Fun Fact: Currently the top 1% of this country controls more wealth than the bottom 95% combined. Think the top 1% also paid most of the taxes too? It’s true, but not as a percentage of their income. Warren Buffet said it was shameful that he paid a mere 17% on his income, while his secretary who made $60,000 per year was taxed at 30%.
A spectacular fan film based on the Lord of the Rings. Takes place during the beginning of the first film when Gandalf sends Aragorn to look for Gollum, and try to protect the whereabouts of the ring.
I spent the last few days scouring the internet for questions religous people have for atheists. I put together the most intelligent of these questions (or as intelligent as possible), and answered them here. Hopefully this will help some other atheists to respond logically to these types of questions. Feel free to ask more questions in the comments section…I’ll add any good ones to the list. Enjoy!
Do you believe in God?
No, I’m an atheist.
So you think you know for certain that there is no God?
No, I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t personally believe in a god since there is no evidence for one, but I do acknowledge that it’s impossible to know for sure, just like it’s impossible to know if we’re all just dreaming right now.
Do you believe in evolution?
Unfortunately, as a scientific theory, ‘belief’ in evolution is irrelevant. The evidence for it exists regardless of my ‘belief’. I guess the best way to answer would be: Yes, considering the overwhelming evidence, consensus among scientists, and logical reasoning behind the theory, I would draw the conclusion that evolution exists.
So you think man evolved from apes?
That question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. Evolution doesn’t say that we evolved from apes; it says that we evolved from common ancestors. That’s why we have nearly identical DNA…at some point along the evolutionary line, natural selection separated our evolution from that of apes. So to answer your question, no, I don’t think man evolved from apes, and neither does evolution.
Isn’t it possible that God created everything? Couldn’t he have also planted the evidence of evolution?
Anything is possible. It’s also possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and the decline in pirates has caused global warming. We could speculate until the end of time. I’d rather spend my time creating hypothesis and generating conclusions based on things I can actually observe and test. Random, uninformed speculation is a waste of time for me.
Cars didn’t evolve, airplanes didn’t evolve, they were created. Wouldn’t humans, who are just as complex, also need a maker? We don’t see nature evolving new cars?
I’m hoping you see the difference between the cells that make up all life, and the molecules of a piece of metal. You are trying to compare life with non-life. It’s not even apples and oranges, it’s apples and rocks. Obviously there is a distinction, and quite frankly, the question is nonsense.
What if you’re wrong and there is a God?
I wouldn’t technically be ‘wrong’ since I claim it’s impossible to know for sure. I prefer not to live my life based on the premise that I should be a good person simply out of fear of punishment. I try to be a good person because I feel it’s the right thing to do, and helps us progress as a civilization. What does it say about people who are good simply out of fear of reprisals?
How do you know what ‘good’ is without God or his teachings?
I’m pretty sure mankind would have figured out not to kill other people or take someone else’s stuff without religion. People have come up with a lot of laws that we consider fundamental rights that aren’t laid out anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the Bible tells is it’s appropriate to enact punishments that most people would consider horrendous today. Smart people came up with these laws, not God.
If there is no God, what is your explanation for the existence of the universe?
My explanation is: I don’t know and neither do you. I don’t hold the existence of God as a plausible theory, because there isn’t any evidence for it. Similarly, I don’t consider ‘an elephant is sitting on my car’ to be a valid hypothesis until I have evidence for that either. Personally, my only hypothesis towards God is that he was likely made up by a superstitious culture as an explanation for their existence. Human history is full of examples where deities were used to fill in the gaps of missing knowledge. Early cultures used to think stars were gods until astronomers figured out what those were.
So what’s the point of living?
For myself, trying to figure that out is the point of living. Learning all I can, exploring my humanity, exploring the world, and experiencing everything life has to offer, is the reason I go on day-to-day. The saying ‘life is what you make of it’ rings true for both the atheist and the theist.
By being an atheist, aren’t you still having faith in science?
Again, this question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Unlike religion, science can’t be ‘wrong’ because it never establishes absolute truths. You can sometimes draw incorrect conclusions from science, but science, as a process, can’t be ‘wrong’. Science is simply a way to make an educated guess based on observation, test that guess, and then formulate a conclusion or theory based on the results. I don’t see where in the process a person can have ‘faith’, since the process isn’t making any assumptions. Alternatively, there are many ways in which religion can be, and has been, wrong. As Bill Maher said, faith is making a virtue out of not thinking.
Isn’t the existence of Earth and the complexity of the universe proof of the existence of God?
No, it isn’t. Not even close. What you have there is a ‘false cause’ fallacy of logic. Not having an explanation for the existence of the universe does not establish or provide evidence for the existence of God. It simply means we don’t know. Again, inserting ‘God’ as the answer for unknown regions of existence is the same thing our prehistoric ancestors did when they looked at the stars. It’s primitive and not good critical thinking.
Why do you criticize the religious? Why can’t people just believe anything they want?
On the surface, I agree with you, people should be free to believe whatever nonsense they want, no matter how ridiculous it is. My problem is that mankind has reached a point in history and technology where we literally have the power to wipe the planet of life. I don’t want someone irrational in control of this power. George Bush said he sent troops into Iraq because he believes that God wants everyone to be free. What if, in his mind, God wanted the United States to be in charge of the world? My point is, you can’t rationalize with people who believe they have a divine mandate to justify their actions.
Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?
No, my unbelief in God is due to the lack of evidence for his existence. Alternatively, is your belief in God actually an unwillingness to accept your role as an insignificant spec in the universe? I’m trying to point out that rhetorical questions aren’t advancing this dialog.
Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
I’ve never had a bad experience with a church, and I’m pretty vigilant in my research. I’m not sure which ‘facts’ I could be misunderstanding, as my idea of existence doesn’t hinge on a particular set of facts, but a culmination of my understanding and experience of human history. This includes everything from religion, philosophy, geology, math, physics, astronomy, etc. I consider it highly unlikely that I’ve based my entire interpretation of these subjects on a simple misunderstanding.
Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of “evolution” amount to anything more than just another faith system?
Although the beginnings of life aren’t observable, evolution certainly is. Scientists have literally observed bacteria adapt to its environment in laboratories. Even the beginnings of life may one day be testable in laboratories.
How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?
Give me an example and I’ll do some research to provide plausible medical explanations for what they’ve experienced. For instance, the ‘white light’ many people see when near death has been explained by a lack of oxygen to the occipital lobe of the brain. We don’t know a lot about the brain, but we do know it goes haywire when deprived of oxygen. I’m guessing these experiences are manifested by a dieing brain trying to stay alive.
How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?
The problem is some people have varying definitions of the term ‘miracle’. Many religious people consider paredolia to be ‘miracles’. I have a feeling most miracles, if investigated by the scientific process, can be reasonably explained. I know quite a few people who tend to confuse coincidences with miracles. Applying the term ‘miracle’ to something simply means you don’t understand how it occurred, and many things once thought to be miracles have been explained by science. Eclipses would be a good example of common knowledge that was once thought to be a miracle.
Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?
As I scientist, I base my opinions on observation and testing, so my personal ‘wants’ are irrelevant to my understanding of existence. The only thing I truly ‘want’ to know is the truth. I can come up with all kinds of evidence that I would consider satisfactory evidence for the existence of God. For instance, if God himself appeared to mankind and demonstrated his ability to have absolute control over the universe, and a universal knowledge of everything in it.
I sent this email to my wife the other day, and I thought it was interesting enough to post here:
I did some research on Agnostic vs. Atheism, and learned that the two are apples and oranges:
Agnostic: A person who may or may not believe in God, but understands that it’s impossible to know for sure. (it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not
Atheists: A person who does not hold a belief in God.
So a person who does not believe in God, but acknowledges that it’s impossible to know for sure is an agnostic atheist. Likewise, a person who believes in God, but also understands that it’s impossible to know for sure is an agnostic theist. Basically, agnosticism is not a ‘third rail’ between theism and atheism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief. A person can’t simply be ‘agnostic’ by definition…you either hold a belief in God or you do not, making you either a theist or an atheist.
Back to the Future alternate ending. What would happen if Doc Brown overshot the future by a few years? Watch and see…
Explorer Nation: A Travel Community
Bad Astronomy
John Coulton's Music
Penny Arcade
Wil Wheaton's Blog
xkcd Comics
John Scalzi's Whatever
Propeller: Geeks
