Faith and Atheism

On Faith and Atheism



Yesterday, I was involved in a discussion with an atheist who insisted there was no god. 

It began with a friend of mine posting this picture.

I replied with a comment but the relevant part of it was this

"..I can understand the sentiment. On the other side, Hitler said he was doing God's work".

I received a reply from second person who I didn't know,  telling me that I just didn't get it, and "THERE IS NO GOD".

As far as I am aware, nobody has ever been able to prove there is no god or gods, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

So I asked for the proof of this statement, and I was directed to the same graphic on facebook. I advised that this is merely someone's opinion (no matter how tragic the circumstances) and it did not constitute proof.

The responder then posted a graphic showing me instructions on how to insert my opinion anally, and subsequent statements made alluded to paedophile priests and that I was quote "nowhere near an atheist"

So in response to these statements, let me make the following points.

Point One:

I am an atheist. I have been doing videos regarding atheism for over four years now. My religious affiliation is shown on my Facebook, and a mouse click would have told you this information. Your assertion that I am not is incorrect.

Point Two:

My statement "Hitler said he was doing God's work" was attempting to illustrate just how subjective proof of god's blessings are. The efficiency of the extermination of Jews could quite easily be interpreted as a blessing by 'god' given to the third Reich.

Point Three

When I ask for proof that there is no god, you failed to provide any. This situation of no proof is likely to persist through until the end of time unless we can find some way to put god in a test tube. As I stated earlier, the concept of a god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

which brings me to point Four.

I feel it necessary to bring to your attention the celestial teapot. Bernard Russell stated " nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely." Please note, this is not proof of a god (or teapot), it merely serves to show how pointlessly impossible it is to disprove such a concept.

Point Five:

I'd also like to mention the Spectrum of theist probability. The Dawkins formulation ranges from (1) certainty about theism to (7) certainty of there being no god or gods, with various graduations from one point to the other. At the risk of running an 'appeal to authority' fallacy, Richard Dawkins places himself at a 6 on the scale. In simple terms even Richard Dawkins refuses to discount the miniscule chance of a god existing, even if it is extremely remote.

Logic would dictate that if something cannot be comprehensively disproven then there is some chance of it occurring. My 'likelihood ranking" of a god of some sort actually existing is that it is about as likely as a pink unicorn, a leprechaun or ghost. They are things that I will live my life without any deference to, as I have seen no evidence for them and I have no reason to believe they exist.

I would contend however that a statement of "There is no god" to be a faith based one, in so much as there is no evidence to support it. It is an untenable position.

Video can be seen here.

Kent Hovind - Out Of Jail And Home For Christmas ?

Will Kent Hovind Be Home In Time For Christmas ?

In just over two weeks, Australia will go to the polls and elect a new government.

My voting intention this year is to vote for the Secular Party Of Australia for the senate.

The secular party is my choice for a progressive, multi-platform party that has the will and drive to enshrine the separation of church and state, something lacking in this country.

The secular party of Australia places emphasis on formulating policies based on evidence, rather than dogma. What a refreshing change that will be!

The secular party favours dismantling the National schools Chaplaincy program – a program that cost Australians over 200 million dollars. You remember the NSCP, the program that wasn't supposed to be about religion but violates the Australian constitution? The same program that had funding deemed 'invalid' by the high court of Australia. The same program that puts unqualified counsellors into schools. The same counsellors who may or may not know a damn thing about counselling children. The secular party is intent on replacing it with a program that supplies qualified counsellors. Counsellors who wont advise children on spiritual issues as some of them currently do. What a novel concept, it sounds a bit like seeing a doctor instead of homoeopath.

Speaking of homoeopathy, did you know that Australians spend more on complementary medicines than on realmedicines ? You know, the medicines that actually have been tested and approved ? The Secular party has proposed cracking down these questionable remedies by tightening regulations and asking for some actual proof of efficiency before Medicare rebates will apply.

As I said at the start, this party is not a single-issue party, it has many policies. Sensible, evidence based policies that aren't the result of some dogmatic interpretation of a 2000 year old book put together by a bunch of semi-nomadic goat herders who were writing down recollections of their ancestors.

Policies for example that will end the tax breaks and exemptions for religious institutions. Tax breaks will still be available for not-for-profit organisations of any particular religious or non-religious persuasion provided they can pass a public benefit test. You know, the sort of test that shows that the tax-free money is actually helping the community at large, and not just 'advancing religion'. Once again, the commitment to evidence-based legislation makes sense.

The Secular party specifically deplores the demonisation of asylum seekers. With the two major parties engaging in a contest to see who can kick the shit out of the most vulnerable of vulnerable, it's rather nice to see a party prepared to treat people as.. well... people. Migrants to Australia will be expected to understand that fundamental to Australian values is the idea that women and men are equal. New Australian citizens will have to understand that their primary loyalty will be to Australian values, including freedom of religion and not to their religion (assuming they have one!).

The secular party proposes that oaths for public offices that currently reference religion should be replaced with a more inclusive and secular oath, with an optional religious oath to follow the legally binding affirmation. See! No coercion and you can still swear your allegiance to the carpenter zombie if you want.

While we're talking about authority and government, don't you think it might be time for an Australian head of state? The secular party favours a republic, rather than the current system of an English woman who is head of our state because of archaic hereditary laws. Sounds like a great career path to me, but I can't see much room for promotion.

Was that blasphemy? Let's hope not, because in Australian there are still blasphemy laws on the books. Laws that should have been removed long ago like a the malignant cancer they are. Laws just waiting for the opportunity to be hijacked by some offended religious nutter in the name of their chosen all mighty myth.

I'll be voting for Secular party in the senate because of a commitment to evidence based policy, a commitment to separating church and state, and a commitment to end the National School Chaplaincy program. I'm voting secular australian party because secularism is central to religious freedom. Freedom is something we can all get behind.