Confusing Believers with Facts

Let me start by saying something which seems to often cause deep offence: SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE. I know this is a very shocking thing to ask anyone to do, especially if the evidence relates to such sensitive matters as the existence of a deity. I mean, frankly, believers often act as though they couldn't be more offended if I asked them to perform some deeply erotic act.

The simply truth is most believers have never seriously considered the question of evidence for God. They were taught about God in early childhood and regard his existence as a self evident truth. They are very shocked when told that there is no more evidence for God than for Santa Claus. Often this simply fact causes them to get very indignant.

"Don't be ridicules!" they tweet at me.

I calmly reply by asking them to provide any available evidence for God.

"Well the evidence is all around you. Everything in the world is evidence for God."

"Like the Ebola virus," I helpfully suggest.

That stumps them. First they have to google the the word "Ebola", just to check. Then they have to explain how God can be responsible for everything but somehow evade responsible for the Ebola virus. Many stop tweeting at that point. They remember all the other important things the need to do rather than tweet. But there are the determined ones.

The determined believers argue sin is the result of the "Fall of Man." They tweet this proud of the clever answer they have come up with and certain they have put me in my place.

Unfortunately, for them, that answer does not end the matter. I point out that if there was an all knowing God he would have known everything that would have in the world BEFORE HE MADE IT. I further point out that any human who intentionally does something, knowing the consequences will be harmful, will be held responsible for it. That is what the word "culpability" means. I It can hardly be reasonable to expect God to have lower standards than humans.

"But evil came about as the result of free will."

"Precisely how can free will create viruses?" I ask. The memory of my schooldays, when I'd wished I could have developed a virus to get me out of Latin class, comes to mind. I wonder if perhaps if I'd only used a bit more free will. Sadly they never come up with the formula that eluded me .In fact, at this point, they frequently seem to lose the train of their argument.

"What about Stalin and Hitler?" they tweet.

As you can imagine I struggle to see the connection between this and my last questiont but I try to be helpful. I point out that Hitler wasn't an Atheist and even provide a link to a very instructive Youtube video featuring Christopher Hitchens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyYwo7X4zck

Do you know there are some believers who just can't get this video to play? Anyway, asking them to view it shows how hateful and closed minded I am. Well they have a point. How can it ever be fair to argue with Christians simply by using facts? After all they've managed to maintain their faith for years and years without ever examining any.

The God of Irresponsibly

In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth Genesis I:I

It does not matter whether believers are creationists or not. Those of the three Abrahamic faiths all agree the world was intentionally created by an all powerful and just God.

This all powerful god would, by definition, be capable of creating any type of world he wanted to. He'd not be restricted by the laws of physics, which he would invent. He could make a tiny or gigantic universe. He didn't have to make humanity his central creation. Remember, being all powerful he could do whatever he wanted, any way he wanted.

When he decided to create humanity he could have made it as gentle as a kitten or like a bunch of hyenas. His choice. It is odd how often believers try to pretend God had no choice but if he was all powerful he had unlimited choice.

If someone drove a car recklessly and caused an accident, in which someone is killed or injured, that driver would be culpable for their behaviour. However, unless the driver deliberately set out to injure someone, they could claim they didn't know the consequences beforehand. God couldn't claim to not know the consequences. He knowingly created a world in full knowledge of every baby that would starve to death. How much more culpable would the driver have been had he or she known with complete certainly that they would kill and injure? How Culpable must the God of Abraham Be?

Christians argue God created free will. In that case, he did so in the full knowledge of all who would suffer as a consequence of free will. He knew everyone who would be killed and injured and abused because of free will. Christians argue that free will was necessary yet never address the question of why a just God would put the rights of wrong doers to have free will over the rights of their victims. How is that Just? In fact I have never heard any believers willingly addressing the harmfulness of their God's decision to create free will.

Assuming free will exists, which is a big assumption, why does it only apply to questions of wrong or right? An all powerful God could have given me the power to simply think I was in Paris and be there. After all, he supposedly set the laws of physics. Yet if you listen to the arguments of believers free will was primarily given to enable wrong doing. The logic of their argument is God intentionally created a humanity which he knew would largely disobey him; simply to see how many would be good. Essentially, he created humans as play things for a twisted game. He did this in the full knowledge of the suffering it would cause to the victims.

As a humanist I take a simple moral position: It is wrong to do something you know will cause harm, unless it is necessary to prevent a greater harm. An all powerful god could have created the world in another way but chose a suffering world. Those who believe in God cannot say that he is not responsible for his actions. If he isn't responsible he's no example to human morality and has no right to judge. Christians are quick to claim humans should take responsibility for their actions. Where is the logic in not saying God should take responsibility for his actions?

Those who argue that human suffering is caused by free will want to ignore that the logic of their own position; that God made a free will choice to create the world. He knew the consequences and yet freely decided to do things in the way he did. He had the power to create a world without suffering but made a conscious decision not to. The God they worship is, in short, callous and irresponsible.

A RECOVERY PROGRAM

This is a proposed recovery program for those afflicted by religion.

1. We admitted that we were no longer powerless over religion and that it had made the world unmanageable.

2. Came to recognize that there are many powers greater than us but mystical beings weren't one of them.

3. Made a decision to use our lives and wills in way that fostered rational benefits for ourselves and all inhabitants of the planet.

4. Made a list of all the good reasons to reject religion.

5. Admitted to ourselves and proclaimed to others the exact nature of the wrongs caused by religion.

6.Sought ways to in which we could help to irradiate these evils, recognizing that no contribution is too small.

7.Proudly declared the importance of rationalism.

8.Made a list of the persons and peoples harmed by religion.

9.Made a direct effort to confront these evils, except were doing so would increase the harms.

10.Continued to survey the damage of religion.

11.Sought ways to consciously improve our understanding of rational and compassionate approaches to life.

12. Having freed ourselves from religion, as a result of these steps, tried to carry this message to those afflicted by religion, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

It is worth pointing out the about half the original members of AA, on which these steps are based, were either agnostic or atheist.

Deck the halls with books by Dawkins

Deck the halls with books by Dawkins,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Tis the season to read Hitchens,
Fa la la lal la, lal a la la.

Don we now our gay apparel,
Fa la la la la, la la la la la.

Yes that really is the line,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Read the letter sent my Harris,
Fa la la la la, la la la la

Sing for Dennett, join the chorus,
Fa la la la la, la la la la

Follow me in merry measure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

While I tell of godless pleasure,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Fast away religion passes,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Hail the godless lads and lasses,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Deck the halls with books by Dawkins,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.

Brief Arguments against God and Religion

These are tweets or adaptions from tweets and are offered as brief arguments for Atheism.

How can the slow torturous death of a first century mystic help anyone, let alone save the world?

If God wants to be my friend why does he encourage so much genocide in the Bible. Sorry I don't want that kind of friend.

If God did exist what would he say to the honest Atheist at the gates of heaven- "You should have lied and pretended to believe."

There's no more evidence for God than Santa Claus. The strange think is that some adults think it makes sense to believe in one and not the other.

If those who use God as the explanation for what is Good, are to be honest, they must also use him to explain what is bad. That outweighs the good.

The genius of Douglas Adams was well illustrated in his Atheism http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/douglas.htm

Atheism is the only honest response to the confusion caused by religions without evidence.

Atheism is the the natural outcome of honestly examining how the World is. The idea of God has neither has no foundation in reality.

Hatred of Atheists is the last refuge of those who have no intelligent justification for their belief system.

If you think God gives you what you pray for, you need to explain why he ignores the cries of starving children and allowed the holocaust.

An Agnostic on the border of Atheism is someone gradually emerging into the light of reason.

If Atheism is a religion so is the non belief in Santa Claus.

The Atheist can't find God for the same reason no one can find the Tooth Fairy. Neither exists.

If God exists why did he give humanity enough free will for genocide but not to solve world hunger?

When someone says they love God, what do they mean? Aren't they just saying that they love their own imagined ideal being.

There is no relationship between belief and reality. Believing something makes it neither true or false.

If God exists and is all powerful and knowing, he intentionally created humans knowing they were more likely to kill than feed the world

To compare religion to Atheism is like comparing a tsunami to a calm sunny afternoon. The absence of terrible weather is not another storm

WHY TEACHING CHILDEREN ABOUT GOD CAN CAUSE HARM

To teach a child to believe in God is to teach them to believe in the irrational. It is to teach them to value attachment to an invisible, unknowable mythical being over reasoning. It teaches that belief is more important than evidence. Not learning to assess the evidence in moral questions can be deeply damaging.

Theistic religions teach that things are wrong simply because God says so. This is very different from saying that something is wrong because it is harmful. which is an intelligent way of assessing the morality of any action.

The "Because God says so" principle of morality is highly arbitrary. "Thou shalt not kill" does not prevent Christians from believing in the death penalty or going to war. Instead of being a set of laws, the commandments become conveniently re-interpreted to meet the political stance of those who preach them. How can that which is supposedly inspired by a divine being be subject to political considerations? Is is not simply a case of religious leaders using religion to booster a political agenda?

Using the claims of the Bible or other holy books oversimplifies often complex questions and in many places continues to provide a justification for the persecution of gay people or others who don't conform to a "revealed" laws. It can and does lead to direct harm towards the powerless in societies, such as women and children.

Theism, therefore hampers proper moral development and sadly in may cases leads to violent behaviour by not teaching children to ask if what they are doing is harmful and take responsibility for it. The point is that a religious approach in in many ways permissive. It give a moral justification for harmful acts. For some it is a moral reason to ignore the deep harm Humanity is doing to the planet, for many, many in history it has justified war.

Intelligent morality is not about imposed laws but about the often difficult questions of assessing the balance between rights and duties, and freedoms and limitations. More than anything it is about seeking to objectively avoid harm. That does not arise from divine decrees or religious laws but through intelligent discourse in a free society. It arises from a recognition that as humans we have a responsibility to each other and the planet.

Following an imagine deity, whose words are open to widely differing interpretation is a dangerous distraction from our needs to address the problems of the world we live in. To feed such a diet to children is deeply harmful to their moral welfare.

DOES THE IDEA OF GOD MAKE SENSE?

There is not a single, solitary, objective piece of evidence for the existence of God. When this argument is put, there are defenders of faith who argue that no truth can be objectively proved. Can't it? I content that is a truth that if you step off a tall building without a parachute or other life saving equipment the impact will be fatal. It you don't like that example try standing in front of a fast moving heavy vehicle. There is no evidence to contradict the claim that unprotected falling from high buildings and stepping in front of fast moving trucks are detrimental to the human body. That is objective evidence and shows that such a thing undeniably exists.

God, on the other hand, is an entirely subjective construct, which has no basis in objective reality. We could, of course play Descartes' little game. Briefly summarized it goes: everything that exists must have been created; everything that is created must have had a creator; everything must have had an original or first cause; that first cause cannot itself have been created; the only thing that could exist without being created is God. God Exists! It is game, set and match to Descartes.But hold on! The match was a set up! It was fixed! Let us all agree on the idea that there was a first cause. It's hard to argue against. Let us now ask what objective evidence there is to help us define the nature of that first cause.

God is usually defined as non physical, pure spirit or supreme intelligence. OK, let's see if this makes any sense. Think hard, think really hard. Can you come up with a single verifiable example of anything which processes consciousness, without having a physical existence? I know we all love ghost stories, but the question is, is there the least thread of evidence for any such consciousness?

Don't we see how consciousness and intelligence develops as the child develops physically? We may disagree on the stages at which consciousness development, but no one has yet produced objective evidence, to show that human intelligence exists outside a physical context. Yet with God we are told infinite intelligence always existed outside of the physical. This contradicts all the objective evidence we know about the existence of intelligence.

But hold on! Somebody must have made the world! Must they?

From my window I can see a number of tall old trees. I have been thinking very hard about this and d I just can't seem to remember seeing anyone sculpture the branches. Now it is true that trees can have their branches trimmed but massive forests can grow with any interference of a living intelligence.

Now I can also see a church; it is a beautiful old building. I have read records of when it was build. Isn't there an attempt, by believers, to treat the trees in the same way as the church? Their logic seems to go: Buildings need to be actively planned. There need to be intelligence for them to be constructed, therefore mustn't living things also need one? They conclude that the Universe needed an architect.

Let us return to Descartes' argument. The first cause we are told was a non physical entity. Yet we have no evidence of consciousness ever existing outside the physical. On the contrary all that has conscious is first physical. The objective evidence supports physical and not non physical explanations for the beginning of existence. Does continuing existence need the interference of an active intelligence? No. As we have seen forests need no external intelligence.

So if the arguments for creation are so weak, why is faith in God so persistent? There are plenty of people who will testify to the value of faith. This is never rational or objective. We get wonderful claims like "God helped me to pass my exam," or "God helped my team win." This is the same God who did nothing to save the millions in Nazi concentration camps, or who year after year allows countless children to die of starvation.

Oh but it is not for us the question the ways of God, with all his divine love. So when good things happen God is praised and the bad things are, either nothing to do with him, or part of a greater plan we mortals can't grasp.

These claims are self contradictory and irrational. God is good because good things happen and a comfort in times of trouble but he is also all power, so could stop bad thing , yet doesn't. What a friend he is!

God is no more than a product of the human imagination. There is not a single shred of objective, verifiable evidence to contradict this.

This imagined deity has been used to justify wars, suppress populations, and confer a status of purity onto those who abused children. This imagined being has been called on by both sides in: Northern Ireland; the long conflict in the middle east; the terrible destruction of 9/11, the Iraq war, the war on terror; the list is endless.

All these conflicts and so many, many more have been driven by these deeply irrational beliefs.

A world free from this deeply destructive irrational idea would be far from perfect. There would still be wars, but at least it would be rid of one great source of harm. We would reduce the reasons for war and there would be fewer conflicts.

It is not so many centuries since a time of witch trials, or when claims of a round earth were treated as heresy. Belief systems do advance. Sadly they often take time to catch up with the evidence. If we are to build a more peaceful world, we need to start being realistic about how destructive a belief in God can be. This will start with individuals honestly assessing the true nature of their beliefs. The idea of God simply does not make sense.