The IIT Atheism Argument

David Bern:
I’d first like to say that I appreciate the work of both “Josh” and Orekoya Moyosoreoluwa and wish more conversations like yours went on between atheists and religious people.

Religious faith is a process of non-thinking. It discourages scientific inquiry and promotes confidence in ignorance. It preys on our childhood credulity and has become so embedded in our minds that even as intelligent adults we remain shackled to religious ideology. In your definition, you say that religious faith is guided by “overwhelmingly compelling evidence.” James Randi distinguishes between confidence based on overwhelming evidence and blind faith. Religious belief – blind faith – is not the same as confidence based on empirical evidence. It is, in all respects, irrational and superstitious.

You say the reason the bible has survived is that god protected it. I do not believe this, and you yourself do not directly believe it either. You later say that his followers would not have died for a lie. Thus it is the followers’ allegiance to their deity which has protected the bible, not the deity itself. You also believe that your religion is the correct one. Yet people die for both yours and other religions. Arguing that people do not die for lies, you have thus contradicted yourself.

The New Testament is not unified as you assert. Its many authors can not decide on anything and it plainly contradicts itself throughout. This is not surprising as it was written years after the events took place based on second-hand accounts. Your assertion that the bible contains scientific principles later found to be true is a stretch. In hindsight, you pick out verses that vaguely correspond to conventional scientific beliefs and claim that the writings were divinely inspired. Yet what of all the false claims of the bible? I concede with you, the bible is not a science textbook.

You said you “don’t know why atheists spend years of their life fighting against something they are so sure does not exist.” We do not fight against a god which does not exist, we fight against the belief in god. And we do so with good reason. As Richard Dawkins wrote, “I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous?”

Tristan Sloughter:
Coming to a technical school, I expected a very different world view than what I found. The level of religious fervor is simply astounding. To hear someone who claims to be a scientist proclaim that evolution is not a science and that creationism is doesn’t make any sense whatsoever and shows clearly that person is NOT A SCIENTIST. Getting to a point that you can’t explain something and deciding to say, “God did it,” is not science! That is acceptance of ignorance and lazy.

I will not be able to convince a devote religious person to become agnostic, atheist or antitheist in a single article, but I damn well hope to eventually; instead, this article is to call on agnostics to move to atheism and atheists to move to antitheism. These mindless followers of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other doctrines are harmful to the world; they dumb down our society. Look no further than the school paper of a technical college, supposedly comprised of intelligent people, but containing multiple incoherent articles on the need for God and the emptiness of evolutionary theory.

For those of you who question the existence of this all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being — who for one reason or another doesn’t bother to help out but sure wants us to worship his narcissistic self — do you not feel afraid thinking about the mindless ignorant leaders and coworkers who do good things only because they expect a reward at the end? Who is truly doing good? Those who do it because it is good or those who do it because they expect a reward? Do you want someone leading you who looks to a voice in their head, an ancient book of fiction, or a crazy money and power grubbing preacher for their guidance and only cares to do good for this invisible being?

Look at the religious folk, so many thrive on blatant materialism. What would Jesus do? Jesus would be in a pub reading Marx before going out to help the poor and damn the greed of capitalism. How can anyone who understands these stories are clearly fairy tales sit idly by, while they wreck havoc on this world? In some ways we must become what we hate, evangelicals. In the same way Christians are told to preach by example, so must we. Let people know you are an Antitheist and believe religion is harmful. Then, let them see how you are a great human being who cares about the well-being of all people, not because you fear a bearded man in the clouds, but because you understand that what is good for the many is good for the one.

I cannot tell you there is no entity or entities that exist outside of our comprehension or universe. However, I can tell you there is no God of Abraham. He is a myth and the only reason you believe in him is because you were told about him. I was raised Catholic and believed in that God and the power of the Pope. Had I been born in Israel to a Jewish family, I would not have believed Jesus was the son of God; had I been born in Pakistan to a Muslim family, I would have believed Muhammed to be the great prophet. Religion isn’t complicated and I think it is time we all grow out of it, for the good of the world.

I will write future articles that go into evolutionary theory, philosophy, the biblical errors, etc., but there is one correction I must make in this article. Einstein was an atheist. He used the term ‘God’ to describe the universe or simply to make a point. To say otherwise is shameful and foolish. It’s the same sort of lies we hear about the Founding Fathers, many of whom were not just atheist but opposed to Christianity.

MOYOSOREOLUWA OREKOYA
(I love controversy). Starting with the words of David Bern, I’d like to say thank you to David and Tristan.

Starting with David- You say Religious faith is a process of non-thinking. But what evidence is there for that claim. I would take it that you “assume” that religion is a process of non thinking because I wonder how you can possibly invalidate the experience of people of faith, including myself. Faith again in my opinion, is not just a process of thinking, (as some of the greatest minds have had faith), it is also based on a valid personal experience. I have had experiences in my life, and no one has the power and the sufficient tools, to invalidate those experiences. Now, you might not have had any experience with God…yet, but that does not mean you won’t and does not give you room to invalidate other people’s experiences.
You also say that Religion discourages scientific inquiry and promotes confidence in ignorance. Are you seriously sure about that claim? The God I follow says we should seek understanding, and in all we get, we should get wisdom. Religion in no way impedes the progress of science after all, Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Louis Pasteur, Kepler, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Thomas Kelvin, Max Planck, were all men of faith and men of science. Statistics don’t even support that claim. A research presented in Nature magazine, and Science magazine, showed that Iran, a religious country has the fastest rate of the growth of science. Was it not even the atheist community of France that beheaded Antoine Lavoisier the Father of modern chemistry, saying “The Republic has no need for science or chemistry…”

And, No! I believe it is God that protected the bible.(Why are you telling me what I believe? Careful young man-just kidding) You say it is the follower’s allegiance. Are you trying to tell me that the former fishermen, and the sect of people that sprung up from the disciples, would have withstood the wrath of potentates like Alexander the Great, The monarchs of Persia and Greece, Princes of Egypt, Emperor Julius and Emperor Augustus? Again, I don’t think so. The argument that the followers protected the book due to their allegiance to their deity is not even a strong one, to start with. You claim that there is no God. So to who was the allegiance when they staked their lives? But the likelihood of the guarding a book of tales, for the sake of a figment of their imagination, up to a point, where they lose their lives, is highly incomprehensible.

About different religions, I say you are right; people can indeed die for lies. But I have 2 additions-First-the disciples of jesus christ, died for what they saw and believed in. Now give me one other religion that you know that had anything similar. Mohammed did not die for Allah, did he? (I do not want to start another controversy, I am just trying to drive a point home) What is the difference between an apostle of Christ who was martyred and a fanatic Muslim bomber of today? Yes, both died for their faith. One obvious difference is that Jesus’ apostle was killed by others whereas the suicide bomber took his own life. Also, the apostle acted out of love, while the suicide bomber was motivated by hate. There is one other difference, and this is of huge importance. Both died for what they believed, however, the suicide bomber based his convictions on what others told him to be true, but the apostle based his faith on what he himself had experienced, the resurrection of Jesus! He did not only believe the resurrection was true, he knew it was true.Secondly based on what rewards? People can die for their religion, based on the promise of sex, wine and food, and basically everything they lack here on earth (as some religions have promised). But how many people would die for their religion, just to have “fellowship with God” as christianity proposes? I bet a few. You also ridicule the New Testament without providing examples. Please enlighten us on the so called disunity of the scriptures, disregarding the growing number of scholars that now take the new testament as authentic. Even Rosseau, the french skeptic noted something exceptional in the scriptures”I must confess to you that the majesty of the scriptures astonishes me; ….if it had been the invention of men, the inventors, would be greater than the greatest heroes”

You also said I pick out verses that “vaguely” state scientific principles. How vague is this expression “…before time begun” 1 Corinthians 2:7, when talking about the fact that time had a beginning? How vague, is the expression “…all things made out of things that are not seen” Hebrews 11:3, when talking about the fact that the world was made from nothing (what the scientist call singularity)? How vague is the expression ‘…the world hangs on nothing” Job 26:7, when talking about the fact that the world is suspended in space. How vague is… Somebody, tell me. How more explanatory, do you want the bible written many years ago to be, regarding the fact that it is not a scientific literature. Do you expect it to be talking in singularities, quantum numbers and the like? If you are, then I’m sorry, you have to look elsewhere. The list goes on and on and they seem pretty darned conclusive to me.

I am also waiting for your list of false claims of the bible. Please do hurry up and lets ratiocinate on the issue. Also I would like to see an article on the evils of religion. I already know where the dice would roll and would also like us to dialogue on that too. Thanks again.

On Tristan- First, I want to start by saying LOL. The article is introduced with a comical and sentimental paragraph. The fervor of religion in the technical school is not what you expected? Sorry, better luck next time. You might try MIT, but I doubt if you would get any luckier. So in your opinion, evolution is science? First let me define science to you- Science, if you recall deals with observation, something that evolution has not undergone. Even Darwin noticed that, and I would like you to take his quote into consideration when responding to this article ”I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science… It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray. Now getting to a point where in a desperate move to explain God away, by giving attention to fantastical ideas (just-so stories) , like the giraffe’s neck elongating, because it wanted to reach top leaves, or the bear turning into whale just by opening its mouth wide, is not only lazy, but intellectually arrogant and academically pompous.Evolution does not even answer some fundamental questions, like where life comes from. We neglect that issue, and start jumping into evolution. Life questions unanswered, mutation explanation, disproved, fossil records disproved, natural selection, disproved, so where is the backbone of evolution? Flawed assumptions? Evolution is not provable, it is just adopted to neglect the need for God. Sir Arthur Keith an ardent evolutionist, and Darwin’s protégé says “Evolution is unproved and is improvable. We believe in it because Creation is unthinkable.” I wonder what he means by unthinkable, but the point is taken. Charles Darwin said this -“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!” You heard it.Evolution is just a religion. Take it from the founder. Please take this quotes into consideration when you reply to this article as I know you will.

You call us mindless followers. That’s probably the best way to convert someone to your belief rather, unbelief; by ridiculing their intellect. How many aspiring political candidates insult the judgment of the peoples whose support they need? Not a lot. In any case, I don’t think all atheists are mindless; I know many intelligent ones, and I suppose you are too. All I care about is for them to “follow where the evidence leads” a phrase used by the notorious atheist Antony Flew, who changed his mind. Check out his book- There is a God.(The most notorious atheist changes his mind). He claims his experience in science led him to believe in God.

You say God is a Narcissist. But are we debating about His nature, or about His very existence? I think we should, at this point draw a line between taking glory, and being a Narcissist. I won’t claim your father does not exist, because I heard him over the radio speaking of how he made his wealth. First prove that God does not exist before attacking His nature supposing He does exist.Then, we can discuss about his nature in future articles.

Doing good things is good. Reward or not is inconsequential. Except if you think it is ethical to not do good, because we have been promised a reward. The major thing is that we have done what God would have expected us to do. You also claimed that Christians would rather sit in a pub and read Marx (an atheist. What an irony) instead of helping. That is indeed funny given the amount of Christian charities and Relief programs there are. You also claim that religion has been the source of danger to the world. That is a conversation I would like to get into. Here in IIT, I don’t see IVCF, Campus Crusade for Christ doing anything harmful or unlawful. And, not everyone follows a religion, because they were born into it. C.S. Lewis, was atheist and converted to Christianity and you were born and raised catholic, and converted to atheism. Religion is here to stay, whether you, Dawkins (I read his book, God delusion, but I liked the rebuttals better The Dawkins’ delusion, and The irrational Atheist.Good reads if you are ready to drop your “unbeliefs”. and weigh the evidence, not saying you will be convinced, but it would challenge your thinking) and the likes, like it or not. And by the way, I agree with you, “religion”, depending on the uncommon view of it, the one Jesus condemned is harmful. Relationship with God is not, and that is what God expects.

Then for the final comedy- Albert Einstein was an atheist. Guess what I am doing? (Laughing on the floor with side splitting laughter).I would let the man speak for himself. “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)”.I think Einstein is talking about you Tristan.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”. That is Einstein’s view on the religion that you so much detest. Now who is shameless and foolish?

Although Einstein did not believe in a personal God who involved Himself with human affairs (that is why I separated him from the other scientists, in my previous articles), he believed in a Higher Being. For further clarification on this matter, I recommend you get the book Einstein: His life and universe, by Walter Isaccson. By the way I also do not agree on most of his concepts on morality. His views on deep theological matters like that is similar to the view of the pope in Quantum Physics.

Unfortunately, our “discussion” could not go any further, we were told to stop writing any religious articles sob! sob!

1 person likes this post.

Like

Unlike