It’s all irrelevant

20 Sep

What is the proper way to worship god? Should people be baptized? Must you be born again? Is there a heaven or a hell? Must you fast on Ramadan? What foods can you eat and what foods should you avoid? Must women wear head coverings? What is sin?

There is no doubt that questions like these are extremely important to believers of one religion or another, but ultimately they are irrelevant. Why? Because every single question like this assumes that a god exists, despite the fact that all religions have equally failed to provide anything more than just sheer determined faith as evidence. You can’t ignore this crucial bottle neck. If god doesn’t exist, then all the other arguments about his/her/its nature is irrelevant. No matter how you try and get around it, it boils down to this:


Also, notice how logically if you make a claim “I have a baseball” you have to be able to provide evidence to prove the statement if it is to be taken seriously. This is the same for “I have a [insert any noun, including god(s) here]” This is called burden of proof, and its how logic works, its how court systems work, its how reality works. Innocent until proven guilty. Something is assumed not true until there is evidence to support the contrary. So far no evidence has been provided. Meerly willing something to be, no matter how hard to clentch your fists and focus during prayers, does not make it true, nor does your effort count as evidence.

3 Responses to “It’s all irrelevant”

  1. 1minionsopinion September 21, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    I keep running into people who put their foot down on that proving idea. “It’s all in my head/heart/soul so I don’t have to!” like they’re four years old and don’t want to go bed. You just can’t reason with people like that.

    (and if we ever threatened to spank them…)

  2. Vic December 19, 2009 at 6:16 am #

    Religion is a philosophy not a science.

    Most atheists seem to use the whole “can’t prove a negative” statement as a shield to hide behind. Not realizing that the mission statement of “there is no God” and “can’t prove a negative” is scientifically incompatible. It invalidates the entire atheist stance of using science to describe reality. Relagating Atheism to an exercise in philosophy not science.

    • Potator May 3, 2014 at 12:54 pm #

      Religion is religion.
      Atheism doesn’t mean hard atheism or gnostic atheism.

      What’s your personal definition of “philosophy”?

      Religious belief systems such as pastafarianism cannot be proven wrong, I mean, same for the bible or whatever… You always have to have opinions to say something is “wrong”, believing in a reality or in time, assuming things about time and reality, et cetera

      Scientific realism
      (There were others)

      “Most atheists”? In the media, you will rarely find bright people, or will never see one debating and taking their time for such things (some exceptions, ok), but remember that science “probably” couldn’t include god(s)/((ess)(es)) in it, it seems not to be demonstrable in any way, people seem to stop at one book instead of learning science and what it is; “licorns don’t exist” “Zeus doesn’t exist” and so forth couldn’t be said wrong, it is “probable” that it couldn’t be said right either, unless a licorn is being analyzed in labs or is observed quite much, we could even say that theistic religions assume too much about god(s)/((ess)(esses) or even their own.. If that is believed (that science couldn’t show a non physical god or whatever from it, that it wouldn’t be science to even try; or similar statements) by a scientific realist, he will say it “doesn’t” exist (like trees that has money instead of leaves). Prove it to them and don’t use fairytales that may assume too much, that could be written or even falsified and corrected by anybody. See monotheist religions like pastafarianism, just to see how you react to pastafarianist claims.

      And what’s a “god” anyway…?

      Science is a great knowledge system… “It” believes in an objective reality and its uniformity in time, then proposes verifiable, testable, reproductible, et cetera models to investigate on perceptions, to predict and to understand. If something doesn’t work at one place, it isn’t used anymore. It’s a great form of art, the poetry of reality; spiritual indeed when going into the lab, investigating and so on.

      Creating solipsist belief systems is way more fun in “philosophy”, you can even add some god or omniscience concepts or whatever, haha 🙂
      What you called “atheism” isn’t an exercise in any way, it’s just an axiom, an assumption…

      (I didn’t want to take my time, written fast)

      Anyway, much love ❤

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: