Iran

Islam and Qoran

Democracy

Women's Rights

Skepticism and Humanism

Human Mind, Consciousness, Emotions, "Soul"

Evolution

Readers' Comments

Dear Kambiz
Thank you for your letter. Yes I do believe that speaking against religion is productive, because religion and belief in supernaturalisms stem from irrationality and lack of logical thinking. As a student and practitioner of science, I consider that kind of thinking harmfull to society, and so I will speak against it. I do not consider myself at the same level as these great men, but Galileo, Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, and many others spoke against the hypocricies and lies of religion as well. Humanity has to move towards rationality and scientific thinking, and away from its primitive and irrational beliefs.
Best Regards.

Dear Sir,
You say that you are against all religion because it does not conform to science. I respect your opinion, but I also have a question for you.

If you believe that relgion is based on silly faith isn't the opposite also based on faith ie that you need to have faith that there is no God. Isn't it silly for someone who believes in the scientific method to deny the existence of God. Because he or she cannot prove that God does not exist either.

In addition isn't it better to believe in God and heaven. If you do and he does exist then you lose. If he does not exist you don't lose a thing. This comes from a lapsed catholic who still beieves in God.
Joe C.

Hello

Thank you for your email.

> If you believe that relgion is based on silly faith
> isn't the opposite also based on faith ie that you
> need to have faith that there is no God. Isn't it
> silly for someone who believes in the scientific
> method to deny the existence of God. Because he or
> she cannot prove that God does not exist either.

No, the opposite is not true. One does not need to have faith that god does not exist. "god" is just an imaginary concept that has been cooked up by humans. The origin of the universe is a subject that is under scientific examination. Physicists and astronomers do not yet have a full answer as to how the universe came into being, and what the nature of its existance is.

In the absense of a full scientific and objective explanation for these questions, humans have cooked up an arbitrary answer for themselves, and have called it "god". This explanation is just as arbitrary and meaningless, as if I were to cook up a theory that the universe was created by a dragon, who sneezed and caused the universe to pop out of its nose.

You may laugh at my theory, but in fact the theory of "god" is not any better than my theory, because it is just as baseless in factual evidence.

When there is no evidence to prove the existance of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist. For example, if there is no evidence to prove that dragons with two heads exist, then I can logically assume that they do not exist. The same goes for "god". If there is no evidence to prove the existance of "god", then I can assume that "god" does not exist.

One does not need to prove a negative. One does not need to prove the non-existance of something. One has to prove that the thing in question does exist. If there is no evidence for this existance, then it does not exist. "god" does not exist, because that concept is not necessarily required for explaining the universe.

> In addition isn't it better to believe in God and
> heaven. If you do and he does exist then you lose.
> If he does not exist you don't lose a thing.
> This comes from a lapsed catholic who still beieves
> in God.
>

No it is NOT better. It is absolutely HORRIBLE to live under such fear of "hell", and under the false hope of "heaven". These concepts were cooked up by farmers of 10,000-50,000 years ago, who took refuge from the dangers of nature in the hope that "god" would protect them, and would send them to "heaven". It would be a horrible existance for me, to live under the irrational fears, and false hopes of stone-aged humans.

What if I told you that you have to believe in my dragon, otherwise it would come and eat you alive. Would you then live your life under this irrational fear, just to "be safe" ???

Regards.

A few hundred years ago europeans believed that black swans did not exit and that theory held until, until whites settled in Australia and lo and be hold there they were.

The apparent lack of proof does not mean God does not exit.
Thanks.
Joe C.


Hi

According to that logic, the Yeti, the Lock-Ness monster, mickey mouse, santa clause, and cinderella exist too. The likelihood that "god" exists, is no more than the likelihood that the above creatures exist.

There is always a finite probability that anything exists. However, that probability can be safely assumed to be very close to zero, if not zero. Until evidence is found that something exists, one is just as likely to be wrong as right by saying that it does.

Those who held the position that black swans did not exist, took the rational and skeptical approach. In fact that is always the best approach to take towards anything. Otherwise one would end up believing in an infinite number of arbitrary theories. There is nothing wrong in being proven wrong. Black swans exists ? Ok, fine, now that we've seen them, we will believe in their existance. But it woudl be foolish to believe in them before actually whitnessing their existance, just as it is foolish to believe in ghosts, goblins, santa clause, and mickey mouse.

Please read the works of Descartes, Robert Green Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell.

Regards.