Miraculous Transformations

A Miraculous Transformation from Atheist to Christian

It is always interesting to read about a miraculous transformation from an atheist (a word that should not exist) to a christian, or any other religious denomination.

I read a letter to an editor of Daily Lobo by Michael Sandoval. Below is an excerpt.

I know I’ll get flak for this but I’m strong in my beliefs, and I honestly don’t care what you have to say. Becoming a Christian was the best thing that has ever happened to me, next to falling in love with my fiancée. I found a new life and all of a sudden everything seemed like it made sense. Keep in mind that I was an atheist before this happened 2 or 3 months ago. I felt that up until then I knew everything there was to know and since I felt strong in my knowledge, there was no need for religion. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Michael was an atheist who felt he knew everything there was to know. He then became a christian and all of a sudden everything made sense.

It is great that Michael has a new found confidence, but it is actually depressing that he arrogantly thought he knew everything when he was an atheist. Sure, I can understand having confidence in your world view and providing good reason and justification for your world view, but nobody knows everything and thinking that you do is dishonest and absurd. Nobody can know everything.

I think that accepting the fact that you don't know and can't know everything is similar to delegating the explanation to a god or a story in a book. It amounts to a mental offload, acceptance and maybe a relief that there are things and problems you don't need to know about or solve. The difference being that putting a god into the equation only complicates the situation and you are in exactly the same position as before. You still don't know everything but you've delegated to an imaginary god that still doesn't explain anything.

On a slightly similar note, I conducted a mental exercise, sat in a room and offloading my problems and issues to an imaginary entity, say, a flying spaghetti monster. I externalized my thoughts and put the burden on something else. Sure, it is kind of interesting, the flying spaghetti monster wasn't aware I did it, but I've mentally conned myself into not facing up to my problems and issues. I've effectively done nothing to address the issues. Back to reality, I admit to myself that I can't deal with or explain a situation and go and get some assistance. No need to invoke a imaginary entity.

I'm still surprised that people invoke a god and then everything suddenly makes sense to them. Basically conducting a mental con job on themselves and not actually providing any answers or explanations for anything. Basically it boils down to honesty. Either deal with and accept the fact that you don't know everything or dishonestly invoke an imaginary god that explains everything without explaining anything. Any position, other than that of honesty, is absurd.

When You Are Born

When You Are Born


I was having a discussion recently about the word "atheist". It is a label that many non-religious people take on.

I've heard it mentioned that the word "atheist" is interesting because it describes what you are not. For example, being an atheist means you are not a believer in any gods.

Strangely, the existence of the word "atheist" insinuates that being religious is the default position and an atheist somehow chooses to not believe. Of course this is absurd.

Imagine that when you are born, you are born religious. Many problems arise from this scenario. What religion are you? Are you religious in the Christian sense? Are you religious in the Muslim sense? Maybe it is a nondescript religion you are born into?

Typically your religion is defined by your parents or where you are born but moving on from this point, when presented with Christianity and Islam as options, if you don't choose Christianity but choose Islam instead, do you now identify as a non-Christian? No. You identify as a Muslim. This is a positive association. You chose, or were indoctrinated into, Islam. "I am a Muslim", you say proudly.

Of course, the idea of being born religious is really absurd. No-one is born religious. We are exposed to religion as we grow up. As mentioned before, typically this exposure is from our parents or the religious culture of the country or society we are born into. In reality, everyone is an atheist when they are born. The default position is no religious belief and no belief in any gods. So by extension, the word atheist does not need to be defined or even exist.

Religion is not a position you must accept and it is not something that you reject either. If the Christian religion is presented to you, you are not rejecting it if you don't become a Christian.

Typically this is described in terms of a hobby. Not collecting stamps, being a non-stamp collector, is not considered a hobby. I collected stamps when I was a kid, but I chose to collect stamps. Given the myriad of options, I could have collected coins but I wouldn't define myself as a non-stamp collector, or a non-pen collector.

A positive association with a religion or a belief in a god or gods should come with a label. You have chosen to become religious or believe in a god or gods. You can therefore say, "I am a theist" or "I am a Christian" or "I am a Muslim" etc.

Defining a person by what they do not positively associate with, is absurd. Furthermore, any idea that you are born religious is also absurd.

Atheists : Compelling and Intellectually Challenging

Atheists : Compelling and Intellectually Challenging

I have written previously about becoming bored with the same arguments and word games employed by theists.

In stark contrast, I am continually surprised by the compelling and intellectually challenging positions and analysis of the bible and religion by atheists. Today I read a blog post highlighting a comment made by Stephen Fry in regards to "What Knowledge Did The Apple Bring".

Stephen Fry has only recently appeared in my readings regarding religion and I am learning that I need to read more about him and read more of his writings. The Four Horsemen often come to mind in regards to atheism, but in my mind, a fifth has now entered. Stephen Fry, I welcome your insights and brilliance.

With this in mind, I have observed that atheists are continually asking the difficult questions and critically evaluating the bible and religion. Atheists give respect only where it is earned and deserved. Stephen, as an atheist, asks some compelling questions and draws some reasonable conclusions about the bible and the absurdity of the genesis story.

I often to wonder why theists aren't applying the same critical analysis to the bible. An intelligent, and intellectually honest adult should be able to see straight through the bible. I think it all comes back to a the scary reality of a breakdown in their world view. The inability to let go of an unfortunate lie they've been told all of their lives. Everything they've believed about god and the world hinges on these illogical and inconsistent stories, fables and parables. They just can't let go. Defending the only position you know.

As an atheist and a skeptic, I want to be challenged. I want my worldview to be elastic, to be convinced of a compelling argument, to accept that an idea or opinion I have is wrong and to move on and learn about the next big thing. Clinging stubbornly to old ways and old ideas, like a mental Luddite, is absurd.

Apologetic Word Games

Apologetic Word Play and Other Games


I freely admit that I am starting to get bored of the same arguments and word games employed by religious apologists. In defense of the creator of the universe, the apparently all knowing and almighty, apologists present us with broken arguments, flawed definitions and unknowable assertions.

An apologist might apply the concept of cause to the universe. Apparently god caused the universe to exist. In a typical example of a broken argument, turn to the next page and be told that god is eternal and just existed. An entity so complex, and able to create the universe, just exists. Apologists assert this as fact.

I ask what is on the outside of the universe, the container for all life and matter? In theory, nothing. In reality, who knows? Where exactly did god happen to exist before the universe existed? The apologist  will always make a special "look the other way" case for their own absurd arguments.

Word games are also employed by apologists. Plug a word like "atheist" into Google or any online dictionary and choose the definition that suits your argument. An apologist will assert that an atheist knows there is no god. Sure, some atheist assert there is no god, but atheism is about a lack of belief in gods, not knowledge. Truly, no-one can know if there is or isn't a god. A theist can believe all they want. An atheist can disbelieve all they want. No-one has proven that god does or doesn't exist. It is far more intellectually honest to choose atheism.

Typically a theist would play the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" card. Effectively this argument is worth walking away from at this point. No-one can disprove the existence  of a unicorn, Santa or the tooth fairy and no-one would be dishonest enough to assert that they do exist. Even if we could explain every physical aspect of the entire universe, a theist would move god into an unverifiable and unknowable plane in defense of this absurd argument.

In a typically circular fashion, the idea of god, that was constructed by men, an idea formed in the mind, meets it's final death throes in the mind. Essentially in the form of tired and often repeated arguments from apologists.

Apologists remind me of someone who cannot admit they are wrong. Based on reality and the evidence it is dishonest to say "I read this book. I have the answers. I am right". Instead, the apologist continues to argue and grapple with obscurities and absurdities which are unnecessary if they just said they didn't know.

Of course, I don't know if I'm right, but reality and the evidence are all pointing in the same direction. The arguments presented by apologists are boring, circular, flawed, unknowable and absurd.

Dear Professor Dawkins: Science Is a Servant of Truth, Not Atheism

Dear Professor Dawkins: Science Is a Servant of Truth, Not Atheism

Comment on post by Rabbi Moshe Averick

All credible scientists freely admit that they do not know the answer as to how life arose. They can hypothesize all they want. As Dawkins clearly says, “I told you I don’t know” followed by “No, No, nor does anyone else”. Further to this, Dawkins would never use Darwinian evolution to explain how life arose. This would be a big mistake.

Dawkins really has no burden of proof unless he makes a claim. The answers provided are perfectly reasonable considering the poor questions asked by Stein.

Contrast this with the opinion of a theist, “I’ve read the Bible, the Christian God created us”. No-one in the history of Christianity has been able to provide evidence of God or that he created us. Meanwhile, science continually disproves the fantastical stories of the Bible and continues to close the gaps where theists place their Gods. Atheism becomes more powerful with the ally of science.

Smiley faces don’t make themselves, computers don’t make themselves and by extension, God didn’t make itself. They are all man made as far as we can tell and prove.

Who created God, how did life arise and what is wrong with saying, “I don’t know”, and using science to figure it out.

++++

Science knows nothing and expects evidence for everything. Religion knows everything and expects evidence of nothing – Anonymous

Reverse Engineering - Science vs Bible

Reverse engineering is a term you hear quite often in the world of Information Technology. It is usually undertaken to figure out how something works, specifically without knowing the techniques or technologies used to produce the product or software in question. See Wikipedia for more detail on Reverse Engineering.

Science uses this style of technique quite frequently. Nature, in all of it's beauty, is observed and pulled apart in an effort to understand how it works. In many cases, astounding advances in understanding are made. Bio-mimicry in particular uses these observations from nature to produce technological advances by trying to replicate nature.

With this in mind, science only knows what it knows. Highly educated hypotheses may be formed but science doesn't pretend to know the answers.

On the other hand, the reverse engineering techniques employed by the writers of the bible are the polar opposite of science. They observe a particular phenomena and write it up as an act or sign from god. In itself this is no big deal as many works of fiction describe fantastical scenarios and phenomena. The problem here is that the bible and the purveyors of the bible, present this as fact.

When a rainbow forms in the sky, apparently it is the sign of the covenant from God (Genesis 9:8-16).
Maybe it is a sign from God, but the verifiable and reproducible facts are that it is light passing through raindrops. No need to invoke the supernatural, unlike the scientifically ignorant writers of the bible.

Science, rather than jumping to fantastical conclusions and unsubstantiated statements of fact, will reverse engineer nature through observation and experiment to find the real truth. In the face of the real truth, believing the fantastical stories and unsubstantiated statements made in the bible is just absurd.

Quote by Robert G. Ingersoll

Quote by Robert G. Ingersoll


"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll