Atheism

[Daniel Krispin]

Is Atheism a valid position to hold? Discuss.

My opinion is that yes, it can be valid, but that the most holding the position to do for illogical reasons.

This merits a slight bit of explanation, which I'll give in brief, then allow others to reply. Basically, I think that while both religion and atheism can be held without being irrational, there are certain reasons for the beliefs and claims made therein that are flawed.

The first that I wish to disagree with is the atheistic stance that belief in God is irrational. To make such a claim assumes knowledge of a being that is, in theory, nouminal (note I am speaking of a monotheistic god here only). The concept of God being nouminal, God lies entirely out of our both apriori and aposteriori understanding. Essentially, God might or might not exist, philisophically speaking, and it is impossible to know via either innate knowledge or empirical knowledge. Therefore to say 'belief in God is irrational' is logically equivalent to saying 'I can prove God exists.' Both are, in fact, illogical statements. However, to hold that God doesn't exist (despite the possibility), or that God does exist are both in some fashion faith based claims that have no philisophical high ground over the other. They are merely statements of faith made about a matter we cannot know.

So my first statement wishes to annul a common atheistic position that belief in God is irrational. Can it be agreed then that both belief and disbelief are inherently admissible, and that making a claim to either know by proof existence or know for certain (and therefore by proof) non-existence are likewise equally inadmissible?

This is my answer to my statement that many who hold an atheistic position do so for illogical reasons, namely assuming that because empirical evidence cannot show it (what we would call 'scientific') it cannot be.

As an analgous example, it is similar to saying that the universe had a beginning. It might, or it might not. It is impossible to prove. Indeed, it might be said that the universe existed at this ancient point (say, twelve billion years ago), but it is inherently impossible to speak of it beginning. Because 'before' the beginning there was no time, how can we ever perceive the point of beginning? It is, metaphysically (that is, by understanding our own methods of perception) impossible, because we cannot understand when time 'was' not. Therefore some might say 'the universe is eternally old' and others 'the universe had a beginning', but neither can so say with proof, and both are simply belief claims. (Nb. this is an example borrowed from Kant, and I know he has a better, but I've not looked back to it.)

So that is my current thoughts on the issue, and I'll hold my stance that for atheism to be in any way a reasonable belief it must allow for the possibility of God, but can nonetheless by faith claim that there is no God (nb. by faith because there is no evidence to support the claim, even as there is none to deny it.) In sharp contradiction to a quote I saw cited by ZeaLitY,  'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.' Yet that is an illogical claim. Because one can reasonably make an assertion and say 'but I cannot know by proof', yet to dismiss requires reason. This is inherent in what I have said to this point. When the atheists say 'God does not exist', this is a statement made without proof. It remains reasonable because we have not found any proof (nor shall we ever) that renders it obsolete. Likwise to say 'God exists' is a statement made without proof, and cannot ever be proven... but likewise cannot be disproven. Why can we not dismiss it? Because to dismiss something is to state knowledge over something; to assert it is to open it up to possibility. And we must take this stance, because otherwise we devolve into paradox. After all, since both the statements that God exists and God doesn't exists are statements made without proof, then shall we dismiss them both. But what are we left then with? A paradox, wherein we cannot say if God exists or not. The only way such a statement can be made is a faith based (without either apriori or empirical) knowledge.

Why can this not be dismissed, saying 'even as you do not have proof for saying it is so, I needn't have proof for saying it is not'? Simply because asserting something does not require full knowledge, whereas dismissing does. All that one CAN do is raise a contrary assertion, which is something altogether different than having dismissed it. So Atheism is not the dismissing of Theism, but instead a contrary faith claim. When you seek to dismiss without knowledge, all that you do is raise a contrary assertion also without knowledge, but you cannot dismiss without being illogical. For that, the quote exemplified nicely for me why, at this moment, we must keep both claims open, and hold them as faith claims. 

Now, should there be some ground rules in the replies?

I. I ask that those who are religious refrain from making faith-based claims to a great extent. Let us attempt to keep this philisophical, save when it is important for the nature of an example to do so. Conversely, those who are contrary to religion, not to make generalizations regarding the nature and effect of relgion, and if they do so must show fully their cause for saying so. In essence, it would be nice if the religious don't quote the Bible (which, as Descartes would say, it all very good and nice for those who believe, but appears quite reasonably circular and irrelavent to those who do not); and those who aren't religious refrain from saying 'religion is illogical' and 'religion is evil' and the like without giving a reasonable explanation for doing so.

II. Keep the quoting from outside the topic to a minimum, please (in other words, no linking to articles, and scant quoting them); if you find or know of something pertinent, summarise and paraphrase. Saying something well to someone of an opposite belief is more authoratitive than citing directly your favourite author on the matter. You can say 'Kant says this', and perhaps a tiny quote, but don't let them do your speaking for you. If you DO quote, do so only to elaborate on it. Quote, then say your words about why you either agree or disagree with what is there. Do not take it simply as authoritative.

III. Keep your heads. No ad hominem, if you can help it. Respect each other. You might think their view is utterly idiotic, and it may well be, but they might have some good reasons for believing it. If you want to make an impact, cut down their argument (if it truly is as flawed as it seems, it should be easy), not the person. Of course this is impossible to entirely follow (especially for myself, as I tend to get hot-headed), but just try.

[FaustWolf]

After taking a philosophy class that discussed Simone de Beauvoire, I've found a new respect for atheism (*note: I'm speaking from the [relatively] religious end of the spectrum). All I'm really concerned about is that whatever belief system someone subscribes to, that belief system fosters ethical behavior. (But hell if I know what "ethical" is, since that's relative, at least in some cases -- people can reject or justify abortion, for example, and arguments on either side appeal to basic ethical principles)

Anyway, Simone de Beauvoire wrote that, since the ethical atheist believes that no God exists, then the ethical atheist must be on his or her best behavior because there's no God to forgive him or her. It might seem like a copout explanation (if there's no God to forgive sin, then there's no God to define sin), but if "sin" can be defined objectively, then it could work (Beauvoire got around the definition issue by adopting the promotion of freedom as the rubric by which to judge good versus evil behavior).

Wow, that was a lot of parentheses. Anyway, Beauvoire did a great job of explaining how atheism can lead to greater ethical outcomes than religiosity in many cases. Therefore, I welcome atheism just as much as any other belief system. Heck, only the agnostics are objectively right (and I don't even think agnostics believe in objective truth, do they?  )

As for why I'm personally religious, I take a bizarre Occam's razor approach: it's so much easier to explain the origins of the universe if an unknowable Being gave birth to it. IMO the best purely scientific theory is that the universe contracts and expands infinitely, with a Big Bang marking the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, but it must have some origin. I never became religious from going to church -- I became religious as a result of a chicken-and-egg debate in elementary school. Yes, it's a copout to make things philosophically easy, but it works for me, and the principles Jesus of Nazareth outlined provide an extroardinarily valuable ethical guide. That's not to say any religion inevitably leads to good -- the Spanish conquistadores pillaged, raped, and burned all in Jesus' name, after all.

[Daniel Krispin]

Excellent. I would have supposed that to be the next logical development of this. The question of ethics. I'll let a few other people voice their opinion before I weigh in.

[Kebrel]

Let see If I can hold myself up in this discussion.

Your view, Krispin, is based greatly upon the idea that man can not learn or understand certain thing. In this scenario the existents of a being as powerful(I think thats the right word) as a god. This steams from the thinking that human perception is flawed? or just limited? I think that also is a point to touch on.

Please pardon me if I stop here, I wish to think about how to do this.

[MsBlack]

Damn you, Krispin! You make such a provocative post on my last sweep before retiring.

~

Religion is illogical. As I understand it, a key part of religion, by definition no less, is faith. 'Faith' is an unproven belief in something that is held without empirical evidence to support it. Hence, religion is illogical because it assumes without proof.

If this weren't enough, many religions are even internally contradictory. Perhpas the most notorious contradictory religion is Christianity. The Bible contains many contradictions and yet is taken as the most reputable source of Christian belief. However, this is not inherent in all religions, so I digress.

Now, whether religion is "evil" is a lot harder to state. The root of this is in the definition and/or interpretation of the word evil. As an indirect result of religion, people have died and continue to die. By the time I finish this message, it would not surprised me if a thousand had died in the name of religion. However, contention could arise over whether this could be blamed on religion itself: religions is not a tangible entity. It does not take control of a person's brain, make them lift a gun to somebody else's head and pull the trigger. It is hence not the proximite cause.

However, what is certain is that at least some of these deaths could have been avoided without religion. Generic person of religion A kills another person of religion B because they follow a different religion. Religion is certainly a cause, but whether or not it can be held culpable for killing a person are much harder viewpoints to defend.

But this is not the only way in which religion could be labelled evil. Religion survives only because of its convenience and/or what it promises to those who 'practice' it. Regardless of the nobility of these people's aims and actions, it is a vehicle of subtle egoism.

People throughout the world embrace parts of religion to fit in, to seem more respectable, e.g. to potential employers, to curry favour and for other reasons. However these same people often utterly ignore the parts of the religion inconvenient to them. Superficial morons wear crosses and work Sundays and don't go to church. A bunch of Muslims attacks thousands of people with a freaking aeroplane, utterly disregarding Islam's teachings of peace and love.

Now, some readers will know that there is no such thing as a truly altruistic human act. And I'd agree. All our actions are to satisfy ourselves. We are all inherently selfish. A business man gives a hobo $50 to feel good about himself, a man buys flowers to court his love interest in order to manipulate her closer to him. All these arguably Machiavelian manipulations and selfish actions are carried out to further our own agenda or fulfill a mere want. Yet they are (in a sense) everyday acts of 'kindness' that are accepted and even praised.

"But if these acts of egoism are alright, why aren't religiously-motivated ones?" you ask? Well, they're not necessarily a bad thing. I would like to make a point of this. Religion does in some way or another cause acts of kindness. However, when these acts of kindness are motivated by delusion, one may start to become concerned.

Personally, I prefer acts of kindness towards me to be the result of biological urges that result in an immediate tangible gain for both parties than to be the result of a fear-driven obligation that will not necessarily leave the other party entirely satisfied. What do I mean by entirely satisfied?

Well, if someone carries out an act to feel good or to manipulate a person, they do not necessarily need to carry out another and will usually soon receive the satisfaction from their action. However, a person carrying out such an action with the ultimate aim of salvation (unless it's their last kind act before death) will inevitably need to carry out another act to fulfill their perceived quota to achieve it. This means the act would in fact not soon (again, unless the performer of the action happened to be close to death) achieve its ultimate goal of salvation.

It could be compared to paying a debt. A man might owe $25 000 and pay it back over 25 years. That means he still has to worry about fulfilling his obligation for another 24 years after the first. However, it is true that along with salvation, some primal feeling of satisfaction is to be enjoyed by the religious performer of the act. But wouldn't it just be a lot simpler and, one could argue, honest to just remove the feeling of debt or needing to reach a target? One could achieve this by simply not following a religion.

On top of death and deluded selfishness we come back to the motives of seeming superior by appearing to follow a religion and the other similar reasons. Submitting to such ideas leads to discrimination based on irrational beliefs. This is clearly not a good thing. Imagine two people apply for a job. One is Muslim and is the better qualified but botht he potential employer and the Muslim's competition are Christian. The Christian gets the job by virtue of the fact they are Christian. This, I'm sure you agree, is not desirable, and probably the only way to utterly stop such religious discrimination is to attack the problem at its root: religion itself.

This brings me to my next point. Religion protects itself from logical criticism by being illogical. When every last argument of the religious type has been broken down and they are proverbially cornered, they produce their last resort, their trump card, their deus ex machina: faith. And while someone remains bullheaded, stubborn, unmovable in their faith, they cannot progress. Faith transcends logic only because it is inherently illogical. The two are mutually incompatible. Perhaps a pertinent analogy would be trying to teach a foetus calculus. It simply cannot be done. This willful ignorance of evidence  on principle is not unlike a child covering their ears when they have 'lost' an argument because they do not want to face up to the truth.

Perhaps the most disturbing and quantifiably evil property of religion is its oppressive propagation. It is passed from parent to child without question from either party. Some parents do it merely to manipulate the child. People resort to religion to justify their horrific actions. Whole countries' highly objectionable practices are caused by religion. And yet for the most part it does this without rebuke. It is brainwashing that makes any science fiction tale pale in comparison.

Religion causes death, delusion, hatred, discrimination and a general lowering-of-the-bar with regard to logic. It is frighteningly insidious, almost to the point of seeming a sentient parasite passed from parent to child, potentially ad infinitum. And it does it all while appearing to be above reproach. This is why I think religion is evil, even if not wholly evil by how I understand evil. Although it does not directly cause all these things nor necessarily force them, it has caused them indirectly and without remorse. With an almost sentient  That -- by my understanding at least -- is evil.

~

Well that turned into what probably seems like a simple anti-religion rant, but I agree atheism is also unprovable, although not necessarily equally unlikely.

~

EDIT:
Faustwolf, I'm sorry, but that's a hideous approach. You seem to be admitting you simply take the easy way regardless of whether or not it is correct, which I simply cannot believe. If you were blissfully ignorant of evidence or the argument against, it would be at least understandable, but to remain willfully incorrect for the sake of alleged convenience is just... wrong and I can't understand it.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Though many people call themselves atheists, in reality they only reject the big monotheistic religions, and many reject it on the notion that many of the events detailed in the Bible, or the Quran, are so absurd it could not of happened. Of course, this realm of logic is about as irrational as the Christians and Muslims who look at the concept of no God and judge it by the restraints of their own religion. They fail to realise that if the God of the Books did exist (I am using Christianity/Islam/Judaism because that is where my knowledge lies, though I am hoping to learn more about Buddhism and Hinduism in the years to come), then He (I am using the pronoun He to refer to God, even though I do no believe that God has a gender) must be absurd to even exist. You can not comprehend God without going insane. Something that lives (and then you think, does He even "live"?) beyond the constraints of time and space, of sustenance and imposed morality. You can not even imagine how he could exist before the Universe, what this pre-Universe would of looked like or felt like, and it could of existed. If this God did exist, then surely it would not be too much to ask for it to be able to meddle in the basic physics of this Universe. How can the birth of Jesus from a virgin mother be so absurd when God himself fashioned the Universe from nothing, and created Adam from dust?

Next lies the evil of Organized Religion. Though I can not refute the evils that have occurred under the name of God, how can we trust that the same won't happen under atheism? Atheism could only work when everyone is Atheist, and every nation is ruled under the same laws and governments. This is not so much different from what every other religion believes. If everyone is the same, then there would be no fighting. But of course, this is impossible to achieve (without, say, divine intervention). If there was a single ruler of the Earth, and he or she decided what the people of the Earth should believe, would there be any chaos? No. What about if the ruler decided that the pleasure of the flesh is an evil sensation, and ruled to ban it? What if the ruler decided that religion and faith in a supernatural being were evil, and ruled to ban it? Nothing would happen, until someone decided to rise up, challenge the law, and cause chaos. Christianity may of caused many evils, but what about the September Massacres during the French Revolution, where thousands of the clergy were slaughtered in an attempt to destroy Christianity? So what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to have two or more beliefs existing without some sort of unwritten treaty, signed in fear. And let me tell you, though you may think that atheists do not care about religion unless they meddle with the state, you are wrong. What you are thinking about is secularism. Atheism does wish to destroy religion, just like religions wish to destroy every other faith.

On ethics, and we'll use the Islamic god in this example. He says violence is acceptable under certain conditions. Now, you may say this is wrong, and evil, and that violence is never acceptable. Fair enough. However, this can only be said if the God doesn't exist, and that can not be proven. What if you die, and you wake up, and you're standing in front of this God. You can not say that your law is evil. How can you? This God created you so you would follow his rules. So how can his rules be evil if God created good and evil, and anything else is a skewed, misinterpreted or misinformed take on morality. If your very purpose on the Earth is to follow these guidelines of good and evil. If the trees and the animals and the stars and the planets were created with these divine laws. If God had it so that in the beginning, murder was acceptable, rape was customary and theft was how the economy was meant to run, then so it shall be. Our society would of evolved with these notions in mind. (Reminder: this is all being played out as if the God described in the Bible, Quran and Torah do exist). The only way to even attempt to disprove this is by setting up a social experiment where you put a bunch of people with everything except basic survival skills, and maybe language (although language experts would orgasm if they are able to find out how and how long it took for language to develop), forgotten on a desert island and see how the evolve without religion, and if religion is developed. But of course, basic morality would stop this. And it would be impossible.

What did this long and practically nonsensical rant try to achieve? Well, what I am basically saying is that until God is without a doubt, proved or disproved, the question of ethics is up in the air. If God does exist, and which exists is proved, than ethics is basically a matter of looking up what is right and what is wrong. If God doesn't exist, then it is up to the people to decide, through years and years of discussion, debate and "deal with it", what is right and what is wrong. Well, that is only if everyone wants to have a universal declaration on ethics. If you are like Sade, or an existentialist, then it is basically what makes you happy even if it as the cause of the happiness of others. If you are altruistic, then it is what makes other people happy. But who knows what the world will be like after the death of God. Religion can be a beacon of hope in a godless society like the Soviet Union, or it can be a crusher of hope for minorities in theocracies. And who knows, maybe religion would develop again in the world, when scientists can not explain why the Universe must end, why the Universe must start, and why we must die.

But in the end, for me, it boils down to this: am I willing to risk an eternity after death for a single question born out of curiosity?

EDIT: Damn you MsBlack! Now I'll have to look over your post and reply sometime later.

EDIT2: Ok, maybe now. A short one though. First off, although your reasoning behind kindness is depressing, it is one I follow to some extent. Religion is definitely followed in self-interest, but in my previous logic as to why God's ethics are inherently good if he exists, the same goes for his laws. If we must be kind for fear that we will be punished, then we must of been created so that if we don't follow a combination of laws and ethics, then we won't be kind.

Also, your criticism of religion, that it is illogical because it calls itself illogical, is illogical in itself. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it illogical. Thousands of years ago, it may of been illogical to say the Earth was round. And for sure, it would of been. We had not yet discovered gravity. Yet, it obviously exists. It may be fair to call Flat Earth believers illogical now because Round Earth has been proven, yet you can not call religion - nay, God - illogical just because it is outside your realm of understanding.

EDIT3: Hm, I think I misunderstood your talk about faith being illogical, and in part, now I agree. Yes, when you look at your religion and you say "I believe because I believe", yes, that may be illogical. However, what else can you say when you are arguing against an equally bullheaded and stubborn foe? Someone who has put their faith in other matters, such as their faith in science, the word of men, the structure of experimentation. A black hole defies all physics, and yet scientists back it up by making more theories, and more laws. Quantum mechanics was born out of metaphysical bullshit, and yet it is becoming more and more accepted, even though it proves theories with more theories, and so on. Do not think I am some sort of religious nut who hates science, I don't. I believe in science. However, faith in science is having faith in the unpredictable universe, faith in this region of space, faith in the word of scientists who can make bold statements, which will keep on coming as we evolve into more scientific beings furthering our understanding of the universe, by making statements which make us look like the masters of the universe, creating laws to represent every region of space. What I'm trying to say in the end is:

Faith in science is still faith.

[MsBlack]

Just because the creator of all, my creator (assuming this were the case) stated something was right and something was wrong, it would not necessarily be true. If God endorses murder, rape and theft, he can... go to hell. It still doesn't make those things right.

[Kebrel]

Just because the creator of all, my creator (assuming this were the case) stated something was right and something was wrong, it would not necessarily be true. If God endorses murder, rape and theft, he can... go to hell. It still doesn't make those things right.

Humanity does have a habit of not doing what we're told.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Just because the creator of all, my creator (assuming this were the case) stated something was right and something was wrong, it would not necessarily be true. If God endorses murder, rape and theft, he can... go to hell. It still doesn't make those things right.

Says who? Though your intentions may be honourable, what you would be doing is technically evil, because you are defying the basic reason you were created. And as I said, if these ethics were handed down upon humans at the beginning of time, you would be thinking differently right now.

[MsBlack]

Says me. If it were technically evil then I'd revel in being technically evil. For the current situation in our universe, morality is fixed. Some things are fundementally wrong, and being an old person on a power trip doesn't change that. As you've acknowledged, they weren't, so whether that's true or not doesn't refute my argument.

If you were to have a child, would you be able to dictate morality to it? No. Morality does not require a God or humans or this universe to exist. It is a concept any sentient mind can appreciate. It is this kind of mentality that lets parents think they can abuse their children because they "live under their roof" and they "created them".

EDIT for your edits: If the round world believers had not had empirical evidence to back up their statement, it would have been illogical. It's not whether or not one's arbritrary belief that I'm necessarily calling illogical, because they're feasible. What I am saying is that believing in such things without empirical evidence is illogical, just as it would be illogical to say without empirical evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent teapot.

Perhpas by definition, faith in science is only faith in a different sense of the term. Faith in science is faith in what is most likely, what has been demonstrated through rigorous testing and practical applications, what can be observed, described and recorded. The faith I talk of is belief based on no valid evidence. It is indeed pretty much "I believe because I believe," whereas the scientific faith is "I believe because of sound evidence."

[ZeaLitY]

Religion is against reason and inhibits the progress of humanity.

Reason is why humanity awoke on the plains of Africa and came to dominate the world. We developed tools, agriculture, and civilization all by observing that this plow in that ground produces these sustaining plants. Reason is why we decided that living in a cohesive system of cities was better than starving alone. Reason is why we, borne from the most basic atoms of this universe, have come to a position to understand it by adding to human knowledge with an open mind. Reason is not the sole enabler or beauty of humanity; there is passion, emotion, love, and other virtues and vices. But reason and understanding is why we can throw a rock over a cliff and expect it to fall to the ground rather than take flight, and that is how we've eked out with blood, effort, and mistakes over thousands of years an establishment on this earth.

Religion, and the concept of faith, are inherently against reason. Water is blue and fluid; rock is hard and rigid; fire consumes fuel. Human understanding started with basic concepts like these and moved forward. And thousands of years ago, when a native clothed in a simple skin stood on a cliff and quivered with fear when thunder split open the sky, he surmised that a great power occupied that space. Further on, perhaps a need for justice, order, and cause for phenomena such as this formed the idea that a sentient being, like us, occupied that space. This belief evolved into a deity or pantheon of gods explaining why the sun rose and fell, or why family could suffer untimely deaths. As humanity spread and populated the earth, these belief systems differed and became unique. This is reasonable.

We have grown beyond the need for religion, or God. In its place is an expansive, wild universe in which anything is possible; whose very nature continues to fascinate and provoke inquisitive minds to learn more about it. Ancient reason spoke of flat earths (judging from a flat horizon), and modern reason and exploration revised this definition. Four elements of the Greeks became over a hundred. Thunder and lightning went from something to inspire fear to weather phenomena to be respected and beheld with understanding.

But religion escapes this enlightenment, because faith perpetuates its own correctness and itself. Faith demands that the very Promethean fire of open minded reason be quenched to believe in things that defy reason. Faith responds to ever-growing evidence of its falsehood and inadequacies by exempting itself from human scrutiny. And when something as fundamentally illogical like faith pervades humankind, disaster strikes. People are persecuted; groups are formed; wars are started; life is interrupted. But worse of all, faith completely subdues that original human spirit by ordering it to lay prostrate in worship before a god which does not exist. It is the height of folly, and it is dangerous.

We know it caused skin to be ripped from flesh in the Middle Ages and condemned millions to their deaths in other conflicted periods, but let's examine what faith does today. Faith precipitates hatred towards other people. Faith denies alternative biological dispositions for sexuality so that it can persecute those who have it. Faith motivates irrational actions based on the promise of ethereal reward with no scientific basis. Faith squelches basic sexuality and knowledge to reinforce doctrine borne in eras of prearranged marriages. Faith maintains mutilation of newborn children, male and female, based on erroneous concepts of cleanliness. Faith polarizes, divides, and conflagrates humanity based on differences over fantasy.

Faith's time on this earth is obviously limited; now that its proponents understand this, faith's ultimate, natural sin against humanity is entrenched in open warfare with society. Faith no longer asks its own members to suspend belief in human intelligence, but now vies for the power to force this belief on others. Faith is ingrained in political systems; the current American administration has helped it to become further ingrained. Taxpayer money is given to religious schools. Religious monuments decorate federal buildings. Appeals to God are engraved upon our currency. And the entire assault has the odious effect of arguing that humanity is inadequate. Humanity cannot stand on its own two feet; its reason is ill-equipped to define God, its civilizations are doomed to fail, and its very world is going to be consumed in fire. So it is written in major religions; so it is forced upon indoctrinated children and held as truth by adults.

Religion is anti-human. It is poison to the human mind, and adverse to human advancement. Faith cannot be reasoned with, for believers openly defy reason. The evolution and evidence of belief systems in human history is irrelevant to each faith; each faith holds itself to be correct. Inaccuracies and motive-based declarations of inequality are irrelevant to faiths; they ignore internal disagreement and continue to hold prejudice. The validity of other human beliefs and lives are irrelevant to faiths; they believe that other faiths are largely condemned to hell with the rest of the world. But faith is as evil now as it ever was before because it is on the offensive. Faith demands that reason die in public schools and forums; faith demands that its believers die and kill others because of their infidelity; faith demands that some humans are inferior to others and must be subservient; faith demands that human sexuality is inherently wrong despite being natural to human biology; faith demands that biology be rendered fiction in total.

If reason, passion, and enterprise mark the upward spiral of humankind, faith marks the lion's share of its greatest atrocities. The pervasive evil of religion now threatens to vigorously impede human progress, as it is finally feeling the threat of its demise. The evidence transcends speculative philosophy concocted by those still assuming they lived in a clockwork world; it lies unabashedly apparent in our human makeup, the behavior of our world, and the fixture of earth in the universe. But this doesn't matter to faith: God is exempt, and will return to eviscerate and torture every human whoever dared to look upon the stars and feel their beauty without acknowledging one out of several hundred proposed phantasmagorical creators dating from the earliest days of humankind. For some believers, God is taking too long, and faith must now openly oppress and hate those outside its flock on its own schedule and terms, in violation of the very "peaceful" beliefs they allege to hold. The casualty toll of "deviants", "infidels", "nonbelievers", and even women will rise until God is dead.

God help us in a world of religion.

[Burning Zeppelin]

@MsBlack: What are you talking about? A parent does dictate morality to a child capable of comprehending it. When you hurt an insect out of curiousity, your parents tell you not to do it because it is wrong. When you want all the lollies to yourself, your parents tell you to share it because it's the right thing to do, or your parents tell you you're doing the right thing. Before that, all you are doing is putting 2 and 2 together. The concept of right or wrong does not enter your mind until it is dictated to you.

Before the child can understand morality, all the child is doing is surviving. Every cry, every laugh, every smile is for its own survival. That has nothing to do with morality - it's fucking instinct.

And I didn't quite understant what you meant in the first paragraphy. Are you trying to say that there is a fixed morality in our universe, even with the absence of a God? And what do you mean by "being an old person on a power trip?"

EDIT: Tell me, what is the empirical evidence you have to disprove God and to back up your statements? All I can hear is rhetoric and prose.

@Zeality: Your Utopia is based not on a world where religion has disappeared, but where the basic element of faith is destroyed, trodden upon and extinguished. The destruction of faith means the destruction of God, of science, of love and of society. Faith in absolutely anything can destroy, not just in God. The only way to destroy religion is by destroying any means of it occuring ever again, by destroying every book which has ever mentioned it, by destroying every memory which has ever contained it, and by destroying wonder, imagination and intelligence which can ever comprehend it. I must have complete and unabashed faith in the lack of God to be uninfluenced by the teachings, but even that is a dangerous thing. Such a faith which is obviously developing can threaten people, just like religion did. The only safe system is one of apathy, where people care not only whether God exists, but whether anything is even important! But is such an existence wanted? One that would develop into ignorance and coldness?

If religion was not born with human beings, then it is inevitable that it will be born again. How can it be destroyed when the very nature of humans beings is to wonder? Just like the first human to think of God may of defied reason, the first human to deny that God defied reason. There are two motives evident in your post, one, that God can not exist, and two, that God should not exist. Who are you to suggest that God can not exist? To suggest that, you yourself must be above human understand and human ability, and you yourself could then be considered a God. To even try to disprove this universes God, you must yourself create a Universe, without any influence from this one, and from any other external influence, but in doing so you yourself proved God, that a God could exist. Also, you claim that God should not exist, as religion is the only cause of hate. That is not true. To destroy hate, you must destroy every cause of it. You must destroy every nation, destroy every government, destroy every artwork, destroy every book, destroy every man, destroy every woman, and you must destroy every particle of reason and emotion. How often have humans stood up and declared their idea to be the greatest, one that would liberate every human and create a world of prosperity, only to see it crumble, or to hand it over to successors who would see to it that it would be destroyed.

[ZeaLitY]

As a postscript, before anyone accuses me of the contrary, I am a Romantic. I find joy in John Keats and nature, not in the cold works of the Enlightenment and scientific labs. A wild, unexplored universe beckoning to a humanity which stares beyond the sky in wild amazement and desire is one of the most romantic images ever conceived.

[MsBlack]

What I meant was that just because a parent dictates certain principles to a child, they are not automatically correct. A parent could tell little Timmy that he would be right to murder his sister because they'd created them both, but it would not necessarily be so.

By "old person ona  power trip" I was referring to 'God', although yes, some religions are polytheistic. My point was being the creator of a territory and some people shouldn't make them your slaves.

By "fixed morality", I meant the ethics that apply to the universe as it is, not as how it could be.

We may not understand black holes or quarks or turbulence yet, but that's not to say we won't one day. Science doesn't claim to be complete, nor does it complain to necessarily be undoubtedly correct. But it's the best we've got and it is inherently the most logical course. Unlike religion, it does not make up answers to fill voids without evidence to back it up.

[Daniel Krispin]

Thank you ZeaLitY. I'll offer you a reply at some point (though I probably have other replies I should get to for you first.) Naturally I disagree, but I can respect your opinion (though I must ask... how does religion trample down reason, when reason was born in the universities of the churches? And was not Pythagoras a mystic? I mean, ZeaLitY, to some extent, look at me: I am probably the most dogmatic person in regards to religion you could find, and do you find my reason inhibited?) Actually, I'm rather a Kantian, you see. That was the foundation for what I said. Wonderful stuff, and I doubt I'll find a better.

What philosophical school are you more inclined to? Actually, I don't really know much about him, but you sound rather Nietzschien. We're reading a book by him next semester. Should be interesting.