Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site kpnoa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!noao!kpnoa!parks From: parks@kpnoa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Why I am an atheist Message-ID: <355@kpnoa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Jun-84 20:03:36 EDT Article-I.D.: kpnoa.355 Posted: Tue Jun 26 20:03:36 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 03:45:35 EDT Organization: Natl. Optical Astronomy Observatories Tucson AZ USA Lines: 171 This is a statement of position, attempting to explain why I am an atheist. I do this for two reasons: First, to clarify my own position and feelings to myself, and Second, to promote useful discussion and criticism of my reasoning. My background is this: My family was never formerly religious. We occasionally went to different Christian church services, usually with friends. My parents both has Beliefs, but not formalized. I grew up believing that there was Something Out There, something both above and beyond our existence, but I was not sure what. In my teen years, I began to explore. I investigated many religions (Christianity, Buddism, and several occult-based beliefs). I came to categorize Christians in three (admittedly arbitrary) camps: The Hard Cores - those who loudly proclaim and evangelize, usually quoting scripture, usually trying to convert. They are sincere but obnoxious (at times), and seems unable to understand why people don't see their arguments for Truth. The Soft Cores - these people may pass you by without your realizing that they are Christians. They attempts to lead a Christian life, without trying to ensure that everyone else leads that same type of life. They seem (to me) to be by far the least hypocritical, and the closest to God of any group. Lastly, The Blind Followers - this group was brought up in a particular faith and follow it until they die, never questioning it, and never thinking about it much. The end of my teens saw me much as I had started: I still believed in Something Out There. In specific, I believed in an afterlife, mediums who could occasionally contact the afterlife, I believed in some type of mental power that was possessed by rare individuals. I still do *want* to believe in these things, but I find that I cannot. I have always attempted to be a rationalist, looking for the most likely explanation for events and for the universe, even (especially) when those explanations were uncomfortable. The first structure to crumble was my belief in parapsychology. I realize this does not directly bear on religion, but if you have read this far, bear with me. It has been 50 year since J. B. Rhine began investigating psi (and groups in England have been doing research for much longer). In that time, parapsychology has gained a legitimate name, recognition by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and millions of dollars in research funding. Despite that, in all this time not one single solid piece of repeatable evidence has appeared demonstrating a true psychic power. What has instead been seen is: ---Members of the lay public who wish to believe in psychic powers, and interpret unlikely or odd events as being manifestations of psi ---Sincere believers in their own powers, who repond to body language and other cues without realizing it ---Investigators who are so strong in their belief that they let control and objectivity lapse ---And worst, those frauds and charlatans who *knowingly* deceive either the investigators, the scientific community, or the public (and make a tidy profit at it as well) I already did not believe in UFO's, astrology, Scientology, and most of the more outlandish psychic phenomena. After serious investigation, my belief in *all* psychic abilities vanished (much to my regret). I believe now that there is no mystery behind: astrology, telepathy, precognition, telekinesis, mediums, seances, UFO's, bigfoot, psychic surgery, dowsing, reincarnation, or a host of other beliefs that fall into the category "psychic phenomena". Now comes the tie-in with religion. With the collapse of my belief in reincarnation and mediums, the only support for my belief in an afterlife was conventional religion. I began to reason thus 1. Assume for a moment that there was no God. If that were true, then the concept of Divinity and God (or Gods) would still be invented by man, who needed this comfort. In fact, (almost) every separate branch of humanity has discovered its own different Gods, each as different from each other as the separate groups of man were from each other. IF THERE WAS NO GOD, THEN MAN WOULD INVENT HIM. 2. There is no current-day objective proof for religion. There are communications, prayers, miracles, and healings, but these are all subjective and do not constitute proof to disbelievers. 3. The ancient proof of religion is of two types: wisdom and miracles. The wisdom could have been of Divine inspiration, but it could also have been created by mortal men. The miracles are quite similar to modern-day miracles, except that they are more much more astonishing (earthquakes, plagues, invincibility, resurrection). 4. Fanatics may find this offensive -- There are people today who believe the most outlandish things (whites are the superior race, the earth is the center of the universe and does not move, the earth is flat, God hates a homosexual, evolution is a satanic plot, demons and spirits exist and possess people). I do not believe that God (if He exists) made the world this way, or intended people to believe this, or wrote these things in the Bible then made the world otherwise. I think these people are flat-out *wrong* and are deluding themselves through the fanatical strength of their beliefs. (Strong note: sorry, I don't mean to say that all creationists are fanatics. I don't agree with them, but they aren't all fanatics. Flat Earthers on the other hand...) 5. New religions are being started today, even as we watch. Remember Scientology, TM, Jim Jones' bunch of fun-loving Kool-Aiders, Moonies, Rosicrucians and so on. You may call them cults, but they call themselves religions. They can be investigates *today*, and I do not believe in the metaphysical claims of *any* of them. Their proponents do believe, and very strongly. 6. There are technical inaccuracies in all holy books, including the Bible. (I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 where is is undeniably stated that the earth is immovable; Isaiah 40:21-22, Job 22:141, Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Revelation 7:1, where it is implied that the earth is flat, and it is plain that the authors believe that the earth is flat). These indicate to me that the Bible (or any holy work) is not the sole single work of God, but was written by human beings and may be inaccurate. This idea is supported by the many translations of the Bible in existence. I do not say that the Bible couldn't have been divinely *inspired*, merely that it was written by human beings. 7. Almost all holy books indicate that the writers plainly believed in such things as mediums, soothsayers, ghosts, and witches. As I have indicated earlier, I believe in none of these. If these do not exist now, and also did not exist in the past, then those holy authors must have been mistaken about at least some types of super- natural occurances. 8. Most religions (B'hai excluded) claim that theirs is the one true religion, all others are either false or mistaken. Or, more briefly ---The ancient holy books were written by earthly men (believers) with miraculous claims. ---Those who claim miracles today are accepted by many, even though these miracles have no objective proof, or are unconvincing to skeptics. ---Religions have human problems and inconsistencies: their belief in haunts, technical inaccuracies, and their denial of all other faiths. So, which of the many religions in the world is true? It began to seem to me, that from the above points, that the worldly proof of the True Religion rests on its ancient miracles, and nothing else. Any other religion in the world has its modern-day subjective beliefs, comforts, order, and minor miracles. They are all on a roughly equal footing here. Perhaps, I thought, the one with the largest following it true. But millions of people read the National Enquirer and believe in Uri Geller and astrology. I have no faith that a large number of believers vindicates that belief. Again and again I was forced back to the fact that "we can't *prove* to you today, but in the past there was this miracle...." And that is when I became an atheist. If today, in our supposedly enlightened, literate, and technically clever society we are still taken in by mistakes of belief, how much easier must it have been to believe in the past? The Ph.D's who believed Uri Geller at the Stanford Research Institute were no dummies, they just let their belief get in the way of their senses. I am not claiming that the resurrection was a fraud, but that I can't say for sure *what* it was. Uri Geller was a fraud. Christ was not. But, I am not able to accept other peoples view of a miracle as the truth. I have been fooled too often in the present, and present day people have shown themselves to be *extremely* unreliable witnesses. Question: was there ever a skeptical viewer of a miracle who was not convinced and converted by seeing this miracle? Could he have perhaps, really wanted to believe all along? That is why I am an atheist. It seems far more likely to me, that *all* the world's religions are the yearnings of man for something that can never be his: answers, eternal life, true security. I must instead accept an unknown, uncaring universe and my own mortality. Jay Parks (decvax!hao!ihnp4!seismo)!noao!parks