The Atheist Blogger

I rather liked this video. It wasn’t unlike my own experience.

I’ve been curious as to why it seems to be mostly Christians that find themselves converting though. I’m worried that it speaks more about christianity being flawed than our own argument being valid.

As such I’ve set up a poll to check this out (which you can find here: —> http://h-m-r.blogspot.com/2008/07/quiz-for-atheists.html

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this notion.

HMR

This video was well done, except for the Bible quotations. They were pulled out of context, and I think pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible is like pointing out politicians who lie. It is self-apparent, pointless and unproductive. I am an atheist who is looking for support and positivity. I am not interested in crying about religion.

The video really made me think about my own upbringing. I never could embrace religion, and as I got older and learned more, I realized that something inside me was telling me that I didn't have to "go along" with what others were telling me was "true". I want proof, not blind faith. When I question a religious person about something they can't explain, it seems the best answer they can come up with is "You must have faith." I have faith that a chair I've sat in a hundred times will continue to hold me up because of my previous experiences sitting in that chair. If it looks like it's about to fall apart, then I don't have much faith that it'll hold me up. That's what faith really is. It just boggles my mind that people won't take time to examine certain stories in the Bible to see how ridiculous they are, i.e. Noah's Ark. How crazy is that one? I have a strong moral character, empathy for others, a deep love of nature, love of my fellow man….I don't need a god to keep me in line. I do that very well on my own. And I don't kill in the name of atheism.

I have posted a follow up video to this one – it seems that a year of debating theists has not persuaded me that I have made the wrong decision.

It might be self apparent to some. For others who donn't read the bible critically it can be enlightening to have ths inforamation pointed out.

I have posted a follow up video to this one – it seems that a year of debating theists has not persuaded me that I have made the wrong decision.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8szHU_1Io

Wow, the final couple of statements sort of put it all into perspective. "There is no proof". "You don't know why we got here". Fair enough. And, of course, Richard Dawkins has expressed the same sentiment. He said that the chances of random combinations of inorganic chemicals producing organic life are so vanishingly small as to be impossible. But he concludes, "We're here, so it must have happened". Hands up all those who have heard a less scientific statement from anyone – a professor or a child 7 years old? It really does stand out as exceptionally unscientific.

And, of course, the possibility of life from inorganic chemicals itself becomes insignificant when considering the possibility of the EXACT 24 physical constants required at the Big Bang to create the universe. Something like 10 to the minus 300. Doh! So, as the video says, 'The proof is wrong" and "There is no basis for an objective decision". Only these 'facts' argue solidly, and in the rules science lays down for probablity, these exact things.
Seems science has the same problems as the religionists. Is anyone brave enough to admit it? Er, well Prof. Dawkins has but it seems he [and everyone else] misses the significance.

Yes, religion has been used my men to justify abominable atrocities. Can anyone comment on Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot………… ??

As a post-script:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins

Can we modify Richard's words to read: "[X] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all REAL LIFE: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

And then select for 'X' from: Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc….? He thinks the Bible is fiction: fair enough. These people [all avowed atheists] are real people in history. These people have collectively killed more people, often their own countrymen, than all the religous bigots who have ever lived on this planet.

"He said that the chances of random combinations of inorganic chemicals producing organic life are so vanishingly small as to be impossible.But he concludes, "We're here, so it must have happened"

Citation please.

In any case. I consider the combination of organic molecules into organic life (fixing your mistake here since inorganic chemicals will NEVER produce organic life by definition) to be an entirely natural process. Just as the biochemical reactions in your body are natural.

When you consider the vastness of the universe and the sheer number of galaxies, stars, and planets it contains – it is no wonder what we label "life" occurred. Even the most pessimistic evaluations of Drake's equation has the universe bursting with life.

"…the EXACT 24 physical constants required at the Big Bang to create the universe"

This is either an argument from incredulity (I can't believe that, therefore it's false) or complexity (there seems to be design here, so therefore there is). Both fail. The first is simply ridiculous – the fact you can't accept facts has no bearing on their truthfulness. The second merely begs the question – if god is has any attributes, properties, or behaviours then you should be able to account for those being able to arise without cause. The same arguments that you maintain make it impossible for the universe to have qualities and attributes without creation also hold for God – if they don;t you should be able to construct a logic argument demonstrating this, and also show why it cannot hold true for the universe itself. Best of luck with that.

If we accept that killing is immoral and the more people you kill the more immoral you are, then you should have no problem in condemning God to be the most immoral being ever conceived. God (according the the book he is meant to have divinely inspired) is directly responsible for placing the tree of knowledge (because that's a bad thing) and a talking snake in the garden – leading inevitably to the fall of mankind and in the introduction of death into the world. God also drowned every living thing on the entire planet, rained fire and brimstone on cities annihilating them utterly, drowned opposing armies, turned people into pillars of salt, etc. Let's not forget that killing his son (who was actually himself) is supposed to be the absolute pinnacle of moral behaviour – of it gives us grovelling sinners a chance at avoiding the curse he imposed in the first place.

If on the other hand you hold that everything God does is moral by default, then it does not matter what he does. God could come down and beat a nun to death on a pile of dead puppies and you would label it righteous and just. In this interpretation, morality has no meaning and is non-existent.

Getting back to your point about "these evil atheists", what you are effectively saying is "I don't believe in God, so you must die because….. uhhh" I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Perhaps you can help me here?

To be sure, some of these people were atheists, but they were not driven by their disbelief in an idea to perform any act. Just as you are not driven by your (assumed) disbelief in unicorns. It is what you believe that will drive you to action. Believing God is on your side as you enter war against Satanic forces can motivate people to commit the most horrendous atrocities. Replacing religion with the State or unfaltering belief in the "Great Ruler"(tm) is replacing on dogmatic belief with another.

Atheism is an end point – the result of rational thinking, the search for evidence and truth. It is not a starting point for anything. No society became violent or oppressive because they were too questioning or sceptical.

I Will have to come back again when my course load lets up – nonetheless I am taking your RSS feed so I can read your site offline. Thanks.