1. They find the idea of being a descendant of an ape highly unfashionable and degrading. Their ego has grown since the days of their ancestors, and therefore they believe they are far too superior to have evolved from these ancestral apes. They would rather believe something that was written to sell to their senses, that they are independent from causality and were created by an all powerful supernatural deity that allows them a chance to live past death in a blissful perfect place called heaven.

2. They are ignorant to what evolution means and how the process of natural selection works. They only know and care about the ancestral ape point.

3. They are ignorant to the evidence (transitional fossils, genetics, dna research, ect…) that indicates and supports evolution. Sometimes they are even willfully ignorant.

4. They misunderstand evolution to mean that we evolved from the modern ape rather then that we and the modern ape evolved from a common ancestor.

5. Because evolution is classified as a theory, they ignore all the evidence that support the theory’s verity.

6. They are too lazy to care or think about it, It’s so much easier to just say, “god did it.”

Additional reading - 24 myths and misconceptions about Evolution

I see it time and time again, after a non-believer has explained away creationists arguments, the creationist will often end their argument with the question, “What if you are wrong?”

When a creationist asks a non-believer, “What if you are wrong?,” what they are really suggesting is that if a non-believer is wrong about god not existing, then the non-believer may go to hell for not believing in god. With this question they are proposing that these “operant conditions,” heaven and hell, be ones motivation to believe in god, that if you believe, you have nothing to lose, if you don’t believe in god then you put yourself at risk of going to hell. This train of thought is commonly known as Pascal’s wager or Pascal’s Gambit. It does not try to prove that a god exist, It only proposes that one believe that god exist even without proof.

There are several problems with this reasoning mostly due to it assuming way too much:

Additional resources on the problems with Pascal’s Wager –
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/pascalswager.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/a_refutation_of_pascals_wager_Massimo_Pigliucci.htm
http://godisimaginary.com/i46.htm

I find that many of the characteristics that creationists frequently apply to their god (I’ll be referring to the god, Yahweh) are contradictory and self cancelling. Creationists assert that their god has no beginning, no end, is an uncaused cause, and cannot be scientifically identified or examined as it exist outside of scientific observation because of it’s supernatural properties. They claim to know specific characteristics of Yahweh, to talk to Yahweh, to hear Yahweh speak to them, to know what Yahweh approves and disapproves of, etc… Each one of these claims raises a red flag which I cannot allow myself not to question and address.

1. God’s (Yahweh’s) infiniteness?

If Yahweh has no beginning, no end, is within everything, is infinite, and has no boundaries, then Yahweh must be without edges, without contrast, and without edges to outline it, without contrast to distinguish it, Yahweh must be formless, and if Yahweh is formless then how can it be recognized, characterized, personified, and “known” at any extent at all? It cannot. This characteristic of infiniteness that creationists apply to Yahweh actually cancels out Yahweh’s existence. We can just as easily say that everything is as it is without being possessed by this supernatural deity. Which leads me to the next questionable characteristic of Yahweh, its curious exemption from scientific observation through its “supernaturalness.”

2. God’s (Yahweh’s) supernaturalness?

As I explained above, god’s (Yahweh’s) infiniteness attribute cancels itself out, but not only does this infiniteness attribute cancel itself out but it also conflicts and contradicts with another characteristic assigned to god, it’s so called freedom from scientific examination. If god is supernatural and exist outside of what we understand as natural, and therefore cannot be observed by science, then how is it that Yahweh can be called infinite? Such infiniteness must also include that which is natural and therefore should be examinable by science. If Yahweh is claimed to intervene, participate, and embody the universe, planets, life, people, etc… then Yahweh must also be natural. Also, if Yahweh existed along with it’s supernaturalness, then it’s supernaturalness would not be supernatural, it would just be natural, and if it is natural then it must be subject to scientific examination. One cannot claim that Yahweh is supernatural and then also claim to observe Yahweh in our natural environment and to “know” Yahweh exist. Any supernatural being that can be observed cannot actually be described as supernatural, so were there supernatural beings, one would not be able to know about them.

3. God (Yahweh), an uncaused cause?

Following the contradiction of god’s infiniteness with how one could possibly “know” any specific characteristics of god , how is it that anyone could “know” that god is an uncaused cause? This characteristic often pops up when a creationist is debating how the universe came to be. Creationists of course say that god (Yahweh) created the universe, and the opposition may cite the big bang as to how the universe came to be. Both arguments eventually come down to how could have “something” of came from “nothing.” In which case I am currently researching zero point energy or vacuum energy as a potential contributor to the big bang. Creationists state that god created the universe, in which the next natural question of the opposition is, “then what created god?” In which case the creationist will cite that god is an “uncaused caused,” always been there, always will be, has no beginning nor end. And here you see the argument is circular as it goes back to god’s characteristic of infiniteness where as I explained earlier that this characteristic actually cancels god completely out of the picture.

The fattest fairytale ever fed
fixes a folly to foil ones head.
Flattering its host with features to attract,
it forges a fiction flavored like fact.
It’s firm to force that flesh will fade
and fibers internal are forever in grade.
Made in faith this figure does flower,
framed as the most famous, favorite, phantasmal power.
Our father who art not in heaven,
figure in yet another seven
days or more
to free us from each and every war
scored in your shifty label,
your fading film like fraying fable
feeding on man’s fear of death,
a fog, lacking face and breath.
Fumbling upon only what is said,
this fairytale fantasy foots to wed
man with prayer
at his bed.

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then how is it that a single word which represents such an extraordinary claim has the ability to survive for such a long time without extraordinary evidence to support it’s implications? Simple, never clearly define the word to begin with, and allow it’s hosts to adapt it’s definition to the environment. Allow it’s authors to change the definition and characteristics of the word at their will. Allow it to be redefined over and over again so that it can conveniently attempt to avoid old and new contradicting evidence. Permit people to redefine it at any time to meet their own personal needs. I present to you, the independently experienced personal “god.”

It’s evasiveness is legendary, it’s definition is elusive, it’s meaning is adaptable, it is intangible to all except to the one who provokes the thought. It is the impalpable, definition shifting, meme replicating, evasive “god“ expression.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ponder about and be skeptical of as to why it is that people who declare to have such a close relationship to god and even go so far as to claim that they “know” god, why they are so reluctant to provide even a moderately clear and coherent description of god. The obvious answer is that they really don’t have the close relationship to god that they claim they do, and of course how can they, since god is just a concept, a meme that they have acquired and modified to accommodate their own personal usage of. To give a clear definition of god would be to reveal that god is their own personally modified concept riddled with traits that they have applied to it to fulfill their own personal needs. Any knowing of “god” would be in the same sense as knowing all the traits that they themselves have assigned to their imaginary friend. Of course they would know this, they imagined it. Revealing that would expose that god is their own custom creation. It is because of this that they must avoid defining the concept of god clearly. This allows them maneuverability with their creation so that they can add and remove attributes on the fly, correct once applied characteristics that have been proven to be nonsensical, contradictory, and unnecessary at the current time to comfort their needs, and improve traits that will best meet their needs now and support and strengthen the concept’s survival for future self support.

The person hosting the god concept assigns their imaginary friend the appropriate skills, powers, and characteristics depending on what their current needs, desires, gaps, and requirements are at that specific time. So depending on the state a person is in at any moment in time, their imaginary friend will be assigned a complimenting set of fulfilling traits to support and meet that persons specific requirements for comfort at that time. Each person’s god idea is slightly to incredibly different yet often reflects a more “complete” reflection of themselves. The concept is them with all of their holes filled, intertwined with the characteristics of how they imagine a supernatural consciousness would be.

Make a skeptical or critical remark about god to one of these individuals, and they more often then not, become defensive. However, they are not defending their god concept, they are defending themselves. Because their god construct is them, to criticize and be skeptical of god is to be skeptical of them. Because they are both one and the same. God is an embodiment of them. I think the word should be discarded all together, it is overly and improperly misused, thrown about as easy as the word “love” now is, is inconsistent in substance, and does nothing but represents mans selfish attachment to comfort. Evade that.

I’ve seen some discussions lately that suggest that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. This is somewhat misleading because atheists do not just lack a belief in god, they “disbelieve” in god.

To reach atheism, I think it must go in this order: Ignorant - agnostic - atheist.

By default we are all ignorant.

A baby for example has no idea of god, and therefore can not even disbelieve in god. A baby by default is ignorant. Once ideas are introduced, such as the idea of a god, then one immediately becomes agnostic until they decide to believe in the idea or not. If they decide to not believe in god then they are labelled as an atheist.

An atheist holds a disbelief based on being exposed to the idea of god and having rejected it. A baby for example does not hold a belief or even a disbelief. They are totally “ignorant”, they are not atheists. You must be exposed to the idea to reject it. Babies do not not believe in god. They haven’t been exposed to god to even not believe in god. Atheism isn’t just lacking a belief, it’s also holding a disbelief. To disbelieve, you must be exposed to the idea.

I came across an article over the weekend which talks about how christians claim that atheists must have as much faith in the big bang theory as creationist do in an omnipotent creator. The following is my reaction to that claim.

Being an atheist only implies that one does not believe in the existence of a supernatural god. Atheism does not imply a belief, it implies a disbelief. One can be an atheist without having to believe in the big bang theory, or any other theory for that matter. So to argue that atheism requires faith because atheists believe in the big bang theory is illogical.

If a creationist wanted to argue about someone needing faith to believe in the bang theory, then the argument should go towards all of those who believe in the big bang theory, not necessary atheists. To imply that by being an atheist also requires holding a belief in the big bang theory, is simply false. Perhaps many atheist do believe in the big bang theory, but it is not a requirement to be an atheist, nor is it exclusive to atheists.

What I think creationists really want to argue is that it requires faith to be an atheist, or in other words, faith not to believe in god. Creationist clearly make this argument because their own beliefs deeply depend on faith so much that they try to justify their faith by saying that those who are in opposition to their beliefs also have faith, and therefore are equal in this respect. This too is false, as faith only applies to belief, not disbelief.

I am not surprised that creationists would make such claims as saying that atheist need faith to not believe, for the simple reason that creationists have already exposed their lack of logic in arguments where they attempt to defend their reasoning as to why they believe in god, so it would be expected to see the same lack of logic applied elsewhere. This is not saying that all creationist are unintelligent and completely lack reason and logic, as on some issues they probably do apply a level of these traits. However, I think on the topic of the existence of god, they allow their personal desires, preferences, and need for comfort to take precedence over reason and logic. Doing such, allowing our personal preferences and desires to dictate what we believe rather then evidence could be quite polluting and dangerous to our lifestyle, view, and understanding of the world. I will get into this topic in a later post.

Creationists often say that deep down inside, atheists really do believe in god. However, creationists are terribly mistaken if they actually believe this, because atheists do not believe in god, and they are not hiding a secret belief about god. I feel that creationist say this just to deemphasize their own doubts. I rather think that creationists themselves deep down inside do not really believe there is a god. But they do not want anyone to know that, because it could belittle their efforts of faith, which their church leaders try so hard to enforce in order to keep control of their members suspicions. In order to go to heaven within this religious organization, members are required to go around everyday putting on a show of faith. Some go as far as to actually convince themselves that what they are required to believe in based on faith is actually true and they really start believing. When this happens, the religious organizations intentions have succeeded. They have successfully brainwashed their subject.

It is apparent though, that belief in god is dependant on faith. That is, it is without evidence. You can be sure though that the creationist will argue that they have had supernatural affirming experiences which were evidence enough to convince them. Yea, right. Nevertheless, I hesitate to think that they could be completely without doubt, as they claim they are not.

I also find it quite curious and suspicious that these supernatural affirming experiences are always experienced individually, and that one experience cannot be experienced or shared by a group of people at once. For example, God always speaks to believers individually, instead of all at once? Why is there never a conversation with god that is held between god and more then one person? I think it because these experiences are people conversing with themselves and is heavily reliant on confirmation bias.

If someone actually is so sure about their beliefs, then they wouldn’t necessarily have to “believe” based on faith, they would more often then not, “know.” But they don’t know, so despite their show of confidence, they do have doubts. Though they will not admit to it, they know it and are willing to sacrifice the truth in exchange for comfort and belonging. They are simply not keeping it real. You will find that creationists rarely admit to having doubts. Atheist and scientist are open and honest to say that science does not have all the answers, and that we are working on figuring out all that we do not know.

One who “knows” also knows to admit what the do not know. Anyone who claims to have all the answers, I am rather skeptical of.

Not only are religious members required to suppress their doubts, they are also often required to spread their particular religions word to others. It reminds me of those junk chain mails you get in your inbox. For every 5 people you forward the e-mail to, you will get a token of good luck or happiness back. Not surprisingly, the contents of many of these chain mails are of a religious nature.

Some may say, “Who cares? Why not just let them be? Even if you are right, why must you impose on them?” For one, if I were imposing, why is not okay for a non-believer to impose, while it has been okay for centuries for the religious to impose their beliefs on others? Second, I do not wish to impose, but I do care about people and their well-being. Let me refer to a smoking analogy that somebody recently introduced me to that goes something like this, “When smoking, people say they feel less stressed, comfortable, warm, relaxed, and at ease - but the truth is, smoking is not good for you, and the confirmed smoker will know this and it is in the back of his mind, but he is unable to give it up using all manner of justification to keep going because he is feeble. Not only is his smoking bad for him, but it is bad for the others around him. Everyone around him is subject to his second-hand smoke.

My biggest turning point of how I understand the world and the people in it was at an early age when I pondered that around the world there are different cultures, values, religions, etc… and all of the people in their respective environments believe in their ways just as feverishly as those in other environments. At that point, it was obvious to me that we are conditioned by our surroundings, by our environments. This also led me to be a determinist. Same with religion, in each religion, the members equally believe in their god just as much as the other religion, and none of them are able to show that their view is the absolute right and real one. This made it obvious to me that men made religion and god to serve men’s desires.

I think it is quite curious that theists have to use heaven as their motivation to act “good.” If they are only acting good because they want to go to heaven, is the act really good? I mean, after all, their motivation is selfish. They don’t act good for god, they do it because they want to go to heaven and live forever. God is going to reward them for that and then punish non-believers for using their brains that he gave them? Curious indeed.

Obviously, non-believers do not act “good” or “rightly” because we think we will go to heaven if we do. We do it because we think it is simply the right thing to do. If there were a god, wouldn’t he see these acts more honorably then that of those just doing them for the reward?