Magazine, website & books written by teens since 1989

An Atheist's Perspective

Let me make it very clear. I’m an atheist. Atheism is not devil-worship (no matter how many people say that it is), since that would require me to first believe in the existence OF a devil. It is not me being “angry at God”, since I obviously don’t believe that one exists. It is simply a lack of belief in God(s). Lack of belief does not mean that I positively assert that there are no Gods. To make an analogy, it’s like being a judge on a court trial. Realistically, the defendant is either innocent or guilty. But the ruling can only be “Guilty” (with enough evidence to convict someone) or “Not Guilty” (none or not enough evidence to convict someone). Atheism is me saying “Not Guilty” towards the existence of God(s). It is the only logical position to hold, and is the default position. For example, babies are born atheists whether they know it or not, because logically they lack a belief in God(s).
I’ve seen and read many an argument on forums, debates, etc. which imply that atheism is not the logical choice since it’s not the most efficient in terms of guaranteeing/securing an afterlife. According to Pascal’s Wager, it is best to believe in God, because if you are wrong and there’s no God, then it won’t matter, but if you’re right then you will have a great reward. Atheism, on the other hand, does not have this sort of “safety net” and if an atheist is wrong, he has a much larger chance of going to Hell (or other religions’ equivalent). This would raise a good point were it not for one itty-bitty problem. The fact that a certain belief can secure some sort of terrific prize does not in any way aid the “non-believer” in achieving belief. For instance, if I were to tell you that if you (an atheist, for argument’s sake) begin to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I’ll give you a billion dollars, that would be terrific, right? Except that it won’t make you believe in anything new. You’ll have the same opinion on the Noodly One’s existence as you did before. Contemplating possible outcomes and bribery are not able to force faith. Fortunately, Pascal’s Wager has long been disproven. Unfortunately, countless proponents for God’s existence continue to use this fallacy as if it makes sense.
“But if God didn’t create the world, then who did”? is a question that I come across often. The primary problem of this train of thought is that it makes the certain assumption that there has to be a “who”. I understand that it’s human nature to think that all events which affect us were done intelligently (this is an evolutionary adaptation in our brains which helps us problem-solve, but can sometimes have a negative effect, such as in these cases). This is misleading, because there is no conclusive evidence pointing to intelligently caused events.
“The Big Bang hasn’t been proven!”. This is true. But evidence collected by scientists strongly supports it. And anyway, atheism doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to believe in the Big Bang. Atheism is not a set list of rules or beliefs. All it is, is a lack of belief in a deity.
“You can’t prove that there’s no God, so we have equal chances of being right”. It saddens me that so many people don’t realize the blatant illogic in this statement. Take the following example; I tell you that there is a tiny teapot orbiting around the planet Saturn. I claim to believe this wholeheartedly and I am certain that this is true. You’d probably think I’m a raving lunatic. But since you can’t prove me wrong, my opinion suddenly becomes “valid”?! Do you see now how silly that would be? The same goes for unicorns, vampires, leprechauns, and the Yeti. Just because something has not been or cannot be disproven does not mean that it somehow deserves an equal amount of attention or that there is somehow a fifty percent chance of it occurring.
“But even if God doesn’t exist, believing makes people feel better about their lives!” Not the issue I’m addressing. I don’t doubt that some peoples’ faith makes them feel better in some situations. However I must say that I think that the net effect of religion/faith is a negative one (see: The Crusades, The Witch Hunts, 9/11, Inquisition, etc).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-George Bernard Shaw





Join the Discussion

This article has 2 comments. Post your own now!

Psalm_137.9 said...
Jun. 8, 2011 at 8:15 am

You say give me undoubtful evidence. (By the way, undoubtful was not the right word to use there.)

So where's your undoubtful (again not the correct word) proof for your claim? The burden of truth lies with the one making the claim.

 
RevolutionForGod said...
Jun. 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Okay, that's confusing. Your pic is 66.6 yet your name is Psalm_137.9. Which one are you: Chris.tian or sata.nic? As for the original conversation, I state what he/she said because I know there is one Go.d. I serve Him. I just very highly doubt that this person doesn't know what he/she is saying. I believe in the Bi.ble, Bi.ble is truth. Does that answer your question?
 
bRealTime banner ad on the left side
Site Feedback