Sunday, November 02, 2003
I participated in a debate today. The topic was "Why be a Christian, a Humanist, an Atheist, or anything else?" I was the advocate for Atheism. Here are my opening remarks.
========================
I am very happy and very much honored to have been invited here to participate in this discussion. I've been an Atheist for nearly 15 years.
I'm an Atheist because I have my god detector right here and it points to "No". (Incidently, that is how I can tell it's working.) The Bible says that god wants me to be a believer, and the supermarket newspapers say that God is busy making all kinds of special Virgin Mary-shaped turnips and Jesus-face pizzas and Holy Ghost ink stains ... So if god wants me to be a believer and he can do all those other things, then surely he can move the needle of my God Detector, that should be no big deal for an omnipotent deity.
Well he hasn't moved the needle yet, so I'm still an Atheist.
So, what exactly is Atheism?
Atheism is the disbelief or denial that gods exist. An Atheist will say, "I don't believe in god". A stronger Atheistic statement might be "I believe that this or that god does not exist". Another type of Atheist might say, "I don't believe in a god because the term 'god' has no meaning to me. It makes no sense."
So, that is Atheism. And I don't know if any of you noticed, but there isn't a whole lot of immorality or evil or deception by Satan going on with that definition. People who don't believe in a god are Atheists, it is as simple as that.
There are many reasons that people become Atheists, and I'd like to read you a quote from Steve Allen which sums it up for me. He said,
"It is not hardness of heart or evil passions that drive certain individuals to Atheism, but rather a scrupulous intellectual honesty."
So what's that mean?
I think we should have a standard of evidence, and we should stick to it, when we are deciding what we should and should not believe. So that's what it's about for me, intellectual honesty. I'm an Atheist because I believe in checking facts. I think that claims need to meet a standard, a strong, rational evidential standard, before those claims are believed. And nothing I've ever seen from theists has met that standard. In fact, I think Christianity often does its best to promote belief without evidential standards. When I tell people that I don't believe, they often say "Well you've just got to have faith!" And I say "Oh no, I don't. Faith might be good enough for you, but *I* have to have *evidence*. And I won't believe without it."
So, I have an evidential standard. And there are many principles that make up this standard, and they tend to relate to principles used by science. For example, science says that observations should be repeatable. Why? Because our senses can be faulty, and if we repeat observations then we reduce the error that comes from subjective experience. Science says theories should be falsifiable, otherwise they can't be disproved, and then a proper test can't be performed. And finally, when an idea is falsified, it should be abandoned.
It was around early 1989 that I became an Atheist and began to understand what Atheism means.
About that time, I told my boss about a paper I'd written on evolution vs. creationism. He told me "Well, you know there is more evidence for creationism than for evolution." So of course I said "Let's see it".
Well, my boss came back the next day with some tracts. One said that the fall of mankind can be explained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the only way to counter this scientific principle is through acceptance of Jesus Christ. Other materials included a chart of dates, a claim that the earth was only 6000 years old because various natural processes could have run for only so long. But when I checked his facts, I found that they were deeply flawed. Reversing processes had been ignored, and outdated and inaccurate data had been used. So if this information was outdated and inaccurate, why is this same book still being sold today, right now, 15 years later? I checked Amazon.com just before I came here, it's available now.
I feel like the people writing these materials and continuing to promote them after solid retutation are intellectually dishonest. In my experience, after speaking online with hundreds of Christians over the years, the various reasons for believing are just not compelling.
But what about humanism?
When I was discovering Atheism, I read every humanist magazine in the library, probably many of them edited and contributed to by Fred [Edwords] here. As I became an activist, I went to a humanist function and I enjoyed it. Humanism seemed like Atheism, but with a different name and a bit of a different focus, namely, how to live in this world and get along with others and solve our problems. These ideas resonated with me and I agreed with them and I still do. And yet, my activism has to do with Atheism and does not emphasize humanism. Why is that?
First, as I've said, there is the emphasis on truth and intellectual honesty, this has really burned into my head. I feel like truth is the most fundamental value one can have, and without it, it is difficult to go further. In order to talk about anything, including values, including Jesus or holy ghosts or speaking in tongues, I have to establish first that I'm being honest about what I am saying, and I have to establish that I value, not just lip service to truth, but the actual rational processes by which we separate truth from fiction.
Second, (and this is not so much about humanism) as I learned about Atheism I discovered, believe it or not, that Atheism is not a four-letter word. We are conditioned to think that Atheism is this horrible thing. My dad has told me that Atheism is hatred, ... and then there's the Christian Love I get from those flipping me off on the freeway ... But the contrast between what I was told vs. what I discovered through my reading was dramatic! Atheism is not a bad thing. I want that word, Atheism, to get the credit it deserves.
Because, in fact, Atheism was like a breath of fresh air. It was rational! It was philosophically defensible! It was so very solid! I don't have to believe in talking donkeys and snakes, I can be an Atheist by looking at reality. Do I need to believe in a god who loves us and yet orders mass killings in his Holy book? No! What about a god who condemns me to eternal torture for not believing in him, and yet this god remains completely hidden?? No! I don't have to believe that, and it's a good thing I don't, because to me, those ideas make no sense! People say you get peace when you start to believe in Jesus ... let me tell you about peace. When you no longer have to accept ideas that are ridiculous, THAT is peace, and it is profound.
Utterly profound.
So I promote Atheism because of evidence and rationality, and because Atheism should be an option. It is a respectable option, not some evil Satanic deception. This idea of Atheism should not be disparaged. It should be celebrated. This peace and this idea deserves no less.
Thank you
E-mail: ========================
I am very happy and very much honored to have been invited here to participate in this discussion. I've been an Atheist for nearly 15 years.
I'm an Atheist because I have my god detector right here and it points to "No". (Incidently, that is how I can tell it's working.) The Bible says that god wants me to be a believer, and the supermarket newspapers say that God is busy making all kinds of special Virgin Mary-shaped turnips and Jesus-face pizzas and Holy Ghost ink stains ... So if god wants me to be a believer and he can do all those other things, then surely he can move the needle of my God Detector, that should be no big deal for an omnipotent deity.
Well he hasn't moved the needle yet, so I'm still an Atheist.
So, what exactly is Atheism?
Atheism is the disbelief or denial that gods exist. An Atheist will say, "I don't believe in god". A stronger Atheistic statement might be "I believe that this or that god does not exist". Another type of Atheist might say, "I don't believe in a god because the term 'god' has no meaning to me. It makes no sense."
So, that is Atheism. And I don't know if any of you noticed, but there isn't a whole lot of immorality or evil or deception by Satan going on with that definition. People who don't believe in a god are Atheists, it is as simple as that.
There are many reasons that people become Atheists, and I'd like to read you a quote from Steve Allen which sums it up for me. He said,
"It is not hardness of heart or evil passions that drive certain individuals to Atheism, but rather a scrupulous intellectual honesty."
So what's that mean?
I think we should have a standard of evidence, and we should stick to it, when we are deciding what we should and should not believe. So that's what it's about for me, intellectual honesty. I'm an Atheist because I believe in checking facts. I think that claims need to meet a standard, a strong, rational evidential standard, before those claims are believed. And nothing I've ever seen from theists has met that standard. In fact, I think Christianity often does its best to promote belief without evidential standards. When I tell people that I don't believe, they often say "Well you've just got to have faith!" And I say "Oh no, I don't. Faith might be good enough for you, but *I* have to have *evidence*. And I won't believe without it."
So, I have an evidential standard. And there are many principles that make up this standard, and they tend to relate to principles used by science. For example, science says that observations should be repeatable. Why? Because our senses can be faulty, and if we repeat observations then we reduce the error that comes from subjective experience. Science says theories should be falsifiable, otherwise they can't be disproved, and then a proper test can't be performed. And finally, when an idea is falsified, it should be abandoned.
It was around early 1989 that I became an Atheist and began to understand what Atheism means.
About that time, I told my boss about a paper I'd written on evolution vs. creationism. He told me "Well, you know there is more evidence for creationism than for evolution." So of course I said "Let's see it".
Well, my boss came back the next day with some tracts. One said that the fall of mankind can be explained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the only way to counter this scientific principle is through acceptance of Jesus Christ. Other materials included a chart of dates, a claim that the earth was only 6000 years old because various natural processes could have run for only so long. But when I checked his facts, I found that they were deeply flawed. Reversing processes had been ignored, and outdated and inaccurate data had been used. So if this information was outdated and inaccurate, why is this same book still being sold today, right now, 15 years later? I checked Amazon.com just before I came here, it's available now.
I feel like the people writing these materials and continuing to promote them after solid retutation are intellectually dishonest. In my experience, after speaking online with hundreds of Christians over the years, the various reasons for believing are just not compelling.
But what about humanism?
When I was discovering Atheism, I read every humanist magazine in the library, probably many of them edited and contributed to by Fred [Edwords] here. As I became an activist, I went to a humanist function and I enjoyed it. Humanism seemed like Atheism, but with a different name and a bit of a different focus, namely, how to live in this world and get along with others and solve our problems. These ideas resonated with me and I agreed with them and I still do. And yet, my activism has to do with Atheism and does not emphasize humanism. Why is that?
First, as I've said, there is the emphasis on truth and intellectual honesty, this has really burned into my head. I feel like truth is the most fundamental value one can have, and without it, it is difficult to go further. In order to talk about anything, including values, including Jesus or holy ghosts or speaking in tongues, I have to establish first that I'm being honest about what I am saying, and I have to establish that I value, not just lip service to truth, but the actual rational processes by which we separate truth from fiction.
Second, (and this is not so much about humanism) as I learned about Atheism I discovered, believe it or not, that Atheism is not a four-letter word. We are conditioned to think that Atheism is this horrible thing. My dad has told me that Atheism is hatred, ... and then there's the Christian Love I get from those flipping me off on the freeway ... But the contrast between what I was told vs. what I discovered through my reading was dramatic! Atheism is not a bad thing. I want that word, Atheism, to get the credit it deserves.
Because, in fact, Atheism was like a breath of fresh air. It was rational! It was philosophically defensible! It was so very solid! I don't have to believe in talking donkeys and snakes, I can be an Atheist by looking at reality. Do I need to believe in a god who loves us and yet orders mass killings in his Holy book? No! What about a god who condemns me to eternal torture for not believing in him, and yet this god remains completely hidden?? No! I don't have to believe that, and it's a good thing I don't, because to me, those ideas make no sense! People say you get peace when you start to believe in Jesus ... let me tell you about peace. When you no longer have to accept ideas that are ridiculous, THAT is peace, and it is profound.
Utterly profound.
So I promote Atheism because of evidence and rationality, and because Atheism should be an option. It is a respectable option, not some evil Satanic deception. This idea of Atheism should not be disparaged. It should be celebrated. This peace and this idea deserves no less.
Thank you
