|
BS proof of God's existence
Argument From Wow
Consider this
God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project.  |
The more I look at religion, the more I dislike it and what it does to the world and its people. This blog will help you understand why religion is something you shouldn't accept as a good thing in our lives. Above all, don't respect religious beliefs when their practitioners refuse to respect you.
Consider this to be a little follow-on from my previous blog, Who does it harm? So, Christians, let's discuss crime and let's see how you feel how people should be dealt with when they commit various crimes:
If you said 'agreed' to the last one, just check for a moment the laws of your country. Homosexuality is legal in all the western democracies I can think of, and that's a lot of countries. So in your country, the country in which you live and work and, if you're a Christian, in which you pray, there is no penalty at all for the so-called (at least by Christians) 'crime' of homosexuality. Why is that? Might it be because the majority of societies have no problem at all with homosexuality? Could be, could be. But surely in the Bible God specifically calls homosexuality an abomination: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Whereas he doesn't mention child abuse at all and yet we all know that's a crime. So we have these things:
The answer (and again I refer you to my previous blog) is this: homosexuality hurts no-one. When someone steals, there is a victim. When someone is murdered, there is a victim. When someone has gay sex... there is NO victim. No victim = no crime. So despite what the fundamentalists may lead you to believe, the majority of Christians seem to be okay with homosexuality not being a crime. This would be encouraging, but for the extremely vocal minority who whip up the homophobia into a creamy, frothy, hateful frenzy. And let's not forget Muslims, who nearly ALL hate gays - in ALL Muslims countries homosexuality really is illegal. It seems we all have more work to do.
Religion puts great store in the idea that certain actions are sinful or immoral. Much on this list of 'bad things' is beyond dispute: murder, stealing, child abuse are without question all things which are wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they cause harm to other people. Furthermore, only because they cause harm to others are they wrong. You could, for example, 'kill' a life-like plastic doll and it would harm no-one. You could 'steal' a piec of driftwood floating on the sea, and (because it has no owner) there would be no harm done. Neither of these things is wrong because nothing else, nobody else, is hurt by these actions, or has in any way a reduced quality of life because of them. When your actions interfere with the life of another person in a negative way is when something starts to become 'wrong'. In essence, this is simply an extension of the so-called 'golden rule', also known as the 'ethic of reciprocity': Treat others as you would like to be treatedIn other words, if you'd rather something didn't happen to you, don't to it to someone else. Not many people like a punch in the mouth, so punching someone in the mouth is considered to be wrong. In most cases it's simple common sense. Of course Christians will tell you that this is morality, that it comes from the Bible, that God laid down these laws, and even if you're an atheist you're living by God's rules... etc, etc. The trouble is, religions have longer lists of wrongdoings, much longer lists, containing actions which, though they hurt absolutely no-one, are still considered to be wrong. I'm going to look at just a few of these, examining why religion says they are 'a bad thing' and why I consider them to be not a bad thing. Homosexuality Are the people in a gay relationship harmed? No. They are happy to be in that relationship in exactly the same way that two people of the opposite sex would be happy to be in their relationship. Their love for each other is as strong as that which exists in any heterosexual coupling. If they fall out of love, they separate, as do hetero couples. That's just relationships for you - morality is not at all in the equation because if it was then it would be wrong for people of the opposite sex to get together just in case they risked hurting each other's feelings at some point. Does the coming together of two people as a homosexual couple harm anyone else? Again, no. Anti-gay protestors don't like seeing gay couples together, and may find it offensive, but is that hurting them? Their own mental barriers to such actions mean that they themselves are making this imaginary mental 'harm' for themselves. By all means, accept that this is something you yourself would prefer not to do, but leave it at that. I personally would prefer not to watch cricket, ever, under any circumstances - I can't see why people enjoy it or what purpose it serves - but people want to do it, and it doesn't affect my life in any way. Not in any way. So where's the harm? Children. Ah yes, gay people can't have children. So? Neither can old people. Old people get together all the time and they can't have children either. Is that wrinkly sex immoral too? Of course not, because it's not hurting anyone. The Christian position is that God made us to have children, but is not having children (and remember, some people choose not to do so) hurting anyone? Of course not. Who is hurt when a child is not born? It's just ridiculous to say that homosexuality is wrong. It harms nobody. It harms nothing. Indeed it brings great satisfaction to the happy same-sex couples who ignore the religious slurs and just get on with their lives - hurting nobody. Sex before marriage It doesn't harm the people involved. They want to do it, so they do it. It's a choice they make. Remember the 'treat others as you would like to be treated' ethic? Think of it like this: 'have sex with someone if you want them to have sex with you'. Harm? None. Where only one side wants the sex, of course that's different, but then the situation is 'would you want someone to force you to have sex?'. Of course the answer is no, so there is harm involved. In that case it becomes wrong. If sex is sex, why does marriage have to be involved? Probably because the preachers of religion want to enforce you to behave in a way they deem acceptable. After all, marriage shows a good level of commitment to a relationship doesn't it? But does not being in a long-term relationship but still having sex cause harm? How can it if both parties are agreeable to the situation? You can go bowling before marriage, so why should sex be any different? Where's the harm? I don't see it. Masturbation Contraception Who is harmed when contraception is used? Not the man. Not the woman. The religious will say 'it stops the creation of a life', but that implies that every sperm and every egg is useful. It isn't. Even if you don't masturbate, billions of sperm live and die inside and outside a man in his lifetime. Women have their periods - more 'potential life' is gone. So manual prevention of pregnancy is in no way any different from the natural order - people are simply choosing not to create a life (which harms no-one) and, as a beneficial by-product, are protecting themselves from the risk of infection from sexually transmitted diseases. Where is the harm in using contraception? There is none. On the contrary, the benefits are abundantly obvious.
Okay, I couldn't resist including this video Thought crimes One of the Bible's Ten Commandments tells you not to covet your neighbour's house, wife, slave, ox, donkey, or anything else that belongs to your them. To covet is 'to wish for longingly'. In other words, if you see that your neighbour has a better house than you, it's immoral to think 'I wish I could have that house'. Just thinking something is wrong? Again, the acid test: how does thinking that thought hurt anyone? In fact how does thinking any thought hurt anyone? Let's go further. I'm essentially saying that no thought is bad because, obviously, thoughts cannot affect the lives of others. So if someone dreams about killing, or (let's go to extremes to make this point) if someone thinks about how nice it would be to have sex with a child, is the act of thinking these thoughts immoral. I say no. And I say no because the act of thinking is in no way the same as the act of doing. Yes, if you think about murder and then go on to kill someone, that would be wrong. But it would be the act of murder, not the initial thought which was wrong. I have at times entertained thoughts of killing a particularly hateful person, but those thoughts inflicted no pain, no suffering, no death, on that person. He did not even know when or where those thoughts came into my head. He is now dead (from natural causes!) and yes, I am glad he's dead, the evil son-of-a-bitch! Is it wrong for me to think that? No. Who is harmed? Thoughts do not harm anyone. Only actions harm people. Thoughts are never, and I really do mean never harmful to others. Self-harm Assisted suicide (euthanasia) Is there harm? Harm in the sense that you will be actively helping someone to die? Yes. But the alternative is this: if the person is not allowed to die, the harm may be many times greater, the pain far, far worse. Would you condemn someone to endless suffering, or release them from their pain with a quick end to their life? In this case, I personally would assist someone who wanted to die. Unlike the other examples I've dealt with, it would not be a case of 'is there harm in doing this?'. Instead the question to ask is 'is there harm in not doing this? But if the person is suffering terribly and does not ask for help to die, should you then use the justification of 'is there harm in not doing this?'. Absolutely not. The only judge of what is right and wrong with respect to the ending of someone's life, at least if they still have the mental capacity to make a decision, lies with the person whose life it is. If a person is suffering but does not want to die, they have made that choice and it should not be denied them. There are other possibilities, such as when someone leaves specific instructions to end their suffering if they become unable to make the decision for themselves, but that still falls under the heading of 'a person must be able to choose what to do with their own life'. To me, euthanasia is almost the same as a situation where you have a diseased organ or limb, and to leave it attached would cause more harm than good. In this case you would remove it, so as to prevent further suffering. The difference is that with euthanasia you are removing every limb and organ from the equation, ending the suffering in the only way possibly, by ending the life of the sufferer. To wrap this up, I'll end by saying that it's my opinion that morals are, in most cases, very straightforward things to determine. In fact, rather than the Christian Bible, you might easily take every single moral decision you make by following one of the basic teaching of another religion: An it harm none, do what ye willThis is the Wiccan Rede, and although in my opinion Wicca itself is a weird 20th century made-up religion consisting of bunch of new-age mumbo-jumbo, that single line really encapsulates everything I am trying to espouse in this article. Another (less archaic) way of saying it would be 'do what you will, so long as it harms none'. Although there are some grey areas, such as the conflict caused by removing someone's suffering by ending their life, but one thing living by this ethic does not do is to treat countless thoughts or actions, which are in no way harmful to anyone, as crimes. Thinking in this way encapsulates both the idea that some morals are relative (actions may or may not be wrong, depending on the situation) and that morals may be absolute (applying in all cases). Christians often cite the example of Nazi Germany: if morals are relative, and change according to the culture, politics and social mores of the time, then the extermination of the Jews would be 'right' and therefore moral, in the eyes of the Nazis. But killing Jews harms Jews. What simpler way can there be to explain how wrong the Holocaust was? To take a different example, is sex outside marriage always okay, given that I've already said that you don't need to be married to have sex? The answer is: no. If you have extra-marital sex with a third party when you are already in a relationship, knowing that your partner would not, if they knew about it, be accepting of it, is wrong. Why? Because finding out about it would cause emotional harm to your partner. What if they didn't find out about it? Well, that then becomes an issue of conscience - are you willing to take the risk? Or perhaps it goes back to the golden rule - don't screw around if you'd rather your own partner wasn't also screwing around. I'm starting to pick at the edges of my own certainties and unravel a few of what I thought were tightly-constructed arguments, so that, I'm afraid, is where I'm going to leave it! Abortion - Not discussed here This is perhaps one of the toughest subjects for which anyone can make a case, either for or against. I need to address this in more detail, because adding it into the above-described mix of actions which are, to me at least, far more clear-cut, would be to give the subject significantly less weight than it deserves. Abortion, to many, is the unnecessary, and thereby immoral, ending of a life, and to some is described as nothing less than murder. Needless to say, I do not agree with either position. If by saying that I would rather not discuss abortion here that sounds like a cop-out, it probably is. I have wanted to write down something about this subject for a long time, but it's difficult for me to set out reasons and justifications for my position. Which is? Well, I am 100% supportive of anyone who elects to have an abortion. I promise I'll come back to this.
Why are there atheists? Saying you're an atheist merely tells people you don't believe in any god or gods. So why say it at all? And why, somebody asked today, are there no aleprechaunists, fiercely claiming that leprechauns do not exist? Here's why, in a comment I just posted in response to a video by someone asking exactly that kind of question: If people believed in leprechauns and went around trying to convert you to their ridiculous deity God O'Murphy, ostracised you if you didn't believe in the pot of gold, and wanted to put giant pictures of shamrocks in schools and courthouses, I guarantee you there would be aleprechaunists. As nobody believes in leprechauns, you'll instead find atheists, speaking out when your equally silly beliefs in God contradict and contend with their lives and notion of what is real.Sometimes YouTube's 500-character limit is just about enough to say all you need to say. |
|
News Feeds
