1. Why are atheists so obsessed with religion?
If life were meaningless and ends at the grave, why even bother. If life is just a monopoly game that's going to be put up, why even try to take the property and money of others (in a metaphoric sense, of course)? It doesn't make much sense. Given atheism, nothing really matters since it's not going to last. So, again I ask you, why bother with religion and its negative effects?
You are equating atheism with nihilism. These two things are not the same. The fact that life ends is the very thing that gives it meaning. The fact that life in the universe is rare (as far as we know) is what gives it value. As we see it, you have one life and one shot to make the most of that life.
As far as atheists' "obsession" with religion, we generally aren't. That is, until someone wants to pass laws that effect all of us based on their interpretation of a bronze age religious text. Or until someone wants to harass us and get us fired from our jobs because we don't share their interpretation of reality. Or until someone traumatizes our children by telling them that their parents are going to hell. Or until one of our leaders wants to take us into a war on the orders of an invisible, inaudible, atemporal, immaterial deity that only communicates telepathically. Or someone wants to shoe-horn religious dogma into the science and social studies curriculum. Or someone wants to kill, or imprison, or deport us for imaginary crimes.
Counter-question: If life is just a waiting room to a great beyond up yonder in the sweet by and by, why continue living?
2. Why are atheists so obsessed with monotheistic religions?
Why only the big three? If all religions are equally false, why only bother with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What about Hinduism or deism? Again, it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps there's a reason that atheists are so amazingly obsessed with Christianity?
Christians and Muslims make up 57% of the world's population. Islam and Christianity combined are the dominant faiths in 214 countries. Of the 38 countries where blasphemy is a criminal offense of some kind, 37 are either majority Christian or Muslim. Judaism is the evolutionary predecessor of these religions.
When Hindus start trying to pass laws in the United States based on the Vedas, i'll criticize them. When deists start blowing people up and beheading people for being infidels, i'll go after them. When Sikhs start trying to elect candidates who call science "a lie from the pit of hell," or that the female body can shut down pregnancies that result from "legitimate" rape, or that prayer creates a halo around a woman's body that prevents date rape, i'll go after them. When the largest organization of Wiccans in the world spends the better part of 50 or so years hiding and enabling child molesters within its clergy, i'll go after them as well.
Counter-question: What makes your claim to one god any more valid than polytheists' claims to multiple gods?
3. How do atheists explain the beginning of the universe?
Often atheists have pointed to the Big Bang to justify their worldview, but the Big Bang actually proves theism.
It does no such thing. The Big Bang Theory establishes that the expansion of space-time had a beginning.
Here's a simple syllogism:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is called special pleading. You are assuming that the laws of causation (before and after) which apply inside of time and space, apply to time and space itself. But i'll put that aside and play along.
For this to be true, there has to be 2 separate and distinct realities: the state of affairs where the universe does not exist (A) and the state of affairs where the universe does exist (B). Furthermore, one of the four following contingencies must be true:
1. The universe doesn't exist. Disproven by the fact that it does.
2. The universe never began to exist. Disproven by the Big Bang.
3. The Big Bang (Y) was preceded in time by the cause (X). Disproven by the fact that a cause cannot exist in time because there is no time until the Big Bang.
4. X is the atemporal cause of Y. For X to exist in A and be the cause of Y (which exists in B), then there has to exist some point where A and B are indistinguishable. This means that somewhere there has or had to be a point where universe exists and does not exist simultaneously. This is impossible.
There is great evidence for the Big Bang. We can be led to it by first stating this fact: The universe is either eternal, or it is not. If it's not, than my argument is scientifically supported. The universe cannot be eternal because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is running out.
Actually, it states that entropy (the degree of disorder) does not decrease over time in a closed system. Please demonstrate to me and everyone else how the universe represents a closed system.
If the universe is eternal, it should've run out a
long time ago. The Big Bang proves God because it proves the universe came into being from nothing, and nothing cannot create nothing, for it is nothing.
Therefore, Something must have caused the Big Bang. So how do you explain away this evidence for the existence of God?
"The Universe" refers to the four-dimensional construct (space-time) which we inhabit. The beginning of the Universe does not refer to "the creation of everything ex nihilo." This construct did not come into being out of nothing. The Big Bang speculates that the initial singularity that was the universe began to expand roughly 14.5 billion years ago. Prior to that? No one can say. Literally. Not only does our concept of time not account for that, we don't even know what time was or how it functioned or if it functioned at all prior to that....or if "prior to that" is even possible. Let me put this as simply as I can:
I have no fracking idea how the universe began and I feel quite confident that you don't either.
The difference between the two of us is: I can accept that I don't know something. You plug in your favorite creation myth and call that "knowledge." It's just a re-hash of the "god of the gaps" arguement.
You might special plead a god or gods or hyper-intelligent shade of blue into existence, but the fact of the matter remains:
You cannot make any positive claim to knowledge of a "cause" for the universe.
Even if you could "prove" a "cause" for the universe, you have no way of proving who or what that cause is or was. The only thing you would have "proved" is deism: the existence of a non-specific creator. You still have miles to go after that before you can "prove" theism: the existence of a particular god.
4. How do atheists explain away objective moral values?
I always find it hilarious whenever Christians ask this question. Especially when I bring up how the Bible condones slavery in both the Old and New Testaments.
Objective moral values are ones that are independent of human thought.
No. Objective moral values are ones that are independent of context, situation or time period in question. Human morality cannot exist independent of human thought as it is a product of human thought.
If God doesn't exist, they wouldn't exist either. There'd be no one in charge to make a universal standard of right and wrong. It'd simply be a matter or opinion. But moral relativism fails. For one, it says that moral claims are only a matter of opinion but it asserts that as a fact.
Moral relativism does no such thing. It is not "just a matter of opinion." Moral relativism basically means that moral claims are a matter a myriad of factors, which can include:
1. biological necessity.
2. context or situation
3. truth or falsehood of underlying assumptions
4. level of enlightened self-interest
5. level of socialization and cultural development
Christians play the same game with morality when confronted with genocide, child abuse, rape and slavery in the Bible.
"Well, that only applies to that time period..."
"Well, that only applies to the ancient Jews...."
"Well, Jesus nullified that rule (even though Jesus said no such thing about Old Testament laws)
Also, we know things such as rape, murder, and child abuse are wrong, and if everyone agreed that they were right, they'd still be wrong.
We certainly don't know these things are wrong because of the Bible because the Bible condones all three of these things, and slavery too.
We know things are objectively wrong because we feel guilt when we do what is wrong;
No. We know these things are wrong because they infringe upon the rights of others, they contribute to human suffering, they destabilize societies, they perpetuate mental disorders, and we all have something called enlightened self-interest. You guys call it the "golden rule" and it exists in every religion that has ever been.
If morality was just our opinion, we wouldn't feel guilty, for we would be doing what is right for us. So how do atheists justify the fact of objective morality?
The problem with objective morality is this: it creates a situation where there are no degrees of right and wrong. If killing someone is objectively wrong, then there is no moral difference between one who kills in self-defense, one who kills accidentally, a soldier who kills someone in combat, or someone who stalks and tortures a victim prior to killing them. Not even the most brutal dictatorships on earth have a legal system such as this.
5. How do materialists justify immaterial realities?
Logic, math, morality, and other things such as free will, human dignity, and time exist. These things are all immaterial. We can't put the number 7 or the Law of Noncontradiction in a test tube.
But we can demonstrate logic, we can demonstrate math, and we can measure time. Furthermore, logic, math and time all have practical applications in the material world. Free will and human dignity are also concepts with pracitcal applications in the material world.
But if God doesn't exist, matter would be all there is, since there'd be nothing to be the foundation of immaterial things. Everything would come through by matter, and thus, be matter. How can atheists give an answer to this argument?
On what do you base the assumption that all "immaterial things" need a foundation and what type of foundation are they required to have? On what do you base the assumption that this "foundation" is a god? On what do you base the assumption that this god is your specific god? Can you measure or demonstrate this god?
6. How do atheists explain the existence of the universe?
If atheism is true, there isn't a reason for anything. It's all an accident. There isn't any purpose. But if there weren't a purpose for anything, how do things exist?
Okay, you *really* don't understand atheism. Atheism is not nihilism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. It makes no positive claims about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods, it is simply being unconvinced that the positive claims of theism are true.
If God does not exist, the universe would have no meaning for its existence, and would, thus, not exist.
So how can we living in a universe that both exists and has no reason for its existence?
Until you can demonstrate the existence of a god or gods, this is pure speculation, Once you do that, you still have to demonstrate that the existence of anything is contingent upon the existence of a god or gods. Once you do that, you still have to demonstrate that the god or gods in question are your specific god or gods.
7. How do you explain away circumstantial evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
Here are just two facts that help lead up to the conclusion that Christ is risen: 1. The early Christians died for their belief that He rose from the dead. You don't die for what you know is a lie. No one does, and no one ever could.
Simply put, they didn't believe it was a lie. Early Mormons were persecuted and killed for what they believed, including Joseph Smith himself. It does not verify any of the claims they made.
2. Christianity started in Jerusalem. If the tomb weren't empty, the Jewish pharisees could've proved it and ended the Christian movement. But they didn't. How can an atheistic worldview explain this?
An empty tomb indicates only the absence of a corpse.
8. If the gospels are just pieces of historical fiction, why are there embarrassing details in there?
Jesus being accused of being a demon. A prostitute wiping Jesus' feet, which was seen as a sexual approach.
Excuse me? When was foot washing ever seen as sexual? Foot washing is an old middle eastern tradition that was a show of hospitality and gratitude. Typically, a host would offer a guest water to wash their feet in or offer to have servants do it for them. There were no sexual connotations unless you put them there.
Peter being called "Satan" and denying Jesus three times. Jews being told to pay taxes to the Roman empire.
Simply put: these things fit the narrative. The problem with the gospels is not that they are "historical fiction," but that they are unreliable as history. The average life expectancy during this time was between 28 and 52. The earliest gospel on record is the Gospel of St. Mark, written 30-40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. It is highly unlikely that any contemporaries of Jesus' would have lived long enough to have written the Gospel of Mark. That being said, i'll play along.
Exhibit A): We don't really know who the Gospel of Mark was written by, or about. Church tradition states that it is the recollection of Mark the Evangelist, who was also John Mark referred to in the Bible, but that attribution was not made until the 2nd century by Papias of Hieropolis. Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd century differentiated the two.
Exhibit B): There are multiple versions of the Gospel of Mark, and several known editing insertions in all of them. The earliest complete copies in existence date to the 4th century.
So at the end of the day, the only possible first-person account for Jesus' life is a source by an anonymous author, which are the alleged recollections of a person whose identity is in question, in a document that has been heavily edited for style and content for the last 2000 years.
One criteria of finding a historical truth is to see if the text is embarrassing to the writer. If it is, they probably didn't make it up. Could you clear this up for me?
There are five criteria for establishing the reliability of a source.
1. Accuracy
2. Authority
3. Currency
4. Objectivity
5. Relevance
The claims in Mark (and the other Gospels) cannot be independently verified. In many cases, the claims of one Gospel cannot be verified by another Gospel. Accuracy: FAIL.
The identity, qualifications and affiliations of the authors are all in question. Authority: FAIL.
The works were published no sooner than 30-40 years after the events described took place, and the only complete copies of the works themselves date to 400 years after the alleged event took place. Currency: FAIL
The Gospels have been edited for style and content by institutions that have a vested interest in their veracity for the better part of the last 2000 years. These institutions have a well-documented history of physically destroying conflicting or contradictory accounts with the full cooperation of the governing authorities. Objectvity: FAIL.
9. If we are just matter, and not souls, why would some atheists support life-sentences?
The matter in our body is totally changed out every seven years. If Cartesian dualism—a view I embrace—is false, and we are just matter, that means I am not the same person as I was seven years ago. And this is also true for a criminal.The justice system is completely futile if atheism is true. If matter is who we are, why don't we change as our matter changes?
Neither I nor anyone I know puts forth the idea that we are "just matter." Once again, you confuse atheism with nihilism. I don't know enough about the human consciousness (and I would wager you don't either) to definitively and objectively say whether or not we exist independent of the body. If your assertion is that we exist independent of the body in an immaterial undemonstrable state, then it is my assertion that you cannot say anything definitively and objectively about the subject. If you can, show us your evidence and book a flight to Sweden to collect your Nobel Prize.
10. Why do so many atheists deny historical facts?
Also funny coming from a Christian when so many Christians declare the United States to be a Christian nation founded on Biblical principles.
The common view today that most atheists hold is that Jesus didn't exist.
Actually, the view that most Atheists hold is that Jesus probably did exist, but did not possess magical powers, was not his own father and was not a zombie.
But Jesus did exist. How do I know this? Historically reliable sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Jewish Talmud, and Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus. So why do atheists hold to the Christ-myth hypothesis in spite of what we know through historical facts?
Josephus: wrote in the 90s, a full sixty years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection (not a contemporary). Josephus was also a Pharisee, who would never have referred to Jesus as "the Christ" or "the Messiah." The passage where he refers to him as such is a likely later insertion.
Tacitus: Textual evidence indicates that he was repeating what he was told by Christians and not what was in official Roman records. He refers to Pilate as a procurator when he was actually a prefect, and he refers to Jesus as "Christ," which he would not have done unless
A: He was working off of what Christians told him.
B: He was a Christian himself, which calls into question his objectivity on the matter (highly unlikely as he called Christianity a "pernicious superstititon")
or C: His work was edited later.
Lucian: wrote a full 140 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. Since he doesn't name a source or offer any new information, his account is pretty much useless.
The Jewish Talmud: Not compiled until the second century, wasn't written down until the 5th century and the references to Jesus are inconclusive.
Pliny the Younger: Pliny simply mentions that Christians exist in Asia Minor around the year 100. Nothing he wrote independently verifies anything written in the New Testament.
Even if you could provide 100% independently verifiable solid evidence that there existed a man in 1st century Palestine named "Jesus" who started a Jewish cult that grew into Chrisianity, you still have provided no evidence whatsoever that he was who he and others are alleged to have said he was, or that he did what he is alleged to have done. I can provide you with pretty solid evidence that no fewer than 5 Peter Parkers currently live in New York City. With a little digging, I can probably find more that have either moved or deceased. I could probably establish that a Peter Parker lived in New York City at the time the first Spiderman Comic Book was released. But that does not in any way verify that any of these people named Peter Parker are, in fact, Spiderman.
11. Why do most atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Denette, equivocate evolution with atheism?
Evolution does not prove God exists, nor does it prove God doesn't exist.
But it does show that a divine agent is not necessary for life to diversify.
Darwin did not kill God. Most Christians accept evolution. Why, then, do so many atheists point to evolution as if it disproves Christianity?
I might ask the same question of you, only I would replace "atheists" with "fundamentalist Christians." Most atheists actually point to evolution as a disproof of strict Bibilical creationism. If evolution does not pose a threat to Christianity, then why have so many Christian groups spent so much time, effort, energy and resources attempting to discredit evolution?
12. Why don't atheists actually question everything?
They're always advocating skepticism, but fail to question their own views, including that of skepticism. If we should doubt everything, why not doubt atheism?
So I should be doubtful of being doubtful of claims that are made without solid evidenciary support or logically sound reasoning? So basically, I should just accept these claims at face value.
This is just utter nonsense. Skepticism and questioning what we believed and why we believed it is what led many of us (myself included) to atheism. I personally spent the better part of 2 years actively seeking just one good piece of evidence or logically consistent reasoning to believe that a god or gods (ANY god or gods) are real.Couldn't find one. If you know of one, I'm all ears.
13. Where do rights come from?
Most atheists are supporters of the gay rights movement, and are furious when someone denies a homosexual of his or her rights just because of their sexual orientation. So it's pretty clear that atheists believe inalienable rights exist. But where do they come from? How can they be explained naturally?
Human rights are very similar to laws of motion. They are descriptions of the natural state of things and don't "come from" anywhere but the human mind. The idea came about when secular, non-religious Enlightenment-era thinkers decided to apply the same reasoning to the state of human society that had helped them make discoveries about the natural world and universe. Like all ideas, which are similar to living things, they change and adapt as new information becomes available. At first, the ideas only applied to white men.. But as our knowledge has increased (especially in the area of biology and human origins) we can see the unscientific absurdity of racism, sexism, and even homophobia.
Counter-Question: Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture (there are even clues in the Bible that King David himself may have been gay or bi-sexual) and has been observed in over 400 species of animals. Two consenting adults in a monogamous homosexual relationship pose no threat to society, and homosexual parents provide stable, healthy and loving homes for children who'd otherwise not have one. Knowing this, how can Christians (or anyone else) justify the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and that homosexuals should be denied basic human rights?
14. How can there be no objective evil, but religion causes it?
A top argument in the atheist arsenal is that religion causes evil.
This doesn't prove a thing, for Pythagoras caused evil but no one doubts
that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. But when atheists argue against religion by
pointing out its sins, they assume that objective morality exists. If
morality were a matter of opinion, there'd be no point in asserting it
as a fact. So why do atheists use religious evil to try to disprove
theism, when it actually does the opposite?
I'm not one to call religion "evil." I will not be one who says that religion is at the root of our problems. I will say that religion can exacerbate existing problems. I will also say that religion doesn't really offer anything resembling real solutions to poverty, disease, war, social injustice or economic disparity. Religion often serves as an enabler for mental disorders, and can encourage anti-social behaviors. It often discourages or seeks to limit (often with the cooperation of government) scientific inquiry, academic freedom and artistic expression; all three of which can be shown to benefit both individuals and societies. As I said, i'm not one to call religion "evil," but I do question how such an institution can be called "useful" or "beneficial."
I will also not discount the beneficial things religious organizations and religious people do. However, no beneficial or benevolent act done by a religious person or organization is one that could not have been done by a non-religious person or organization.
15. Why are there no good reasons to believe atheism is true?
Whenever I ask an atheist to disprove God, they can't do it.
Wow. You not only don't understand atheism, you don't understand how the burden of proof works either.
I think the character Hermione Granger said it best in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows":
"You could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”
I can't disprove the assertion that there lives a purple sand worm beneath the surface of Pluto that influences the outcome of all sporting events, but I have no good reason to believe that such a creature exists.
When
something is true, there are good reasons to think it is true.
No. When something is true, you have evidence and logical reasoning to back it up and what you "believe" about it is irrelevant.
But there
are no good reasons to believe God does not exist.
Actually, there are several:
-Atemporal, immaterial, undetectable, and invisible entities who only communicate telepathically bear a striking resemblance to imaginary entities.
-The only real evidence for the existence of gods are the wildly divergent claims of divine revelation by numerous prophets, true believers, shamans and mediums.
-A person's variety and level of religious belief is often closely related not to the validity of the claims, but to such accidental factors as geography, what religion their parents were, and what kind of society they grew up in.
-people who believe in a god or gods divorce, commit crimes, die of natural and unnatural causes, have abortions, have premarital sex, have unsafe sex, have bad things happen to them, live in poverty and go to prison at the same statistical rate (and in many of these cases, at a higher statistical rate) as people who don't believe in a god or gods.
So knowing all this, in response to your last question:
So why do
non-believers count me as irrational when I embrace theism?
I offer my final counter-question:
Why should I count you as rational when you clearly embrace an irrational concept?
