Continued from Part 1
In reading the comments on several blogs and websites (such as YouTube) that deal with this subject, I find it rather disconcerting that many of these unwavering Christians propose that "faith" is the defining and irrefutable justification in their deductions, that the Bible has the last word on the matter, and that their own personal "knowledge" of God’s "existence" is sufficient for them – without any regard to reason or logic, or apparent evidence (in fact, all too frequently, their method of contention reveals their lack of intellect). Also, the suggestion that they might just be imagining this "divine" relationship simply does not occur to them.
Yet, is it not reasonable to deduce that just because someone believes that they have a special rapport with, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it does not, however, beget the existence of said monster. If any such thing does exist, it is only in the mind of the person who believes in it. Otherwise, how does one account for the fact that everyone has a different interpretation of "God" or "Jesus" (or whoever), even going as far as constructing a persona that is beyond the Bible’s portrayal of these characters? The most likely reason is that they feel so comfortable with the idea that, for example, Jesus is their personal friend, that they formulate their own required representation of him, essentially meaning that all who believe in him will have a different version of him (seeing as no one alive today can claim that they actually met him personally). In the same way, I could claim to have a personal relationship with George Washington, and that I have interactive conversations with him (implying that he responds with his own thoughts and opinions) – but considering he has long been dead and that his personality is no more, this would be a rather tenuous and suspicious claim, and would most likely be seen as a little absurd, even by Christian folks; and it would no doubt be concluded that I was creating the persona of Washington myself (or speaking for him, as it were).
So, in short, if we take this rather zany supposition of the biblical "God" out of the equation, we are left with, quite simply, a life that consists of a multitude of wonderful and logical components that make sense to us, but without the assumption of this "God" character. And despite believers' attempts to outsmart the non-believers by asking them, "well, then, who created everything, if not God?" one could just as easily respond by asking, "well, who created God?" Their response might be something like: "God was never created," or "God’s creation remains a mystery," which in turn means that if the creation of a postulated being remains a mystery, then why not just remove the hypothesis of "God", and agree that the cause of EVERYTHING remains a mystery! That way there are no assumptions – there is just the realisation that everything that cannot be explained remains a beautiful mystery (and what can be more profound than that?).
And that is really what, I believe, sums up atheism. It is not an evil threat to society, or a belief in nihilism, or a pointless existence that embodies ignorance, indifference, and unethical behaviour. Atheists are NOT the anti-Christ, or even anti-theists (for how can one be against something that is not confirmed to exist?). Nor are they evil-doers destined for hell, or lost souls leading empty and unfulfilling lives filled with perpetual predicaments. On the contrary, many atheists are seekers of the truth, passionate about knowledge, intelligent and open-minded, virtuous in their actions, and appreciators of life’s magnificence and beauty, who, quite simply, do not accept these outlandish religious tenets.
Hopefully, through understanding and education, the term "atheist" will not be seen as a bad or dirty word, as is evident by the many that bandy it about as such. Besides, as some have pointed out, we are all atheists by the mere fact that we do not accept the gods of other religions, whether we believe in only one, or none at all.
We (humans) have an arrogance that stems from three centricities, geocentric, homocentric, and chronocentric.
Geocentric
Mankind has been a victim of several types of arrogance throughout our short history. For many centuries we believed that the earth was the center of the universe. The Ptolemaic model of the universe consisted of 7 (the number of perfection and divinity) spheres with the Earth at the center. This was the geocentric view of the world that cost many brilliant men and women their lives at the vile hands of the christian church.. The position of the christian churches held that this was indeed the correct model of the universe and despite evidence, and then proof to the contrary, would not change their view. This ridiculous misconception was believed till the 1840’s nearly 200 years after Galileo proved, using a telescope, that the earth truly could revolve around the sun and not lose its moons. It’s not that the church refused to look. I could not imagine such blatant ignorance. It is much more likely that they feared that they would lose some power and therefore their money flow would suffer. For his scientific and open-minded work Galileo was imprisoned for the rest of his life.
Homocentric
If one is to be intellectually honest with oneself, we must question everything. We must examine our own sacred-cows with vigor and passion in the same way that we question the most vile and contemptuous doctrines of mankind. (ie.. people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones). The thought that we are the center of the universe and the object of Gods adoration is such an arrogant position to take that if you apply a little common sense then you should feel quite silly for having held such a position or claim.
People pray all the time. Why? For the believers they truly believe that they can change their god’s mind. It follows:
God is doing or will do x
I want God to change his mind and do y because it’s better for me
So I will pray and attempt to convince him that I know better than he
Can you say “ARROGANT”
I have news for you. We are not the center of the Universe. We are but a small carbon based spec on a little insignificant planet in a little corner of the Milky Way Galaxy. Even our Universe may not be alone. New theories are emerging that our Universe is part of a Multiverse.
If you doubt my words think of this.
We aren’t even at the top of our food chain. When you die you will be eaten by worms and bacteria. It is the bacteria that are at the top. They eat everything, even you and me.
So cheer up, have a brew, and get over yourselves.
Chronocentric
The final centricity that we need to get over is chronocentricity. That is, the concept that there is a beginning and end to everything. The concept of time is a virtually universally accepted tenet. But it is an illusion.
Time is a measure of the gaps between events. Just like the inch is the measure of the gap between points. In 1918 Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity which has since been empirically validated. This theory proved that time was not constant. It varied with ones point of reference and relative speed. More importantly for this discussion it showed that time is not absolute. In other words it is not a thing like matter. It is merely a measuring tool.
The past is just a compilation of images and concepts stored in ones brain. The future has not occurred yet and therefore cannot exist. There is only the present.
So, what does that have to do with the price of tomatoes?
Well, if there is no past, and there is no future, then there is no need for a creator.
The Universe is part of a recycling multiverse. It has always been and will always be.
No Creator necessary!
No God!