The god arguments

Why god as described in most religions makes no sense
God does not approve of this post

God does not approve of this post

Does believing in god make sense? For atheists like myself, the answer is clearly no: from scientific, logical and even theological perspectives, the arguments in favor of god simply do not stand the test of scrutiny. Belief therefore boils down to an issue of accepting dogmatic ideas and ignoring those that even to believers will appear contradictory, unethical, or just outright false. Often, we debate these ideas where they relate to specific religions. For example, arguing that Noah could not have conceivably built a wooden ark to save every species on Earth is specific to Christianity. But proving Christianity wrong doesn’t prove all religions are wrong. As a result, I have tried to summarize some arguments against god that could be seen as somewhat universal. Admittedly, most o these are biased towards the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as they are the ones most familiar to me. But to some extent, they apply to any belief in an omnipotent deity that looks over us and that who we must worship to achieve salvation.

Here are the reasons why I think this concept of god is impossible.

The omnipotence argument

“Since power is said in reference to possible things, the phrase, ‘God can do all things,’ is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Let’s start off with imagining what god actually is. It seems to me that god cannot be anything other than a being that features the three “omnis”: omnipotence (can do everything), omniscient (knows everything) and omnipresence (is everywhere). Indeed his power, knowledge and presence could not be conceivably limited because that would imply that there is some other force or condition in the universe that could limit it. Omnipotence, however, does have to be logically consistent: god cannot make a circle a square. There is also the omnipotence paradox which is illustrated by the case of whether god can create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it, so it is clear that any sensible definition of omnipotence needs to be less than absolute lest we end up in a logical quagmire. Continue reading

Freedom of speech and fundamentalism

A fictional exchange of ideas about a touchy subject
You get it or you don't

You get it or you don’t

So, this freedom of speech thing is pretty complicated, don’t you think?

Yep, it is.

But as barbaric as the Charlie Hebdo attacks were, you don’t think the reaction in the West was a little hypocritical?

Yes. Perhaps the people on the street were being honest but certainly not the politicians. That (staged) picture of all of them walking together in support of the marches in Paris was a good photo op but a bunch of them have shoddy records in supporting freedom of speech in their own countries.

And even the ones who are democratic, tend to be allied to governments that are disgustingly repressive. Is there a major Western nation that does not make it national policy to kiss ass with the Saudis? The US and the UK are the most egregious example, but even Hollande was quick to fly to Riyadh when King Abdullah died.

And they seem to have no shame about it, which is the worst. It’s this in-your-face discarding of the very things they so passionately seem to defend that is the most insulting. And nobody seems to challenge them about it either, which is the worst part. All of this is done with the excuse of national security coming into play.

But now, back to the freedom of speech part, can we at least agree on a definition of what we should be permitted to say and we can’t? Because let’s be honest, some of those cartoons were blatantly insulting. Not just to Muslims but probably to most people of Arab descent, even if they were not religious.

Yes but they were equal opportunity offenders. They didn’t spare Jews, Catholics, anyone. And what we saw were some of the more outrageous covers, but the fact of the matter is that their primary targets were French politicians, not religions. Right-wing politicians to be precise. If we can’t ridicule a religious belief, why do we tolerate political insults? Discrimination on political grounds is as valid from an international legal perspective as religious grounds.

That would be the end of satire as we know it.

Indeed, which is why we agree that religion should be fair play too. And certainly we can agree that nobody, under any circumstance, should ever be killed for something he/she believes in. Continue reading