Pascal's wager is a relatively simple idea but it is flawed in its very concept. Simply put it states there is infinite rewards for believing in the Christian deity and an infinite amount of punishment for not believing. So Pascal states that you better be on the safe side and believe because if the atheists are right nothing happens after death so you haven't really lost anything.
This ignores two basic facets of a thing we call reality, the first and most obvious in my opinion is the false dichotomy it creates. This wager might be worth considering if there is only two options faith in the Christian deity or non-faith. However there are an infinite or at least an unfathomably large number of faiths each contradicting each other. Then it is your daunting task to figure out which of the innumerable faiths is true or whether none of them are. Imagine it this way you are playing Russian roulette with a revolver with an extremely conservative estimate of say 1,000,000 different chambers (each chamber representing a different faith or no faith) 1 of these chambers is empty (representing the correct choice assuming there is one). 1:1,000,000 odds how are you liking your odds now Pascal?
The second problem is the idea that people can choose belief or disbelief. Belief or disbelief is a reaction beyond our control, like a mental reflex you have when you know someone is telling you a bunch of rubbish. If I were to tell you there was an invisible and intangible village of elves living inside my closet you would be immediately skeptical as you simply cannot believe it. Can you choose to believe in this village of elves? Of course not, it is a reaction beyond your control when someone who makes a great claim and offers no evidence. But yet whenever a local church member knocks on my door trying to get me to participate in their services they act as though my skepticism is a choice rather than a reaction. Maybe they act like that because they really don't believe themselves, maybe they act like that because they have to keep telling themselves that this is the truth, maybe they think if they keep lying to themselves their own skepticism they have will just go away. I don't know what it is but I cannot convince myself to believe in something I do not, sorry.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
The Moral Argument? What Rubbish!
Alright, this one was a long time coming I have seen this argument used so many times that it makes me sick. I thought I would write about it here because it really irks the hell out of me when some smug Christian thinks he is an intellectual heavyweight when he uses this or some variation of this argument.
So the argument has two premises and a conclusion.
1) If objective morality exists then God exists.
2) Objective morality exists.
Ergo God exists.
Now here is the part that bugs me in such a short argument they have made several different errors, and I am going to probably be all over the place trying to hit them all so bare with me.
The first problem is with the first premise it is an assertion that is not backed by anything. So to be able to use this as a premise you need a separate proof to show that the source of objective morality could be a god and you also must prove that all other infinite explanations for the existence of objective morality do not hold any water.
My second problem is still with the first premise is that they purposefully use the big "G" god as in the Christian deity which is absolutely not founded in anything. It wouldn't bug me as much if they point to something and say, "A god had to make this.". That would still bug me but not nearly as much as when they point to the same thing and say, "My God Yahweh the lord of lords, the king of kings is the only possible explanation for the existence of this thing."
My third problem still with the first premise mind you is it's inherently false. They claim that without their deity in the sky dictating a moral code to the people objective morality cannot exist. Now this is where I wonder if the know what the term objective means.
Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Now to base your entire moral code on the personal feelings of deity is I believe the very definition of subjectivity. For a moral code to be a true objective measure of right and wrong there must be reasons that can be examined by all. To have morality dictated to us by a deity, any deity is not an objective matter of right and wrong it simply becomes a measure of blind obedience. (This sort of leads into the euthyphro dilemma which I think deserves its own post)
With the second premise my only criticism is that it is a bit of an oversimplification.. While I believe there is an objective moral code in practice the morality or immorality is contingent on the perspective that the individual has on the moral codes. In short it isn't always as clear cut when complicating factors are involved.
The conclusion has one basic flaw, it is based on faulty premises.
So the argument has two premises and a conclusion.
1) If objective morality exists then God exists.
2) Objective morality exists.
Ergo God exists.
Now here is the part that bugs me in such a short argument they have made several different errors, and I am going to probably be all over the place trying to hit them all so bare with me.
The first problem is with the first premise it is an assertion that is not backed by anything. So to be able to use this as a premise you need a separate proof to show that the source of objective morality could be a god and you also must prove that all other infinite explanations for the existence of objective morality do not hold any water.
My second problem is still with the first premise is that they purposefully use the big "G" god as in the Christian deity which is absolutely not founded in anything. It wouldn't bug me as much if they point to something and say, "A god had to make this.". That would still bug me but not nearly as much as when they point to the same thing and say, "My God Yahweh the lord of lords, the king of kings is the only possible explanation for the existence of this thing."
My third problem still with the first premise mind you is it's inherently false. They claim that without their deity in the sky dictating a moral code to the people objective morality cannot exist. Now this is where I wonder if the know what the term objective means.
Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Now to base your entire moral code on the personal feelings of deity is I believe the very definition of subjectivity. For a moral code to be a true objective measure of right and wrong there must be reasons that can be examined by all. To have morality dictated to us by a deity, any deity is not an objective matter of right and wrong it simply becomes a measure of blind obedience. (This sort of leads into the euthyphro dilemma which I think deserves its own post)
With the second premise my only criticism is that it is a bit of an oversimplification.. While I believe there is an objective moral code in practice the morality or immorality is contingent on the perspective that the individual has on the moral codes. In short it isn't always as clear cut when complicating factors are involved.
The conclusion has one basic flaw, it is based on faulty premises.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Traditional Marriage?
In the wake of New York breaking away from it's bigoted religious background there has been a lot of talk about marriage and what it entails. I have heard many conservatives advocate traditional marriage and they will appeal to the idea that marriage has always in the Judeo-Christian culture been between a man and a woman. I have multiple problems with this.
- The first and foremost problem is the it is a blatant appeal to tradition which is in itself logically fallacious. Just because that is what we have done in the past does not mean it is acceptable to continue the practice
- The second problem I have is we are a secular nation not run by the dogmas of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our nation's law is governed by enlightenment principles not dark age tripe.
- My third and final problem with this is that today's institution is nothing like the traditional institution of marriage and for good reason it is out dated. Marriage has been redefined several times to fit our societal needs.
Just so you don't accuse me of justifying the redefinition of marriage with the fact that we have previously done so, I'm going to explain why these changes were for the best and why the change I advocate would be for the best.
First I would like to describe what the institution of the past, it was an institution inseparable from the church and subject to many stipulations. Not just that it must be between a man and a woman, there was a dowry that was required, marriages were often arranged and the women rarely got to choose who they were marrying, woman were to be submissive and more or less slaves,(Colossians 3:18) and in the bible it describes instances when fathers sold rape victims to their rapist for continued abuse(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) , women had absolutely no rights in this institution the list goes on. Now I for one am personally glad the traditional institution ofslavery sorry marriage has became a consenting contract and partnership between two individuals. I am glad that the institution no longer oppresses women as subhuman.
I think now you can see here why it is silly to appeal to tradition and why it was best to change the definition f marriage and why it was best to stop viewing women as property. Marriage today has become a legal contract for all intents and purposes which has made it easier for couple to live together. Married couples can visit each other in the hospital, file joint tax returns etc. all of these things make it easier to be a couple and denying certain groups these rights is a simple act of oppression. It is a way for the religious to more or less slap the gay community in the face and to treat them as subhuman. It is time that the religious know that they do not own or have a say over the lives others. It is sad to see that in the 21st century that the dogmas of a bronze age religion still oppress the nation. It is sad to see bigots advocate traditional marriage without knowing what it actually entails.
First I would like to describe what the institution of the past, it was an institution inseparable from the church and subject to many stipulations. Not just that it must be between a man and a woman, there was a dowry that was required, marriages were often arranged and the women rarely got to choose who they were marrying, woman were to be submissive and more or less slaves,(Colossians 3:18) and in the bible it describes instances when fathers sold rape victims to their rapist for continued abuse(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) , women had absolutely no rights in this institution the list goes on. Now I for one am personally glad the traditional institution of
I think now you can see here why it is silly to appeal to tradition and why it was best to change the definition f marriage and why it was best to stop viewing women as property. Marriage today has become a legal contract for all intents and purposes which has made it easier for couple to live together. Married couples can visit each other in the hospital, file joint tax returns etc. all of these things make it easier to be a couple and denying certain groups these rights is a simple act of oppression. It is a way for the religious to more or less slap the gay community in the face and to treat them as subhuman. It is time that the religious know that they do not own or have a say over the lives others. It is sad to see that in the 21st century that the dogmas of a bronze age religion still oppress the nation. It is sad to see bigots advocate traditional marriage without knowing what it actually entails.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Religious Fear Pimps
Why must religions exploit the fear of others to exist? For example their fear of death, and their fear of nonexistence. Not only does this religion say that you can defeat these fears and live for ever but it adds another fear, the fear of eternal torture. Not only do they exploit this fear in adults which is horrible but the exploit it in children which is despicable. An innocent child with a influential mind that can be taught that a flying fat man with magical reindeer delivers gifts to the entire world and a child that can be taught a magical bunny gives all of the children in the world candy one day out of the year. To scare these children with myths about this eternal place of torture is just plain bad parenting regardless of superstition, it is a crime to waste these minds on the superstitions of their parents. I recently found a video the exposes the kind of thing these people do to children and I think I will share it here.
To abuse the child's mind and to expose it to a myth that is a abhorrent that if someone were to recreate the event in the bible in a film the government ratings would prevent any child from viewing the film because of the overwhelming violence and the sexually explicit portions. But somehow it is acceptable to expose the children to this because it is a Holy Book. I beg of you stop this fear pimping campaign on your children wait until your children are old enough to understand and comprehend what the bible says.
While I find exposing a child to such a violent and damning thing is reckless. I also believe that targeting adults is perfectly acceptable as they have the the reasoning faculties and are able to comprehend what the bible is saying. But this can also be extremely repulsive depending on the method they use, like claiming a false doomsday or threatening them with hell fire. This is a common tactic they incite fear and then offer to help you fight the boogie man they themselves created. All you have to do is give up your soul to their deity.
They also prey on the emotions that are already there which is probably their most despicable tactic. I have been to a few funerals in my life and without fail at every single one they tell the grieving that their loved one is in heaven regardless of their faith. Then they will tell them if they have found Jesus that they too can see him in heaven, it is absolutely repugnant to use a funeral as an opportunity to recruit. But what scares me most is that I was the only one in attendance that seemed to notice how repulsive that was.
Religion preys on the malleable minds of children, the human fear of death, and the sorrow of grieving families. This is repugnant and should not be tolerated. Also I would like to recommend to those that are interested to watch the documentary Jesus Camp, it gives you a vivid look into the tactics they use on children.
To abuse the child's mind and to expose it to a myth that is a abhorrent that if someone were to recreate the event in the bible in a film the government ratings would prevent any child from viewing the film because of the overwhelming violence and the sexually explicit portions. But somehow it is acceptable to expose the children to this because it is a Holy Book. I beg of you stop this fear pimping campaign on your children wait until your children are old enough to understand and comprehend what the bible says.
While I find exposing a child to such a violent and damning thing is reckless. I also believe that targeting adults is perfectly acceptable as they have the the reasoning faculties and are able to comprehend what the bible is saying. But this can also be extremely repulsive depending on the method they use, like claiming a false doomsday or threatening them with hell fire. This is a common tactic they incite fear and then offer to help you fight the boogie man they themselves created. All you have to do is give up your soul to their deity.
They also prey on the emotions that are already there which is probably their most despicable tactic. I have been to a few funerals in my life and without fail at every single one they tell the grieving that their loved one is in heaven regardless of their faith. Then they will tell them if they have found Jesus that they too can see him in heaven, it is absolutely repugnant to use a funeral as an opportunity to recruit. But what scares me most is that I was the only one in attendance that seemed to notice how repulsive that was.
Religion preys on the malleable minds of children, the human fear of death, and the sorrow of grieving families. This is repugnant and should not be tolerated. Also I would like to recommend to those that are interested to watch the documentary Jesus Camp, it gives you a vivid look into the tactics they use on children.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
God's Forgiveness?
X. Why do I need God's forgiveness? To enter his kingdom? To avoid eternal torment in his sadistic torture chamber? So you can be accepted by his hypocritical flan club? Ignore for the moment that the reasons listed are shameless attempts to manipulate the minds of the weak and a doubly shameful attempt to manipulate the mind of a child, it is absurd for anyone to ask for moral forgiveness from one of the most morally delinquent entities ever.
Yahweh is a hypocrite he commands you ask forgiveness for petty things like coveting and if you do not repent you will face eternity of torment in his torture chamber. But think of how absurd it truly absurd it is to ask forgiveness from this deity. Truly it is like Ted Haggard commanding you repent for your 'deviant' sexual activities it is beyond absurd... Now back to the example of coveting God commands that you never want anything you do not already have and to be content with what you have. Granted it is good advice and it will lead to a more content and happy life but look at who it is coming from. The Christian deity has committed this act he declares as a sin more than any person to ever live or ever to live. He has everything he could possibly want and has the ability to wave his magic wand and conjure anything he wants. But yet he covets something he can never have, your blind faith and obedience. He gets angry when he doesn't get this and he is extremely petty. He flooded the entire earth, committed genocide, and destroyed entire cities because of his vanity because they would not blindly follow. So why ask for his forgiveness when God himself breaks these rules that he himself supposedly made? For a perfect God his sins are very human.
Yahweh is a hypocrite he commands you ask forgiveness for petty things like coveting and if you do not repent you will face eternity of torment in his torture chamber. But think of how absurd it truly absurd it is to ask forgiveness from this deity. Truly it is like Ted Haggard commanding you repent for your 'deviant' sexual activities it is beyond absurd... Now back to the example of coveting God commands that you never want anything you do not already have and to be content with what you have. Granted it is good advice and it will lead to a more content and happy life but look at who it is coming from. The Christian deity has committed this act he declares as a sin more than any person to ever live or ever to live. He has everything he could possibly want and has the ability to wave his magic wand and conjure anything he wants. But yet he covets something he can never have, your blind faith and obedience. He gets angry when he doesn't get this and he is extremely petty. He flooded the entire earth, committed genocide, and destroyed entire cities because of his vanity because they would not blindly follow. So why ask for his forgiveness when God himself breaks these rules that he himself supposedly made? For a perfect God his sins are very human.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Is Yahweh Someone You Would Wish to Worship?
I for the sake of argument am going to assume what the bible says is 100% true accurate and literal. Today I am going to pose a single question is Yahweh the Judeo-Christian deity a deity you would wish to worship? In this post I will provide biblical justification for all points made.
If the what the bible says about God is true I could see several reasons why worshiping this deity would be an absurdly immoral thing to do. Firstly this deity commanded genocide to be carried out in his name during the Conquest 0f Cana'an he was ordered to kill everything in this land no man, woman, or child was to be spared. Now is a deity that would order the massacre of woman and children one you would wish to worship? This is simple genocide.
1 Samuel 15:1-3
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
The bible also supports an institution that every industrial nation for the better part of two centuries has abolished and deemed inherently evil. How could a book said to be the word of an omniscient and benevolent deity fail to see the evils that is so blatantly obvious to all individuals not blinded by the mentally crippling doctrine of hate apparent in the system. Not only does the bible say slavery is acceptable it claims that it is perfectly fine to beat these people you claim as your property as seen here.
Exodus 21:20-21
The bible describes God himself as a slave owner and a cruel one at that.
Luke 12:46-47
So far we have a deity that had ordered the deaths of women and children, a deity that had ordered genocide to be carried our in his name, and a deity that fully supports the evil institution of slavery. So what do you think so far? Is he that benevolent shepherd you always thought him to be? I don't know about you but my idea of a virtuous and benevolent deity doesn't exactly entail a genocidal slave owning deity with power issues. It took me only a handful of verses to destroy the facade put on by his followers, this is not a deity worthy of anyone's praise.
Also I think another point could be brought up about the insecurities of God he seems to need your worship but that shouldn't really matter all that much to you if you are an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present being. So either God has the same insecurity issues as a typical teenage girl who wants to be accepted or the creators of this false religion knew God only existed in peoples minds and therefore the God would die as soon as we stopped believing. I am going to go with the former as the latter is another topic entirely. Is a God with insecurity issues one you would wish to worship? More important what does this Lord wish to do with those that do not wish to worship him?
Luke 19:27
27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Anyone who does not submit is to be killed, your benevolent deity has advocated genocide once again. This is eerily similar to a end of the book Uncle Tom's Cabin where Tom is asked to submit or be killed by his master (the personification of the evils of slavery). This was said by Simon Legree "I'll conquer ye or kill ye!" now it is pretty bad when you find Jesus and a slave trader conveying the same message.
I think this is a good place to stop there are thousands of verses like what I listed above. But I'm not going to insult you intelligence I believe if you read this correctly you have gotten the point by now. Further more it would take an entire book to go through every last verse that shows the distasteful personality of God.
If the what the bible says about God is true I could see several reasons why worshiping this deity would be an absurdly immoral thing to do. Firstly this deity commanded genocide to be carried out in his name during the Conquest 0f Cana'an he was ordered to kill everything in this land no man, woman, or child was to be spared. Now is a deity that would order the massacre of woman and children one you would wish to worship? This is simple genocide.
1 Samuel 15:1-3
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
The bible also supports an institution that every industrial nation for the better part of two centuries has abolished and deemed inherently evil. How could a book said to be the word of an omniscient and benevolent deity fail to see the evils that is so blatantly obvious to all individuals not blinded by the mentally crippling doctrine of hate apparent in the system. Not only does the bible say slavery is acceptable it claims that it is perfectly fine to beat these people you claim as your property as seen here.
Exodus 21:20-21
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Luke 12:46-47
46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Also I think another point could be brought up about the insecurities of God he seems to need your worship but that shouldn't really matter all that much to you if you are an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present being. So either God has the same insecurity issues as a typical teenage girl who wants to be accepted or the creators of this false religion knew God only existed in peoples minds and therefore the God would die as soon as we stopped believing. I am going to go with the former as the latter is another topic entirely. Is a God with insecurity issues one you would wish to worship? More important what does this Lord wish to do with those that do not wish to worship him?
Luke 19:27
27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Anyone who does not submit is to be killed, your benevolent deity has advocated genocide once again. This is eerily similar to a end of the book Uncle Tom's Cabin where Tom is asked to submit or be killed by his master (the personification of the evils of slavery). This was said by Simon Legree "I'll conquer ye or kill ye!" now it is pretty bad when you find Jesus and a slave trader conveying the same message.
I think this is a good place to stop there are thousands of verses like what I listed above. But I'm not going to insult you intelligence I believe if you read this correctly you have gotten the point by now. Further more it would take an entire book to go through every last verse that shows the distasteful personality of God.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Problems With an Objective Morality
First let me define what morality is, I will use a simple definition for the purpose of this post. What is the right and what is wrong.
I have multiple problems with the idea of objective morality. To a certain extent an individual could argue that they are objective, no one would say that killing is acceptable no one believes that theft is acceptable but this is not because of moral reasons but evolutionary ones. How long would a species or society survive if they would kill each other? If things were like that we as a species would have slaughtered each other to the point of extinction. So it is in the best interest of the species and our society that we not kill each other. Let's look at a different situation because quite frankly the idea of objective morality works with the Wizard of Oz type of good and evil but fails in real world application because evil doesn't always put on green makeup and a pointy hat for you. Evil could be something as subtle as intentful inaction and good can be something as simple as being polite to others.
Now let's take the idea of taking another human life obviously our species would not survive if we took this lightly so we as a species we would have gone extinct ages ago. However some individuals can find the taking of human life acceptable in certain situations. Some individuals find the use of lethal force acceptable when they need to defend themselves or their families. Some find killing for a cause acceptable. If morality were something completely objective we would all come to the same conclusions to all moral dilemmas.
Now for my main point against objective morals. If a mother takes a knife and uses it to kill a potential threat to her children would that be an immoral act? If killing is wrong it should be consistently wrong no matter the circumstances. Would you have the nerve to give that mother a lecture on morality? Would you have the nerve to tell her she acted in an improper manor?
Two individuals in the Nazi Germany are confronted with a decision, they could speak out against the genocide going on around them or they could remain silent. Each individual has to decide what is right given each situation they come to different conclusion as to the proper action or inaction. Person A decides to remain silent because his actions would bring harm to his family. Protecting your family would I hope be a moral thing in your mind. Person B decides to speak out because this injustice cannot go unchallenged but he and his family are killed for this dissent. Speaking out against genocide is to you I hope a moral action.
If morality is something objective than one of these individuals acted improperly. So my challenge to those who believe in an objective moral truth: Tell me which individual acted correctly and justify your answer.
I have heard many people say, "Just because we do not know the objectively moral thing to do does not mean it doesn't exist." I would agree but you just rendered morality unknowable therefore you would merely be left speculating on what the proper morality might be. This renders objective morality meaningless because if it is unknown we might as well be bloviating on what colour underwear Santa's elves are wearing. With an unknowable objective morality any statement about it would be without basis and without merit.
The idea of morals come from people and people vary greatly in many aspects. To try and remove people from a purely human idea is frankly absurd. Some cultures/individuals value things differently but to claim they are wrong to come to a different conclusion in the matter of morality is to claim knowledge you do not have.
If there were an objective moral law and the moral law were consistent the taking of human life would always be wrong no matter the circumstances. I use this example because often time Christians are arguing for an objective moral law but they constantly contradict themselves in this regard and the sad part is they do not even know it. The Christian's moral code is based solely on the judgement values of a single deity, a deity that has trouble abiding by his own rules. How can a deity so inconsistent be the foundation of an objective morality? He tells us we should not kill but then he orders genocide to be carried out in his name, he orders individuals to be stoned for breaking the most trivial of his arbitrary rules. I never seen a individual for killing yet against killing at the same time. That is another thing is your moral code were objectively true it would not break the logical law of noncontradiction which it clearly does.
This would apply to more than just the Christian God. This would apply to any religion that has a deity dictate their moral laws. You are basing all of your moral code on the judgement values of a single deity. Just because they aren't your own subjective take on the right thing to do in a situation doesn't mean that the subjective nature changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)