Thank God I'm Atheist
Monday, September 6, 2010
Licence For Plato Dvd Ripper
Introduction
I know it's been some time since I post anything, and I have no excuse for that fact, but it's my blog and I write when I want. The truth is that I felt inspired, and had many things to discuss, and which had me missing the win, but ... This time I'm changing things a bit. Almost every time I start writing the thing is very long and therefore opted to present the articles in different posts, so you can go read it slowly and when they want. Today is not going to happen, today's essay is quite long, but going all in one, but separated into "chapters", with some images to make it more pleasing to the eye. I do not mean that you change your opinion, nor impose my own, I just want to tell you how I get to be my atheism, I hope you serve something that can be opened to new ideas, to think and question a little more of everything. Perhaps you are religious and that bothers them or makes them change their minds a little, maybe they can finally be agnostics and atheists coming out really, maybe they are atheists but are not quite sure yet, perhaps this will reaffirm their ideas, maybe not, anyway, enjoy it
The story of my atheism.
come from a half Jewish half Catholic family where religion was never an issue, I was never baptized, not pass through the brit, or anything like that could said to live in sin for all religions. This does not mean I did not have the typical celebration of all the guys, like Christmas and kings, luckily my childhood (in those terms) was normal. I also remember as a kid (3 years old) my mom took me to St. John the Evangelist Church in La Boca, but if we were running had Mass once asked why we were going well and she said no banking is cured. This proves that there is no religious men, but there are children of religious parents. I mean that religion is something that is instilled is not innate, as many fans would have us believe.
Although not much was done emphasis on religion, it was believed that a god exists, and that was the god of the Bible. I was always curious and I always loved the debate. I remember not being able to read and try to see news and talk politics with my family, but knew nothing would. To understand things, I thought I had to resort to books (it was very wrong), but in the home library books were difficult for his age, many letters and a few drawings, so to speak. But there was a collection that was not, quite the contrary. Two of these books caught my attention, a dinosaur and a Greek mythology
In one told me that dinosaurs were, when inhabited the earth and died so that drama with the theory of evolution never had. The dilemma was when I was fascinated with Greek mythology. The art of ancient Greece had loved me, gods and goddesses, adventures, everything. That's when I started to question religion, one day my dad asked "why people stopped believing in these gods?" I could not understand how a single god had more stamina than all the Greek pantheon. To this my father told me that people had evolved in his thinking, and stopped worshiping stones to find out how things worked, although some cultures still believed in a single God, it was more logical than most. To this I ask what religion I had and gave me an excellent response "when you get older you will be able to decide what religion you have." As the love of Greece was strong, at that time decided to be polytheistic, the Greek pantheon would be my religion. The primary
investigate a little more about Greek mythology, this was driven by the Knights of the Zodiac, one of my favorite animes, and this research will add medieval stories, about the Crusades and King Arthur, also read Bible stories, to which there was absolutely no sense to them. At that point the game I had declared agnostic and could not prove that there is nothing superior, and still had doubts about the origin of the universe. Could not state that existed but could not deny it. And in the secondary I realized that the idea of \u200b\u200bancient Greece was ridiculous, that put at risk the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of one or more gods. But still agnostic. My interest in world history and religions showed me had wreaked havoc on mankind, because it could be concluded that all religions are a lie, that if any one or more gods were sadists or useless they could not stop the man. For some reason choose these options and not the third, Gods are an invention of man to dominate man. Since averaging
secondary military started in politics, having a non-partisan attitude left but. It was when I first read "religion is the opium of the people." That sentence opened my mind began, though weakly, my atheism. Confirmed the third option, the gods do not exist and they were an invention of man to explain the unexplainable, to have someone to turn to get some relief. In short, conformism. With more hobbiano thought, I realized how priests used this need to believe, this desperation in order to dominate the rest. To confirm my theory had the story as evidence. For millennia the leaders, kings, priests and other authorities had always supported such things as no one has seen these "gods." But yet I still lacked one thing, to prove that did not exist. How could I?
Just in college I realized that it was very easy to do, was when I learned to use the rules of logic, when I learned that it is a fallacy. I wrote about them in a previous article, can go to check it if you will, I hope ... .. "Again? Great! Then I will continue my story. The university turned to
me a unique opportunity to expand my horizons, discover new authors, to improve my understanding of the workings of science, to exchange ideas with others who think the same or similar to me. Not only peers but also teachers, unlike high school, many were concerned with teaching and discussion, not compete with their students to feed his ego.
In my previous post talk about how the communication revolutions have influenced the history of humanity, but did not say how they influenced me. Always use the Internet to make social or occasional work, but had not fully exploited their potential. It was only with Facebook that I realized what I was missing. Once you grasp the hand of this network, I started to dive looking for like-minded gene I (girls too, I will not deny) and to my surprise, not only found what I wanted but I found much more. Groups humorous atheists, anti-religious groups, documentaries, text, pages, groups and groups of militant atheism. Were the latter with the ones I identified. A group of people from all over the world, of all ages, all races, all social classes together with a purpose, to denounce the crimes of religion. Thanks to them I could understand how to combat this evil, I provided many tools to complete understanding of religion is and how it works, thanks to this I was able to embark my current philosophical position, nihilism.
Always try to find explanations for everything, and when I could not find it assumed that something supernatural was happening at that point seemed quite religious. But I never had a personal God, Greek polytheism was fun, many children have imaginary friends, I had gods (come to think, many also have large imaginary gods.) You do not believe in gods to be religious, there are many religions, atheists and Shintoism and Buddhism, of which serve good things, but I'm not entirely convinced. Until I heard talk of nihilism, it was like to describe myself. It was a way to live where there is no pressure, no goals, no yoke, no suffering, no fear, no explanations, just believe in nothing, are nothing and nowhere to go. It is not until today that I maintain, may be tomorrow (like any good nihilist am open to change) change his mind and seek another philosophical position or maybe not. Time will tell.
The reasons for my atheism
Fallacies
As I said before, when it comes to college presented me fallacies. With the increase in my knowledge of logical fallacies and I could identify many errors. Some of my own, others helped by the web, the idea is to share the reasoning with you.
The first fallacy that I saw was the circular argument used in all religions: "God / is there, because they say the holy books and priests, and they can not lie because in them is the word of God: is .... " There is a good phrase to show that atheists are using a fallacy to assert that gods exist (which I will modify only the names to make it beautiful as I like), that phrase is "To prove that Jesus existed in the Bible is like trying that there was a manga Goku from Dragon Ball. " This means that to prove a thing you have to use a foreign element in this thing, you need evidence to support your argument. Therefore I conclude:
the Bible is the Word of God, why Catholicism is the true religion and the other false
the Koran is the word of God, that's why Islam is the religion of truth and other false.
Then: ____________ (insert holy book of their choice) is the word of __________ (insert deity of your choice) and therefore ______________ (insert religion of your choice) is the true religion and the other false.
Following this logic system, all religions are true and false at the same time, but as you can not admit that all are true concludes that they are all false.
The second is the ad populum fallacy, which used mostly Christians. They say that Christianity is the largest religion in the world and many people can not be wrong. But the truth is not democratic, even though all the world's Christians say that the earth is flat and that is supported by four elephants on a turtle (as they did in ancient times) does not mean it is. Moreover the majority of Christians held beliefs that were disproved by science, although there are certain groups who deny this, but I speak later. Now, although it is true that the majority is right, does not mean they are the majority. The situation is that one third of the world is Christian, and no other religion does so much individual commitment. But if we consider that 70% is Christian. Bone that most do not believe in the Christian God. Therefore we can conclude the following:
If the majority is correct, and most of the world is not Christian, Christianity is not true religion. But while all religions are a minority compared to those who do not believe in them it can be concluded that no religion is true. Citing
Richard Dawkins "We are all atheists about most gods that humanity has ever believed. Some of us just go one god further. "
Third fallacy, argumentum ad antiquitatem, this basically is saying that something is true because this force for a long time, regardless of the changes that took place in the world and the evidence can prove that the theory put forth can be true or not. "No wonder the hard Christianity two thousand years, but not because it's so hard truth, but because the Christian church is a very powerful corporation, and settled through the centuries through the use of force (ad baculum fallacies.) Clear examples of history leave us, such as the "Holy" Inquisition and the conquest of America in which Native American massacred all who refused to convert to Catholicism. For the demonstration I will use the example of the heliocentric theory and Galileo Galilei. For the Catholic Church of the seventeenth century the Earth was the center of the universe and DOT. When developing this theory came out in support of Galileo, but under torture he was forced to say that the geocentric theory was the only truth. Well, it does keep the traditional thinking, Copernicus never would have discovered that the Sun is the center of the star system and the other planets orbiting it, but even more if they respect the tradition heliocentric, had not actually discovered that the Sun is the center of the solar system, but also has a very small orbits, and that what keeps the balance is the constant struggle between the severity of stars and planets. This also shows that stronger than torture, even to make change the way people think about violence, the truth always comes to light and is immovable.
The premise underlying the religions to remain in force could be summarized in one sentence of Nazism Propaganda Minister, Goebbels, "a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth", but it's not a lie repeated a thousand times is still a lie. Fourth
fallacy, also known as ad varacundiam appeal to authority. This is also typical of Christians. Justify themselves by saying that great men in history were Christians, for example, "Newton was a Christian" or saying that there are many scientists and use that as proof, the thought is "if they believe in God, must exist." But not, if Newton, Einstein or anyone believe in gods does not mean they exist, it means they are believers or religious. As I said before the truth is not democratic. There is a clear example is a double fallacy, Catholics justify the existence of God through Aristotelian metaphysics used by St. Thomas Aquinas to write the "5 ways of God", this text is a medieval thought and whose only defense is false "is based on Aristotle and can not refute one of the greatest thinkers of all the times. " That's a lie, we can refute and has done. But while these 5 ways are true, they do not show that there is a god in particular, can be used to demonstrate the existence of any god. My favorite way to refute are the reductions to the absurd, for religion is one that I love my religion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the same logic that proves the existence of the Lord of Hosts, be demonstrate that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen. And if you do not believe me, goléenlo.
not do it for very long, I will present the latest fallacy and this is one of the largest. The ad ignoratum, this means that it is speaking from ignorance. When a priest is asked something he does not know the answer is "God." An example is the origin of life, no one knows how it started so it was "God" who started it all. "It's just a matter of faith" they say. Having faith means to hold a thought ignoring all evidence to contradict it, blindly following something. For those addicted to faith not everything has a scientific explanation, but not. There are things that still today can not be explained, but that does not mean it can not be explained. Millennia ago, no one was formed rays, people of faith had assumed that someone who was baptized and Zeus, Jupiter or Thor, depending on where they met. At this point the party knows how lightning forms and nobody in their right mind would think that there is a being who throws from the clouds to the ground (there are still fundamentalists and religious fanatics who believe that, but as I said they are not in their right mind). Religions claim to faith, without it would not exist. But it is childish cover their eyes and ears not see as reality. Some people do not believe in Zeus, but he does believe in miracles, those people are desperate. There are people who allegedly cured after touching a saint or to pray and say that no medical explanation, but it does, is called the placebo effect. The self-conviction that people can do to heal almost by magic, but they only see the part where they are cured, it also works in reverse, hypochondriacs get sick from anything, and not a demon to blame but somatize. Ockham's Razor is a law of logic that says a problem with the simplest solution is correct, this applies to hypochondria, if a person somatization to the point of getting sick, is easier to treat with drugs instead of assuming that a demon possessed and an exorcism should do and look for intricate theological justifications.
Paradoxes
Several authors demonstrated the impossibility of the existence of the gods only use basic logic as I just did. The most influential religion in Argentina is Christianity and its various sects (as I said before that does not mean that religion is true), so I'll use some paradoxes to demonstrate the characteristics of the Lord of hosts are not feasible or contradict each other.
The Paradox of the Stone "goes like this: God can create anything from nothing because it is the Almighty, then God can create stones, large stones God can create, God can create large and heavy stones. Now, how can God create a stone so big and heavy that even He can lift? There are only 2 alternatives but the same result, if you create that stone and can not lift means that not all-powerful it would be impossible to lift, and if created, but you can lift it means that it is not all powerful as it is impossible to create something that is not can lift; in any way the result is that powerful feature does not belong.
The Dilemma of Epicurus "is a little known and pray, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. So why is there evil? If it is pure goodness would be opposed to evil, then it can not or will not extinguish (or 2) if so it would not be pure good or powerful. To defend this paradox say that evil is the result of human will and that gives us free will, but God knows what would have predicted the fall of humans before it happens, then do not advance or advance but would not or could not help it, this means you do not know everything, can not do everything or not is all good.
If we put these two paradoxes, we can find another dilemma, more or less looks like this: God is one, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and is all good, starting from these premises, question: Did God create another perfect? If God can no longer be unique, therefore would not be a single God who exists, if not, it would not be omnipotent. If you do not know if you can not be omniscient, if you can not test and fails it would be perfect. If only it would be imperfect beings pure goodness because it would affect their product creations of his selfishness and ego mania is considered a defect, therefore would not be perfect. However it is impossible to meet all of these features, and if unable to implement them is not god.
I would also like to demonstrate how the high command of the Catholic Church are atheists or at least do not have faith in their religion, to do this one question: why does he travel in the Popemobile with bulletproof glass?. Since a Muslim trying to kill a shot to Juan Pablo II, shielded the windows of the popemobile. May say that it is not surprising that want to protect themselves from attacks, but here's the dilemma. Does faith that the Pope has (whatever) is not enough to go without that protection of God, "Do not trust your God will protect you from all evil? Are you afraid to die and go to heaven with their god? Is that your God exists and therefore does not protect him, or maybe not his representative on earth and that is why you will not care? However this shows that the Pope and his followers are so atheists like me, but only to manipulate the faithful to continue to maintain the status quo of power.
fundamentalist Christians to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a sham invented by Satan, and say the truth of creation of the universe as we know it is the theory of Intelligent Design, in short, this "theory" (Which in theory has nothing, is a mere hypothesis based on a fallacy) follows the Bible literally, that is for them the world has just under 10 thousand years and was always the same. The various sciences and tons of evidence demonstrate that mess is not feasible, but as in this part I'm using pseudo paradoxes to deny their arguments, I will do the same with this "theory." Assuming that to be intelligent design must have an intelligent designer, we can say that no mistakes of any kind, bone everything goes perfectly, if so should not exist within creation failed products, eg , disease should not exist because they are considered failures of living organisms, nor should they be bodies or members that have no utility. But here's the dilemma, there are diseases and there are always (no one can deny the cancer) and some organs like the appendix or gallbladder that are useless (not to mention the wisdom teeth), why would a designer who Smart is committing these errors?. Yes it does return to the paradox intention of Epicurus, but they are mistakes that can say that the designer is not as smart as previously thought.
science behind my atheism.
The response of all the religious to the request to demonstrate the existence of one of their gods is usually "you probably do not exist" and that is incorrect, a logical question can not prove a negative, always the claims is the one to present the evidence to ratify its claim. It's like the democratic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, this means that prosecutors must prove the guilt of the accused, not the defendant proves his innocence, as only enough to say that " I was not " to prove, if there is no evidence against them can not prove anything. Or by using the same line of argument I could say that I have a unicorn in my closet, but only I can see it, and if anyone refuses to prove otherwise. The strange thing is that if I say that society is me crazy, but if unicorn instead of saying there's an old saying that invisible living in the sky and watches everything I do not accuse me paranoid but religious. But equally, and I deny the existence of the gods, I need something that supports all the other arguments that explain the universe and also to demonstrate the inability of some religious stories.
Physics is the science of space, time, matter and energy. With works out the laws that explain how the universe works. The Big Bang Theory is one of the most accepted theories to explain the origin of the universe as we know it, it says (more or less) than in the beginning the universe was composed of only helium and hydrogen, the most common elements that exist more or less 13 billion years collided with another atom starting a chain reaction that led to the formation of stars which led to the nuclear fusion that created new elements, which also formed stars and other objects in the universe, we can say we are all stardust. How we know that this happened 13 billion years ago? Easy, knowing that the light has a constant speed of 300 000 km. per second and taking the approximate distance between the Earth and stars one can calculate the travel time a ray of light. The unit of measurement light year is a unit of time but of distance, and means the amount of miles. which toured a ray of light from the star to our planet, this means that we see today is not an image but an older version of the stars, watching the night sky is looking back. The deeper you go in the space back in time is observed, and after the 14 billion light years is not nothing. This also refutes the creationist theory that the universe is less than 10 thousand years, since the mere existence of a star millions of light years is one test to deny it.
Big Bang Theory is one of several theories, and still no general consensus on how to start, there are theories that the atoms caused friction between them and this generates enough energy to generate nuclear fusion. Stephen Hopkins developed the Theory of Radiation Hopkins, which is a bit more complicated and I can not explain it very well here. What do you theories to explain what it was like before the Big Bang. Could it be that another universe existed before who died and their waste is formed which we now know that this is an endlessly repeating cycle, or it could be the existence of multiple universes and we are part of one of them is something which has never known, perhaps in the future to discover a theory of everything that explains it.
to this day could not be identified as was the origin of life on Earth, some argue that it is a set of chemical reactions, other than the first living organisms that populated the planet became a meteorite, some fans religion say that it happened as stated in Genesis of the Bible (this is the only hypothesis absolutely refuted by all the evidence collection was achieved over the years), there are some others, but still can not determine exactly as it started, but instead if there were consensus on how the first life forms: unicellular organisms. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how these simple organisms became complex life we \u200b\u200bknow today. Natural selection means that living things are adapted to the environment in which they live and these adaptations are transmitted from parents to children. The trend shows that there is an evolutionary chain in which all living things share a common ancestor, creationists say instead that "God" gave rise to life and no change since then. To prove it's not like these lunatics say, I will demonstrate, in a simple and easy, that evolution exists and is the natural selection that determine the current characteristics of human beings. First of all, the theory of evolution never says man evolved from apes, or that it is a magical process that one species evolves into another half-life of one of his specimens, which he says is that monkeys and humans belong to the family of primates that share a common ancestor, due to natural selection at any time the species evolved in two distinct paths in the chain.
To demonstrate that a cell can evolve into a complex being, I will only refer to the stages of human life. When the egg is fertilized by a sperm is formed zygote is a single cell, after a few hours, the zygote begins to divide to make way for the embryo, for several weeks, the embryo (which is not yet a human being) is developing the various bodies that will serve to survive outside the mother, in the last stage of gestation, the embryo becomes a fetus and is in baby. The latter through the years is grasping and learning (yes, they are two different things) skills to survive on their own (how to talk, eat, and poop, like drinking, like work, etc.), and also develop your body ends (teething, sexual organs mature in preparation for the breeding, etc.), this proves my premise. Natural selection works adapted to the species to the environment, if any religion says no, ask him what color of skin were Adam and Eve, whatever the answer they ask him to explain how it is that today there are people with different color skin without resorting to natural selection, try not to laugh at his response. The thing is, the first humans originated in Africa, and as they were assumed to have dark skin, this is because once you lose the hair that covered her body needed to protect your skin from solar radiation, which is why in areas close to Ecuador (the area where the sun's rays are strongest) people tend to have darker skin, in areas closer to the poles, light sun is weaker and people are less exposed to it, therefore it is not necessary for the body to have as much melanin, with the passage of time people living in those areas were "clearing", ie adapted to the environment once again the hypothesis is proven.
serve the various social sciences in order to keep track of how societies, despite the redundancy, they behave over time. All hypotheses Religious based on the Bible, are refuted by these sciences, since there is no evidence to back it up, is there evidence that there is more than just a collection of myths from different cultures plagiarized the Muslim-Jewish Christian. Through various archaeological findings could be demonstrated that, for example, the story of Noah is a copy of the Mesopotamian legend of Gilgamesh. But no one can refute them these little stories, but also can be used in biology. Let us use the example of Noah's Ark and if that was not plagiarism, but this time we use the zoology and botany to show that never happened (at the ark, might have happened a flooding in a specific area of \u200b\u200bthe planet and from that make the story, but that's not what I'm going to prove).
Noah's story tells us that "God sent a flood to eliminate the evils of the Earth (that turned out pretty bad and so then tried again but this time making your child murder which in turn is He and the Holy Spirit, which also went wrong, that the Lord smart guy!), and instead of taking a day to redo it all back (as he says the book of Genesis, the creation took 6 days but animals made them into one) told Noah to build an ark to him, his family and a pair of each animal species were to be saved from the flood. Next act was built the ark and animals magically appeared and together they left to sail. Lo and behold the problem, apparently not warned the dinosaurs and they died in this quasi Revelation, one must assume this because nowhere in the Bible makes it clear what happened to them. Nor is explained as freshwater fish survived a flood of salt water, or if you have been freshwater and saltwater survived. Or as the crew of the ark could live with their infected bodies of viruses, bacteria and germs that are suffering today. How did the plants to survive underwater?, As the story when the rain culminated a dove brought Noah an olive branch alive, if they do the little experiment to see if a plant can survive a salt water eroded land will see that it is impossible. There is an explanation for this is that at that time did not consider plants as living things today because we know they have botany as much life as you or me. But this does not end here there is still a problem, how to live were carnivores and herbivores in a wooden boat. Suppose there was food enough to pass the flood, and the size that supposedly had the ark is small for the needs, but again we must assume that there was magic and no food. When they got off the boat, what did? With all the dead plants due to not having the right environment to survive, the herbivore should have starved, and consequently the carnivores they should have followed. But as I said before, assume that the surviving plants and herbivores can eat and live, now the problem is that carnivores have to wait for the population of the first increase to avoid running out of food right away, but considering that the reproduction takes more than hold an animal without eating, you can say that what should have happened is an extinction of meat or meat-eaters evolve to survive eating only plants, but as we all know this was not true. Back, was the magic of God, but to me it all just a question arises, why not think straight beings who do not have the need to eat, if he could do for so long that the population of animals regenerate? This little story does not hold water wherever you look, and that I did not even ask how you did to arrive and then return to their chamber of origin all animals originating from America and Oceania.
One thing is common to most religions, and the existence of a "soul" or "spirit" no need to explain what that means since we all know that I speak. Thanks to advances in medical and biological sciences is now known that there is no such thing. What drives the whole animal and insect is the existence of a nervous system not a soul. Many pseudo scientists say that the soul exists and weighs 21 grams, what they did was catch and weigh a living body and weigh seconds after he died, the difference was that weight. The point is that if something has weight, a physical thing and therefore is detectable, one can see or touch, well, the reality is that you can not, so this hypothesis is useless. The immortal soul is supposed to, and is a ghost copy of the body it inhabits, if so, if someone is born with a deformity of the soul should be deformed, for example if one is born without an arm to the soul would lack the same, but if you have an arm amputated in life, what happens to the the soul, wait at rest in heaven or hell or stay in the body but useless?, and if there is a hell, what physical fire can affect an immaterial body?. Another question is when we acquired the soul, if prior to fertilization, who's carrying the sperm or the egg?, And if later, at what point?, "If they are Siamese twins have 1 core or 2?, Do monozygotic twins are one soul divided into 2 or were awarded 2 different souls?, who is the zygote decide how many souls are there?, God can not be because today we know that applying different stimuli a zygote can give rise to twins, while if it is applied to all the single zygote produce an embryo. There is a psychological explanation to understand why people cling to the belief of the soul, and fear nothing, are afraid to think that they and their loved ones at some point go away. The belief that there is life after death gives hope of reunion, that this is a journey from one world to another, but unfortunately not, there is only one life and that's the beauty of it.
Now I wear a little radical, I am one of those people who deny the existence of Jesus in every way, in other words say that Jesus is not just a fictional character invented by the Romans to create conflict among Jews. For starters there are many gods and demi dating several years before Christ that have exactly the same characteristics and are assigned the same actions as the carpenter zombie, including Hercules, Mithra, Krishna, Horus, Bacchus, whether or not I believe googleenlo see the documentary Zeitgeist, and will see. Why did the Romans invent Jesus? Policy. The Roman Empire held the political power of its colonies, but left that they keep their religion, every people could worship the gods they wanted provided they pay taxes. At that time the tribes of Israel began to rebel against the empire, several "messiah" imparted their message among the Jews but incited to revolt, was when he began listening to one than to the contrary, he said that what was rotten were not the conquerors but the Jewish priests, is a phrase that is key to demonstrating that "to Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God" can be given many interpretations, but in the background is the description of Roman colonialism. These rumors started to create rifts between the Israelis, new Christians did not want a revolution on Earth, they wanted a revolution in the minds (not exist), the story of Jesus that he was weakening the rebels and still be imposed. Having achieved its mission, the Christians had no more use, so they tried to blame the burning of Rome and were pursued for several years, there was no intention to change the polytheistic religion in Rome, until the Emperor Constantine saw the advantages of monotheism , so I order that the Council of Nicea collect texts that would become what today is known as the Old and New Testaments. The point is that there is no evidence to prove the existence of Jesus by any contemporary historical record, no archaeological or anything. Many say it is because Jesus was a nobody and therefore did not record it, but there is not even register the earthquake that occurred after execution. Since there is no evidence because of the convenience and economic policies of his existence can conclude that there is only an invention to exploit the situation.
Rounding out the scientific method works as follows, we propose a hypothesis, experiments are done and results obtained from these results conclusions are drawn, it is constantly improving, if at any time there is evidence that this change is incorporated results, constructs a new hypothesis and the cycle begins again. In contrast, the religious method proposes a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it, and anything that contradicts it is considered heresy, therefore should be ignored or eliminated and the way to eliminate the heretic who dare to argue with the priests. Choose what seems more correct, I choose to side with science. If not for the religion of human knowledge would be at a high level compared with the current, great thinkers have not been pursued, would be far more advanced medicine, we might even be traveling through the galaxy from other things.
Conclusions
What is religion?
Religion may be defined as a system of icons used to dominate and subdue the individual and collective actions of individuals. System created at the dawn of mankind to explain that they did not understand. This led to suppose that any action had to have one or a few perpetrators, so if hell is because someone had flung them to the Greeks was Zeus, the Norse for Thor, others will surely have another name, but always had a superior being, which some took self-proclaimed representatives of these and used this status to gain power. With the passage of time the companies were becoming more and more aware, becoming each day a little more skeptical, although this is not a problem for priests, who through the strength and ingenuity were adapting to the situation and that is why that evolved and became gods, in some cases, a single force supposedly omnipotent and omnipresent. Ironically, religion is a remnant of human evolution, like genes, the beliefs are passed from parents to children, initially through oral tradition, most later in writing. It is correct that there are no religious children, but there are children of religious, all born atheists. Religion is like language, are things we learn directly from our home, what our families teach us, if for example, in a hospital there is a mistake and delivered a baby of a family a family atheist evangelist and vice versa religion is not going to depend on what were their biological parents but what are the foster parents if the time goes back to switch places, both boys will have trouble adjusting to their families because, well of blood, do not share any link. There is a very good line that says, "is your religion as your penis, do not show it in public or try to stick it to force the children. "
Do gods exist?
Si. But as the believers say. For this we would have to enter an etymological and philosophical debate about what is there. In order to get a little more clarity I will define what is a god. A god is an invention of men, a fictional character who is credited with the authorship of some natural phenomena which is used to support reality. As a fictional character exists in a fantasy world, has a metaphorical existence, not real. The gods exist as concepts rather than facts or objects. Believers think they are the gods who give us life, but we are upside down which give life to them, their existence depends only to believe in them or not. If tomorrow the world becomes an atheist, everything will continue as always, will continue having natural disasters, deaths, births, day and night, rain, crops, everything they do is not supposed to fail to happen, what will change is the explanation of why this happens, for example, when a tsunami is not going to say it is a divine punishment, but a movement of tectonic plates which caused an earthquake which impulse wave. Rethinking my answer, god is an imaginary friend. The funny thing is that a person talking to an imaginary friend is considered a schizophrenic, but if that imaginary friend told "god" is a true devotee. Therefore, we are able to say that religiosity is a psychopath, and religion is nothing but a collective psychosis.
The evils of religion
Of all the evils, in my view, religion is the worst. Many say it brings some relief to those in need, which in reality never hurt anyone if done in private, that provides good value to the community, and other things. But that is, sorry expression, bullshit. As demonstrated before, religion does not provide more than false hopes, nothing of what they preach is true. Yes there may be some values, but are not exclusive to a particular religion, but common sense, the social contract and human rights, all sociological theory can demonstrate how to live without having something about monitoring natural. Religious institutions over time failing to ensure the safety and perpetuity of the species but their own interests, control and domination are your goals, violence and ignorance are the tools, people their victims, that is something I can not allow anyone should.
If not for the intrusion of religious science today would be far more advanced than this, keep in mind that until the Catholic Church began to lose power there were no major advances in humanity. Christianity in the West is to blame for what is known as the Dark Ages, where through the strength of the "Holy" Inquisition massacred anyone who dared to question some of its dogmas, there was no democracy, its power was all, and he did not like was waiting for the fire if he was lucky or worse the torture chamber. Bear something in mind, only in the twentieth century we can speak of secular states, and it's precisely when large discoveries occurred, the century of science, it took almost 10 thousand years to fly, but only 60 to get into space. It is true that there was always great geniuses that marked times, but imagine where they could have come up without the fear of being persecuted or having achieved adequate funding for experiments that go against "God."
Worst of all is that today there are still retrograde want to return to those times where the power of the priests is absolute. There is still a theocracy, as in the Vatican or the Arab states. The Bible and their families are the worst thing that happened to mankind, or rather their interpretations were. For them millions died in "holy" wars, the crusades were powered under the lie that you had to reclaim the land of "God", and both sides believed they were the chosen people, but the reality was they were fighting a strategic point for trade between East and West, are wars that continue to this day, but now is not the oil trade route but what is disputed. The Muslims who carried out under the promise immolations to become martyrs in heaven will expect 14 virgins and they end up convinced that thousands of lives. Muslim women living in a macho society where they are treated as objects fit only to serve men, can not show, can not vote, can not do anything alone and should they prove men are entitled to kill them with rocks and in the Middle Ages. Christian fundamentalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and some evangelists insist on disturbing others ringing the bell on Saturday or Sunday morning, but that is the lesser evil, some groups are so powerful and have so much money that for example, in U.S. push to have creationism taught as science, leaving the theory of evolution out. To seek their own health by refusing blood transfusions or organ transplants and if they all would be rejected. Use a paragraph
aside to talk about the worst garbage on the planet, Catholicism. The Catholic Church is the main international political party, its influence reaches around the world imposing their dogmas even in secular states like Argentina. Took part in all totalitarian regimes of the West, since the Roman Empire and the European monarchies, to fascism and dictatorships of the twentieth century. Were partners and participants in the greatest genocide as the Inquisition, the Conquest of America, the Shoah, to even the Latin American dictatorships, John Paul II was a friend and he supported Pinochet, gave the nod to the military junta in Argentina was even him that gift of the Argentine territory to Chile Von Vernich priests as active participants or Plaza was the kidnapping and disappearance of people in the 70s in Argentina. Another big lie is the Mother Teresa of Calcutta under a lot of it is propaganda posing as a saint who helped the poor, but the only thing to is to see them die a painful, but would not morinderos hospitals where the poor were to wait a close. Oppose the use of condoms by saying that no good side while there are places like Africa where more than half the population has HIV / AIDS. Since the fall line commanders to make people and their representatives in the state oppose individual freedoms, always opposed to everything, secularism, education public, the female vote, divorce, marriage equal, those things could be achieved (although some countries are still very much conditioned), but sex education topics such as abortion and the legalization of marijuana, among other things, still in the struggle. Not only that, in addition to being against freedom, are in favor of criminals, torturers and murderers protect (such as those mentioned above) and pedophiles, to play with their faithful threatening to excommunicate them if they report them. This makes me not hate, but disgust and shame. Intended above all to be atheists follow their rules or belonging to another religion, but the thing is not so the struggle continuous.
militant atheism and nihilism
Many will tell me a hypocrite for wanting to impose my belief on others. But not, if religion is kept private, the door of the temples are always in these things continue to exist, they will somehow camouflage to prevail. We must stop the machismo, violence and ignorance continue. The first step is to ensure that all states are secular, that religion can not get to anything in public affairs, then we need to improve education systems to bring science to all, demonstrating how the gods are only fairy tales used to maintain dominated everyone, not have greater validity than the cuckoo or Santa. Campaigns need to do to prove it, if the religious do so can we, the difference is that we have evidence on our side. A world without religion would still be conflict, there would still pain, there would still be wars, there would still be winners and losers, rulers and ruled, but, in turn, would greatly diminish inequality, ignorance to just disappear, freedom increase, understanding would be different, the real interests that hide behind their excuses disappear and be easier to fight, most people would appreciate his life and that of those around her, there would be no superstitions, no more worries about what he says astrology or if you go to hell or not, more afraid to appear as one is really not a perfect world would be but a better world.
Nihilism, or at least my vision of nihilism, that is, for FREEDOM, not follow dogma means to think, to think means being able to question all this leads to figure things out for answers and these answers will come increasingly to the truth, and that's not a dogma, science. I'm not arrogant, nor do I have all the answers, so I have a thirst for knowledge is too great, I have many questions and secure all have it. Thinking something today does not mean that tomorrow think so, if someone comes and shows me I'm wrong gladly accepts what you say and change my point of view, it always generates new knowledge, and what was once believed true today turned out to be false and what is right now maybe tomorrow we will discover that it is wrong. Life is a stew of experience is unique, it is to enjoy it not to get it. We should not live thinking that everything is a sin, or that if anything we do today in another life may be, do not even have to waste time wondering if we have a purpose, after all we do not get anything in the grave, but if they want to survive over time, leave a legacy investigate, question, solve, help others, lead by example, you, us, we are but stardust disappear in time, we are not eternal but yes we do, let our trail, do something, save the world the oppressive yoke of religion, say BASTA at once.
In conclusion, probably the gods do not exist, so, ENJOY YOUR LIFE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)