ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

2/04/2007                                                                                       View Comments

WHY am I an atheist?

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Because I believe that the idea of a supreme being has its roots in prehistoric times, and it is outdated in an age of enlightenment and an age where science has made unprecedented progress in helping us understand the world we live in.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."

2 comments:

Carl Kaun said...

Well, the sentiment is good, but the paragraph starting "the beauty of scientific thinking" is a bit backwards. Evidence isn't dropped because of a new theory, although a new theory might lead to a reevaluation of evidence (or data). Evidence that can't be explained by existing theories drives the formation of new theories. In any event, evidence is not discarded. Doing that is as much a crime against good logic as believing in, well, a god. Or maybe even worse.

boomSLANG said...

The post appears to be gone now, but PES came in and left a post and a link for anyone who wanted to "get a taste" of what happens to our "
souls" when we die. I got "HTTP 400 Bad Request."

Nonetheless, I got a kick out of the capital "B" on "Believers", and the lower case "b" on "non-believers". Ah, the religious supremacist strikes again! lol

I wonder, though....when Odin takes me to Valhalla to see what's "in store for my soul", can I still be a "Believer?...or am I demoted to "believer"? PES? lol