However, reason does get me somewhere on the subject of religion. God has never been there for me. I refuse to believe in a God who is ever-powerful and almighty, yet watches a world of chaos and corruption with his all-seeing eyes and does nothing to intervene. I am simply unable to accept this. I continue to maintain that I accept the faith of others and am not trying to convert them in any way. One quote that I think someone with an alternate viewpoint may understand is this:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” [Stephen F Roberts]
I think it's a pretty powerful statement that forces the believer to question why he believes exactly what he believes. Maybe it's just me.
I wasn't always this opposed to my Catholic upbringing. For awhile I took comfort in creating my own version of God so that I could appease my objections toward the hypocrisy of religion and still have faith. I believed in a God who basically created the earth and universe, and then left it there. I believed that he was an asshole, that he sits around all day and watches us, but does nothing to intervene in our affairs. Maybe not that he necessarily couldn't, but that he didn't. He put us here and said "Have fun, guys. Go fuck up this divine world I've created for you." And we gave Him just what he wanted.
A very useful website on the philosophy of religion which, contrary to most sites, is not geared toward conversion to any religion is http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/
I think I've put much more thought into religion than most who blindly believe what they are taught. I give much more respect to those who question their religion and decide if it is fitting. The more you deliberate, the more you discover about yourself and the more you learn to be an independent thinker. I've always questioned things, from the existence of the Easter Bunny to the existence of God. It just so happens that I came to the same conclusion with both of them.
I usually stay away from talking about my beliefs, as they are incredibly controversial and I try not to stir up trouble. Once I get started, though, it's hard to shut me up as I have so much enthusiasm for my beliefs. I should create a new religion, the Church of Aline. Damn, it would be hottt.
There are a few arguments used to prove the existence of God, none of which satisfy my questions and doubts. I've summarized them, but a more comprehensive account can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Pascal’s Wager- It is in our best interest to believe in God regarding afterlife. If we believe in God, then if he exists we go to heaven and if he doesn't then it doesn't hurt or help us. If we don't believe in God, then if he exists we go to hell and if he doesn't then it doesn't hurt or help us. So...either believe and possibly go to heaven, or don't believe and possibly go to heaven. I have a few problems with this argument. First of all, in the catholic religion, it does not simply require faith for entry into heaven. Getting into heaven is a bitch, and I probably wouldn't end up there anyway. If I was religious, I would most likely end up in hell anyway.
The Ontological Argument- This argument attempts to prove that God exists through abstract reasoning. This one is much more complicated, and I strongly disagree with it on many levels so I may not explain it very well. Basically, we can not speak of something that exists. To speak of God is in itself proof of His existence. I don't see the rational aspect of this argument, as I can dream up many things that do not exist, yet I have no trouble thinking and even speaking of them. I don't believe that, as this argument states, to say that God does not exist is to contradict oneself.
The Cosmological Argument- There are two types of these, modal (dealing with possibility) and temporal (time). The modal argument asks why the universe exists if it has no purpose. The temporal argument asks when the universe began to exist, as everything must have a beginning. This beginning must have had a cause (as nothing comes from nothing) and therefore must have been brought into existence by something outside of it. This tries to prove the doctrine of Creation. I've heard many other theories about the universe, most summarized to me through my dad (because I could not even begin to understand the quantum physics of the ordeal if I read it in its actual context), so the information is passed down to me in simplified form through a person who is most surely more capable of understanding than I. I don't believe that this gives me any less credibility, especially when I line myself up with those who listen to their priests and pastors without doubt. Time is not finite. How are we to know when something begins and ends? The problem I have with many of these arguments regarding the universe is that we assume that, as humans, we have a certain amount of knowledge about the world that we can't be sure of.
The Teleological Argument- This just says that the universe is just really big and really fucking complex, and that there must be a purpose for this. The only way that all the variables could have turned out right for a universe of life is with something controlling it- it could not simply happen by chance. On the other hand, I like to think of all the other planets that were not as lucky as our wonderful earth, all those that do NOT support life. I say- our biological conditions were fitting. We have the right amount of chemicals in the air, the right amount of water and sunlight, and hey, we got pretty damn lucky. Why is the idea of chance and evolution so incomprehensible? Maybe we really did evolve from apes...
The Moral Argument- There are two types, formal and perfectionist. The first- morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands; where can these commands have come from but a commander that has ultimate authority? The perfectionist moral argument sets up a problem: how can it be that morality requires perfection of us, then morality cannot require of us more than we can give, but that we cannot be perfect? The only way to resolve this paradox, the argument suggests, is to posit the existence of God. I just don't agree. That's all I can say.
The Argument from Religious Experience- This just says that personal religious experiences can prove God’s existence to those that have them. One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God’s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God’s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves. I'll believe it when I get my own religious experience. Or when I'm alone in a desert for months without food and barely any water and I start hallucinating. Yeah, then.
*This is my disclaimer. I hope that my interpretations of these arguments are sufficient. Please feel free to add anything if you feel the need, as I do not claim to be an expert in this field and I understand the weight that this subject places on many people. If you are afraid of blasphemic statements, close your eyes now and walk away from the computer. if you're intrigued by this rebellion, read on...
AND NOW...ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM...
This I have copied directly from the aforementioned website on the philosophy of Religion, a website that neither attempts to promote nor denounce Atheism. It simply tells it as it is. So listen up.
The Presumption of Atheism- Atheists often suggest that theirs is the default position, that there is a presumption of atheism. This places the burden of proof on the theist; if the theist is unable to make a persuasive case for the existence of God, then the atheist is justified in his atheism. The case for the presumption of atheism may be made in two ways, one resulting in a presumption of weak atheism, and the other in a presumption of strong atheism.
The Problem of Evil- The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of a world full of evil and suffering. If God is omniscient then he knows how to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is omnipotent then he is able to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. If God is benevolent then he wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering. But if God knows how to, is able to and wants to bring it about that there is neither evil nor suffering, then why does he not do so? The simplest answer is that God does not do so because he does not exist. This is by far the most popular argument for atheism.
Problems With Divine Omnipotence- The doctrine of divine omnipotence is the doctrine that God is all-powerful. It is sometimes argued, however, that the concept of omnipotence is paradoxical, logically incoherent, and so that it is logically impossible that there be any being that is omnipotent. This position, if it can be sustained, precludes the existence of God.
Problems with Divine Omniscience- The doctrine of divine omniscience is the doctrine that God is all-knowing. The doctrine of divine omniscience, though, faces several philosophical objections; there are a number of arguments in the philosophy of religion that purport to demonstrate that God cannot possibly know everything. These include arguments that the doctrine of divine omniscience is logically incoherent, that it is inconsistent with the further Christian doctrine of divine impeccability (i.e. the doctrine that God cannot sin), and that it is refuted by the fact of human freedom. If any of these arguments is successful, then there can be no omniscient God.
Problems with Divine Justice- The doctrine of divine justice is also subject to criticism. First of all, it appears to conflict with the idea that God is forgiving. A just God sees that each person gets what he or she deserves; a forgiving God sees that some people’s sins go unpunished. Second, the Christian view of heaven and hell appear in many ways to be unjust. Hell, for instance, appears to inflict an infinitely great punishment upon those who are sent there. How, though, can any finite sin deserve infinite punishment? Just punishments and rewards are proportionate to the badness or goodness of the person that deserves them. Heaven and hell though, are all or nothing. They therefore cannot be just.
Problems with Immortality- Even if we can make sense of the justice of heaven and hell, there remains a further problem: immortality. Death, by definition, involves the destruction of a person; if a person is not destroyed by death then they did not die. Once destroyed, though, it is unclear whether a person can be recreated. It is possible, no doubt, for there to be a subsequent person, like to them in every respect, but there is no reason to think that that will be the very same person that died, rather than merely a replica of them.
Petitionary Prayer- A further doctrinal problem with Christianity concerns petitionary prayer, prayer in which we request that God do something for us. God’s omniscience implies that he will already have taken all of the information about our needs and desires into account when deciding what to do. His benevolence implies that he will act in our best interests unless there is a good reason not to (and if there is such a reason, our prayers will not remove it). Prayer, then, should never change God’s mind; petitionary prayer shouldn’t ever work.
The Argument from Autonomy- The argument from autonomy is the argument that the existence of morally autonomous agents is inconsistent with the existence of God, and so that the fact that morally autonomous agents do exist disproves the existence of God. God, if he exists, is worthy of worship. If a being is truly worthy of worship, though, then he is entitled to our unconditional obedience. Moral agents, however, cannot be required to give unconditional obedience to any agent. Moral agency requires autonomy, and so the idea of a moral duty to give up one's autonomy is incoherent; in giving up one's autonomy one would cease to be a moral agent so would cease to have moral duties at all. We cannot, therefore, have a duty of unconditional obedience to any agent, and there therefore cannot be any agent that worthy of worship. There can therefore be no God.
Religion and Memetics- A final critique of religion comes from the field of memetics, and the suggestion that there is a God meme. Memetics seeks to apply the theory of evolution not to biological organisms but to ideas. Ideas, like animals, replicate themselves and compete for survival. The same process of natural selection that ensures that only the fittest animals survive will therefore also ensure that only the fittest ideas survive. Fitness of ideas, though, need not be a guide to truth; fitness is simply the ability to survive and reproduce. If the memetic critique of religion is right, then the success of religion can be fully explained by its preference of faith to reason, and its emphasis on evangelism.
I'm not going to share my reasons for not believing in God. I find some of the last arguments for atheism plausible, and some not. If you are interested in my beliefs, come to me and we'll have a nice little talk. Possibly even an amazing, life-altering talk! Wouldn't THAT be great!!!! Well, that's all for now. Peace.