Beating your wife is okay!

From The Great Realization:

I can’t really say much else about this. Just want to puke.

Myth #3 ‘Atheism is devoid of morality’

‘If there’s no God, where do we get morality? If you’re an atheist, what do you consider good or bad? If there’s no life after this one, isn’t this life ultimately meaningless?”

I get this rhetoric pretty frequently, and it’s part of the fundamental anti-atheism argument; no God, no ethics or morality.

I’m not going to spend a ton of time on this one, because it simply doesn’t deserve it. The argument can be taken completely apart with little effort. I’ll demonstrate.

First, if God is a pre-requisite for moral or ethical behavior, all persons who professed a belief in God would be good, and all those who did not would be bad. Obviously, this premise isn’t anywhere close to being true – you don’t need God to be good. Secondly, if the only reason you (the theist) aren’t raping and murdering is because you believe there’s a God who will punish you, I’d submit you don’t have any morality in you at all.

The world is filled with moral ambiguity. Mature individuals understand this, and don’t label all things good or bad; it’s a childish worldview. The medical malfunctions of the mind are often responsible for misanthropic behavior, not the temptations of some devil, or the inner evil of mankind. Moral behavior isn’t the result of the commandments of some God, it’s the result of the development of mankind as a species. Humans developed empathy through evolution.

In short, religious people don’t have a monopoly on ethical behavior – in fact, I’d argue that some of the most charitable philanthropists have been (and still are) atheists and naturalists. Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet are just some of the many who advance mankind without a religious agenda.

“Ha Ha, you fucking dumbass! I hope you get hit by a church van and die slowly”

Some of you may have seen this, but I thought it was hilarious, so check it out. Richard Dawkins reading some of his hate mail.

I have gotten similar hate mail as well. People telling me I was going to hell, (one commentor told me, in seriousness, that I was going to be smacked by the ‘ass-cheeks of God into the fires of hell’) or some comments that were veiled threats (quote ‘If I ever find you, I’ll send you to hell myself’), but nothing quite as vile as Dawkins gets.

Either case, I’ll take the same stance he does; I pity these people that lash out so childishly – it’s idiotic and reprehensible. I may not believe in your God, and I might disagree with you, but I don’t want you to die, and I don’t want you to suffer eternally. So, to those currently trolling my blog – keep it up! I love the traffic you send me.

Anyways, I’m got a few more myth articles on the way, and they’re going to change the way comments work on the blog. I’m going to keep these posts on a permeant page, and any comment that uses the arguments I’ve debunked simply doesn’t get posted. Commentors who can argue without these crutches get approved profiles, and can comment whenever they want.

Also, the switch to a new domain is coming shortly, so stay tuned for changes.

Myth #2 – ‘The universe is so complex, there must be a creator’ (Irreducible Complexity)

Another frequently used argument, irreducible complexity is deeply ingrained within the religious vernacular. For obvious reasons, a good majority (although not all) of theists will reject the science of evolution – claiming that the universe as we know it is far too complex and intricate for it to be the result of natural selection.

Known as I.C theory (or, as it often manifests itself, the ‘fine tuning’ argument), its rhetoric is basically simple, and centers around the ideal that the innerworkings of existence (biology, cosmology, science) are extravagantly intertwined; so much so, that any other conclusion except intelligent design is illogical. In a debate, the rhetoric generally looks like this:

“If the world was any further away from the sun, this world would be too cold to support life. If it was any closer, the planet would burn up. Because of this complexity, there must be a creator”

OR

‘The biological makeup of many organisms is simply too intricate to be the result of evolution – in order for natural selection to create this complexity, it would have to be like pieces of a mousetrap falling together in perfect place.’

These arguments are non-sequiturs, because it does not prove the existence of a creator, nor does it discredit or disprove evolution. Both arguments (fine-tuning and irreducible complexity) overlap each other, but are based on the same premise – this ideal that evolution is unable to explain the origin of life. In the IC argument, it is jackpot or nothing, which is a huge misunderstanding of the basics of evolution.

Evolution doesn’t claim to create all of life, in all its complexity, in one shot; successful species and traits survive – and as each evolves and adapts – their attributes become more specialized and complex. Evolution has the answer to irreducible complexity within its own basic explanation, but some theists attempt to use the words of Charles Darwin himself to sink evolution, and to re-enforce the validity of irreducible complexity.

In ‘The Origin of Species’, Darwin talks about the development of the eye, and taken out of context, the quote seems quite damning.

‘To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to differing distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberrations, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree’

Upon this quote, many Christians falsely claim that evolution is impossible, and that Darwin knew it. Not so, as Richard Dawkins effortlessly disassembles this often-used argument.

“Christians gleefully quote this sentence again and again. Needless to say, they never quote what follows. Darwin’s fulsomely free confession turned out to be a rhetorical device. He was drawing his opponents towards him so that his punch, when it came, struck the harder. The punch, of course, was Darwin’s effortless explanation of exactly how the eye evolved by gradual degrees. Darwin may not have used the phrase ‘irreducible complexity’, or ‘the smooth gradient up Mount Improbable’, but he clearly understood the principle of both.

‘What is the use of half an eye?’ and ‘What is the use of half a wing?’…as soon as we give assumptions a moment’s thought, we immediately see the fallacy. A cataract patient with the lens of her eye surgically removed can’t see clear images, but can see enough not to bump into a tree or fall over a cliff. Half a wing is indeed not as good as a whole wing, but it is certainly better than no wing at all.”

Just as Dawkins says in ‘The God Delusion’ – it’s a smooth gradient that natural selection climbs, not a harshly complex mountain that must be scaled in one shot. Once you understand the basics of evolution, it’s easy to see these weak arguments for what they are.

Arguing for I.C theory, from a religious standpoint is a self-contradictory statement – irreducible complexity re-doubles the astronomical odds for the existence of a creator. If the world is so complex, it naturally begs a basic question; who created God? And then the question repeats itself ad-infinitum; who created that creator who created our creator? And then the creator after that? Don’t be fooled, irreducible complexity wrecks I.D philosophy – despite all of the religious people who argue for it.

“Who is to say that it (irreducible complexity) wouldn’t wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, it already has wrecked the intelligent design theory, for, as I keep saying and will say again, however little we know about God, the thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very very complex and presumably irreducibly so!”

Lastly, the universe is not irreducibly complex, and the signs are literally all around us. We live in a planet where over 70% of the original species are already extinct – does this sound like design to you? The solar systems around ours are filled with dead planets, burnt out stars and suns, and black holes. Where is the design? Indeed, there is no evidence of intelligent creation anywhere in our existence.

{quotes from Dawkin’s ‘The God Delusion’}

Myth #1 – ‘It takes more faith to be an atheist’

This week, I’m covering the basics of atheism. This includes debunking myths and establishing fundamental philosophies central to naturalism. I don’t speak for all atheists in this work. Enjoy.

Probably the most frequently used rhetorical device against atheism, the ‘faith’ argument is a frustratingly persistent myth. At one point or another, nearly every atheist has dealt with this argument – and for some, it can be difficult to counter in a discussion. Here’s how the rhetoric generally sounds in a debate:

‘It takes a leap of faith in saying “there is no God”, because humans are not infinitely intelligent and cannot know 100% for sure’

Let’s take this statement backwards – complete knowledge, in this argument, is a red-herring. No one possesses perfect knowledge in the first place (so its reference is irrelevant), and all-knowing, omnipotent knowledge is not a factor in direct intellectual certainty.

For instance, your doctor doesn’t know everything about the human body – but he or she can, with certainty, fix a broken leg. The doctor can make good and true decisions upon existing information. This is all atheism claims in regard to the existence of God – there is no evidence to support them. For the theist to suggest that atheists need all knowledge in existence to invalidate their claims about God is truly absurd.

Secondly, by definition, how could non-belief ever constitute as faith? It would be just like saying (as one clever commenter on richarddawkins.net wrote)

‘Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. ‘

Our philosophy (of operating on useful and provable data) requires no ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ – atheism runs contrary to these concepts. Some will suggest, at this point of the discussion, that it is irrational to claim that there is no God, because choosing between two possible choices (God or no God), without ubiquitous knowledge is illogical. The only logical choice is to not choose.

The answer to this question is found in Occam’s Razor;

‘Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’

“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” – that is, the simplest answer is usually the most correct. For example, imagine the foundation upon which your house or apartment is standing on right now. Suppose I was to offer you two possible conclusions, explaining what exactly was underneath your foundations.

Your house is held up by a mixture of concrete and soil – or it is constantly suspended up by fairies, pixies and unicorns. The most logical statement is not indecision between the two theories; the simplest conclusion is most likely true. You use this rubric to make practical decisions everyday; why abandon it when discussing religion?

We, as atheists, reject the claims of divinity from every religion because the extravagant complexity of their dogma is not supported by evidence. Just as Carl Sagan said, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ – and the idea of a God creating all of existence is unreasonably complex.

Moving forward, let’s give the theist their conclusion. Let’s allow them to push their point well in hand, for the sake of argument. Atheism is ‘faith’ that requires blind belief like Christianity – it would still be completely superior to theism in every way. If atheism was a kind of faith (as religious people incessantly suggest), it would be a faith based upon testable, empirical evidence. It would be a faith built upon recorded history. It would be a faith steeped in modern knowledge – not like religion, which is undeniably built upon centuries-old myths, pre-enlightenment cognition, and unspeakable viciousness and cruelty.

The faith card is a poor attempt to connect atheists with what they reject – a rhetorical device solely meant to discredit the naturalist. The religious person is proud of their faith – but one of their biggest retorts is to try and level the playing field, by essentially claiming that ‘You’re no better than us’, which is really all you need to know about this empty argument.

When you encounter it, don’t accept it passively – keep asking ‘How so?’ – and place the burden of proof upon your accuser. Establish these conditions, remove the red-herrings from the argument, and overcoming the faith card should be no problem.