'I am an atheist because I don't want to believe in a God that I should always fear, and will punish me at the end of my life if I've done wrong things. Many bible stories don't make sense, and the "miracles" people see on tv can easily have been faked. I'm not agnostic because I don't want to be always unsure, and being atheist I can really get on with my life without being in fear.'
As an argument for atheism, it is logically invincible, don't you think?
9 comments:
A believer might respond with an analogy. Nuclear weapons should make us afraid (although we know for a fact that nuclear weapons exist).
Should we wish to deal with the fear presented by nuclear weapons, the very last thing we would want do is ignore them.
Unlike nuclear weapons, God may or may not exist.
However if he does exist then he is infinitely more powerful than nuclear weapons - and it would surely be inadvisable to ignore Him.
Instead it would be sensible to pray for one's sins to be forgiven - just in case he exists.
God always forgives - apparently. So what is there to fear?
Maybe what the 12-year old truly fears is death. At 12 one does fear death.
The cure for fearing death is simply to live longer. The longer one lives, the more the notion of a godless world begins to pall.
This twelve year old wants to do his own thing. He has identified that he doesn't want the consequences that comes with accepting the existence of God (if such a being does in fact exist).
He seems a wilful person who wants the god of his choice. Take away the fear and he just might accept him.
It is his choice to exercise his free will, to do his own thing, but not his choice as to the implications and outcome of what has been set in motion. With choice comes responsibility and consequences.
The point I was trying to make is that the child has considered and rejected the possibility of God's existence and does not wishfully want to will Him into existence, because it does not feel the need to do so.
This child prefers to "get on with its own life" as it says, and has sufficient intellectual certainty to reject the possibility of the existence of God after having considered it.
This child does not choose to hedge its bets and think "But if God were to exist after all, then I might be punished for my sins."
Too bad so many people cannot bring themselves to decide one way or the other.
They half hope He exists to sort everything out.
This child does not hope that God exists. It already *thinks* it knows that God does not exist, and acts upon that knowledge by choosing not to be limited by a fear of a vengeful but non-existent God.
It is hoped that the child's conscience will be sufficient to restrain it from causing itself and others too much harm.
The child says the stories don't make sense. That means he does not understand them. And his lack of understanding means he is not in a position to say categorically that God does not exist. His arguments are based exclusively on his limited understanding and subsequent reasoning.
But none of us - and certainly not that child - are in a position to say whether God exists or not and expect people to take our word for it, unless we are tyrants to whom people would lie for fear of punishment.
The child has taken a position and is not hedging.
Jeff Marshall is clearly hedging his bets as those who understand Pascal's Wager would.
Elizabeth Young, I take it, is claiming that God exists.
I make no claims here for or against the existence of God because I am not here to defend or justify my beliefs which are personal. I would say that if as this twelve year old has chosen to do people want to declare against God (or for Him even), they should be prepared to provide credible evidence in support of their declaration. Beliefs when declared stand to be challenged. To say you don't believe in God because you don't like the idea that you should fear God is weak, just as saying you don't understand the stories in the bible is weak. These arguments are easily challenged.
The child has come to the conclusion that God does not exist because its reason informs it that nothing so powerful could exist.
Therefore to live one's life in fear of something non-existent would be absurd.
To say that the Bible stories do not make sense does not seem to be weak, in my opinion.
The story of Adam and Eve is not literaly true, is it?
I don't believe literally in the Abrahamic God because dinosaurs existed.
There is a third way, I suppose, and that is acknowledging that the concept of the God exists while denying that God exists as an entity. That is my position anyway.
"God is a servant of the state."
"God is an instrument of good government, whether or not you believe in Him."
that sort of thing.
Post a Comment