Atheism FAQ | Atheism-EN

Archive for FAQ Atheism '

FAQ: "I had an experience that proves to me that God exists."

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Warning: your memory of this experience is almost certainly something that we have a strong emotional attachment, and any arguments against your interpretation of that experience you will look like a personal attack. Are not.

This argument is relatively common. There are several possible scenarios:

"The worst time of my life when nothing seemed to make sense and there seemed no hope, I felt the presence of God, which inspired me to straighten my life"
"A time of desperation, I asked God for help, and other unusual thing happened to be a mere coincidence, I believe it was a miracle"
"Something happened that I can not explain, that there may have been a natural phenomenon, therefore, can only have been an act of God"

Possibly, your case will be equal or similar to the one above (if not, please tell it in a comment). And once again, I believe this is now something "special" for you, something in which you have a huge emotional investment. It was, perhaps, as you are drowning and you feel someone grab you in the hand and pull yourself up, and even today the memory is more important in your life. Believe it or not, I understand, better than can imagine how important it is for you.

But I also believe that the reality must always be paramount, we must correct any erroneous beliefs we have, however well they make us feel. Feel free to disagree with this. It is your right not question anything that you are comfortable. Therefore, it is better stop reading now.

If you are still there ... I ask that you start by asking you the following in relation to your experience, how do you know that your interpretation is correct? I do not suppose you aches infallible nor omniscient, so, so you should ask yourself about why you know that what happened can only come from "divine" and you can not no other explanation. Even consider other possibilities? Seriously considered the possible natural explanations before moving to a supernatural? And if you did not, do not you think that you should have done?

"Feeling the presence of God" in a moment of despair - that is, emotional vulnerability - is nothing unique or even unusual. It is a time when our emotions are at the top, and our rationality and skepticism are the minimum, ie, is a time when we desperately want to feel something, want to feel a presence, a comforting touch, feel that, much that the world is cold and gray, people do not care, and our life is horrible, there is "up there" someone who cares, and we never betray or abandon. Between wanting to desperately feel it, and feel that actually, the distance is too short, do not you think?

Also note the following: the believers of other religions have almost the same sensations. Even the non-believers may, in certain situations. This strongly suggests that they do not come from a particular god, but of our own minds.

For coincidences, they happen often. The essential question here is this: we often do not realize that they do not happen. Most superstitions arise from something like this. For example, a football player does a much better game than usual, scoring several goals and the like. At the end of the challenge, he notices the fact that (for example) have a hole in the right half. Immediately, this becomes the "half luck" to him. Possibly, as did several games with the same median half, but he forgets that. Will have had good games without it, but will not have that in mind. In the future, you will have bad games with the same half, but again, not to notice this fact. But whenever I have a good game with this half? "See? My half of luck never fails! "

In summary, the human mind is terrible to deal with "coincidences." The trend is noticed at times that it seems to confirm our belief, and ignore the times it is denied.

In other words, if one day you asked God something possible (eg "I'm late for work, God forbid that there is no traffic today") and that something actually happens, remember that thou wilt in the future. If not, thou shalt forget, do not even think about it. That's how our minds work, and there is no need to be ashamed of it, but precisely because it is good to prepare for these possible errors.

Finally, for alleged "miracles" (not "mere coincidence", as described above), perhaps the best is to describe it in a comment. But, again, the human mind is very easy to deceive; visions, hallucinations and dreams "surreal" are the most frequent there.

I would add that, even if it were shown conclusively that some event was actually supernatural (which never happened until today), then one could only conclude that "the supernatural exists." Never something like "God exists" and even "the god the religion I was brought up there. " The first conclusion for the following two will jump much higher than they probably imagine, and you can not logically give.

Again, if you had any experience that does not fit in the three types I mentioned, or that you think it is possible to prove with facts and logic (instead of simply "to me is well and ready"), is free to comment .

(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.)

In the category FAQ Atheism , Religion | 7 Comments »

FAQ: "The atheism / materialism does not explain the love / friendship / good and evil / poetry / beauty / irrational numbers in mathematics / <another abstracto> example of human concept, then they are wrong / God exists!"

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

This question is unfortunately very common, as in the case of Pascal's wager , most believers put this question with an attitude of defiance ("there to answer it! bet you can not!"), being visible in the illusion that the original question is that the atheist never thought of it, and will be unable to answer it.

Surprise: any atheist who is interested in discussing such issues has thought this matter, and immediately found several problems in it.

The first problem is this: it is an argument from ignorance, already mentioned here and here . This argument in this context boils down to this: "I do not know / not understand / I do not see how, once it was God." Since this is a bad argument when used in relation to something that is not yet understood or explained by science (eg the origin of the universe), since it makes sense that a supernatural explanation just win "by default", but shows more "foolish" when used in relation to something that has already been explained and understood by many people, but the believer in question does not know or understand - or tried to know or understand - these explanations. It's like someone thinking today (as it was in pre-history) that a storm is a discussion between "the gods".

In other words, is a tremendous ignorance - and intellectual laziness - to attribute emotions or one's capacity for good (or evil) "God" when they can be explained by evolution, psychology, neurology and philosophy. But learning about all this is hard work, right?

A second problem is the dualistic mentality and anti-human , it says - and is thus guilty of so much suffering throughout history - all that is profound, remarkable, important, or "good" must have a supernatural origin, outside us, a plan is not reached by the intelligence and the humanities. As the charge of Keats to Newton for having "unlocked the Rainbow" and thus destroyed the beauty and poetry of the same (as if there was only beauty and poetry in total ignorance ...), this is an anti-human mentality and anti -life, that takes the best from ourselves and say that this can only come from a supernatural plane and incomprehensible (whether "God" is anything "new age" undefined), because if it were understood and explained in purely human terms would lose all its value.

This, sorry to say, is absurd. The love of one person by another does not need an external source or justification or supernatural to have value, to make poetry and purity. Rather, the claim that these sources are needed, there is that you are taking value. What I feel for someone - a girlfriend, a relative, friend - you need no external justification, need not come from a "spiritual plane", it loses value to come "only" to me - quite the contrary, lose all and any value unless it come to me if it was not mine.

In fact, give all that is good in man to something "extra-human" only demonstrates one thing: a total hatred of mankind and himself. Something very common in many popular religions, "coincidentally".

(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.)

Labels: argument from ignorance , Atheism FAQ
In Category Atheism , Atheism FAQ , Morality | 1 Comment »

FAQ: "You do not understand any of this!"

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Note: while I was hesitating between including or not this entry in the FAQ, the idea is the same answer the most frequently asked questions or statements reasonable, and it moves away from this dangerous condition. I believe that there must be limits, for example, no FAQ will include answers to insults, "mouths" silly, and the like. But where to draw the limit of what is reasonable and is not it? Well, hey: it is this entry. Is the limit - sorry to say - stupidity: anything more stupid than this will inevitably be an insult that does not deserve response. For this case, I can still give the benefit of the doubt.

Another reason to include it is his "popularity" apparent, from what I've seen, both here and elsewhere, this argument is the most popular and common part of those who are opposed to atheism. How sadly do not expect such leave to pass, while always having an entry in the FAQ that I can "link" for an answer.

My reaction to this charge can only be a "why". You just said is exactly nothing.

Telling a person that he is wrong without justifying this statement is something that has no value. Does not make you stay "cool," nor does the opponent get "malevolent" nobody with two fingers of forehead will think what they probably wanted to convey, which is what the other person said is so absurd, so childish, so obviously wrong, it does not merit response.

Quite the contrary, the only idea that conveys is that there are disagreeing but do not know very well why. And deep down you are aware that you have not "ride" to argue with another person by using facts and logic. That's pretty cowardly, you know?

Worse yet, you can even get the idea that you suspect - or know - that you are not right. But they are not able to admit. What makes you a dishonest person.

Do you, or you think you have, and arguments in your favor? Use them. I love it when someone shows that I'm wrong in some way at some point. But if you disagree and you do not use arguments, it is nothing.

PS - if your reply to a comment with a link to this entry in the FAQ, welcome to a world where "because" does not work. Hopefully next time - assuming that there is a - tell how and why I'm wrong. Try it. Not so hard.

(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.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ
In the category talk , Atheism FAQ | No Comments »

FAQ: "You are wrong because <repetição afirmação> or belief."

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

One thing I always found it frustrating for the majority of believers who disagree with the comment (even here there were few, but I've been through a lot in other blogs) is that they do not justify their statements, positions or opinions. That is, often boil down to saying "you're wrong" or "do not understand any of it" (something that I will address next entry in the FAQ, which should be the last for now), without specifying why, without saying where it is allegedly committed an error of fact or logic in what I wrote. And this is common in other blogs of atheism, it's not just me, obviously.

A curious variant of this lack of justification is in question when the believers 'justified' ... simply repeating his statement / position / initial opinion (if they have been challenged to justify something they said), or quoting something they believe in it without warrant as well. They say that like it's a valid argument and obvious, as if explaining something like that. And of course, are not.

Examples of these "arguments":

"You are wrong, because God exists." (This is the most common)
"You are wrong, because God loves you."
"You are wrong, because Christ is the way."
"You are wrong, because the believers will be saved."
"You are wrong, because I believe."
"You are wrong, because I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart."
"You are wrong, because God created the universe."
"You are wrong, because God created man."
"You are wrong because God said ..."
"You are wrong because God is love."
"You are wrong, because God is good."
"You are wrong, because I am a Christian."
"You are wrong, because the atheists go to Hell."
"You are wrong, because Christianity is right."
"You are wrong, because God has promised us that ..."
"You are wrong, because Christ gave His life to be saved."
"You are wrong, because of its <any religião> other belief."

All these arguments can be reduced in essence to this: "you're wrong because you're wrong." The amazing thing is that they continue to use them as if they were valid and convincing arguments. But, of circular logic, or, in plain language, arguments "because".

I do not understand, frankly, how anyone can use "arguments" like this and be waiting for them to be taken seriously ...

An argument a little differently, but that ends up going to the same thing, is this: "You are wrong because the Bible says ..." There is a circular argument directly, since it does not say "this is so because this is so," but has a problem: why believe the Bible? "Why is the word of God." How do you know? "It says in the Bible." For ...

(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.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ
In the category talk , Atheism FAQ | 1 Comment »

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 lives in this physical world nor are what really matter. (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:

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.
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.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ
In the category of Christianity , God , Atheism FAQ , Religion | 2 Comments »

FAQ: "Who wants to buy disdain if critics both religion probably like to believe or not believe it!"

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Without a doubt. Who opposes something, it secretly supports this greed or something. As a person involved in campaigns against illiteracy in the background, deep down, I would not read. It makes sense!

Next question.

PS - Don 't "psychologist bench," you is not bad.

(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.)

Labels: Atheism FAQ
In Category Atheism , Atheism FAQ | No Comments »

FAQ: "You atheists are as fanatical and dogmatic as any believer. 'Believe' in atheism, and nothing you would change your mind. "

Monday, February 22, 2010

As in " Atheism is just another religion! ", the charge on the title of this entry uses concepts like" religion, "" faith "or" belief "as an insult, which turns out to be an admission that the accuser recognizes that rationality is a higher level than the religion, and tries to reduce atheism to just one of the latter. Provides food for thought.

For this entry, as I do not believe in "reinventing the wheel", I will make use of an article by Adam Lee, The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists . Some of the ideas that I use come from there, some are mine.

First, start by returning the question / objection: what you would do to you or to any believer who knows, become convinced that their faith is wrong and there is no God? Not unless you're one in a million, I bet the answer will be something like "nothing, I have faith in my God," or "nothing, I believe, and ready." This is to be dogmatic; interestingly this kind of attitude is It is even more liberal believers in the so-called "non-practicing", even if religion does not really affect anything in their lives who never put a foot in a church except for baptisms, weddings and funerals, still reponderão the question " to convince you that you're wrong "with a" nothing. " That is, contrary to what one would expect, need not be fundamentalist to be dogmatic and irrational beliefs to be "invulnerable" to reality (often by the simple fact that they are comfortable).

And if you are one of them "one in a million," and actually have an answer to this question, the more likely it is that believers do not stand for much longer (and no, I mean it's for reading this blog, is yes, because after opening the door to rationality, it is very difficult to re-close it).

A diferença entre um ateu e um crente típico, aquilo que faz com que não sejamos dogmáticos, que não “acreditemos” simplesmente no ateísmo “e pronto”, é que somos capazes de responder à pergunta. Vou aqui usar uma versão resumida do artigo acima linkado, já que concordo com tudo o que o autor diz ali.

Categoria 1: coisas que me convenceriam de que Deus existe

Profecias concretas, correctas, e de origem verificável . Isto exclui :
- Profecias vagas, abstractas e com inúmeras interpretações possíveis (ex. Nostradamus).
- Profecias triviais (ex. “no próximo inverno vai estar frio” ou “esta seca eventualmente passará”).
- Profecias “obrigatórias” (ex: qualquer “profeta” a trabalhar para um rei não vai, de certeza, prever que ele vai ser um cruel tirano, mas vai elogiá-lo — e algum rei no meio de muitos vai realmente ser um bom governante).
- Profecias “auto-cumpríveis” (isto é, a existência da própria profecia faz com que a tentem concretizar por acharem que é essa a vontade de Deus; ex. a Bíblia dizia que os Judeus voltariam eventualmente a Israel, e eles realmente voltaram… para seguir a Bíblia).
- Profecias que possam ter sido feitas depois de o evento acontecer (isto é, não seja possível provar que a profecia é anterior ao evento).
- Profecias cujos eventos não sejam independentemente confirmáveis, e possam ter sido relatados precisamente para condizer com as profecias (ex. os autores dos Evangelhos tinham acesso às profecias do Antigo Testamento sobre o Messias, e podem ter inventado eventos na suposta vida de Jesus para condizer com elas).
- Profecias que sejam o único sucesso entre mil fracassos; qualquer um pode prever e prever e prever coisas até que uma esteja correcta.
Conhecimento científico nos livros sagrados que não estivesse disponível na altura (de forma concreta e clara); coisas que podem ser interpretadas assim de forma muito “rebuscada” não contam.
Milagres reais, especialmente se obtidos a partir de oração . Note-se que coincidências não servem de exemplo, a não ser que realmente aconteçam de forma repetida e repetível . Por exemplo, se só ateus fossem atingidos por relâmpagos, ou se crentes se curassem de doenças com muito mais frequência, incluindo doenças incuráveis e membros amputados .
Manifestação directa e incontestável do “divino” (coisa que acontecia muito na Bíblia, sobretudo no Antigo Testamento, ea multidões , não apenas a uma pessoa, o que poderia ser explicável em termos psicológicos).
Extraterrestres exactamente com a mesma religião .

Categoria 2: coisas que me inclinariam nessa direcção, mas não constituiriam por si só uma prova

Um livro sagrado genuinamente perfeito , consistente e sem erros ou contradições.
Uma religião sem disputas internas ou múltiplas facções .
Uma religião cujos aderentes nunca tenham cometido atrocidades .
Uma religião que tenha ganho todas as suas “guerras santas” .

E, finalmente,

Categoria 3: coias que não me convenceriam, de forma alguma

Falar em “línguas” ou outros pseudo-milagres , seja por serem explicáveis psicologicamente (ex. estados emocionais extremos), seja pela nossa tendência a ver padrões onde eles não existem (ex. a “cara de Jesus” numa torrada).
Histórias pessoais de conversão (incluindo da parte de ex-ateus; toda a gente pode ter um momento de fraqueza em que se deixa levar pelas emoções — sobretudo o medo — e “wishful thinking”).
Experiências subjectivas (ex. “sinto Deus no meu coração”).
“Códigos da Bíblia” e outras brincadeiras com numerologia .
Criacionismo e outras pseudociências .

Mais uma vez, desafio qualquer leitor crente a dizer o que é que te convenceria de que não existe qualquer deus e os ateus estão correctos… se fores capaz.

E se não fores, considerando que os ateus são , diz-me outra vez quem é o “dogmático”.

(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.)

Etiquetas: Dogmatismo , FAQ de Ateísmo
Na categoria Ateísmo , Dogmatismo , FAQ de Ateísmo | Sem Comentários »

FAQ: “Mas se Deus não existir, e não persistirmos depois da morte, qual é o sentido disto tudo?”

Segunda-feira, 22 de Fevereiro, 2010

Se realmente puseste a questão dessa forma, parabéns — é um enorme progresso em relação ao “wishful thinking” desta pergunta. É muito mais racional e adulto dizer “se for assim, como é que fazemos?” do que dizer “não pode ser assim, porque se fosse, seria mau”. A “desejabilidade” de algo não afecta a sua veracidade.

Respondendo à pergunta, então…

Sempre achei estranha a ideia de que uma coisa com fim não tem valor. No resto da vida, em geral não agimos assim; conseguimos apreciar um bom livro ou um bom filme apesar de sabermos que inevitavelmente acabam. Porque é que a vida há de ser diferente, e perder todo o seu valor pelo simples facto de ser finita?

Pode-se, aliás, argumentar que é precisamente o facto de a vida ter um fim que a torna preciosa , única e insubstituível. Por outras palavras, ninguém que considere a vida “uma passagem” ou “um teste” ou “uma de muitas” (no caso de crentes na reincarnação) pode alguma vez dar tanto valor à vida como quem acredite que ela é a única que temos, e terá um fim — um ateu .

A vida pode ser finita, e ser um mero instante de um ponto de vista cósmico, mas não é um instante para nós . Enquanto estamos vivos, temos um mundo inteiro para descobrir, inúmeros factos para aprender, ciências para explorar, arte para saborear ou criar, pessoas para conhecer, relações para viver. Pôr de parte tudo isso simplesmente porque não será para sempre é de uma cobardia extrema, é medo de viver.

Que sentido há para a vida, de um ponto de vista ateu? Viremos a pergunta ao contrário: qual é o “sentido de vida” que um crente pode ter e que está fora do alcance de um ateu? Eu só vejo um: Deus (seja real ou fictício). Servir Deus, adorar Deus. Basicamente, viver em função de outro ser — ou seja, ser um escravo, mesmo que contente com a escravatura. No, thank you. Felizmente, muitos crentes — os não fundamentalistas — criam outros sentidos para as suas próprias vidas, em vez de se contentarem em ver-se a eles próprios como ratos num labirinto que não entendem nem podem alguma vez entender, como qualquer fundamentalista faz.

Mas, então, o quê ? Bem, não posso dar um sentido à vida de ninguém (e fujam de quem vos disser que vos pode dar um — está a mentir), mas o que posso dizer é isto: nós criamos um sentido para as nossas vidas. Ele não vem de fora — caso viesse, seria um sentido “em segunda mão”, o que não passa de uma fuga cobarde à responsabilidade de ser um ser humano pensante e vivo . Viver é a maior das aventuras, e só o fazemos uma vez… o que é uma sorte na qual não pensamos, em geral. Citando Richard Dawkins ¹ em Unweaving the Rainbow (tradução minha):

Vamos morrer, e isso faz de nós os sortudos. A maior parte das pessoas nunca vai morrer, porque nunca vai nascer. As pessoas que podiam potencialmente estar aqui no meu lugar mas que na verdade nunca vão ver a luz do dia são mais do que os grãos de areia no Sahara. De certeza que estes fantasmas não nascidos incluem poetas maiores que Keats, cientistas maiores que Newton. Sabemos isto porque o conjunto de pessoas possíveis permitidas pelo nosso DNA ultrapassa em muito o conjunto de pessoas efectivamente nascidas. Na realidade destas assombrosas probabilidades somos tu e eu, na nossa mediania, que aqui estamos.

Esta é a única vida que tens. É finita; lida com isso. E faz dela alguma coisa de jeito.

(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.)

com esta, são 2 vezes que o cito neste FAQ… vamos ver quanto tempo demoram a insinuar que o “adoro” como se fosse um deus. [ ↩ ]

Labels: Atheism FAQ
Na categoria Ateísmo , FAQ de Ateísmo | 9 Comentários »

FAQ: “Deus ama-te!”

Segunda-feira, 22 de Fevereiro, 2010

A ideia dessa exclamação é em geral esta: “Deus ama-te, e tu não só o rejeitas, como te recusas sequer a admitir a sua existência!? Que ingratidão! Como é que és capaz?” Chantagem emocional, portanto.

A resposta óbvia é a habitual: “como é que sabes?” . Ou seja, sem evidências, não há razão nenhuma para acreditar naquilo que a outra pessoa me está a dizer, e muito menos para me “sentir culpado” pela minha suposta ingradidão e insensibilidade.

Mas há outra maneira de responder a essa quase-acusação: de certa forma, isso favorece a minha posição.

Se me dissesses “Deus existe, mas está-se nas tintas para ti e para todos nós”, a não-existência dele não seria tão óbvia (se bem que ainda haveria diversos argumentos contra a mesma, começando, mais uma vez, com a pergunta “como é que sabes?”). Mas ao dizeres que ele “me ama”, ou “ama toda a gente”, estás só a demonstrar que não só ele não “me ama”, como quase de certeza não existe… e ainda bem. Ao dares-lhe essa característica, estás a tornar ainda mais improvável a sua existência, a dar-me argumentos contra ela — como se o facto de não haver evidências da mesma não fosse já suficiente.

Por outras palavras, um deus que “me ama” e se esconde é ainda menos provável — e mais difícil de acreditar em — do que um deus para quem eu sou totalmente indiferente (se é que ele sabe que eu existo).

Sabes, é que “amor” não é algo que se sente apenas à distância, sem fazer qualquer tentativa de contacto. Se sinto “amor” por alguém — seja amor romântico, fraternal, de grande amizade, etc. –, quero em geral estar e conviver com esse alguém. Nunca me passaria pela cabeça ser tão doente que, em vez de procurar o contacto, nunca me revelasse, mas enviasse tipos de ar duvidoso a casa da pessoa “amada” para lhe dizerem que existo ea amo, mas que ela nunca me vai poder ver directamente, e usar a crença ou não-crença na minha existência como indicador do seu amor por mim.

“Amor” — mesmo que seja o que se sente por um familiar ou um grande amigo, por alguém com quem nos importamos ea quem desejamos o mellhor possível — não é isso. Pelo contrário, o tipo de “amor” que atribuis ao deus em que acreditas é das coisas mais doentias, mais manipuladoras e mais abusivas que já ouvi.

E não adoraria — nem sequer respeitaria no sentido mais básico da palavra — um sádico doentio desses, mesmo que ele existisse. Felizmente, as razões para acreditar em tal criatura continuam a ser nulas.

(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.)

Etiquetas: Deus , FAQ de Ateísmo
Na categoria Deus , FAQ de Ateísmo | Sem Comentários »

FAQ: “Independentemente de Deus existir ou não, a igreja faz bem ao mundo, certo?”

Segunda-feira, 22 de Fevereiro, 2010

Infelizmente, os factos sugerem o contrário.

Primeiro: relativamente à “igreja”, vou aqui incluir não só a igreja Católica, mas também as igrejas Protestantes em geral (muito influentes nos EUA), e as teocracias Muçulmanas.

Second, it is important to distinguish the crimes made by religion / church, or because of, or on behalf of, crimes simply made by religious (or even members of these churches). In other words, do not blame Christianity for the Holocaust while Hitler was Catholic, not blame the religion or the church itself directly by pedophile Catholic priests - that there is anything in the sacred books or in the "statutes" of the church that leads to committing such crimes. But blame the church in question to give more importance to their reputation than the innocence and lives of innocent children, the law protecting pedophile priests and preventing them to be punished for their crimes, and moving them from parish to parish when their acts are discovered locally. And yes, I blame the Catholic church for having supported on various aspects of the Nazi regime.

Third, I will not include here limited to the past crimes, such as the Inquisition or the Crusades. I note only that the Catholic Church ceased to commit these atrocities has lost only when the absolute power he had, and not to have come to the conclusion that it was wrong and immoral. I think that says a lot.

Fourth, recognize that not all bad - the various churches / religions have done and are effectively acts of charity, no doubt laudable, both small and large scale. Qualify this, however, the fact that it is often more than one way to spread the faith than charity "disinterested" and, anyway, religion is far from being required to commit acts of human kindness.

Anyway, I think the balance is completely negative.

What, in human terms, the problem with religion / church today? These, to get started:

sexism: from the Muslim theocracies in extreme cases, where women have no access (on pain of death) to any school education, are themselves condemned if violated (often nothing happens to the rapist), are demonized as being " sexual "who" try "men (innocent, poor things) and so are subjected to the horror that is the forced genital mutilation (the idea is that if you lose completely the ability to have sexual pleasure, no longer will "seduce" men ...), and outside of Islam, all have a Western culture that says the conservative role of women is to have children and obey their husbands ... exactly as it says in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
opposition to condom use - including through lies, such as "increase the risk of AIDS" - causing suffering and death of millions in Africa, for example, as in many areas there is no source of information than the missionaries. Whether for religious reasons ("God hates contraceptives and / or sex for pleasure"), or by more mundane matters (to maximize the number of believers), this act of genocide is almost an unpardonable crime.
opposition (not limited to not do themselves, but where possible taking other rights) to abortion, gay rights (seen as a "moral evil") and euthanasia
opposition to sex education - paradoxically, the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.
view of sex (perfectly natural and healthy part of what is to be human) something like "pig" and "immoral."
opposition - for reasons that are nothing more than superstition - the promising branches of medicine such as stem cell research , cloning of organs, etc. ..
wars and hatred of religious origin - not everyone in the Middle East (see Ireland, for example)
protection of pedophile priests, who often are simply moved from one parish to another when their actions become known, showing a total lack of concern for their victims.
censorship of opposition to religion, even by non-believers just because the idea that religion is above criticism (eg part of a conviction for Christians (!) and even atheists (!) the publication of cartoons Mohammed, when the only sentence should have been the Muslims who practiced violence and intimidation).
children traumatized by ultra-detailed descriptions of hell.
attitude anti-intellectualism, anti-education and anti-science (for example, the idea that faith and reason conflict, one should prefer the faith that human reason is unreliable, and so on).
cancellation of human curiosity, as they say / think that you have all the answers (not that they are simply "was God").
mentality of "living death", which says that life is suffering, not only is "the real thing," that our time in this world is just a test to determine whether or not the salvation of our "soul", that life begins in earnest after we die, causing people to accept their condition and do not try to improve the world they live.
violence and terror - especially in Muslim theocracies, in which the "blasphemy" ("a victimless crime," as already described) and apostasy are punishable by death, but also in countries like the U.S., where Christian terrorists blow up abortion clinics, murdering doctors who work in them, and beyond.
mutilation of the concept of morality to come to mean simply "obey the whims of a being" - as if this being, if it existed, was above morality.
non-payment of taxes, in the case of some of the richest organizations in the world and the world economy being as it is.