« Previous entries · Next entries »
June 24, 2007
Posted at 11:56 pm by Richard and tagged 10commandments, antitheism, atheism, bible, christianity, interpretation, morality, religion, richard-dawkins, usa. Popularity: 16% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be outlining what some people think of morality without religion, why religion-based morality is potentially suspect, and my ideas on morality.
God Hating Atheists
Some have claimed that atheism is responsible for immoral acts, and that lack of Christian morality (ignoring the possibility of other types of morality) in schools is responsible for school shootings. Both these articles describe various violent acts and crimes committed by young USAians, and then jump right into blaming Atheists and Darwinists (perhaps I’m missing a step in the argument, but I can’t see it - although “How to build a bomb in the public school system” does have one piece of evidence - the words “Natural Selection” on one shooter’s T-shirt):
Now do you realize who the people are who are responsible for children having gotten so violent? The answer is ATHEISTS and other non-beleivers [sic.] in the true God. So you may ask how can this be? The reason why they are responsible is because they hate God and teach their children against God (which is the highest form of child abuse). For example: Atheists hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS because God is their Author.
Aside from the obvious problem that Atheists, by definition, are unable to hate God (because as far as they’re concerned God doesn’t even exist) I see no logical reason why someone couldn’t hate the Christian God, but still “love” the 10 commandments. Jews and Muslims still have the 10 commandments, but in this writers mind, I’m sure Jews and Muslims would classify as “non-believers in the true God” (even though, technically, all three religions have the same roots, and thus the same God). There’s also plenty of people who live arguably moral lives while breaking at least the first few commandments. Depending on your interpretation, it’s also possible that all Christians break the 1st commandment, if you read “thou shalt have no other Gods before me” as endorsing strict monotheism, given that Christianity (arguably) invokes three Gods - I think Jews and Muslims are safe, though. Then, of course, there’s those of us who choose not to kill, steal or commit adultery, and still manage to respect our parents every so often - I don’t need to love (or even believe in) the Christian God for that.
There may be many religion-hating Atheists (or, anti-theists - of which Richard Dawkins comes to mind - while I’ve seen him in documentaries, I have yet to actually read his work, though, so I could be wrong), but a God-hating Atheist is an oxymoron. I certainly don’t think taking issue with religion necessarily makes you amoral, just like I don’t think that following a religion (whatever it may be) necessarily makes you moral.
One final thought - how many “immoral” people do you think are out there in this world? 5%? 20%? 50%? Well, if you subscribe to the theory that without Christianity, you’re necessarily immoral, you are immediately saying that 67% are incapable of living moral lives - not including immoral “Christians”, of course. Is there really a God who would condemn the majority of the world’s population simply because they were raised in a religion other than Christianity?
(To Be Continued… - Morality Part 2 will be posted next Sunday)
Permalink
Share This
June 21, 2007
Posted at 12:39 am by Richard and tagged atheism, creationism, mathematics, proof, science, truth, university. Popularity: 9% [?]
Creationists (how we love them) might suggest that we can’t “prove” that evolution is true, not 100% anyway. About Atheism just posted a nice succinct response (written by a forum member) to that argument, which I wanted to share.
Creationist: You can’t prove evolution is true, 100%.
Me: But evolution has been proved true beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s like in court, to prove a defendant is guilty, the jury needs to decide that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is true.
Creationist: A ha! But innocent people are sent to jail all the time!
Me: Okay, but imagine a different court. In this one, a juror has to first pass years of tests to prove that he knows about the law and the case at hand. Then, he and a million others who also passed the test hear case after case after case. A million different defenses [sic.] are launched against the truth of the claim. Every single of the million jurors after every single of the million cases concluded that there was no reasonable doubt that the claim was true. A single juror, in one case, could say “Not true” and the defendant would go free. But that never happened, and still never happens to this day. Because this defendant gets a million trials every day. And still, not one “Not true” has been found.
That’s the case that evolution is true.
Creationist: Yeah but someday we’ll find a Not true, but for you it’ll probably be too late. Enjoy hell loser.
Me: :-\
It comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of science. I just recently finished my final undergraduate essay ever, On The Nature of Proof for my “History and Philosophy of Mathematics” subject. One section of the essay deals with this issue specifically
The scientific notion of proof is not dissimilar from that in general use. While scientists (or, perhaps, the media which portrays scientific research to the public) may occasionally be casual in their use of the word “proof”, when questioned about the certainty of their results (and thus, whether their work actually constitutes “proof”), they might reply: “Scientists don’t talk about ‘proof’, period. We leave that to the mathematicians… Change the word ‘proof’ to ‘evidence’, and it makes more sense.”
Scientists seem to have little problem admitting that they do not, in fact, prove anything. Karl Popper, whose ideas defined the modern scientific method, suggested that “scientific experimentation [is not] carried out with a view to verifying or finally establishing the truth of theories; … we can never finally prove our scientific theories, we can merely (provisionally) confirm or (conclusively) refute them”
It should be clear that any use of the word “proof” in science is either accidental, or a deliberate attempt to promote “pseudo-science” or non-science as legitimate. Scientific theories may be contingently true, but it is not the goal of science to provide “proof”. While science may have higher standards of evidence than the general population, scientists (like the general population) seek “evidence that is sufficient to establish knowledge of a conclusion”, not certain truth.
Permalink
Share This
June 13, 2007
Posted at 2:19 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, atheism, buddhism, catholosim, confucianism, existentialism, harekrishna, hinduism, humour, islam, jehovahswitness, judaism, newage, nihilism, pagan, protestantism, religion, satanism, scientology, soplipsism, taoism, zen. Popularity: 20% [?]
Here are some simple ways that you can compare all the major world religions:
- Read The Big Religion Chart,
or
- Read this:
TAOISM - Shit happens
CONFUCIANISM - Confucius says: “Shit happens.”
BUDDHISM - If shit happens, it isn’t really shit.
ZEN - What is the sound of shit happening?
HINDUISM - This shit happened before.
ISLAM - If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
PROTESTANT - Let shit happen to someone else.
CATHOLIC - If shit happens, you deserve it.
JUDAISM - Why does this shit always happen to us?
JEHOVAH’S WITNESS - Let us in and we’ll tell you why shit happens
HARE KRISHNA - Shit happens. Shit happens. Shit happens.
PAGAN - Shit is part of the goddess, too.
SCIENTOLOGY - This book gets rid of your shit.
EXISTENTIALISM - Everything is shit, so let’s be depressed.
NIHILISM - Everything is shit, so let’s blow it all up.
SATANISM - I made this shit happen and I’m glad about it.
SOLIPSISM - This shit happens to me alone, but I am the cause of it
ATHEISM - I don’t believe this shit.
AGNOSTICISM - What is this shit?
NEW AGE - For $300 I can help you achieve Shit Happens Awareness
Permalink
Share This
June 12, 2007
Posted at 10:36 am by del.icio.us and tagged agnosticism, atheism, bible, christianity, creationism, dinosaurs, education, evolution, flickr, fundamentalism, georgebush, god, humour, Links, photography, religion, statistics, terrorism, usa. Popularity: 24% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
June 6, 2007
Posted at 10:52 am by del.icio.us and tagged atheism, bible, christianity, creationism, culture, dinosaurs, education, health, humour, Links, museum, news, philosophy, psychology, religion, science, sex, university, usa, video, youtube. Popularity: 23% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
June 1, 2007
Posted at 5:17 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, atheism, education, history, lecture, melbourne, science. Popularity: 9% [?]
I just got an email from a lecturer of mine who’s going to be talking about the “Atheists’ distortion of the History of Science” in a couple of weeks, which I thought might be interesting to anyone living in Melbourne.
Dear “God ….” fans,
I’ll be speaking to the Atheist Society in a couple of weeks.
“Atheists’ Distortion of the History of Science”
Tuesday 12 June 2007
8 pm
Trades Hall
54 Victoria St (crnr Lygon Street)
atheist_agnostic@lycos.com
You will have heard much of my argument before, but this time I’ll be attacking my fellow atheists’ for distorting history. It should be fun.
Neil
If you’re interested, email the above address, or just turn up!
Permalink
Share This
« Previous entries · Next entries »
Posts
