A short list of questions

24 07 2007

Posted by: Db0 in Religion, tags: atheism, profile

Taking a cue from the Friendly Atheist’s short list of questions, here are my personal answers:

- Why do you not believe in God?

Because I do not have a clear definition of it. Before I can believe in “God” or whatever, someone must first explain to me what he means by god and present me with some tangible proof so that I may know how to respond. If we’re talking about the Christian God, then I do not believe in his existense because of the distinct lack of proof for it.

- Where do your morals come from?

As I’m sure most atheists would say, they come from the evolved societal morality almost all human communities possess. I generally follow the Golden Rule which serves adequately but I am fortunate enough to have had the appropriate experiences that further developed my morality to another level

- What is the meaning of life?

There is not life meaning. Why should there be? These is an “evolutionary meaning” which is to propagate the species. In order to further this goal, I feel the need to attack those irrational beliefs that threaten the species in this…nuclear age. I also feel the need to make the world a better place for everyone and I’m disheartened that most people do not feel the same way as soon as they grow up.

- Is atheism a religion?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Most people would know the answer. It is not a philosophy either.

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

Try to make them right or just persevere.

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

They should be trying to stop other people trying to convince everyone else to start believing in the same imaginary dude in the sky. They should also not feel the need to be “respectful” to unfounded beliefs in order not to hurt any feelings. It is unfortunate for religion that the atheistic arguments are so solid that they inevitably shake the faith of those who have precious few of it.
Ergo, they do not try to convince anyone. It is unavoidable side-effect of reason.

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

No. Hitler was not an Atheist, and neither was Mussolini. Even if they were, as being an atheist is not a way of life or a philosophy, and as such it it would not make a whiff of a difference. Stalin did not kill his countrymen because they believed in God. He did it on the irrational belief that USSR should be a world power no matter the sacrifice.
It is irrational beliefs like religion and nationalism (which, most of the time, go hand-in-hand) that create the problems.

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

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to performing surgery? How could billions of people have been wrong to believe in Gods? Popularity does not equal authenticity.

- Why does the universe exist?

It just does. Why do we need to have a hidden meaning in everything?

- How did life originate?

Pure luck. I’m certain that, given the immensity of the known universe, the chances of life not being created by pure luck where almost zero.

- Is all religion harmful?

Quite. It just bundles a way of life with an irrational delusion. Why not keep the first and discard the later which would further allow the first to evolve without shackles?

- What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They harbor the fundamentalists. A religious moderate might not press his beliefs on me, but he may fund an organized religion who will and he will not speak up against it. When organized religion attacks secular government when trying to pass irrational laws about abortion and research. The moderates keep quiet and the agnostics and atheists must fight. When organized religion forces children to lean christianity for 12 years, it is the moderates who will happily accept it while atheists and agnostics have to fight the government to stop this proselytism.

- Is there anything redeeming about religion?

Nope. Anything that is done in the name of religion could have been done without it. For every good thing they do, the do 10 bad. For every junkie they detox, they create 5 crypto-fascists etc.

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

Which god? What if the God of Atheism exists that will only reward in the afterlife those that do not believe in a God?

- Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

Certainly not. They do not deserve any more respect than the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus or my Holy Dirty Underwear.

- Are atheists smarter than theists?

No. They might have one less irrational belief and hopefully have developed critical thinking though.

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

A Jewish rebel created by a heretical group that despised the current status of Theocracy. He used tricks, illusions and staged miracles to create a following and fled real confrontation (Bible stories, not mine). His legacy was later abused by powerful men who saw the way to consolidate power by looking at how these gullible christians acted.

- Would the world be better off without any religion?

Not necessarily. At least there would be no more religious wars or jihads and nationalism would be weakened. They would have to find another pillar on which to create an “US vs THEM” mentality.

- What happens when we die?

We cease to exist.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 at 8:29 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Comments “A short list of questions”

Cleric says:
July 25th, 2007 at 1:25 am - Edit

How did life originate?
“Pure luck. I’m certain that, given the immensity of the known universe, the chances of life not being created by pure luck where almost zero.”

This answer is highly erroneous. You must do more research in the realms of mathematics, especially in the aspect of the Golden Ratio and Phi, and their specific relation to the universe. Also, despite the vast size of our universe, when you run the numbers the chances of life existing it is actually quite remote. The solid mass required in order to create a planet in just the right spot is still pretty remove even if you consider the fact that there might be 200 billion planets. The statistical data shows that the chances of existence are in the trillions. Given the weight of the mass of the known universe and extrapolated, this doesn’t show heavily that there are trillions upon trillions of planets that would have formed.

Minion4Hire says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:02 am - Edit

“The solid mass required in order to create a planet in just the right spot is still pretty remove even if you consider the fact that there might be 200 billion planets.”

That’s assuming it would be “life as we know it”. Even on this planet, all different kinds of life have displayed remarkable tolerances to a wide range of environmental conditions. Taking that into consideration (admittedly a difficult thing to do statistically in this case) the so called “Goldilocks Zone” would not be as restrictive as has been claimed.

And as far as getting a planet in exactly the right spot, it would also be less difficult than you make it out to be, technically speaking. Our sun is one of the more reliable, stable and common type of star we have observed in the universe, but there are others whose energy patterns are not as reliable and can change over relatively short and relatively long periods of time. Taking this into account, such a Goldilocks Zone may be even less difficult to achieve, although this again would be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to qualify.

All I’m really saying is that there are so many variables that are difficult to account for that coming up with one statistic or ratio to give the chances of the origin of life (whether for or against) is basically a guessing game. I know of a few statisticians who would scold me dearly for that statement, but there is a lot to consider that we don’t have proper data for yet. But I will say that regardless of the exact chances of life occurring (let alone sentient life), the chances of confirming the existence of an extraterrestrial life form would be incredibly minute.

Db0 says:
July 25th, 2007 at 6:38 am - Edit

I generally consider current technology woefully inadequate to grasp the pure immensity of the universe. Add to that the fact that the current size we have extrapolated might be larger or smaller than we initially anticipated, and theories about it change at a rapid pace as soon facts come into light, means that we know just a miniscule part of the whole issue. This generally falls into the realm of belief - as in, I believe various things about the universe that are just impossible to prove or disprove currently (please do not confuse this sentence with religious belief).

The solid mass required in order to create a planet in just the right spot is still pretty remove even if you consider the fact that there might be 200 billion planets

This is a quote reserved answer. We currently know of about 80 billion galaxies and a galaxy typically contains about 400 billion stars (not even planets). Ignoring the fact that we may not see the whole universe or that there might be other universes out there, it still means that the chance of life evolving are quite large, although as Minion4Hire mentioned, it may not be life as we know/recognise it.

Anath says:
July 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pm - Edit

Even though I am in a sense not an Atheist, here are my answers:

* Why do you not believe in God?

I do not believe that the Christian “God” is the One True God. He is merely a power, not necessarily a HIGHER power, just outside of human experience and not necessarily native to this plane. The god I do believe in is not a sentient, anthropomorphic being but rather a more collective-intelligence unified-spirit model. However in this sense the title “God” is rather misleading, for it really isn’t a “God”, if that makes sense.

*Where do your morals come from?

Within. I strive to act in ways that will better myself and my own spirit, and either help or cause minimal harm to others. I use my own judgment to determine what is right and wrong, though I find that my views tend to line up with societal standards to some degree anyway (such as, I don’t believe it is ok to go around molesting children). The difference is that I reach my conclusions by deciding for myself, rather than reaching the same conclusions because a book or law says I should.

*What is the meaning of life?

All Life inherently has only one meaning, and that is to propagate Life. A better and more accurate question might be “What is the meaning of consciousness?”; why are we, as a species, able to think and reason, and even pose such questions. To that, who knows? And in the end, who really cares? I propose that the meaning of consciousness and life is not to please some otherworldly deity, however, and even if it is, or was at some time, it has outgrown its purpose when we can reason that deity away or directly and consciously oppose its “Great Plan”.

*Is atheism a religion?

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

Put one foot in front of the other and keep moving. Things have a way of working out, even when you don’t drop to your knees and ask them to.

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

No. “Converting people” is wrong for any belief system, or lack of. The information is there, if they want it. If not, then let them be.

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

No.

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

The same way billions of people could be wrong about which system of belief is true.

*Why does the universe exist?

A mistake, I’m sure.
At this stage of existence, I’m not sure, and I’ll admit my uncertainty. However, by nature “why” questions are subjective, so anyone who claims to know is merely stating an opinion, not a fact. It is wrong to attribute any truth to definite claims or to take another’s answer as your own.

* How did life originate?

I favor metabolism-first theories.

* Is all religion harmful?

Religion itself is not inherently harmful, it is the ignorance it propagates that is harmful, and extremist interpretations. If every man merely followed the core Golden Rule morals in religion and allowed every other man space for his own interpretation of the deity(ies), there would be no harm in religion. As it stands, though… that is not really the case.

*What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They’re generally spineless and accept whatever the leaders say. Many moderates do “think for themselves” and don’t “accept whatever the leaders say”, but they’re certainly not vocal about it, and in their silence, they are “accepting”, despite what they may say.

*Is there anything redeeming about religion?

It has indirectly provided centuries worth of priceless artwork and interesting literature (No, not “the Bible”. I mean stuff like the Etz Hayim, Greek epics, the Sagas, and the like)

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

If I am wrong in my views about who and what is technically a “God”, and the common God is what he says he is, then he would understand my point of view. If he doesn’t, then he is not my God, and I will not bow to him, instead accepting the fires of hell with open arms.

* Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

Beliefs that oppress others, clearly promote immorality, or are jokes (sorry Pastafarians) do not earn my respect.

*Are atheists smarter than theists?

No.

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

He was a revolutionary with powerful influence and wisdom, but a man nonetheless. A man does not become a god by popular vote.

*Would the world be better off without any religion?

Something else would take its place, I’m sure, but the world would improve at least temporarily with the gutting of Christianity and Islam at least.

*What happens when we die?

No one can know until they cross the threshold.

Minion4Hire says:
July 26th, 2007 at 2:49 am - Edit

While laying in bed last night it dawned on me that that even if the chances of life coming about in own galaxy were astronomically high (pardon the pun), it truly wouldn’t matter, from two different perspectives.

The number of planets estimated to be in the known universe varies from source to source, but tends to start around ten quadrillion. That’s 10 million billion planets. Taking that into account, even if you went out on a limb and claimed a 500 trillion to 1 ratio (which is quite high) of life coming into existence, that means that it would happen on 20 different worlds. Obviously, since we’re here talking about it, we would be one of those twenty. So even playing with ludicrously high stakes there would in fact be more than just us alive in this universe. With those kinds of odds it would reduce our chances of meeting or discovering said life to nearly zero, but it would still exist.

The other perspective is almost a bit of a cop-out, but it’s just that statistics aren’t really all that important. Just because on paper it wouldn’t seem likely that life could have developed on multiple planets - or one for that matter - does not mean that it couldn’t or won’t. Statistical anomalies are not uncommon and it could just be that our galaxy was particularly fortunate and formed a plethora of worlds suitable for the development of life, one of which would be ours. Even if you reduced the “possible” life-infested worlds in our universe down to a few dozen would not mean that those worlds are evenly spread amongst the stars and galaxies. There could in fact be a cluster of solar systems which all managed to develop nearly ideal planetary bodies in which life could take hold. In other words, just because an event isn’t likely to happen doesn’t make it impossible.

The Antichristian Phenomenon

Behold, Bastard son! We are the evil ones.