New / Atheism, in the PT? starts here .

Archive for 'God'

"There must be some kind of god, my religion is right 100% right!"

Friday, March 12, 2010
There must be a creator, so this particular religion is 100% right!

I've mentioned in the problem of "God exists because the universe exists" that the idea of the complexity of the universe implies some kind of creator is not reflected at all in "God is so" or "want to roast" or "Jesus died for our sins " 1 or any other belief or dogma of various religions exist.

"There must be some kind of god / creator," it was right ( is not ) would require just that - that there must be some kind of god. Not imply anything about him (her? They?), About their history, their desires, their morality, or even that it was still "alive" does not imply in any way, that this or that religion are right, and reach this conclusion is just intellectual dishonesty.

The comic above , yesterday, clearly shows this error, unfortunately, very typical ...

  1. that is, God had to come into the world and be tortured and killed to be able to forgive us [ ]

FAQ: "And if you're wrong, and God exist? This does not concern you? "

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

(Note: this is not the same as the existing question in the FAQ, "Is not it better to believe, just in case? After all, if I'm wrong I do not lose much, but if you're wrong ..." . This entry in the FAQ is a rejection of Pascal's Wager: this here is a response to the remote possibility that God, after all, exist.)

This is a question often posed by Christians (especially Christians) to atheists. And if we're wrong, after all if God exists, and if after you die, as they say, we meet our creator?

First, I must say that this is not a possibility that actually worry me, since I have every reason to believe that there is no god or gods. The universe appears to be 100% natural, and, on one hand, science is far from knowing everything, on the other hand there is nothing up to now that absolutely requires a supernatural explanation, and can not - ever - be explained in naturalistic terms . In other words, a total absence of evidence "for" is itself a strong evidence "against" (not is that mankind has sought in its millennia of history), and therefore, all evidence suggest that the number of deities in the universe is zero.

Second, if there was a god, was still virtually impossible that human religions are right. Their gods are small, provincial, territorial, childish, insecure, and tribal. And very, very human. They have human emotions (including a good deal of jealousy, which for some reason in them is never seen as a failure of character), have a "chosen people", supposedly created a universe that we now know is incredibly vast and complex (which is not knew when religions appeared), but our small and insignificant planet is still the only thing that matters in the universe - and our physical lives are not in this world that really matters. (The idea of ​​an ancient universe (much, much more than humanity, or even our planet), vast and incredibly diverse, simply as a "backdrop" of a test to determine if we are saved or not is completely ... espatafúrdia.) The anthropomorphic gods of our religions are so obviously created by humans, who can not be true. If there were "out there" a god capable of creating a universe, he / she would probably be too complex / a even for us to repay him / her ... and he / she certainly would not mind us, our morality, our sex lives :) Nor would the judge and places to go after death. In other words, if there really were a god in a cosmic sense, does not affect in any way - and it would be infinitely greater (and less "like us but more powerful") than the deities insecure, obstinate and obsessed with genitals :) of our religions.

Third, and despite all the above, there was still a god, and he / she care about us and judged us somewhat after our physical deaths? Well, depends on the standards of trial. Maybe not care about our morality, or the fact of being adored / or not, but with something completely different. We have no way of knowing. Perhaps, for example, was a deity for whom the only important thing is to treat them well our pet cats (which everyone knows to be divine).

But suppose such a being really care about our actions, our morals. In this case, the final question is: God is good or bad? Now reject the corruptions of the usual meaning of "good" such as "what God wills is by definition good." There must be some standard, and the whims of a powerful being.

Thus:

  1. a good God - which excludes the tyrant insecure and obsessed with sexuality in which the three monotheisms believe - reward those who had lived a good life, being in general "cool" to others, and full of curiosity to discover and learn things, following the evidence available to its logical conclusion. The available evidence does not suggest in any way the existence of a god, so believe in spite of not more than "wishful thinking" intellectually dishonest, which would not satisfy such a deity. A good God would reward good good atheists and believers, and punish bad bad believers and atheists - but would probably be a bit disappointed with the lack of curiosity and honesty on the part of believers (on the other hand, he / she would also have to explain - why hide and create the universe so that this implies its non-existence?). A good god would not be insecure or immature, and not need, want or care about the issue to be worshiped, or any other type of massage the ego. Thus, I have no fear of a good God.
  2. an evil god - as Yahweh or Allah (and if you disagree with me, do not walk to read your holy books, and you're up "God" you own ) - would be largely as a brutal dictator in a totalitarian regime. No one is safe from this monster, not worth the wait justice or a predictable treatment, impartial and fair. He has you, you're propriadade him, a slave, nothing more. "Grease Give it" may result for some time, but he can always torture you or kill you on a whim, because, for him, there are a human being with emotions, are a tool to use, a toy to play with. Still, "Grease give you" - that is, love it, live life according to him, and obey him blindly, no matter the suffering caused to others - will probably be the safest option. Of course, such an option, on the other hand, will make of thee a cobardezinho disgusting, without any moral integrity. This is the kind of God that really would be two places to go after death - an eternal torment for the other to give him even more "grease." The only moral thing to do in the presence of such a monster, to be condemned for having the morality he has, would spit in his face, as a final act of defiance.

Fortunately, I do not believe in the existence of anything that was described above. And that just makes me feel free and alive. :)

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

FAQ: "God loves you!"

Monday, February 22, 2010

The idea is that in general this exclamation: "God loves you, and you not only rejected it, as you refuse even to acknowledge its existence!? What ingratitude! How are you able? "Emotional blackmail, therefore.

The obvious answer is the usual "how do you know?". That is, without evidence, there is no reason to believe what the other person is saying to me, much less to me "feel guilty" for my supposed ingradidão and insensitivity.

But there is another way to answer this near-accusation in a way that favors my position.

If I said "God exists, but is not give a damn for you and for us all," the non-existence it would not be so obvious (even though there are several arguments against it, starting again with the question "how do you know?"). But in saying that he "loves me" or "love everybody", you only demonstrate that not only he did not "love me", as almost certainly there ... and rightly so. When this feature dares you, to make you even more improbable its existence, to give me arguments against it - as if there is no evidence that the same was not already enough.

In other words, a god who "loves me" and hides is even less likely - and more difficult to believe - that the one God to whom I am totally indifferent (if he knows I exist).

You know, is that "love" is not something that just sit at a distance, without making any attempt to contact. If I "love" for someone - be it romantic love, brotherly great friendship, etc.. - I want to be and generally live with this person. It never entered my head to be so sick that instead of seeking contact, never revealed, but sent doubtful types of air the person's home "loved" to tell you that I exist and I love, but she will never be able to see directly and use the belief or non-belief in my existence as an indicator of your love for me.

"Love" - ​​even if it is what it feels like a family member or a close friend, for someone who care and want the mellhor possible - is not it. Rather, the kind of "love" that attaches to the God I believe is the sickest things, more manipulative, and abuse I've ever heard.

And do not love - or even respect the most basic sense of the word - one of those sick sadistic, even if it existed. Fortunately, the reasons to believe such a creature still zero.

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)

FAQ: "If you do not believe in God, so why do you speak it?"

Saturday, February 20, 2010

To begin, we must distinguish "speak of God" and "talk religion". If the meaning of the question is: why do I care about this, why spend time and effort to criticize religion, I suggest reading these two posts:

Most likely the answer lies in the posts above, and could probably stay here. However, if we take the question literally, it does not refer to care for me with religion, but to "speak of God", and "God" probably the most popular version of these bands, the Judeo-Christian God. The implied accusation in question is that if I speak it well, maybe it's because deep down even believe it exists ...

But who actually read what I write in this blog, rather than just assume things about me for my self-proclaimed atheist (the name of the blog is a good clue ...), it is rare to see that properly speak of "God" and when I do, it is obvious that I'm talking about what I consider to be a dummy, as I talk about Spider-Man in a blog or forum about comics without any parvinho come soon to ask me if, at age 35 I believe that there is Peter Parker ...

Unlike Spider-Man, however, there are actually many people in the world to believe in the Christian god - about two billion, or 1 / 3 of the planet - we consider this the real, and that lives wishes of the alleged (and often whims) of this being. It is the morality of this is - as described in the sacred books, and / or the beliefs of Christians, although the latter tend to be invented by them to be a reflection of themselves - I criticize, to "follow you a being with these features, what does that say about you? Or never even thought about it? They have trouble following a being who is either a) jealous, insecure, sexist, homophobic, sadistic, cantankerous, or is 2) obviously just invented for you ? "None of this minimally suggests that I" believe "in it somehow ... but if Christians believe, I think that you are confronted with the personality that they themselves give.

(Note: please restrict any comment that you make to the previous question and answer, and not to other matters as the existence or nonexistence of God. Thank you.)


Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
This work by Dehumanizer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal .