Atheism VS Theism Part 1

This is my first real post. I really don't know how often I will be able to write on here because I've recently been very busy. First off, I should begin by saying that I am an atheist. Most of the blogs that I will write, when I get the chance to write them, will be regarding religion and their claims. I have looked at the atheist/theist debates, researched the arguments made, and have had debates on this topic myself with other people for several years now. I have come to the realization that more often than not these type of debates tend to follow similar lines of argument time after time again. I will break down what these arguments are in the blogs to follow. Bear in mind that much of what I will say in here has already been said before, and much of the refutations I will give for these arguments are best said by people more intelligent and educated than myself. I will often quote author and neuroscientist Sam Harris, as I feel he is one of the most intelligent critics of dogma. Here are some of the arguments made by the religious in support of their belief in god or in attack against atheism: 1) Their religion is the "true" religion 2) Religion in general is useful and so useful that it might be necessary to life 3) Sometimes the religious attack atheism essentially calling it another religion or as being intollerant, dogmatic, irrational, etc. 4) Scientific knowlegde or discovery is taken and used as "proof" or "evidence" for god. 5) And here is my favorite: The question of ethics. How do we know right from wrong if there is no god? These are just a few arguments that always come up in any conversation between a believer and a non believer. There are more which I will eventually point out, but for now I will deal with these. First is the argument that any one of our religions is true. There are several problems with this argument. The first is that they can't all be true, as pointed out by Bertan Russel a hundred years ago. Sam Harris also points this out very well when he shows in his book (and some of his debates) that even if we knew that one of our religions HAD to be true, given the variety of religions and their incompatability "every believer should expect damnation purely as a matter of probability". This seems obvious to me. Secondly, the evidence for all these religions is terrible if non-existant. The fact that people of all kinds of religions are having "religious experiences" I think is evidence that it can't be about the perfection of the Koran or the sanctity of Jesus. Later on I will discuss the claims more closely and show why that is the case. I will also return to many of these arguments and themes in future blogs. The second way of arguing in defense of god is the idea that religion is useful and necessary. It makes people moral, it brings consolation, and meaning. It should be obvious that as a defense of god's existance it is a complete non sequitor. The usefullness of religion has no bearing on the truth of it's claims and it is not an additional reason to believe in a god on any level. Every religion could function as a placebo and be based on completely false foundations. There is no doubt that some of these ideas are consoling to people. The belief that god has a plan for all of us, everything happens for a reason, there is a life after our death, etc etc. are all comforting ideas. (At least to most people). The fact that these ideas are consoling is not an additional reason to believe in any of them in any way. This can easily be understood on just about any subject other than religion. Religion seems to be one of the exceptions that prevents many people from having a fair rational argument about these topics. My stance is that religion should not be treated any differently than any other discourse. People's religious views shouldn't be respected for the sake of respect and should be liable to any criticism. Most people most of the time people don't respect peoples beliefs just for the sake of respect but instead they evaluate their reasons. Yet, once the conversation is shifted to religion you will find apologetic after apologetic rising up in defense of religion claiming that people's religious ideas should be left completely alone and without criticism. The other problem with arguing for the usefullness of religion is that the claim of its usefullness is very problematic as well. The dangers of dogma (which is what I have the biggest problem with; religion just happens to be the most prominant dogmatic source of danger this day and age) are testefied to now on a daily basis. Wether it is by terrorist attacks, hateful homophobic behavior, the attempt to stop scientific progress, or the indoctrination of children, you name it I assure you you will find it present in the world. Here I will quote Sam Harris: "How useful is it that millions of muslims in this world believe in the methaphysics of martydom? How useful is it that the Shia and Sunni in Iraq have such heartfelt religious differences? How useful is it that so many Jewish settlers think that the creator of the universe promised them a patch of desert on the mediterranean? How useful has christianity's anxiety about sex been these last 70 generations?" One of the arguments I have found the most amusing is the idea that atheism is dogmatic, irrational, intollerant, or even another religion. This is an extremely ironic argument, and really the easiest one to dispute. To begin with, atheism is a lack of a belief in god. By definition, it isn't a religion. It is painfully stupid to say otherwise. An atheist is simply someone who has read the books and found the claim of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (the claim that their holy books are so profound and perfect that they could only have been written by a deity) to be redicolous. Nothing needs to be presupposed on insufficient evidence to arrive at this conclusion. A misconception in regards to atheism is that atheist say they "know" without a shadow of a doubt that god does not exist. This is not the case. The argument is a simple one. It's simply that there is no reason whats so ever to actually believe in a god. The possibility of the existance of gods, or the performing of certain miracles it not at all the same thing as a reason to believe in the existance of them. Once again, I quote Sam Harris: "What dogma have we all embraced to not take Zeus, Poiseidon, and Apollo into account on a daily basis? What dogma have we used to reject all of the thousands of the dead gods who now lie buried in that mass grave we call mythology? Would it be dogmatic to doubt that the elliot or the odyssey was written by the creator of the universe? This is not dogmatism. As Carl Sagan said, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. That is all you need for Atheism. If ever there were an antidote for dogmatism, that's it." To call Atheism and science arrogant in its dismissal of religion is probably the most ironic idea of them all. Arrogance is an attribute that is present ceaselly in religious discourse especially in the United States. It is profoundly ironic to hear religious people praising themselves for their humility while making claims about the universe, cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, etc. etc. that no scientist could ever make. Sam Harris in a debate: "Every religion person who takes the genesis account of creation seriously, 50% of americans apparently take it literally, but even just dignifying it as informative is essentially saying to somebody like Stephen Hawking "Stephen you're a smart guy, I see you got a lot of equations over there but essentially you don't know enough about cosmology because it says here god did this in 6 days and then he rested on the 7th and it could be a methaphor but I don't see you really grappling with the nuances here" This would be amusing this kind of covert arrogance if it was not having such a disasterous affect and not impeding the teaching of science in this country." I personally have comfirmations of such arrogance and stupidity on an almost daily basis by people I meet or things that I hear. Just the other day someone said to me (in response to an actually rather polite challenge on their faith) that they don't "believe in science" because they were raised religious. The hipocrisy is really quite astonishing. The computers we use, cars we drive, televisions we watch, are all results of scientific discovery. I had to point this out to them. The fact they use technology, medicine, and walk from one place to another instead of simply praying to be teleported or the fact that they know if they walk off a cliff they wouldn't simply float in the air shows how hipocritical they're really being. Calling Atheism intollerant is also an ironic statement. I have no trouble admitting that there is a kind of "conversational intollerance" at play. I make no apologies for it. This is only in the sense that, at least in my case, I believe people's beliefs should be challenged and not simply respected no matter what. People can still be civil and not attack each other when having these debates. However, I don't have the slightest bit of trouble pointing out when an individual is being intellectually dishonest and I don't feel I should have to worry about their feelings when I call them out on it. On the same token, I don't expect respect for my views just for the sake of respect. Infact, I really could not care less. If they believe me to be intellectually dishonest I would actually hope they would tell me as well. The intollerance issue is something that I find troubling for several other reasons as well. I believe faith based religion to be one of the most divisive, immoral, and dangerous ideology we have ever invented. Wether it's the sickening homophobia against homosexuals, violence done against other human beings because of one's religious beliefs, the notion that an individual will be saved while the rest of the infidels burn in hell, or even the concept of forgiveness of sin, I truly despise all of it and I believe we could well do without. I will leave it at that for now and discuss the last two arguments (as well as others) next time I write on here. Throughout my blogs I will return to some of these topics and themes again as I'm sure I will find other things to add. I leave you with a quote: "I contend that we are both Atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours."