But What if You're Wrong?

"But what if you're wrong my son?" the priest asks... "If you die rejecting God and he exists, you go to hell. If you reject God and he doesn't exist, nothing happens. However if you believe in God and you're right, you go to heaven, if you believe and God doesn't exist, nothing happens."

The priest concludes "Therefore, it's far better to believe in a God."

This concept has been debunked so many times by so many different people it's not even funny. But I'm going to go through them one at a time to show how totally fallacious this argument is.

Rebuttal #1: God's not an idiot.
One of the problems with this line of thinking is that God somehow, despite being all powerful, cannot see that you're intentionally hedging your bets. So, you're not actually believing and worshipping in God because you believe, but rather, simply because you're afraid of the results. God's not an idiot and if it wants genuine worship and faith, you're not going to get it this way.

Rebuttal #2: God respects blind faith over intellectual inquiry.
So we know that God wants us to believe in him. Fine, I can accept that premise. But why is it that God would exhalt the faithful and put down those who don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. Think about it. A child with downsyndrome goes to heaven because he's not smart enough to have a question about God, but the majority of the top scientists in the world (93%) go to hell because they don't believe a book that makes claims about zombies? Please.

Rebuttal #3: Your faith may not be right!
Of course, the above statement only applies if your religion is absolutely correct too. I mean, what if Islam is the correct religion. Then the faithful catholic and the atheist are screwed. What if Hinduism is true, then the previous three are screwed. What if X is true, then the other y groups are screwed!

Rebuttal #4: Judging the person based on their actions
A just God will judge the person based on what they have done, not what they were able to conclude was true or unsupported. If a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting and believing in God before he dies while an atheist that works to feed starving children goes to hell, I'd say that God isn't good and certainly not just.

This argument it typically called "Pascal's Wager" and is, unfortunately, the most common argument I hear from theists about their faith. It's sad, because it's such a silly argument to use.

What arguments have you seen or heard for the existence of God?

PS: Don't get the image? Watch the Superman movie again. WRONG!

Atheists Must Apologize for Hitler!

On my daily tromp through the interwebs I came across a very odd message from the Catholic League. This is the full unedited article.

===================================================================

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:

The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At one level, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.

===================================================================

First of all, the catholic church apparently has some selective memory here, not that it really matters to the argument, just that it shows they like to... lie and manipulate events if it suits their purposes, to hell with whomever it hurts. Moving around pedo priests anyone?

Hitler was in fact Catholic. And the catholic church will do well to remember that it did not, at any time during the extermination of the jews, speak out against Hitler. It was only when they knew Hitler was going to be defeated that they got off of the fence and denounced his actions. How very noble! Surely Christ would have advised that the church "ride it out and see who comes on top while innocent people were killed." Maybe the Roman Catholic church forgot that Jesus was a jew.

Mao and Stalin were in fact atheist. History shows this. But it matters little, as I'll explain.

I don't think it's too far of a leap to look at a catholic and understand that he/she is not responsible for the other actions of catholics. Persecuting Mary from Seattle for actions performed by John in Texas would be foolhardy. Likewise, blaming any atheist for the actions of another atheist is silly as well.

However, acts of organizations are different. They are not typically controlled exclusively by one person, but rather, in the case of religion, a series of dogmatic rules. If the organization performs an act that injures someone, the organization is in fact responsible and should be held accountable. An example of this would be an employee suing the organization for sexual harassment.

It's in this regard that the pope should apologize on behalf of the catholic church for sitting on the fence and not doing the right thing by fighting Hitler and the murder of millions of innocent people. He is not accountable for the actions of the church at that time, but he is the leader now. He would in fact be apologizing for the church's cowardly, dishonourable actions.

But where does that leave us on the Stalin and Mao front? Atheism isn't an organization, we don't have a headquarters, we don't have services and we don't have an "atheist pope" who tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Atheists can be logical, crazy, good, evil, silly, stern, good, evil, cruel or kind.

In fact, you cannot tell anything about someone's morality or personality based on what they don't believe. For example, I have John and Sally. John doesn't believe in a God, neither does Sally. Which one is the mass murderer and which one gives flowers to seniors?

What this article does is try to equate atheism with a system of beliefs because by bringing atheism "down" to that level, they can fight. They can say "hey, you did bad things too" as if that mitigates the bad actions their church as done. Furthermore, if atheism is a belief system, Catholics can simply disregard it. When in fact, it's a logical position. They hate logical positions from my experience.

And to the author of the article, a serious question. Let's say a large meteor hits the earth in the near future, killing 1.5 billion people. Will you ask atheists for an apology? Because, obviously, the meteor didn't believe in a God.

Here is Richard Dawkin's thoughts on the matter. He once again eloquently strips away the nonsense of the pope's statements and treats them with the vitriol they richly deserve.

What's Wrong with Beating Your Wife?

This might be slightly educational for the women reading my blog, maybe not.

You see, guys have these rules. They're unwritten and basically are in place to prevent fights from breaking out and/or to prevent awkward social experiences. Here are a few...

- If you have known a guy for more then a week, his sister is off limits for dating.

- Men are never obligated to give a birthday present to any other man. Hell, remembering birthdays of other men is optional.

- You must always give any other man a one urinal buffer in a public restroom. Not only this, you are required to maximize the buffer between the two of you at all times. If you cannot maintain a urinal buffer of at least one, you must wait. No exceptions.

- You never comment on a man's fly being open. Ever. You saw nothing.

- If another man requests a small item and is outside of arms reach, you must toss it to him. He must catch it.

- When questioned about a buddy's location by his girlfriend, you must say "I do not know" repeatedly until she leaves.

- You are not permitted to drink a fruity alcoholic beverage unless the following conditions are met: You are on the beach, the drink is delivered to you by a hot chick and the drink must be free.

Now these are a few examples of the typical male rules. But there are some that never should be broken. These generally get you a decent ass whoopin from any other male able to see it.

- Stealing from a buddy.

- Manipulating a friend for his girl.

- Hitting a woman.

So when I see videos detailing "how to beat your wife according to Islamic traditions", I tend to get a little upset with the tenets of their religion.



What's bad is that they think, somehow, that the degree of beating matters. News flash, it doesn't. The fact that you think you're entitled to hit your wife at all is disgusting. What do you hit her for? Disagreeing with you? Not doing your laundry the way you like it? Being disgusted by picking out bits of food from your knotty, unkempt beard?

What's worse is that due to political correctness, it's socially unacceptable to call Muslims to task on this horrible act. We're supposed to go along and say "It's ok, it's their faith and we have to respect that."

I say bollocks. They have a right to believe in any nonsense they want. However, we don't have to respect their nonsense. And we don't have to pretend to do so either.

Why do you think society makes such large exceptions for religion and not for anything else? Can you imagine a politician running on such a platform?

But Religion is good for Society!

One of the more common responses from religious members is that their faith contributes to society. They often state that religious organizations give way to charities, not to mention that they set out a moral guide for people. Because if there was no God to judge you after your death, why wouldn't you just go around and do whatever it is you like.

First of all, I find the implied statement that "If no one was watching, human nature is to steal, murder, rape, etc." silly. Humans are social creatures and wish to live in societies where that won't happen to them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to be in a society where theft, rape and murder is acceptable. And to be perfectly honest, I everyone who's sane shares the same viewpoint.

No matter what culture you look at, they have rules against killing their own. The only exception to this would be the Aztec culture, who often had human sacrifices. But even then, they still preferred to use prisoners captured via raids or war.

But isn't that interesting? Different cultures, from all over the world, with different morals, different social structure and most importantly, different systems of faith, all come to the same core conclusion that you shouldn't harm your own people.

Doesn't that show that religion isn't the driving force? Doesn't all these differences, with the only true similarity being the human being in all cases, show that these "morals" are an intregal part of who we are? Just like how birds form socieities with rules, just like how wolves hunt in packs and just like how male gorillas protect their family.

And that's not even including all the negatives we are burdened with because of religion today. For example, preventing stem cell research, oppression of women in the middle east, rejection of scientific principals due to "holy books", protection of sexual predators, spreading of AIDS in Africa because condoms are "against God's will"... The list goes on and on.

What are your thoughts?

Who the hell do you think you are?

Originally I wasn't going to do this post, but given the problems with my PC I thought I had better put something up before people stop reading. :)

A while back, before I started to really become more involved with Atheism, I was plugging away on a certain news agency's faith blog leaving various sarcastic comments on videos about faith people leave up. They'll range from an objective analysis to out and out rudeness. Anonymity makes jerks out of everyone who posts on the internet, no exceptions. Well, in context of the person of course.

Now while I don't excuse my actions, I got a rather covertly hostile reply from someone called AngelhairXX (the XX is left out). In her Christian expletivive tirade (darn, jerk, naughty, etc), she managed to sum up her position as this...

"Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you question anyone's faith? They can believe in whatever they want to."

It took me back a second. I mean, who the hell am I to say those things? Why should I spend my time making people feel less sure about what they have been brought up to believe. What gives me the right?

Of course, one could always point to freedom of speech. One could point to the freedom of religion, which by corelation, also means freedom from religion. Both are excellent reasons why I have a right to challenge their faith.

However, the question is very decieving if you think about it. It places the onus of rights on the attacker, which is me. But why?

What I should have replied to AngelhairXX with is this...
"Why does a religious person have the right to have his/her faith NOT questioned?"

It's an honest question I have, and it's a sociological one. Why does society consider it unacceptable to question someone's faith?

Let's say there is a a Hindu person among a crowd who is explaining part of their creation story...

"From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command."

And let's say I'm in the crowd. I yell out "That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard."

Surely the people of the crowd would look down upon me. Hell, some may even ask me "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Now, let's do a slight change.

Let's say there's a salesman among the crowd explaining how his concoction of snake oil and floral extrats works to produce a child.

"You drink the potion before you go to bed. From the depths the humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread through your body, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. You awake. As the dawn begins to break, from your navel a magnificent lotus flower will grow. In the middle of the blossom will sit your child. He will await your care."

If I was to say ""That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard." Do you think the crowd would be upset? Of course not. They'd probablly agree. And unless some were fools, the majority would walk away and disregard the nonsense without a second thought.

My question is this. Why is it that religion is off bounds to inquiry. If it is the truth, why must it be hidden from the light of knowledge and science? Why is it that we exhalt people who recruit more people into their religion yet reject those who advise not to?

My answer to the question is that religion has had thousands of years to craft culture to suit it's purposes. What's your thoughts?

Crap has Hit the FAN!

So, not only has my PC gone down this week, I've also got a major project due at work. I've been spending alot of time sitting there banging my head against the wall, all to no avail.

I hope to have another post up asap. Sorry for the lack of updates.

However, I do have some big hitters coming in to make up for it. Excelsior!

God and Free Will…

On the way back from St. Louis for my guild’s trip, the people in my car had a brief but potent discussion on the concept of whether the Christian faith (ie, it’s God) allows for the existence of free will.

While both of the other people disagreed with me, I still feel my position is correct. It was around 2:00am and I felt we kept circling around the concept of taking the bible at face value for the discussion and not taking it at face value.

Let me spell out my argument very simply. In logical steps. If you see something wrong, please let me know.

A) For the purposes of any theological discussion, the source material must be seen as a perfect representation of what actually occurred. Otherwise, there isn’t any discussion, for anyone can claim “How do you know” and no progress is achieved.

B) Given A, the God described in the discussion is omnipotent, that is to say, all powerful. This necessitates omniscience, the property of knowing all. For if he wasn’t omniscient, he would not be omnipotent.

C) Given B, God knows the future. Knowing all, and being all powerful, this knowledge is by definition, perfect. Because if it was wrong, he wouldn’t be all knowing.

D) God creates man with specific mental characteristics expressed by DNA.

E) Given C and D, God creates man and every successive man’s mental traits and how those traits will and won’t cause the brain to operate in the situations that are already known.

F) Given E, God creates the universe and all you actions are prescribed by his decisions.

G) Given F, you have no free will. Mind you, this also shows that you cannot sin, because the actions of God are by definition (due to A) good and holy.

So the way I see it, we're little more then highly complicated computer programs designed by God. However, this is one of those arguments that can go either way. What are your thoughts?

Going to St. Louis!

Sorry for the lack of a post today, but I'm in St.Louis on a WoW guild trip. I play a feral druid (bear mostly). Yes, I realize I am in fact a nerd. :)

I play with about 20 Toronto friends and some buds from the US. It's a grand old time.

Anyways, we're heading for a lodge where we'll be BBQin, drinkin, and otherwise enjoying the nice weather. I've even got my fishin pole

If you live in TO and are interested in joining our circle of friends (you do have to play WoW though), you can visit our site below and send me an email at "Rundvelt@armofhades.com"

www.armofhades.com

Lok'Tar!