Who created the Creator?

Who created the Creator?

When discussing matters of the existence of the universe, a theist might be compelled to state “God created the Universe”. They easily accept this as fact and shut down their brain having satisfied their requirements for an answer. Others may ask, “Who created the Creator?”. It is such an obvious question to ask and is just like a child asking “Why?”.

I’ve asked this question and could ask the same question into infinity and never have an answer. Even if we are living in a computer simulation, the creator of the computer simulation would have to come from somewhere as well. Up until this point, we have no answers for how the Universe got here and pretending that a book has the only answer is narrow minded and short sighted.

Even well substantiated theories like the Big Bang, are generally outside of my understanding. I can’t grasp true nothingness. Sure, I can understand the idea of a black void or a vacuum, but these concepts represent something. A black void exists and so does a vacuum. However, given the evidence, a Big Bang most likely did happen and is a theory based on what we can and have observed. Does anyone know what came before, or existed before the Big Bang? No. Scientists constantly hypothesis and discuss possibilities but no-one truly knows. There are no absolutes.

Those, who reject the Big Bang theory explain that something can’t come from nothing. It does sound implausible but what is more implausible, the idea that God has always existed and he (?) created the Universe or that the Universe just came into existence? A theist expects the evidence to be presented to back up the Big Bang theory but requires no such evidence for their own position. Apparently they just know that God created the Universe.

It is absurd to suggest that a God, who is all powerful and all knowing, is sufficiently complex to create a universe and everything within it, listens to prayers and meddles with physical reality as needs be, just exists and has always existed. How about coming down from your theistic high horse and saying “I don’t know”.

You don’t know, I don’t know, the best minds in the world don’t know. If you think you know, you are deluded or are wrong.

Atheists - illogical and not supported by evidence?

Atheists - illogical and not supported by evidence?

Comment on post by Billy Graham.

The opinion of the Atheist is "illogical - and not supported by the evidence". Please apply this same criteria to the existence of "God". You will find that your opinions are just as "illogical - and not supported by the evidence".

In perspective, a single opinion about a single topic, is just an opinion. This is not a big deal. However, when an entire institution is setup to spread lies and fleece people out of their money in the name of "God", I also must agree with the Atheist.

Of course, you are not interested in this opinion because it doesn't align with "your" opinion. Keep travelling through life surrounding yourself by people that don't challenge your opinion, otherwise you might learn something yourself.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on good deeds or the truth. It is interesting that religious people can be just as bad and dishonest as any Atheist with an opinion. I suppose, at least a bad and dishonest religious person has "God" on their side to justify their illogical and unsupported opinions. Also, a copy of the Bible is always handy to quote a line out of context to justify their actions.

Shame on those poor Atheists with an opinion that isn't supported by the same poor logic and unsupported evidence as those of a religious person.

You Are Not An Expert

You Are Not An Expert

Comment on post by Eric McDonald of Choice In Dying

I have encountered the “you are not an expert” argument quite a few times when discussing theology with Christians. They say I wasn't an expert or qualified to comment because I hadn’t read the Bible or I hadn’t read a particular obscure text confirming Jesus’ existence and also that of God. I thought it best that I start my education and have subsequently read Hitchens, Dawkins, Loftus and am about to embark on reading the Bible. Internet blogs and YouTube videos are also a fairly common staple in my religious education diet at the moment.

I am told that the “truth” can be found in the Bible. I could draw the conclusion that I don’t need to read any books written by Christian “experts”. There seems little point in reading books that interpret the true meaning of the Bible. Interpretations lead to inconsistencies and inconsistencies are strewn across the spectrum of Christian “experts” around the world. In my mind, this damages the credibility of the experts and the writings of their truth book.

I do know that I will continue my education and never become an expert in the minds of Christians. I feel this is because I haven’t handed the reins of my life over to a God or over to Jesus.

I will also continue to encounter Christians who tell me I am not am expert because I haven’t read an obscure religious text or apparent eye witness accounts of Jesus such as those by Flavius Josephus. Every encounter will add another book to the pile I have read, and still they will deny me, and ride in the gaps, just like their God.

In contrast, there are many Christians and many Christian experts that haven’t even bothered with furthering their own education. Apparently they already have all of the knowledge they need and it’s in the form of a sermon or the Bible, of which they haven’t full read. At least Dawkins, as a scientist, actually bothered to educate himself on topics outside his area of expertise. This is far more than I can say about any number of Christians who regularly demonstrate their ignorance of the field of science but feel qualified to comment on it.

Christian Factions - Their Own Interpretations

Christian Factions - Their Own Interpretations

By asking a seemingly simple question - "Do you eat meat on good Friday?" - I opened a can of worms.

This particular question doesn't pose a problem for me as I am a vegetarian but I was trying to identify the link between religion and eating meat. Could scripture be used to sway an individual towards a vegetarian diet?

What confused me at this point was nothing to do with the original question. One of the people I asked said "I'm not a Catholic! That rule doesn't apply to me.".  Clearly, I did not understand the many factions of Christianity when I asked the question. A quick look at Page 98 of Information Is Beautiful confirms the many factions of Christianity and World Religions.

How is it that factions of Christianity can exist? Isn't "The Bible" the one true word of God? These factions give themselves the liberty to choose a different interpretation or implement different rules for their followers.

Continuing on this road, I was watching "Bill O'Reilly - Is There A Hell" and thought again about the factions of Christianity.

I think it is a fairly well accepted fact that if you don't worship the Christian God, you will burn in hell. As an Atheist, I will surely burn in hell, if it existed. Bill O'Reilly asks "Which church teaches that?" and goes on to say "My church doesn't teach that.". Does Bill not know the teachings of The Bible or is he part of a special Christian faction that chose to implement a different interpretation of The Bible?

Further to this, just because your Pastor doesn't say it, or teach it, doesn't mean it isn't in The Bible or isn't a core tenet. Stoning your children to death probably isn't taught in this church either, but essentially you all sin if you don't follow the rules as outlined in The Bible.

Irrespective of what level you apply an interpretation or differing rules, be it at the faction level, church level or at an individual level, it all originated from the same Bible. If you are not following and adhering to the original Bible and living by the rules of this Bible, then the unfortunate consequence is that you will suffer the same fate as the rest of us.

Near enough isn't good enough for your God.

Fascination with Religion

Fascination with Religion

Over the past year, I have become fascinated with religion and it all started with a book.

I made a decision and judged a book by its title and I picked up a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

I knew the book wasn't going to be some kind of fluffy bunny, sugar and spice encounter, and in my subconscious there was a tiny pang of what I thought was guilt.

I now recognize this feeling. I feel it when I am trapped in an argument and I am wrong or when my basic idea of the world is challenged. An emotion of confrontation that results in me admitting and accepting I am wrong and having to revise my world view and opinion.

In this case, a book called The God Delusion was confrontational to my world view as I had not yet formed a specific idea of where a God fits into my world.

I read this book over three nights and was intrigued and engrossed. The arguments in the book were impeccable and made sense to me. Given a mindset of logic and reason, which I need to use in every day life, I found the book connected with me and has essentially affirmed my underlying atheistic mindset.

My interest and fascination has been perked and I have since discovered The Four Horsemen, The Atheist Experience and many brilliant, logical and reasonable blogs.

I recommend that everyone reads The God Delusion.

What is wrong with same sex marriage? Nothing! (Part 3)

What is wrong with same sex marriage? Nothing! (Part 3)

Opponents of same sex marriage put forward varying reasons for their lack of support. I plan to discuss these reasons and why they are absurd.

STATEMENT: Children need a mother and a father to be role models 

RESPONSE: Heterosexual couples do not guarantee perfect role models

It is immediately obvious to me that marriage does not necessarily relate to raising children. This ploy is used by opponents of same sex marriage and attempts to reduce marriage into the sole purpose of having children. This was discussed briefly in What is wrong with same sex marriage? Nothing! (Part 2).

Opponents of same sex marriage often claim that children require a mother and a father to be role models and suggest that all other combinations are inferior or inadequate for raising children. In that same breath they choose to ignore the dysfunctional, abusive, alcoholic, and mentally poisonous heterosexual couples raising children.

My own family has been fractured by divorce a number of times. Opponents of same sex marriage would agree that I had the perfect role models for my upbringing as I had a mother and a father. Although my biological father has partially re-entered my life, and my step father did influence my life for approx 10 years, it was my mother, a single parent, that bore the burden of my upbringing. I am a lucky child as my mother was strong and gave me the solid base from which to grow and learn, irrespective of the instability of her own life.

Where are the role models for children of divorce? Where are the role models for children of dysfunctional, abusive, alcoholic and mentally poisonous heterosexual parents?

Single parents, same sex couples and heterosexual couples are all capable of raising balanced children and equally capable of raising children poorly. This is the nature of life.

It is an inescapable fact that heterosexual couples do not guarantee perfect role models nor a perfect environment for raising children and to argue that they do is absurd.

What is wrong with same sex marriage? Nothing! (Part 2)

What is wrong with same sex marriage? Nothing! (Part 2)

Opponents of same sex marriage put forward varying reasons for their lack of support. I plan to discuss these reasons and why they are absurd.

STATEMENT: Same sex marriage is against Biology.

RESPONSE: Marriage is a social construct whereas Biology is about the science of life and living organisms.

Opponents of same sex marriage often use the Biology argument to highlight that biologically only men and woman are able to bear children. They dilute marriage into the single purpose of having children. This is shallow and misguided.

There are many reasons to undertake a marriage. Some of those being commitment, legal recognition and love. 

Bearing children is obviously not on the list for same sex couples but even as a man and a women, my wife and I certainly didn't become married just to have children.

No-one walks around pretending that same sex couples can conceive children. Biology doesn't magically allow a same sex couple to conceive when married. A married same sex couple has the same likelihood of conceiving a child as a non-married same sex couple - None. 

The same logic and likelihood also applies to infertile heterosexual couples and I am sure I will never see a news headline protesting the marriage of an infertile heterosexual couple. Given their same likelihood of conception and therefore having no ability to bear children, they too should be banned from being married as this would be against Biology. 

A social construct like marriage cannot be against biology and to use that argument is absurd.