Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an interesting quote which goes as follows:
It’s odd that word ‘atheist’ even exists. I don’t play golf, is there a word for non-golf players? Do they gather and strategize? I can’t do that. I can’t gather around around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn’t believe in God.
If you’re new to my blog, essentially, my belief system revolves around accepting the power of certain concepts (such as God) and their ability to motivate and change as opposed to believing in actual physical entities which may or may not exist. This puts me in a particular limbo area where I can objectively understand and sympathize with both atheists and theists but I don’t exclusively believe either are right. However, the more I encounter adherents from both sides I have discovered that both atheists and theists believe and do the following:
- Believe that they have the ‘real’ truth
- Believe in some form of morality
- Gather in groups and talk about opinions
- Have books they revere
- On average mate with people with similar opinions
- Cannot with 100% certainty validate the existence of God with facts
- Believe in tradition; atheists with Scientific method and Theists with religion
- Have Charities
- Take donations
- Influence Government policy making
The reason atheism exists is because it represents a new social organization. It is not simply an opinion, but a religious like group. The fact that this grouping is occurring ultimately leads to the grim conclusion that just like religion different forms of atheism could emerge and these groups could ultimately engage in some form of war. Just like early Christianity these groups are fractured. Most atheists will contend that the only reason wars happen is because of religion, but this is a gross error, wars happen because humans are imperfect and if you analyze most wars they are done over real-estate and resources; religion is used as a powerful catalyst to get humans to go to war but the underlying selfish desires that lead to war remain the same regardless of the name of a particular God or in the future, lack of God name.
Atheists will also contend that their belief is based on logic and rationality but there is a massive irony to this. In a conversation with Ayn Rand (a well known atheist) she herself proclaims that, “you are never called upon to prove a negative.” If a theist confronts an atheist with the statement, “prove God doesn’t exist” the atheist, if they know their retorts, will come back with the line “you cannot prove a negative.” They may then go on to say something like prove that a unicorn doesn’t exist. The massive irony is that atheism as an organization is spending all of its time trying to prove a negative which is a logical impossibility. They have whole books, such as Dawkin’s God delusion, which offer up absurd philosophical arguments trying to validate the non-existence of God. This allows them as an organisation to spend an unlimited amount of time trying to come up with arguments why God doesn’t exist and gives strength to their social group through their superfluous conversation which is all built on top of trying to do the logically impossible. It is time we stop fighting over the philosophical and look towards what we want to accomplish a human race and not the religious opinions we should hold.
Alan Lightman, a physcist, has this to say on religion, war, science, and death:
Certainly, human beings, in the name of religion, have sometimes caused great suffering and death to other human beings. But so has science, in the many weapons of destruction created by physicists, biologists and chemists, especially in the 20th century. Both science and religion can be employed for good and for ill. It is how they are used by human beings, by us, that matters. Human begins have sometimes been driven by religious passion to build schools and hospitals, to create poetry and music and sweeping temples, just as human beings have employed science to cure disease, to improve agriculture, to increase material comfort and the speed of communication.
So while even if atheism is the future, it will ultimately lead to more of the same. I once had an atheist say to me, “If everyone was atheist there would be world peace.” to the atheists confusion I started laughing and I replied, “I have heard a similar quote before and it was from a Jehovah’s witness at my front door.” If everyone could share a similar opinion, regardless of what it was, there would be world peace.
One of the primary tools of atheists is to use the statement flying spaghetti monster as a way to invalidate the existence of a pre-existing God. My personal belief has shifted so much that I have a hard time associating with atheists or theists, but regardless when I see this come up I can’t help but cringe. The first reason is the idealistic God, not the god of religion, is something worth believing in regardless of its current existence. In the same way I can believe in world peace even though it currently does not exist.
The problem with fsm or comparing God to any fictional entity is that God, specifically Elohim, is intangible and fsm if it did exist would be tangible. For instance if Santa actually existed I would be able to touch him, this isn’t the case of god. So saying God is as real as fsm is a logical fallacy, one could say God is as real as karma, but the fsm argument is apples and oranges.
It is very important to all theists to believe in a pre-existing destination, God is also used as a way of rationalizing and justifying pain. This is less of my concern, I am more interested in the concept’s power and if a destination already exists, great, even better.