A Long Ass Post About Atheism, Logic,and Hitler (And There’s a Video!).

Tonight some friends and I were chatting in Telegram and a friend of mine posted a funny little meme that had a cat, wearing a pizza slice as a hat, riding a turtle, that was also a hamburger, through space. Oh, and they were both holding tacos. The text on the meme was “This is what Atheists Believe”. I loved it! I saved it to my phone. It cracked me up. LOL…tacos. So, I went back to watching “Keeping Up Appearances” and while laughing at Daddy Bucket’s (pronounced Bouquet) antics in the toy store dressed as a space man. My brain started drifting to an old article that I had read about how Atheism is a religion or something or … (Actually it may have been a video).  Wait, hang on….

Found it!

 

While watching this again, I started drifting down memory lane a bit. I remember calling myself an “Agnostic”, simply because I wasn’t a church-goer and at that point I really hadn’t done the full dive into being an atheist. After watching this video the first time, I felt more comfortable calling myself one. I started to finally let go of the old security blanket that there was there, and the delusion that  “an imaginary friend” was looking over me. I started accepting that an atheistic view was the only logical position to take. I also began reading and studying more. If there wasn’t a g-d that created all of this, then how did it happen? I dived into science and rediscovered my love of learning. I was truly “born again”.

I then started remembering my time in the church, just “the hits”. Being trained as an evangelical, being conflicted half the time and swallowing the bitter pill that was “g-d’s will” to fill in the gap  between church and logic. The strange paths that being in the church took me that I really don’t like talking about. The guilt, the fear, the confusion, and the anger. The anger at myself, the anger at the church, and finally the anger at g-d. I remember being weighed down with the dogma of the church. Having to submit my ways of thought to an illogical way to think and then be made to bring others into this way of life. I thought I was doing good, but as I look back on it; I see that I was doing something horrible.

However…

There eventually came a peace. When I accepted the position that there is no g-d, and there never has been, I realized that I am in control of my life. I am the one that saves me. I am the one that chooses left or right. My life is mine to live, my mind is mine to think freely and no imaginary friend is going to save me, so I had better not fuck it up. I was free of religion, free of dogma, and I eventually came to peace with that. Like she said, none of this happens overnight.

Some people claim that there is no central atheist organization, well they are correct. Atheism is not a religion or a belief structure. It is a position of knowledge and as any group of like minded people, we do organize. There is the The Freedom from Religion Foundation , American Atheists , and the Atheists for Human Rights just to name a few. Are any of them the “official” organization”? No, because you can’t really have an “official organization” for a position of knowledge. I mean, hypothetically, if there were a group of people that came from the position of knowledge that “Red was the most awesome color on the entire planet because yellow is just gross”, do you think that they would have a “Vatican” or “Southern Baptist Convention”? I know of a lot of non-denominational churches that don’t have a “official organization” unless you count that specific church’s board/elders/deacons/whatever they have. So, in the case of non-denominational churches,  you would have hundreds of  “official organizations” for hundreds of groups that have similar but differing belief systems. So, I don’t see the issue of needing an “official” organization”, especially for a position of knowledge.

But, if you want a definition from a central source:

…Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as “wickedness,” “sinfulness,” and other derogatory adjectives…Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

And that is me, I have a lack of belief in any form of deity, g-d,spiritual power, after life, or anything similar. I do not believe that the universe sends us messages, and that we do not acquire karma (except on Reddit). When it comes to religion, I take a very “Karl Marx” view (no, I am not a communist).

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. “.

Karl Marx – On Religion

I believe that religion is a set of cultural beliefs, or man-made beliefs, that people have used through-out time to cope with trauma and crisis. Religion served as scientific explanation,  mental health provider, judicial system, and governed social morality. It was what we used to cope at the time; however we are a smarter race now. We posses more knowledge, tools, and we use them both more creatively and efficiently to make amazing discoveries. Simply, the human race has grown up a little. We, are no longer children, we are far from adults, but we are no longer young children. And if you have read your bible, you know what Paul said about what to do with childish things when you grow up.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Corinthians 13:11

{Now, one thing I will state is that I am not what I call “A New Asshole Atheist”.  These are the ones that go out looking for debate and name call. Like a gang of hooligans that just want to verbally throw down with someone that just left Sunday services.  These dickholes are just that, dickholes. If you have encountered these types, I am sorry.}

In my opinion, debate ,or any verbal communication regarding religion, should be treated like a gun: don’t pull it out unless you plan on using it and know how to use it. I generally only speak out when I see indoctrination occurring in a government funded place or I am provoked. That means door to door preachers/missionaries, school lead prayer, teachers not teaching actual science, religious icons in government buildings…etc. Yeah, I am that guy. Why? Because (1) I don’t want kids in a public school setting subjected to the influences of any religion in a place that they should be learning and learning actual/factual curriculum and not some fantastic folk tale that is held by a select group as holy scripture or courses based on that text/faith. (2) It’s my tax dollars, and I am not paying for that shit to be built or implemented. (3) The same 1st amendment that gives you Freedom of Religion gives me Freedom FROM Religion. We all have rights; ain’t it cool!?

But, I  have digressed.

Now, I have always heard that there are different types of atheists. I have heard people refer to themselves as an agnostic atheist or a weak atheist. I honestly didn’t know what they were talking about. I did find this chart.  Honestly, I really didn’t care about defining myself as a type of atheist, but if I had to think about it; I would consider myself a Strong Atheist, maybe even a Gnostic Atheist. Simply because I can say with utmost confidence that there is no g-d. No one is in control of the universe, and it’s a beautiful thing.

Now a little bit about logic, philosophy, and religion and how to use it poorly:

I came across this while I was looking up a few things, and it honestly is my new favorite thing. It totally rings true for me.

In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

Sam Harris – Letter to a Christian Nation

I also came across another site. One of many christian based sites that rally against atheists (Just Google atheist and you will see what I am talking about. Churches apparently spend a lot of the tithe collection on SEO software now a days.) and even will teach you how to debate them (atheists) because atheist logic just doesn’t work.  I was intrigued so I went down the rabbit hole and found exactly what I expected. A christian site that uses philosophical laws and metaphysics with the assumption that the bible is completely infallible and true. This site tries to arm would-be evangelicals with some really good debate/philosophy skills, however it gives them this false sense of security because the root of this is the assumption that the bible is all true. That’s where this entire plan blows up from the start. The bible is not logical and is not a universal truth. It is THEIR universal truth, but it is not a universal truth.

From their site:

…logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic.  Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. These universal truth statements are what rational arguments are based upon.

OK, so these are the laws of logic. The guy that wrote this on the site states “…So I’m not going to get into this very deeply here.”; however I am.  Let’s start with the Law of Identity.

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

That’s a simple enough of a breakdown. Basically, things are what they are and cannot be two different things at once. Example, a tree can be a tree with different characteristics that make it specific (like an oak tree, or a red oak tree); however it cannot also be a turtle. So, with that in mind, how can g-d be the father, but not the son, and not the holy ghost but still be one single g-d? That is how the trinity works. G-d (the father) wasn’t Jesus and neither Jesus nor the father was the holy ghost but they were all the same g-d?  The holy trinity defies the first law of logic, and this site wants to use these laws to evangelize effectively? Honestly, it’s DOA.

(Side Note: I was once told by a church elder that if I ever met anyone that said they could explain the trinity to run because that person was either the devil or crazy)

This site  had a very wordy explanation of the law of non-contradiction. The site that I found that gave an amazingly easy explanation of the law of excluded middle also broke down the law of non-contradiction in it’s opening. So, I am just going to use it for both. (FYI: the take outs (…) in the quotes are where the author used some formulas. I just removed them to cut to the chase.)

One logical law that is easy to accept is the law of non-contradiction. This law…means that p is both true and false, which is a contradiction. So, negating this statement means that there can be no contradictions (hence, the name of the law). In other words, the law of non-contradiction tells us that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. This law is relatively uncontroversial…

The law of excluded middle … means that a statement is either true or false. Think of it as claiming that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. Every statement has to be one or the other. That’s why it’s called the law of excluded middle, because it excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. So while the law of non-contradiction tells us that no statement can be both true and false, the law of excluded middle tells us that they must all be one or the other.

Basically, one of us has to be right. Either the tons of scientific data that disproves events in the bible (like the flood), the idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that there had to be some form of intelligent design in our universe is wrong and your book that was written 500 years after all of Jesus’ alleged miracles and resurrection, was written by 40 different writers, had been translated (possibly mistranslated) into 500 different languages, then after  another 100 years re-translated solely into Latin, then after over 900 years is translated into English, and then 72 years later is redone under the supervision & approval of King James for the Church of England and then in 2002 is redone again as the English Standard Version as a  “translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.” is correct or all of the tangible, verified, tested/re-tested, thousands of years of science that has proved how our bodies, our planet, and our universe work and were created is correct and your book of stories is wrong.

Their site also states this little gem, that I have used when I evangelized! Its also such a fallible argument! I felt like I was playing Russian Roulette every time that I used it because it was such a crap argument!

In order to state there is no proof for God’s existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.

Right back at you! You also do not know all things. No one does. Your truth and position of knowledge is based on the hypothesis (PHILOSOPHY – Noun- a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth)that the bible is infallible and all true or by a personal experience that you have had (aka: Faith). So, your basis for this argument is shaky at best. Because if we eliminate both any scientific data, and the bible from the field then neither person knows anything. You can claim your faith, but then I can claim the knowledge that I have memorized, because they both are our own experiences that make up our knowledge. They are both limited. Other than that all we know is we really know is what is past our front door, or that pancakes are awesome, and that Michael Bay needs to quit making movies. Neither can prove if the other showered that day vs. if there is any form of higher power in the universe.

However, when I read this I just stopped reading and the site all together and honestly dismissed the author as another educated evangelical that is arming the prayer warriors with tin swords and tin armor.

If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can’t work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry.

What? That makes no fucking sense at all. Of course logic is altered by brain chemistry you dolt. Do you think that atheist are of a hive mind or something? Or that we are immune to intoxicants? Trust me, I take meds daily that alter my logic and then correct my logic because without those meds my logic is REALLY fucked up and belief in a higher power is the least of my concerns at the time because I may THINK THAT I AM THE HIGHER POWER!

 

But again, I  have digressed.

Let me tell you about what it’s like to become an atheist, because it ain’t pretty.

Like the video stated, you don’t wake up and become an atheist. It’s a process, and its painful, frustrating and its not over quickly. Imagine finding out that there is no Santa Clause, but you are into adulthood and your family, friends, and co-workers all still believe. You now no longer worry about the” Santanic Dogma” of milk and cookie sacrifices, and writing letters to Santa for your needs and wishes. You eat the cookies and take care of your own shit without needing North Pole intervention. Some think that you are nuts and need help and write to Santa so that you get a psych eval for Xmas. Some are mad at you for not believing anymore and they shed tears and scream at you for being naughty. They try to get you to try and start believing again. They ask you to visit Santa’s workshop with them in hopes that you will catch the holiday spirit, even though you have declined countless offers prior. Finally they give up and quit talking to you and that relationship just dies. Your co-workers now avoid you and stare at you because you don’t believe in Santa anymore. Work isn’t as much fun as it used to be, just because you no longer wear “the hat” and do not decorate your desk with small idols of Santa. As goofy as this sounds, that’s pretty much what happens when you become an atheist. After the processing and re-wiring of years of indoctrination, after finally coming to terms that you won’t see Mamaw & Pawpaw again when you die and that all of your loved ones are truly gone, after accepting that this is the only life you get and that you have to live it well and take care of yourself, and after you realize that you, and only you, are in control of your life, you then get shunned by your loved ones; however as I found its a filtering process. When the smoke clears, you will see that some of your friends are still standing there and that they still love you, regardless. You kicked “the opium habit” and come out stronger on the other side.

I want to end with two things, a concept and a quote.

Once you discover that there is no g-d. No g-ds or anything like that you have to look at the concept of nothing. This is where I draw a lot of my logic from. There is no sound evidence that there are any g-ds, from any religion. The only evidence any religious person can produce is either a person experience,their faith, or their religious text and neither are of any proof of the existence of a divine being. So, there is only nothing.

Nothing, or non-existence, is that which doesn’t exist. It is not a metaphysical entity. It doesn’t exist. It has no identity. It is not an object.

Non-existence is a concept that is meaningless by itself. It isn’t something. It is a relational concept, gaining meaning only in comparison to another concept. Non-existence gains meaning only in comparison to existence. It is the denial of existence. The concept “nothing” is a denial of the existence of a particular entity. Both “non-existence” and “nothing” are denials of concepts, which must be accepted and understood in order to give meaning to “non-existence” or “nothing”.

The important point is that “nothing” is just that: nothing. It doesn’t exist. It has no identity. It’s not a vacuum. It’s not dark. It’s not cold. It has no characteristics. As a tool of cognition, it can be useful, but doesn’t exist.

I can’t be “mad at g-d” he doesn’t exist. How can I be mad at nothing?  Anytime someone asks me about any g-d. I explain the concept of nothing. When they tell me that just “not believing doesn’t make g-d go away”. I ask for proof that he/she/it was there to begin with. I could understand if we were talking about Adolph Hitler. I mean if I could just not believe in Hitler and he would become nothing, that would be awesome; however I can prove to you that Hitler existed. So… that’s not logical is it?

Science is increasingly answering questions that used to be the province of religion.

Stephen Hawking

Its time to put away childish things.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s