”I am not a theist because I was born that way. I am fortunate enough not to have been indoctrinated into any cults, brainwashed, or subjugated as a child. I am not a theist because I was born in this time, in this country, and with this brain.There is no logic or reasoning here to even discuss. There are things she likes (science, nature, and logic, of course), and there are things that are repugnant (being responsible to another level). There are things she doesn’t want (quite a list), and a feeling of relief and good fortune. But there is no logic or reasoning concerning a rational choice, because she never made one.
I am not a theist because the idea that I was created by someone who owns me forever is repugnant. I am not superstitious, I am a lover of science and nature, I like things that are logical, and I like to be in control. I have never longed for an inherent purpose to my life; I am here because I was born. I don’t want to worship anything, I don’t want to live forever, I don’t want to be told I’m a sinner, and I don’t find comfort in having all the answers, especially when the answers must be taken on faith and don’t answer anything. I am atheist because I am one of the most fortunate beings ever to have lived on this earth. I am one of the most fortunate beings ever to have lived because I am atheist.
Janet Goelzer
Texas, United States
Self-satisfaction doesn't produce self-examination.
8 comments:
This series is great. Simply and easily analyze atheism, exposing at least the lay version for the complete lack of rational thinking it involves. Keep these up!
I also think you should try to find some better ones, some where people have actually thought through it at least better than the PZ crowd have, and have the argument from evil as their primary centerpiece (IMO one of the only candidates for rational atheism).
Years ago I did one on Bertrand Russell's famous speech, "Why I Am Not A Christian". It's over in the other website, but I'm sure it needs brushing up. I'll see if I can tidy it up and bring it over here.
Yes, the argument from evil is popular amongst those who think that they have a higher moral authority than any deity would have, and that free will is a delusion.
Sure, AFE is probably a failure, but I think it is the only potential candidate for rational atheism if there were such a thing. I.e., if I see an atheist using it, then I think "Good, at least he isn't a complete idiot." Or to put it yet another way, I'm continually shocked at how few Internet atheists use the one argument that should be central to their viewpoint.
Re: Russell. Blegh. His Why I Am Not A Christian is shockingly bad. Vic Reppert says that it is "sometimes considered the best piece of Christian apologetics ever written. If the atheists can't do better than this, they're in trouble."
I concur.
But as I said before I prefer to think of it in terms of materialism/naturalism vs theism, which avoids the ridiculous semantic quibbling atheists have over the term "atheism" and also frames their viewpoint (98% of them, anyway) as a positive worldview claim alongside others, fully open to criticism. The burden of proof needs to be half on them.
In that respect, I think you should seek out the strongest possible cases for naturalism you can find. Richard Carrier has a book called "Sense and Goodness Without God" which is a defense of naturalism, but judging from his other writings, I have a feeling I won't be impressed with it.
For an "Internet Infidel", I don't think Jeffrey Jaw Lowder did too shabbily here, which was probably strengthened by the poor showing of his opponent. He centered most of his case around suffering (instead of evil per se) and reasonable non-belief, as well as religious pluralism. I think his case is probably close to what a "good" defense of naturalism might involve. Might be worth a critique.
I dealt with Carrier's Philosophical Naturalism last year in this post.
He also has something called "Why I Am Not A Christian", which I suppose I should look at.
Hello Stan,
I've been following this site for some time, but this is my first post.
Excuse me for my bad english as it's not my native language.
I know this is way off-topic, but it's an example of how the hardcore skeptic-atheists seem to hastily manipulate scientific data as a mere interpretation of their worldview.
I think you should look at this politically-awkward site:
http://hassers.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-everything-was-formed-from-nothing.html
unfortunately -as always-, they do a lot of historical chit-chat, got the concepts of Quantum Physics backwards in the end, and they have a preconceived conclusion that the universe came from nothing because energy travels in the vacuum...
no mention of the theories of dark matter, dark energy or black holes.
As always, these people just jump to hasty conclusions about the universe, but don't seem to understand that light always has to have a way to propagate itself, so vacuum is not, in essence, a vague 'nothingness'. I don't know why they just think that the vacuum is totally absent of matter, or better yet, why would light transit in an energy-absent environment...
I really appreciate what you are doing here. The reluctant nature of the skeptic to open his/her mind is rampant everwhere.
Kind Regards.
Thanks for the link and the good words. I'll check out the link.
And I wrote some more on Skepticism in today's post...
That site is in the competition for strangest site around. Never heard of paragraph breaks, I guess.
The theory is not about antiparticles and particles coming from nothing; it posits an all permeating "quantum field" that fills space, which feeds the particle creation. At one point he does refer to energy fields, but that, then, is not "nothing".
Post a Comment