By Hannah Naiditch
Because I believe that the idea of a supreme being has its roots in prehistoric times, and it is outdated in an age of enlightenment and an age where science has made unprecedented progress in helping us understand the world we live in.
Not only is there no need for God to explain physical events, but the concept of a supreme being raises too many questions that cannot be answered.
Many books have been written on this subject. If there is an almighty God, why does he allow good people to suffer? How did he allow the Holocaust to happen without intervention? Some of the answers are that God acts in mysterious ways that are beyond man's understanding. For me this is a cop-out, essentially admitting that there is no answer.
Others say that God gave man free will, and that, therefore, God does not interfere in human affairs. But does that still make him a just and benevolent God when he watches such tragedies without stopping the misery? Is he still an almighty and merciful God? Philosophers have spent their life trying to explore and explain such questions.
But this is not my area of interest. No matter if there is or is not a God would make no difference whatsoever as to how I live my life.
The beauty of scientific thinking is that beliefs require evidence. If this assumed evidence is ever contradicted by new scientific findings, such evidence will be discarded, and the search for answers goes on. Thomas Huxley said, "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence."
I live my life based on my personal ethics to do good whenever possible, and I try to rationally weigh the moral choices we have in life. I feel no need for a supreme being that will punish me or reward me in life or in heaven.
I can't prove that there is no God; the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a God. If they had any evidence, they would not need faith as a basis for their belief. I can't prove that there is no Santa Claus, no angels, no devils or any other product of human invention. You cannot ever prove a negative. Clarence Darrow said, "I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.
- ► 2009 (335)
- ► 2008 (306)
- Is it right to ban ... ?
- Holy Christian Beatdown
- KIERKEGAARD AND SOCRATES
- Discrimination against athesits, part II
- Logical Proof that God doesn't exist - Prayer
- The Atheist's Dilemma
- God: The Failed Hypothesis
- Letters From Leavers
- Blind Man's Bluff
- Douglas Adams on atheism
- The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
- An atheist walking
- And they will know we are Christians by our...
- Stupid Design
- An atheist debate and a response
- Brian Flemming Explains the Rationale of the Blasp...
- Small but Powerful
- SOCRATES AND ASPASIA
- What the hell is hell?
- War on Science
- Why is sex a sin?
- The Quotable Atheist
- Discrimination against atheists?
- Evil God? God did it, so it’s ok?
- The brain
- WHY am I an atheist?
- I got gypped
- A father's love
- The enduring truth of Genesis
- GIORDANO BRUNO AND THE DREAM OF HUMANISM
- Ain't Love Grand
- The Magic of Faith Healing
- Nightline reports on "The Blasphemy Challenge"
- The Thinking Christian
- Sacrifice and Original Sin Make No Sense to Me
- ▼ February (35)
- ► 2006 (173)
- ► 2005 (102)
- ► 2004 (67)
- ► 2003 (108)