MiloCast

I realized recently (probably fairly late to the game), that there is a simple refutation to all religious beliefs. It can not be contradicted by any honest person. There are only two possible responses: Think about it honestly, or choose to ignore the truth.

Here it is:

Anyone who believes in any gods does so for no other reason than somebody else telling them to. If their religion has a holy book, they only believe the book to have authority because someone told them it does.

That’s it — plain and simple.

If there was any proof of Islam, Christians would convert.

If there was any proof of Hinduism, Jews would convert.

If there was any proof of Buddhism, Muslims would convert.

The simple truth is that more people de-convert and become atheists than convert from one religion to another. Recent polls show that the fastest growing group on surveys about religious affiliation is “None.” Makes perfect sense to me. As a society, we have moved further from superstition, and have become much more capable of dealing with the natural world as it is. Some of this comes from understanding the previously unexplained.

I am happy to see that reason is overcoming superstition at a growing rate. It has come to the point where theists are publishing books with which desperately try to refute the legitimate criticisms of their preferred religion — and failing in that task.

I have started reading a couple of books in that vein, and will write about them on this site. In the meantime, you may perform an extremely simple test. Go to the book store and find a book which attempts to attack rational arguments about how their particular religious beliefs don’t hold water. You will probably find that their representation of the argument against is pretty accurate — they don’t want to be accused of skirting the issue. Next, read their “refutation.” It will always be wordy, imprecise, and will fail to back up any of its claims with facts.

These are exciting times indeed for human enlightenment.

I was listening to the podcast “A Christian and an Atheist” on my way to work this morning, and I had a lot of thoughts about things which were said, but even more about things which were not said. In my next few posts, I’m going to go over some of those things. In this episode, Emery (an atheist), interviewed Pastor Scott Barger. They discussed a list of questions Barger had prepared for atheists.

The first question from Barger was how so many atheists could claim the knowledge that no god exists. He further claims that such people should more honestly refer to themselves as agnostics.

I have two main thoughts about this. The first one is that atheism is simply disbelief in any gods. The fact that some atheists will go further and claim that no gods exist is simply a matter of choice. This shows a misunderstanding of atheism, which was also hinted at when Barger refers to atheism as a “system” and to atheists as people who follow that system. For more on this, see my article “Everything You’ve Heard About Atheists is Wrong — Except one Thing.”

Secondly, the unstated implication of Scott Barger’s question is that people who claim that no god exists should be agnostics, because agnosticism allows for the question to remain open. Obviously, this sentiment stems from his belief in the existence of a god, and his desire for the rest of us to leave the possibility open in case we’re wrong. There are, however, two major flaws in this idea. First, an atheist is open to new information, and can be convinced of the existence of a god if the evidence is presented to us. Most of us will freely admit that. However, agnostics take the position that it’s impossible to know in either case. So while they would, in theory, be convinced as quickly as an atheist in the presence of evidence, their philosophy precludes even looking for such evidence, since they don’t believe there is any possibility of finding any for or against.

Also, and most importantly from a logical perspective, is the simple fact that leaving yourself open to the possibility that there may be a god does not mean that it is just as likely as the non-existence of a god. It’s not a 50-50 bet. Based upon the evidence we have, there is no reason or evidence which indicates that a god exists. That makes the bet more like 100-0 against than 50-50.

Full credit for civility goes to both Scott and Emery for this conversation. It was a respectful, non-combative conversation, which is rare between theists and non-theists. In fact, I don’t remember ever hearing a conversation in which points were made strongly by one side and conceded by the other. I can only hope that these concessions mean that our global conversation on these issues can begin to shed the tired old arguments which have long since been decided and discuss the core of the matter.

I have come under heavy fire from some local magicians after I called for a vote to remove an officer of my local magic club from office (but not from the group) for a major ethics violation. Of course, those who are attacking me haven’t been able to find fault with what I said — the guy is guilty and they all know it. So they have resorted to ad hominem attacks against me. For fun, and to bridge my freethought and magic categories, let’s talk about them today.

An ad hominem attack is an argument against something a person says to try to discredit the person themselves. Someone says something you don’t like, so you point out what a bad person they are to try to convince others they’re not worth listening to. There really isn’t much more to it than that.

The mistake I made was to stand up and have the guts to say something about someone who is very popular. As is so often the case, people respond emotionally instead of intellectually. They see an attack on “one of their own,” and instinctively rally around them and fight the accuser. It’s a good thing to help out your friends, but it’s not a good thing to spread lies about the person making the accusation in the process.

This is a sad and pathetic thing to do. For example, I have received private e-mail from several people congratulating me for having the courage to do this. However, not one of them has e-mailed the group supporting me. Why not? I’m guessing it’s because they don’t want any backlash. However, the people who are using ad hominem attacks are sending them to the group in some cases, and posting them as comments to this site in others. Considering I never e-mailed the group about my article regarding the case, this is a clear attempt to defame me in retaliation.

One of them even went so far as to make an anonymous comment on one of my older posts about religion and told me I’d have to answer for this deed in heaven. That goes to show you how well-thought-out their argument was. I know those same people are going to read this. I just wonder how they’ll respond.

I was discussing the relative worthlessness of “debates” between rationalists and theists with a fellow atheist recently, and he expressed the opinion that it seemed like both sides just spew forth their own dogma, nobody considers the opposing opinion, and nothing positive comes from the effort. I don’t personally feel that debating is a waste of time, although it usually is for most of the audience because they already have their minds made up.

However, my main problem with his statement was that he referred to the position of the rationalist as “dogma.” As everyone knows (or should), dogma is a bad thing. It is taking a position as true and defending it regardless of whether there is any valid reason to believe it, and even when there is clear evidence against. The reasons I gave for the rational point of view not being dogma are as follow:

• They are based upon scientific consensus.
• They are subject to change based upon evidence.
• They are bolstered by an understanding and dismissal of pathetic opposing arguments, not a refusal to listen to opposing arguments.

All three of these are in direct opposition to the way a true believer thinks. They refuse to believe the results of scientific research when it conflicts with their beliefs, they won’t change their minds even when the evidence suggests their beliefs are flawed, and they refuse to listen to or understand opposing arguments.

So, just remember: “Beware of Dogma”

No sane person who believes in any supernatural things — including gods, will claim that there is any evidence or proof. In fact, they find virtue in believing without evidence. Many of them think this makes them better, or at least more enlightened, than the rest of us.

Follow that line of reason logically, and the inescapable conclusion is that these gods prefer more easily-led people who are willing to accept apparent nonsense, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

To put a slightly finer point on it, Yahweh prefers fools to thinkers.

Christianity and Islam are founded on the idea that you have a serious problem. Namely, you’re going to hell for eternity, and only they can help you. Of course, you have to live your life according to their arbitrary rules, disagree with established fact, and it would be really nice if you would give them a bunch of your money.

It’s like going to a doctor and being told you have an illness, but they can cure you for a fee, and then finding out you never had the disease in the first place and they were just after your payment.

The simple truth is that there is no such thing as hell, or eternal torture. Those are ideas invented by the religions themselves. Even worse, you can look back in history to when the concept of hell didn’t even exist in those religions, or when those religions didn’t even exist. There is no reason in all the world to even consider that a hell exists outside of religious dogma.

What a great scam. Promise deliverance from something which doesn’t exist, and reap the benefits. So for those of you who still believe in eternal torment, get a second opinion. To those of you who have broken free of that scam, have a nice day!

When I wrote about agnostics last week, I received some feedback disagreeing with the idea that agnostics are atheists by default. Agnostics are atheists, and I tried to explain it as clearly as I could. However, as is often the case, someone else put it much more simply than I could. I heard this simple description on “The Non-Prophets” show, episode 6.21.

Here it is: You are assuming that I am claiming something is either A or B. If you’re not A, then you must be B. That’s not the case. I’m claiming that something is either A or not A. If ‘A’ stands for someone who believes in a god, then you’re A or not A. The definition of “not A” is atheist.

Being an atheist by definition does not make any other claims about you. You can love religion, you can be spiritual, and you can love animals and babies and pretty flowers. Remember — atheism isn’t really anything specific. It’s not even a claim. It’s just not believing in an invisible friend.

Considering that it’s Friday, it’s a good time to mention some entertainment. Music, actually. Greydon Square is an atheist musician who put out a rap album mostly dedicated to freethought and rationalist lyrics. Greydon is a member of the Rational Response Squad, and apparently a college student studying science.

His CD, “The Compton Effect,” is available on his site and is pretty good. There is a mix of things he wrote years ago and more recently, so there is some inconsistency to the theme of the overall work. In my opinion, there is also some inconsistency in the quality from track to track, but there were several songs with very clever lyrics which made me nod my head in agreement, laugh, or both.

For the record, I usually avoid any music which could be considered “country” or “rap.” Of course, there are exceptions to most rules, and this CD is one of those. Check it out.

Agnostics are people who claim that since they don’t know whether a god exists, the best thing to do is pretend they’re equally open to either side of the argument, and will stay that way until one side is proven.

This is, obviously, foolish. As Richard Dawkins often points out, nobody says they’re agnostic in regard to fairies. Nobody is agnostic about invisible pink unicorns. What’s the difference between an invisible pink unicorn and a creator god? Nothing. They are both made-up characters. So why should someone be agnostic about a god just because such a god has not been disproved?

The easy answer is that they are trying to avoid offending others. Either they’re atheists who are afraid of the word “atheist,” or they prefer not to think about what they actually believe so they don’t have to confess to actually disagreeing with anyone about religion.

At this point, most readers will think I have a problem with agnostics. I don’t — quite. I have a problem with their intellectual wimpiness, but I have no problem with them in general, because they are unlikely to do harm in the name of their beliefs as long as they are unable to decide what those beliefs are.

If you’re an agnostic, realize this: You’re an atheist. Seriously. Look at it this way: Do you believe in a god? If your answer is “no” or “I don’t know,” then you’re an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who does not have a specific belief — a belief in the existence of a god. If your answer to “is there a god” is not a confident “Yes!”, then you’re an atheist. And it’s not a dirty word. Welcome to rational thought!