Science, my friends, is the only true source of knowledge. Whether is is from observation, or experimentation, any knowledge not backed by scientific evidence is not knowledge at all. The fact of the matter is, that science is the study of learning more based on what we know. We build our assumptions off of proven facts and theories, all of which supported by that which is in tangible, which is solid. This is a very good reason not to believe in religion, because religion is not based off of what we can know. Religions are all centered around "faith", and assumptions on the existence of a god.
The thing about religion is that it calls upon its followers to believe in god simply because they are supposed to. They never offer any proof as to why god exists. Meanwhile, many religions also insist upon the validity of bizarre stories and properties about this god of theirs, which have been disproved by science. Examples include: The origin of the world, the age of the world, the reliability of medicine (as opposed to god himself) the census taken in Rome at the time of Jesus' birth, etc. All of these things have been rejected by cold hard fact. So let's summarize: There's a conflict in 2 ideas. One of them stems from an old text, telling stories which contain ideas that defy the known laws of physics and nature, preaches the existence of a supreme being who somehow controls everything, and offers no explanation or scientific proof as to why we should believe these. The other idea is based off of known and proven facts about the universe, which have been carefully tested by scientists and historians over the ages, and are proven to be true based on laws of science, logic, and reasoning.
So it bothers me, as you can see, that people buy into the former idea largely because they were raised that way, or everyone else thinks so, or because "faith" is so highly praised and glorified. I'll describe in an entirely different post exactly why faith is a bullshit concept, but here's just way to look at it for now: Faith is a tool used by people who want to keep you convinced of something. The way it works is they portray faith as some kind of virtue. They offer praise to those who have faith, and treat it as if it is such a noble quality, to trick people into seeking it before they analyze what it means. It's quite a coy trick, really. Imagine if priests, pastors, reverence, imams, rabbis, etc. all were to start preaching evil to everyone. What if they started connoting the word and quality of evil with things like "saint", "admirable", "just", or "god-loving"? If this went on, it wouldn't take long for people actually trying to be evil (as defined by their local religious figure), because of how glorified it is by their religious figures. The problem with this idea is that many people would realize that their teachers were actually very bad people for condoning such practices, would question the worth of any religion which condoned them, and would likely convert to atheism, or some other religion. But that's the beauty of the "faith trap". Before people have a chance to doubt, while they're still hooked in, the concept of faith feeds into itself. It's "because I believe in it, I should believe in it". It's kind of hard to word this right, as it's half past 2 in the morning as I write this, but I hope that you all can understand what I'm saying right now.
But back to the topic of science, here's what bugs me about some theists. They will claim that they can scientifically prove their religion by challenging non-believers to disprove it. But that very statement is an oxymoron! In scientific inquiry, one of the most very basic principles is the burden of proof. The burden of proof (as in, the need to support one's argument in order for it to be rationally considered) always falls on the person making the claim. So therefore, it's up to theists to prove their religion if they want to do so rationally. If they fail to do so, and simply rely on non-theists to disprove it, and call that their proof, then they still haven't proven their point scientifically. They've proven it... BUT NOT SCIENTIFICALLY. That kind of evidence is just as good as "the bible said so", or "my rabbi said so", or worse: "I said so." Now before I close, I just want to inform you on what these previously stated examples look like. A theist may say something like "Look at this vast sea! Behold its amazing glory! Surely this is the work of god, who else could do something like this!?" This would lead one to ask what makes them think it was a god that made the ocean, or did whatever they bring up. Whenever a theist brings up something like this, what it all boils down to is that they believe what they do because someone said so. Sure, they'll sugar coat it to look like one of their more decent arguments, but in essence, that is what they mean.
So, in essence, here's what we have here. Science is fact. What we can prove based on what we know is what we can be sure of. Religion is crap. It bases none of its major claims on solid fact, and instead relies on a self-feeding cycle of "faith" and belief to "prove" itself. Furthermore, many theists will claim that they can scientifically prove their religion, but the fact is that they cannot prove it by science. The only "proof" they can provide is not scientifically or rationally acceptable, and can only successfully convince people using emotional appeal, lies, omission of truth, or simply by relying on a lack of in-depth knowledge and critical thinking skills. This is The Ellipsis, either preaching to the choir or hopefully making you a little less retarded. See ya!
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Why I Don't Believe in God.
As for why I think that the ideas of religions about god are false, well, it's pretty obvious. Not a single theist can come up with a scientific experiment that confirms, irrefutably, the existence of a god. Holy texts have stories in them which have been proven to be inaccurate, impossible, and which in some cases are just ridiculous. The only thing theists ever do to prove their point is to claim that everything they see is caused by "god". They cannot prove that he causes anything, so they simply say that he causes everything. Any protest against this is often countered with things like "You couldn't possibly understand His doing", or "That was man's fault, God allowed it to happen because it was for the better." My problem is: If there's a god, then sure, attribute all that you want to him. But these people seem to be saying that there is a god, because there is a god, because there has to be a god, etc.
Another problem here is the reliance upon holy texts to interpret the word of a god. Take the bible, for instance. How do we know that it's true? We are able to prove that parts of it like creation, parts of Jesus' life, etc. are false, and yet people still believe the rest of it is true? And how can they say that it's the word of god, when they have no evidence except that the person before them said it, and the person before him said it, and so on. But how do we know it originated from god? There's no historical evidence to suggest this. I mean, it says in the bible that the bible is the word of god, but I shouldn't even have to explain how stupid that is. If I say that this blog post is the word of god, then you won't believe it. I say it's the word of god. If this is true, then what it says must be true. And since it says it's the word of god, then it must be. That's what I like to call, a logical clusterf***, or a paradox.
This brings me to my next point on why I don't buy into religions. Faith, to me, seems to be a self-feeding reward cycle. Faith is supposedly a virtue, it is good to be faithful. So here's how that works. If you believe in Christianity, than you believe that faith is a good thing. So you think it's good to believe in it, and continue to do so, and so on and so forth. But they never account for the idea that it might not be true. It never occurs to them that their virtue might be a vice, because it is a virtue to view it as a virtue, and to view viewing it as a virtue to be a virtue. Grammatically, that could be confusing, but see if you can't get it, and see the logical ball of yarn that theists so love to spin.
My final point against religion (for now) is the matter of free will. Here's how it makes no sense. God supposedly controls everything, and yet he still doesn't stop us from doing bad things. This is supposedly to "test" us. But why does he need to test us if he already knows us, and can see into our soul? And why does he need to punish us to atone us for our sin? If he can do anything, then can't he just make our souls to be pure, or to be healed without putting us through adversity? Why would he punish us and test us, such mundane methods, when his is a god and can do the same thing better, faster, and easier. A god, as defined by most major religions, would not do that. Now if this god isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, or benevolent, then I could see him doing these things; but a god who is would have no reason to do them. In fact, an omnipotent and omniscient god who did that would be quite an asshole, in fact. Theists, I dare you to try to argue with this one.
Now I did spend a lot of this post arguing against a specific few religions, but that is mostly because I am more familiar with them. As for why I think that no religions at all are true, here is a general statement that explains it. Humanity knows nothing for sure about the existence of a god. We have no scientific evidence, or conclusive proof to tell us any certain fact about a god. Therefore, any ideas that any religion could possibly have come up with about a god that might not even exist could not possibly be derived from truth. They are essentially made up, inventions of the human imagination to explain that which we don't understand. (That was their original purpose, at least.) So that's why I don't believe in religion. I can't disprove all of them, but since they're making the assertion, the responsibility falls on them to prove it true. Since they cannot do that, for lack of human knowledge about god, I do not believe in religion. I hope that you all enjoyed this post, and I will see you next time.
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
Another problem here is the reliance upon holy texts to interpret the word of a god. Take the bible, for instance. How do we know that it's true? We are able to prove that parts of it like creation, parts of Jesus' life, etc. are false, and yet people still believe the rest of it is true? And how can they say that it's the word of god, when they have no evidence except that the person before them said it, and the person before him said it, and so on. But how do we know it originated from god? There's no historical evidence to suggest this. I mean, it says in the bible that the bible is the word of god, but I shouldn't even have to explain how stupid that is. If I say that this blog post is the word of god, then you won't believe it. I say it's the word of god. If this is true, then what it says must be true. And since it says it's the word of god, then it must be. That's what I like to call, a logical clusterf***, or a paradox.
This brings me to my next point on why I don't buy into religions. Faith, to me, seems to be a self-feeding reward cycle. Faith is supposedly a virtue, it is good to be faithful. So here's how that works. If you believe in Christianity, than you believe that faith is a good thing. So you think it's good to believe in it, and continue to do so, and so on and so forth. But they never account for the idea that it might not be true. It never occurs to them that their virtue might be a vice, because it is a virtue to view it as a virtue, and to view viewing it as a virtue to be a virtue. Grammatically, that could be confusing, but see if you can't get it, and see the logical ball of yarn that theists so love to spin.
My final point against religion (for now) is the matter of free will. Here's how it makes no sense. God supposedly controls everything, and yet he still doesn't stop us from doing bad things. This is supposedly to "test" us. But why does he need to test us if he already knows us, and can see into our soul? And why does he need to punish us to atone us for our sin? If he can do anything, then can't he just make our souls to be pure, or to be healed without putting us through adversity? Why would he punish us and test us, such mundane methods, when his is a god and can do the same thing better, faster, and easier. A god, as defined by most major religions, would not do that. Now if this god isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, or benevolent, then I could see him doing these things; but a god who is would have no reason to do them. In fact, an omnipotent and omniscient god who did that would be quite an asshole, in fact. Theists, I dare you to try to argue with this one.
Now I did spend a lot of this post arguing against a specific few religions, but that is mostly because I am more familiar with them. As for why I think that no religions at all are true, here is a general statement that explains it. Humanity knows nothing for sure about the existence of a god. We have no scientific evidence, or conclusive proof to tell us any certain fact about a god. Therefore, any ideas that any religion could possibly have come up with about a god that might not even exist could not possibly be derived from truth. They are essentially made up, inventions of the human imagination to explain that which we don't understand. (That was their original purpose, at least.) So that's why I don't believe in religion. I can't disprove all of them, but since they're making the assertion, the responsibility falls on them to prove it true. Since they cannot do that, for lack of human knowledge about god, I do not believe in religion. I hope that you all enjoyed this post, and I will see you next time.
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
What I Believe.
I want to begin this blog by talking about exactly what I believe, so that in the future, hopefully, no one will misconstrue any of my points. As an empirical agnostic, I believe that humanity as a race cannot be sure if there is a god or not. We do not have the means to prove that one does or does not exist, and therefore we can neither assume that one exists, not that it doesn't.
I do believe that there could, possibly be a god, but I'm not sure about this. I am inclined to doubt it. I accept, though, that if there were a god of some nature, neither I, nor humanity, would necessarily know about it yet. This depends on exactly what the properties of this god are. And then there is the argument of how you would define a god, and what would just be considered a being of some sort. That's an argument, though, that I won't go into.
Despite my belief that a god could exist, do not think for a moment that I believe in any of the religions that there are. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, anything. I understand that Buddhism, at least some of its sects, do not recognize a god; however I don't know enough about it to pass judgment. As for other religions, though, I simply do not believe that they are true. The fact is that none of them have a shred of conclusive scientific evidence to support the existence of their god. I'll go into the other reasons why I don't believe that most major religions are true in the next post, but in the mean time, I'm out!
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
As for why I think that we cannot prove that there is a god, well, it's pretty obvious. Not a single theist can come up with a scientific experiment that confirms, irrefutably, the existence of a god. Holy texts have stories in them which have been proven to be inaccurate, impossible, and which in some cases are just ridiculous. The only thing theists ever do to prove their point is to claim that everything they see is caused by "god". They cannot prove that he causes anything, so they simply say that he causes everything. Any protest against this is often countered with things like "You couldn't possibly understand His doing", or "That was man's fault, God allowed it to happen because it was for the better." My problem is: If there's a god, then sure, attribute all that you want to him. But these people seem to be saying that there is a god, because there is a god, because there has to be a god, etc.
Another problem here is the reliance upon holy texts to interpret the word of a god. Take the bible, for instance. How do we know that it's true? We are able to prove that parts of it like creation, parts of Jesus' life, etc. are false, and yet people still believe the rest of it is true? And how can they say that it's the word of god, when they have no evidence except that the person before them said it, and the person before him said it, and so on. But how do we know it originated from god? There's no historical evidence to suggest this. I mean, it says in the bible that the bible is the word of god, but I shouldn't even have to explain how stupid that is. If I say that this blog post is the word of god, then you won't believe it. I say it's the word of god. If this is true, then what it says must be true. And since it says it's the word of god, then it must be. That's what I like to call, a logical clusterf***, or a paradox.
This brings me to my next point on why I don't buy into religions. Faith, to me, seems to be a self-feeding reward cycle. Faith is supposedly a virtue, it is good to be faithful. So here's how that works. If you believe in Christianity, than you believe that faith is a good thing. So you think it's good to believe in it, and continue to do so, and so on and so forth. But they never account for the idea that it might not be true. It never occurs to them that their virtue might be a vice, because it is a virtue to view it as a virtue, and to view viewing it as a virtue to be a virtue. Grammatically, that could be confusing, but see if you can't get it, and see the logical ball of yarn that theists so love to spin.
My final point against religion (for now) is the matter of free will. Here's how it makes no sense. God supposedly controls everything, and yet he still doesn't stop us from doing bad things. This is supposedly to "test" us. But why does he need to test us if he already knows us, and can see into our soul? And why does he need to punish us to atone us for our sin? If he can do anything, then can't he just make our souls to be pure, or to be healed without putting us through adversity? Why would he punish us and test us, such mundane methods, when his is a god and can do the same thing better, faster, and easier. A god, as defined by most major religions, would not do that. Now if this god isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, or benevolent, then I could see him doing these things; but a god who is would have no reason to do them. In fact, an omnipotent and omniscient god who did that would be quite an asshole, in fact. Theists, I dare you to try to argue with this one.
I do believe that there could, possibly be a god, but I'm not sure about this. I am inclined to doubt it. I accept, though, that if there were a god of some nature, neither I, nor humanity, would necessarily know about it yet. This depends on exactly what the properties of this god are. And then there is the argument of how you would define a god, and what would just be considered a being of some sort. That's an argument, though, that I won't go into.
Despite my belief that a god could exist, do not think for a moment that I believe in any of the religions that there are. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, anything. I understand that Buddhism, at least some of its sects, do not recognize a god; however I don't know enough about it to pass judgment. As for other religions, though, I simply do not believe that they are true. The fact is that none of them have a shred of conclusive scientific evidence to support the existence of their god. I'll go into the other reasons why I don't believe that most major religions are true in the next post, but in the mean time, I'm out!
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
As for why I think that we cannot prove that there is a god, well, it's pretty obvious. Not a single theist can come up with a scientific experiment that confirms, irrefutably, the existence of a god. Holy texts have stories in them which have been proven to be inaccurate, impossible, and which in some cases are just ridiculous. The only thing theists ever do to prove their point is to claim that everything they see is caused by "god". They cannot prove that he causes anything, so they simply say that he causes everything. Any protest against this is often countered with things like "You couldn't possibly understand His doing", or "That was man's fault, God allowed it to happen because it was for the better." My problem is: If there's a god, then sure, attribute all that you want to him. But these people seem to be saying that there is a god, because there is a god, because there has to be a god, etc.
Another problem here is the reliance upon holy texts to interpret the word of a god. Take the bible, for instance. How do we know that it's true? We are able to prove that parts of it like creation, parts of Jesus' life, etc. are false, and yet people still believe the rest of it is true? And how can they say that it's the word of god, when they have no evidence except that the person before them said it, and the person before him said it, and so on. But how do we know it originated from god? There's no historical evidence to suggest this. I mean, it says in the bible that the bible is the word of god, but I shouldn't even have to explain how stupid that is. If I say that this blog post is the word of god, then you won't believe it. I say it's the word of god. If this is true, then what it says must be true. And since it says it's the word of god, then it must be. That's what I like to call, a logical clusterf***, or a paradox.
This brings me to my next point on why I don't buy into religions. Faith, to me, seems to be a self-feeding reward cycle. Faith is supposedly a virtue, it is good to be faithful. So here's how that works. If you believe in Christianity, than you believe that faith is a good thing. So you think it's good to believe in it, and continue to do so, and so on and so forth. But they never account for the idea that it might not be true. It never occurs to them that their virtue might be a vice, because it is a virtue to view it as a virtue, and to view viewing it as a virtue to be a virtue. Grammatically, that could be confusing, but see if you can't get it, and see the logical ball of yarn that theists so love to spin.
My final point against religion (for now) is the matter of free will. Here's how it makes no sense. God supposedly controls everything, and yet he still doesn't stop us from doing bad things. This is supposedly to "test" us. But why does he need to test us if he already knows us, and can see into our soul? And why does he need to punish us to atone us for our sin? If he can do anything, then can't he just make our souls to be pure, or to be healed without putting us through adversity? Why would he punish us and test us, such mundane methods, when his is a god and can do the same thing better, faster, and easier. A god, as defined by most major religions, would not do that. Now if this god isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, or benevolent, then I could see him doing these things; but a god who is would have no reason to do them. In fact, an omnipotent and omniscient god who did that would be quite an asshole, in fact. Theists, I dare you to try to argue with this one.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Agnosticism Inc.
Hello everyone! I am The Ellipsis, and as you may have guessed, I am agnostic. This blog is going to be my articulation of my beliefs, and you may even notice them develop over time. This blog is also an open floor for debate, as long as you keep it mature. I'll openly discuss my opinions on other religions, and those of any belief system are welcome here, but I would expect everyone who comments to be civilized. I suppose the direction of this blog is still pretty open, so I guess I'll mostly play it by ear. Either way, though, I look forward to seeing how this blog goes, and to being able to talk about such an interesting topic. Goodbye for now, but be assured: you'll see more from me very soon.
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)