have the same temperature today. We know this because of the “ (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.
The problem is this: How did points varient temperatures come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, the one energy (hot) can give energy to the other in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, temperature 1 and temperature 2 have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.
AKA: The 'False Prophet'
AKA: The 'Fake Intellectual'
AKA: "Full of Steaming Hot Shit'
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I can only chuckle at your cliched impression of academia. If I were a creationist teaching biology, I might indeed be ostracized and for good reason -- why should any university science department tolerate faculty who don't understand science? But, I don't teach biology -- and nobody at the college where I work cares a whit whether I am a theist or atheist. Such things only become an issue when one's beliefs interfere with one's ability to produce what one is paid to produce -- as in the case of a creationist trying to teach science as theology. If creationism were science, this wouldn't be a problem -- but creationism isn't science and has no place in a science curriculum.
But, to the point -- all your obfuscation above did nothing to resolve the problem your 6K-creationist astronomers have. None of your nonsensical misrepresentation of physics will move even the nearest galaxy, at 2.5 million light years away, to within 6K light years distance from Earth. Not to mention, the entire observable cosmos. If your guys were right, everything we can see or sense through a telescope, every bit of matter from the largest galaxy to the smallest particle, would be crammed into a space less than one-tenth the size of our tiny galaxy -- and we wouldn't exist to discuss it. Any contention otherwise from someone purporting to be a scientist, is laughable.
roseweed
_______________________________________________
Everything that happens, happens somehow.
Hi Rednef,
It is I that wrote that article. So logically I did not plagarize.
I will respond to rosewood as soon as I can.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
LOL!
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
"Article by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Astrophysics" I thought you told me your name is really Jean.
http://www.astroillume.com/?p=79
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
So, you are Dr. Jason Lisle?
roseweed
_______________________________________________
Everything that happens, happens somehow.
Hello,
No No. He consulted me with some of my previous work. And used my research for his paper. So it is my research, his writing. We are good friends.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Hi TG,
I doesn't bother me that you are skepical. It is, what it is.
Within a specific field of expertise that I have yet to enclose fully, and my background in research, I've been used for this type of work for a while.
How do you think I can pester you guys all day? (lol).
As for the specifics of those I works for and so fourth, I believe in logic that is called none of your business (LOL).
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Ok, well -- I've left a comment on the page of his article, and also emailed him with a link to this thread to ask if he would confirm your claim. Looking forward to hearing his response.
roseweed
_______________________________________________
Everything that happens, happens somehow.
Hello,
Well, Jean Chauvin is my nick name. But sounds good.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).