Whenever I am asked if I believe in God, my mind becomes clouded with the myriad reasons why I don't and, verbally at least, my argument comes accross as insecure and ill-informed. I'm frustrated by the question, as it is my choice and an individual's personal belief (or lack thereof) shouldn't be cause for concern to anybody else. As the simplest answer; "because I don't have to" is clearly not sufficient, here are my reasons. Some of them may be familiar from other sources but that only affirms that they stand up. It is quite ironic that people following a faith that denies evidence and reason should ask me to back up my reasons, but there you go. I hate religious debate (we've developed the cognitive skills and reason to overcome religious brainwashing yet it still exists) and hopefully this will be the end of it for anyone unhappy with my atheism.
- The idea of absolute power doesn't hold up to any logic or scrutiny. If God was all powerful (bear in mind all powerful means limitless in ability) then he could conjure a rock that was so heavy, no being (divine or mortal) could move it. This includes God. In which case, if God could not move that rock, then he is not all-powerful. Alternatively, if God could move any rock regardless of its weight, then it would be impossible for him to create one that he is unable to move. Again this defies limitless ability.
- Humanity's obsession with design and purpose is what lead to the invention of God. We have evolved our minds to the point where they have begun to over-think, and the concept of being on Earth for no real reason other to live and die is discomforting. Like all other species, we can create life. However, unlike all other species, we are sentient, reasonable and imaginative beings. Combined with our natural ego-centricity, the concept that we must have been created by a conscious being is a natural one to adopt. There hasn't been a credible argument for why we must be the product of a creator. Many claim that we "must" be the creation of somebody, but why "must" we? Just because we create things, that does not mean that somebody must have created us.. it is our own God-complex that, quite ironically, justifies to us the existence of God. The 'Blind Watch Maker' theory is the most commonly applied, but even that is a poor argument. It assumes that, similar to how it would be near-impossible to produce a functioning watch simply by shaking the contents in their casing, we are too complex and well formed to have just popped into being of no accord; but we now know that we didn't. We are the product of millions of years of trial and error, far removed from the metaphor of the watch.
- For a group so bent on believing in design, this supposed God is certainly not showing much evidence of having a 'design' of any kind. Imagine two nations that are near-identical in their worship of God and keeping sacred his word. One of those nations is hit by a devastating natural disaster that kills thousands and destroys its cities. The other nation is left untouched. If God is responsible for everything, what discernable reason would there be for letting this happen? His 'working in mysterious ways' would be the predictable response, but that is a redundant comment that religious flag-flyers use to maintain their self-delusion, it is not an argument. Furthermore, when a victorious army or sports team claims to have had 'God on their side', why didn't the other team have that luxury? If God loves all, why is he picking sides in such trivial instances?
- The inevitable argument that 'you can not disprove the existence of God' is, while true in itself, ultimately redundant and round-about. It is also possibly the reason why belief in higher powers still exists. It is not enough to apply this rhetoric, which is nothing more than a frustrating way to bring mature, reasoned arguments grinding to a halt. If I were to lower myself to adopting this logic, then I can quite easily bombard you with 1001 absurd beings of my own invention, then maintain that they exist purely because you can't prove that they don't. This would render me psychologically ill, and rightly so. Yet in numbers it ceases to be a mental defect and instead becomes religion. While this should be unsettling to a reasoned mind, it is accepted as the norm.
- Organised religion attacks science, when science is simply thousands of years of in-depth, meticulous research and findings of empirical evidence carried out by an unfathomable number of historical and contemporary genius. Science does not make unfounded proclamations and then refuse to relent when they are disproven. Science is humble, and accepts when it is wrong, then setting about to discover why it was wrong and what the correct answer actually is. This is the stark opposite to blind faith, which maintains millennia-old beliefs and moral guidelines as truth without willing to be educated otherwise. It is also the reason that the tired argument of 'science being simply another form of religion' is completely ill-informed. It is snooty and unbecoming for an inexperienced pseudo-philosopher to come along and then denounce this evidence purely because it doesn't fit with their pre-established ideals. The Universe adheres to certain laws of physics and, while one may argue that this reality is just an illusion (again a claim impossible to disprove), it is at the very least within this illusion that those laws apply, and therefore they do apply no matter how false you may think our perception of reality is.
- The religious will claim that 'without God there would be no worth', which, quite apart from being violently disrespectful to all loved ones, is also without merit. Civilised society predates the invention of God and it is the belief of many atheists that life itself, and this planet alone, are wonderful things enough to satisfy the notion of a single existence. It is not humble or endearing to defect family, friends and well being into a subordinate state of importance and use your brief time on Earth as a preperatory period, sacrificing many desires and dreams, for possible entry into another realm upon death. I do not feel my life lacks faith enough to be fulfilling, and I do not agree that faith makes an individual stronger. Finding God at a time of despair is little more than the theological equivalent of being given a comforting blanket.
- The worst argument of all comes from religious apologists insisting that the more absurd and fantastical Bible stories aren't intended to be true, but the existences of God and Christ are the truths within. Where exactly did they acquire that conviction? How can one pick and choose which bits of the scripture are supposed to be genuine without such authority on the subject? As far as I am aware, the Bible is not annotated to distinguish the factual parts from the fictional. If one can not accept the ridiculous stories of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah or Job but is content with belief in the omnipotent creator that appears in each of them, that is the epitome of a crumbling argument. In for a penny, in for a pound.
- Ultimately, I find it continually insulting that I am asked to explain myself when I say I don't believe in God. People are conditioned to accept religion from a young and impressionable age at schools that aren't as impartial as they should be. I do not harass God-believers into explaining their reasons, yet somehow atheism, which is merely an acting of bowing out; peaceful and non-aggressive, is treated more heavy-handedly than religious belief. These are my reasons, and in my secure mind they are more formed and understandable than the contrary. As such I will not be swayed. Atheism may indeed be a herd-mentality as religion is, but is not one that is entered into without thought and reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment