Yes I can say there is no God: An open letter to atheists

I frequently run into atheists who spout the politically correct dictum that we cannot KNOW there is no god; we see no evidence for one, so we believe that no gods exist — but we remain agnostic to the possiblity because we have integrity and are openminded to true evidence, should it arise.

Well, I think that’s just bullsh*t coated with a dressing of the fear of being accused of being an absolutist... (This is by Carol Everhart Roper. It continues here)

Views: 232

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No problem Gliktch, that page helped me lots as well. I listen to podcasts all day at work and was running dry on atheism material like you.

I find I always fast forward through the theist arguments though because they're all the same. I guess it's hard to come up with something new when your philosophy is fossilized.

Here are some less well known atheist podcasts that you may not know of:

No more episodes being made but some great and humorous stuff

A Christian radio show but has good debates. May require lots of fast forwarding at the beginnings. Don't miss the show with The Infidel Guy, he does a real nice job of cornering the Christian.

Big Bang and Creationism
Well thought out and researched arguments.

A Moment in Reason
Good, short skeptical rants
"I find I always fast forward through the theist arguments though because they're all the same." - Graeme

Hey, I hear that... Although, I almost always have my VLC Player running at 1.3x or 1.5x speed, and my iPhone Audiobook speed set to "Faster" (which I think is 2x - the newest iPhone software specifies 0.5x, 1x and 2x), even for excellent non-theist podcasts and shows such as The Atheist Experience, The Non-Prophets, Atheist News and others. Probably contributed to me running out of stuff to listen to! :P But I can be impatient sometimes ;)

Out of the past dozen or so theists I've listened to, the only one who even appeared to ACTUALLY answer any questions was Frank Turek... Btw he and Hitchens both repeated themselves a lot over their two debates; if you only listen to one of the two you won't miss much. Turek of course never addresses some of the core assumptions, irrational premises or fallacious basis for most of his responses (namely, a negative argument from ignorance), but at least he doesn't handwave and waffle to the grotesque extent of some of Hitchens' other wannabe Cases in point: Dinesh D'Souza and Allister McGrath - without irony I say Oh My God, I have never been so close to grabbing my flatscreen, shaking it and yelling "Just answer the question you pooncy bastard!" Truly frustrating viewing.

I used to derive enjoyment (and seemingly entertain others) by destroying theist arguments on YouTube (in comments; I am too much of a perfectionist to upload videos it seems), but a couple of months ago I realized that it's a waste of time to attack scriptural minutae and other aspects of religion on which dozens or hundreds of "christian" sects disagree anyway... Now the only part of the Christian death-cult theology I choose to address directly is the bizarre and disgusting notion of a 'higher power' requiring a bloody human sacrifice in order to have its mind changed about torturing billions of people for eternity. It (the sacrifice part, not the hell part) seems the one theological point upon which all self-proclaimed christians agree. Namely, that it occurred, that it was necessary, and that it was ultimately good - also that the god figure is powerful and benevolent. The inherent contradiction in this position seems the most easily assailable fallacy which all(?) self-proclaimed christians seem to accept.

Scuse my verbosity, I'll shush now :)
Oh right, Hitchens...I will expand my reading in his direction also. I'll check out his debates later...watching Sunday political news now. Need to devote time later to some of the websites mentioned earlier...what a great way to spend a Sunday! I'm such a nerd, I take notes on a legal pad.
The belief in afterlife was present in most cultures and civilizations and perhaps Christianity perpetuated the type of slavery we experienced in the U.S. but we certainly can't point fingers solely at followers of Christ! Slavery appeared in Africa, Asia, South America, and North America. I bet many of the people enslaved already had a belief in the afterlife...which comforted them to think they wouldn't ALWAYS be the lowest member of society...the bottom of social status, mistreated and abused.

And the immorality of slavery was noticed by members of the Christian faith: Quakers, for example, protested the treatment of slaves in both Great Britain and America.

Elites believe in the afterlife too! And they certainly aren't marginalized! They're just greedy about wanting special treatment after life too.
I wouldn't say belief itself is necessarily harmful. However, if you use that belief in regards to making judgements or decisions, especially decisions that affect other people who may disagree with those beliefs, then it becomes harmful.

I would also say it isn't so much the belief that a god exists that is harmful as much as the dogma that usually accompanies it. For instance, a deist that believes there is a god, but doesn't know how or why god created the universe, is relatively unharmful. However, a Christian who not only believes that a God exists, but also believes that God created the world the way it was described in Genesis, is harmful because they are then believing in something in the face of evidence that clearly contradicts their belief. This stifles progress and creates problems in society.
How about if they got the whole "afterlife thing" all backwards and you have to pass a geometry quiz or go to hell? They've been saying all you have to do is love a dead guy a whole lot. That would really be harmful. Besides focusing on your destination means your not watching how you are getting there. You might trip and hurt yourself.

Seriously, believing in something that ultimately isn't even real is both naive and stupid. How is reinforcing a pattern of stupidity and naivete not harmful?
But why does'nt God himself/herself/itself just put his/her/its foot down and claim himself beyond any doubt,then all of us can believe him/her/it.The way organisms have gone out of their way to worship God,if surely he/her/it were there,we would not be arguing by now,he/her/it would have shown up.For as long as the status-quo remains as such,atheism remains the ultimate.
Science is a reliable source of knowledge and information. It is more reliable than religious creed or theology. Maybe science will someday discover a god, but so far, no god has been being that is testable, material, apparent to us, etc. What HAS been discovered is the human ability to have vivid imaginations, to use complex symbols, to enjoy good stories, and to engage in wishful thinking.

Religious belief is wishful thinking. Biblical scripture contains good stories with heroes and villains, joy and suffering, drama and emotion, good and evil...but is mythology evidence of a deity or a human attempt to explain the physical world and stake out a path to take? I would argue that most believers choose the path. It provides security and a type of immunity from material concerns and emotional uncertainty. Other believers don't know another path exists or are too afraid to stray to far from it for fear of painful consequences.

The true believer eases doubts with comfortable rituals and by not asking TOO many questions. True believers don't even try to understand this on a rational is forbidden and beyond human comprehension anyway. The supernatural is immune to is beyond our puny brains and how dare we try! People who don't believe in gods, the afterlife, or supernaturalism are considered both arrogant and doomed to eternal damnation. We think too much, according to the deeply religious folks, and that will somehow be our downfall in their way of thinking.
The point is, of course, to emphasise the 'sceintific enquiry' point of view:
'I can conceive of the possibility of God, but there is no evidence, hence there is probably no God'.
I've always found this pointless - the idea of God is illogical. There is evidence that disproves all current religions. Saying that there is 'probably' no god is to doubt the evidence (not necessarily a bad thing - we should beware of absolute certainty), and is tantamount to saying 'there is no god' anyway ('since there is PROBABLY no god, I'm going to believe that there isn't one'). Like I said, pointless. And misleading, as it suggests doubt where there is none...
Thanks for this one. Puts things in perspective.
"An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
Carl Sagen
Forgive me for having the balls to say that there is no God. I go into it here.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service