New / Atheism, in the PT? starts here .

Posts Tagged 'FAQ Atheism'

«Previous Entries

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: ,
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 she is not wrong to justify that 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 there is one - is to 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:
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:
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 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.)

Labels:
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:
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).

The difference between an atheist and a believer typical, what makes us not to be dogmatic, that does not "believe" just in atheism "and ready," is that we are able to answer the question. I will use here an abbreviated version of the article linked above, since I agree with everything the author says there.

Category 1: things that would convince me that God exists

  • Prophecies concrete, accurate, and verifiable origin. This excludes:
    • Prophecies vague, abstract and with many possible interpretations (eg Nostradamus).
    • Prophecies trivial (eg "next winter will be cold" or "this will eventually dry").
    • Prophecies "mandatory" (ie any "prophet" to work for a king will not, of course, predict that it will be a cruel tyrant, but will praise him - and a king in the midst of many will actually be a good ruler ).
    • Prophecies "self-cumpríveis" (ie, the existence of the prophecy itself makes the attempt to achieve because they think this is the will of God, eg. The Bible said that the Jews eventually return to Israel, and they really came back to ... follow the Bible).
    • Prophecies that may have been made ​​after the event happens (ie you can not prove that the prophecy is before the event).
    • Events whose prophecies are not independently verifiable, and may have been reported to match precisely with the predictions (eg the Gospel writers had access to the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, and may have invented the alleged events of Jesus' life to match them).
    • Prophecies that are the only success among a thousand failures, anyone can predict and anticipate and predict things until one is correct.
  • Scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time (in a concrete and clear), things may well be interpreted in a very "flowery" do not count.
  • Real miracles, especially if obtained from prayer. Note that coincidences do not serve as an example, unless you actually happen repeatedly and repeatable. For example, if only atheists were struck by lightning, or believers to heal diseases more often, including incurable diseases and amputated limbs .
  • Direct and undeniable manifestation of the "divine" (something that happened a lot in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and the crowds, not just one person, which could be explained in psychological terms).
  • Aliens with exactly the same religion.

Category 2: things I lean in that direction, but not by itself constitute a proof

  • A holy book truly perfect, consistent and without error or contradiction.
  • A religion without internal disputes or multiple factions.
  • A religion whose adherents have never committed atrocities.
  • A religion that has won all of their "holy wars".

And, finally,

Category 3: Cóias not convince me at all

  • Speaking in "tongues" or other pseudo-miracles, either because they are psychologically explicable (eg extreme emotional states), or by our tendency to see patterns where none exist (eg the "face of Jesus" on toast).
  • Personal stories, (including part of former atheists, everyone can have a moment of weakness that gets carried away by emotions - especially fear - and "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: ,
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

If you really have put the matter this way, congratulations - it is a huge improvement over the "wishful thinking" this question. :) 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”. The "desirability" of something does not affect its validity.

Answering the question, then ...

I always thought the strange idea that a thing so worthless. In the rest of his life in general do not act so; can enjoy a good book or a good movie even though we know that inevitably end. Why is there life to be different, and lose all its value for the simple fact that it is finite?

One can indeed argue that it is precisely the fact that life has a purpose that makes it precious, unique and irreplaceable. In other words, anyone who considers life a "pass" or "test" or "one of many" (in the case of believers in reincarnation) can ever give much value to life as those who believe that it is the only one we have and will have an end - an atheist.

Life can be finite, and be a mere moment in a cosmic point of view, but it is not a time for us. 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. Putting aside all this simply because not forever is an extreme cowardice, is afraid to live.

What sense is there for the life of an atheist point of view? Let us turn the question around: what is the "sense of life" that a believer can have and that is beyond the reach of an atheist? Eu só vejo um: Deus (seja real ou fictício). Servir Deus, adorar Deus. Basically, according to some other living being - ie, being a slave, even happy with slavery. Não, obrigado. Fortunately, many believers - the fundamentalists do not - other senses to create their own lives instead of being content to see to themselves like rats in a maze that do not understand or can ever understand, as any fundamentalist does.

Mas, então, o quê ? Well, I can not give a meaning to life of anyone (who flee and tell you that you can give - is lying), but I can say is this: we create meaning in our lives. It does not come out - if it were, it would be a sense of "second hand", which is nothing but a cowardly escape the responsibility of being a thinking human and alive. Viver é a maior das aventuras, e só o fazemos uma vez… o que é uma sorte na qual não pensamos, em geral. Quoting Richard Dawkins 1 in Unweaving the Rainbow (my translation):

Let us die, and that makes us the lucky ones. 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. Surely these unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than 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.

This is the only life you have. Is finite, deal with it. 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.)

  1. with this, are two times that I quote in this FAQ ... let's see how long it takes to insinuate that the "love" like a god. :) [ ↩ ]

Labels:
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: ,
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.

Segundo: é importante distinguir os crimes feitos pela religião / igreja, ou por causa delas, ou em nome delas, de crimes feitos simplesmente por religiosos (ou mesmo membros dessas igrejas). Por outras palavras, não culpo o Cristianismo pelo Holocausto apesar de Hitler ter sido Católico, nem culpo a religião ou a própria igreja Católica directamente pela pedofilia dos padres — não há nada nem nos livros sagrados nem nos “estatutos” da igreja que leve a cometer tais crimes. Mas culpo a igreja em questão por dar muito mais importância à sua reputação do que à inocência e à vida de crianças inocentes, protegendo da lei os padres pedófilos e impedindo que estes sejam punidos pelos seus crimes, e movendo-os de paróquia em paróquia quando os seus actos são descobertos localmente. E, sim, culpo a igreja Católica por ter suportado em vários aspectos o regime Nazi.

Terceiro, não vou incluir aqui crimes limitados ao passado , como a Inquisição ou as Cruzadas. Faço notar apenas que a igreja Católica deixou de cometer essas atrocidades apenas quando perdeu o poder absoluto que tinha , e não por ter chegado à conclusão de que aquilo era errado e imoral. Acho que isso diz muito.

Quarto, reconheço que não é tudo mau — as várias igrejas / religiões fizeram e fazem efectivamente actos de caridade, sem dúvida louváveis, tanto em pequena como em grande escala. Qualifico isso, no entanto, com o facto de que muitas vezes trata-se mais de uma forma de espalhar a fé do que de caridade “desinteressada”, e, de qualquer forma, a religião está longe de ser necessária para se cometer actos de bondade humana.

De qualquer forma, acho que o balanço é completamente negativo.

Qual é, em termos humanos, o problema com a religião / igreja hoje em dia? Estes, para começar:

  • 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.

Labels:
In the category Abortion , Christianity , Gay Discrimination , Atheism FAQ , Faith , Humanity , Catholic Church , Morality , Religion , Sexism , Sex | No Comments »

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.)

Labels: , ,
In the category of God , Atheism FAQ , Morality | No Comments »

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