STRANGER THAN FICTION

 "Without a measureless and perpetual uncertainty, the drama of human life would be destroyed."
--Winston Churchill  




There is no doubt that some people find meaning and purpose in their lives through religion. I have even met people who don't believe in their religion, but chose to follow it anyway for this very reason. Beyond the obvious social benefits and support that religion gives, the "big questions" which religion attempts to answer (i.e. "Why are we here?" "Where are we going?" etc.) can also give people purpose. For example, believing that your actions in this life will affect the type of life you get in the next can be a motivational factor for doing good. Although, I would argue there are better reasons.

This is one of the main principles for many of the Eastern religions which employ reincarnation and Nirvana. Many of these religions claim some kind of hierarchy within the animal kingdom, yet I never see them proselytizing to goats, field mice, wombats, fish or spider monkeys. It makes you wonder why humans are so special that we are the only animals with knowledge of the effect our actions might have on reincarnation. As PETA says, "Rats are people, too."

Besides, how exactly does an animal like a badger do something bad? They are instinctually ill tempered. Is that their lot? Does being a good badger simply mean being a prick? If so, can the same be applied to people who are justifiably upset and assault some one? Would this make aggravated assault permissible under some circumstances? Who decides? Fate? God? A jury of peers so stupid they couldn't come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty? I digress.

The point is, many people have a hard time seeing the point of living if their religion isn't true. For some, discovering their religion is false means suicide, but for most they just see life as being pointless, and anything becomes permissible (i.e. Nihilism). Of course, religion is not the only reason to do good things, let alone the only reason to live. But still, the prospect of life without god can be bleak for some, and people often ask atheists why they continue living if life is meaningless.

Well, for starters, even if life is essentially without purpose or meaning, that is not the same thing as saying life is not worth living. Family, friends, movies, fly-fishing and reveling in the misery of others can all be reasons to stick around. Naturally, those would apply to me as well (except for the fly-fishing, of course). But ultimately the reason I "stick around" is simply curiosity.

Growing up I believed in Mormonism implicitly. It had to be true--all of it. I couldn't see a way for it not to be. I knew what my life had in store for me; I knew Christ would come again; I knew the apocalypse was inevitable. Now that I don't "know" those things, I see the world as much more interesting and mysterious. At one point I even used the argument that god will not allow global warming to destroy us because of his promise after the Great Flood, and that the Second Coming of Christ would happen before such an event, anyway. Similar to this gentleman here:

While I am still skeptical of mankind's effect on global warming (which is not to say we shouldn't do anything about it), I am certainly open to the possibility of mankind destroying itself by accident or neglect. Without the certitude that god will stop Iranian terrorists from starting a nuclear war and killing everyone on earth before Christ returns, humanity has become better than television. We really don't know if North Korea will finally create a missile capable of reaching US soil. We don't know if Muslims will take over Europe, as they have tried several times, and as some are trying now. We don't know if American Democracy will fail, and if Obama really is trying to convert us to a Socialist Regime (OK, that's a bit of a stretch). But still, in a hundred years, who knows? A thousand years?

In 50 years, will Christ return? Will the Jewish Messiah finally come? Will everyone on earth convert to Islam or die by the hands of terrorists? Or, is religion merely our first attempt at science and philosophy? Will atheists outnumber Christians in America?

What about scientific advances? Will we ever cure cancer? Is stem cell research the key to fighting HIV/AIDS? Is there life outside of our solar system? What about space travel? Will Utahns ever be able to buy alcohol on Sunday? Will the government stop funding "abstinence only" education? Will the Boy Scouts break free from the Mormon Church and finally allow gays and atheists in their ranks, like the Girl Scouts? Will my gay friends ever get married? Will the Seahawks ever win the Super Bowl?

The human drama is infinitely more interesting and compelling when we acknowledge our solitude, and, hopefully, our solidarity. Uncertainty coupled with a finite existence makes life infinitely more worthwhile. How much worse would the first Act of Hamlet be if you already knew the end of Act III. What if some one told you that Bruce Willis was a ghost before you saw the Sixth Sense? Or that Darth Vader was Luke's Father? The uncertainty of life adds suspense unmatched by any TV drama or cliffhanger commercial break. This includes Heroes and 24.


I don't know what will happen in the next 50 years, but I'm dying to find out.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience discussing life's meaning:

And one on Nihilism:

One more on "living your life:"

FRIENDS IN MISERY

Last summer I posted a bunch of statistics about religious growth trends and countered the idea that Mormonism is the next "Great World Religion." In light of the recent shooting in Colorado during the premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises," and the subsequent finger-pointing as to who is to blame for such a mind-numbingly violent act, I am going to continue my discussion of social trends, as well as prejudice against non-believers.

First, let's start with the opportunism of Evangelical Christians. The Colorado shooting is only the most recent exploitation of tragedy used to fill the pews of churches. Pretty much any shooting will get this kind of response, but the interesting thing about the man from Colorado is that he is a devout, active Christian. So, when evangelists like Rick Warren and politicians like Rep. Louie Gomert say the attacks are caused by trends of declining religious devotion, the rise of atheism, liberalism, the ACLU, evolution, gays, or anything else they don't like, one has to wonder if there is anything they won't say to gain supporters (read "money"). Disgraceful.

Prejudice against non-believers has been a religious staple since the Dark Ages; in fact, that was one of the key characteristics of the Inquisition. Suppressing nay-sayers is one of the ways tyrants maintain power. If you can control the masses so that they only agree with you, while simultaneously villainizing the opposition, even if someone challenged you, the masses would remain loyal to you. During the McCarthy Era of the 50's, Communists were villainized in this way. It wasn't about their politics--they were morally bankrupt and evil.

Today, Atheists are the new villains. According to recent polls, Atheists are as trusted in our society as rapists. Think about that for a second. In our society, many people equate those
who don't believe in god with those who forcibly have sex with other people. This reveals amazing prejudice! I have touched on morality before, and have shown how a belief in god is not necessary to be a good person, and, yet, a huge chunk of our society seems to think Atheists are as evil as rapists.

It is true that Atheism is on the rise. In fact, according to a recent article in USAToday, non-believers have reached 19% in America, which makes it the second largest minority in the US, after Catholics (larger than Baptists, Jews, Mormons, Gays, Blacks, etc., all of whom get more respect and representation in politics). It is also true that this poses a threat to religious leaders and their ability to fill the coffers. Hence the opposition.

Another reason for the alarm theists have concerning the rise of Atheism is that other surveys show that atheists know more about religion than religious people do--even about their own religion. So, some postulate that as our society becomes more educated, and information becomes more readily available (via the internet), fewer young people will buy what pastors and priests are selling. As a result we will likely see an increase in the attacks against atheists and non-believers proportionate to the decrease in religiosity. Afterall, desperation makes people say and do incredibly stupid things.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Just listen to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell talking about 9/11:

Here is Pat Robertson exploiting the earthquake in Haiti:

For shame.

DEAFENING SILENCE

"The evidences which this generation have of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and of the existence of the plates, are far greater than the evidences which they have for the truth of any of the books of the Bible."
--Orson Pratt

"Pics or it didn't happen."
--Facebook colloquialism





Imagine a battle field with millions of combatants, 2 million of whom are already dead. Men, women, and even children are armed to the teeth with swords, shields and armor. As the battle wages, every single person is killed except for 100 of the strongest warriors on both sides. Think of the carnage strewn across the field. Millions of bodies clad with heavy military gear baking in the sun. The last hundred or so continue to fight until only their commanders are left. One commander beheads the other and he slumps to the ground in exhaustion. Imagine this is in a children's book.

This is the story of the Jaredites as described in Ether 15, in the Book of Mormon. It sounds over the top; but is that enough to dismiss it? After all, the story of D-Day at the start of WWII is also pretty over the top and equally gory. So, how would you determine if the Jaredites really did kill each other in this way?

Before I get into this by way of archaeology, I want to recap a previous post where I discussed the argument: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I qualified it by adding: "Except when you should find evidence." I also want to touch on something from a Mormon apologist website, fairlds.org, where they mention that archaeological findings cannot be used to prove stories mentioned in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. I agree; New York is not evidence of Spiderman. But, by the same token, contrary evidence suggesting that New York did not exist at the same time as Spiderman would call the historicity of the comics into question (oh ya, I went there). Therefore, while I agree that archaeological evidence is not enough to say with certainty whether the Jaredite story is true, we can use it to determine the likelihood of it happening, and whether archaeology supports the story, or gives reason to withhold belief until further evidence is presented. 

In the case of the Jaredites, Ether (the author of the story) reports that nearly 2 million people died before the final battle. This means that if the story is true, somewhere on the American continents is an old battle field with piles of dead bodies, or perhaps a mass grave which would put the Nazi's to shame. Also, each of the combatants (men, women and children) were equipped with weapons and armor. So, somewhere nearby should be a cache of this gear, unless it was stolen by another tribe. That's a lot of gear. Millions of swords and armor. And in Ether 7:9, these swords are described as being "made out of steel." So, to recap, if the Jaredite story is true, we should find millions of bodies and millions of steel swords and armor.

If such a cache were found, it would likely be the archaeological find of the century, as it would completely change our current understanding of the archaeological record of North and South America. Not to mention, it would give credence to the claims of the Book of Mormon. As fairlds.org points out, it would not be conclusive evidence, but it would certainly support the claims nonetheless.

Currently, archaeology shows that Native Americans did not have steel, or even iron swords. A few tribes have been known to dabble with copper. But this is not consistent with the claim that the Jaredites used a furnace to smelt millions of iron and steel swords. In fact, no steel has ever been found in the Americas dating before Columbus--centuries after the Book of Mormon is said to have been written (2200 BC - 400 AD). We have iron from every other colonized continent in the world from roughly that same time period, but nothing from America. This is peculiar since iron and steel erode very slowly.

The earliest known use of iron was around 2000 BC, but mass use didn't start until 1200 BC in select areas. And we have archaeological evidence of this. And yet nothing turns up anywhere on the American continents for at least another 2500 years. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Native Americans are among the few civilizations who did not go through the iron age--let alone used steel (this is one reason the Europeans described them as "savages"). All weapons found so far have been made of either wood, stone or animal bone; which, aside from the stone, deteriorate much more quickly that metal. How can this be? Perhaps a better question is, "How can this be if the Book of Mormon is true?" Is god hiding the evidence? Is he purposely making it look like the Book of Mormon isn't true just to try your faith (similar to Young Earth Creationists and Dinosaur fossils)? Does this make any sense?

The fact is, there is virtually no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon stories; yet, if the Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite civilizations were as vast as described, then we should find considerable evidence. I have been focusing primarily on the Jaredites, steel, and iron, but there are other similarly unsupported claims in the Book of Mormon, as outlined in this wiki-link, which says:

"Critics and supporters disagree as to whether archaeological findings support or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Some Mormon archaeologists and researchers claim various archaeological findings such as place names, and ruins of the Inca, Maya, Olmec, and other ancient American and Old World civilizations as giving credence to the Book of Mormon record. Critics and non-Mormon archaeologists disagree with these conclusions, arguing that the Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are not substantiated by the archaeological record between 3100 BC to 400 AD in America, including the ass, cattle, horses, oxen, domesticated sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, silk, steel, swords, scimitars, chariots and other elements. Further, scientists note that genetic studies show that Amerind peoples are most likely of Asiatic origin,which appears to conflict with the Book of Mormon account of their ancestry. Mormon archaeologists deal with the genetics problem in a variety of ways."


To me this is very telling; but in an effort to be fair, I have to admit that it does not necessarily mean Mormonism is false. But it does seem unlikely, and until supporting evidence emerges, belief in Mormonism should be withheld.

As I see it, the evidence so far seems consistent with the contrary claim, that the Book of Mormon was written by a man who knew little to nothing of the ancient Native Americans, and lied about having an ancient record with a divine means of interpreting it. Furthermore, to claim that ancient Native Americans had access to advanced technology (i.e. smelting iron and steel) without any evidence, is like claiming Australian Aboriginals had sports cars and Internet before the English discovered them. Pics or it didn't happen.

STRAIGHT-AND-NARROW MINDED

I like debates. I like listening to them, and, on occasion, even participating. It is a great forum for people to express opposing ideas in a civilized manner. The problem, though, is that many of the opportunities I have to debate is with people I care about--especially family. I try my best to distinguish between arguing against an idea and a person, but this can be difficult. Sometimes it is exhausting. And sometimes it comes from the other side... But still, debating significant issues is important, even if things get heated.

I recently engaged in a conversation with several family members at once about gay marriage. I knew going into it that I would be a lone wolf, but I presented an argument which I think most people would agree with--even if they are against gay marriage. Basically the argument goes like this: All arguments against gay marriage seem to be rooted in religious beliefs; therefore, from a legal standpoint, denying gay marriage to those who do not share your religious beliefs is an unjustified moral imposition, which is both immoral and a violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. In other words, you have no right to deny someone else something based solely on your religion. I also gave a few examples of moral impositions, like Muslim anti-blasphemy laws being extended to non-Muslims and resulting in murder. I think most moral, thinking people will acknowledge the strength of this argument.

By this point in the conversation, at least one person was willing to see my point, and he and I pretty much agree on the moral implications of pushing religious beliefs onto other people. However, he did make one point which I don't feel I addressed very well at the time, and I wish to do so here. He said, "Is it OK for a society to want to promote a particular ideal?" My response was simply: "Yes." But having considered it more, I would qualify it a little. In order for a society to promote one ideal over another, which would grant privileges to one group and deny them to another group (i.e. heterosexual marriage vs gay marriage), they would first need to demonstrate that heterosexual marriage is better than alternatives, or that the alternatives are harmful to society. If they could do this, then it would venture out of the realm of a imposing religious views on to other people, and could then have a legal basis. But this has not yet happened! Therefore, in the specific case of gay marriage, I would have to tell him that it does not qualify, because the only reasons for such an ideal are religious. Besides, lots of religious people are OK with gay marriage--even Mormons!

I read a recommended article concerning the Mormon Church's views on gay marriage, and at one point they cite a sociologist, David Popenoe, who claims that homosexual homes are detrimental to the development of children. He justifies this claim by describing gender roles:

"The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support."

This is not a new argument, but it is still prevalent within conservative circles, so it should be addressed. Notice that at no point does he explain why gender roles are important, or how they actually benefit the children. He simply asserts it. He does not address the contrary claim that these roles (long-term and short-term needs) can be met through a homosexual couple. Why is it necessary for those needs to be met only by a man and a woman, respectively? Can the woman in a heterosexual couple be the bread-winner and the man stay at home? If so, why not two women, or two men? I know it is very difficult to study these things and it is one of the challenges social scientists face, as it is challenging to isolate variables in a social context. But it is important because failure to do so leaves a lot of room for personal views and biases to seep into the studies.

When you look at what every major psychological association in the USA says about homosexuality (i.e. the American Psychological Association), the idea that heterosexual couples are better for children than homosexual couples seems to be questionable. I have touched on this before, so I won't go into detail. But the gist is that homosexuality does not cause dysfunction in the individual, and homosexuals can lead normal, happy and healthy lives. How can this be if some sociologists say that gay couples are harmful to children? This is a major conflict between scientific fields. The psychological research is well founded, and seems to coincide with my own experience with gays, while the sociological evidence being presented against gay marriage from a few individuals seems to rely almost entirely on correlation (which is not causation). So, I see no reason aside from religious convictions to think gay marriage is harmful. Therefore, I still hold that denying gays the right to marry is a moral imposition.



BONUS MATERIAL:

 Here are a few clips from the Atheist Experience concerning Gay Marriage:

Continued:

One more:

COMFORTABLY NUMB

"As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me. His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight..."
--Excerpt from Spencer W. Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness" (pg. 127-128), quoting David Patten's account of meeting Cain:



I once asked someone why they believe in Mormonism. The response was an hour-long testimony which amounted to two primary reasons: upbringing, and comfort. This may be an over-simplification, but this is what I got out of it. And frankly, I was surprised that I didn't get the usual Mormon response of a "burning in the bosom." All in all, it was a good conversation and it is clear to me that this person gets great comfort from the idea of a god and an afterlife. I think I can appreciate this, despite not finding the argument very convincing. It may even be said that believing something because it makes you feel good is enough justification to hold the belief, if it is otherwise harmless. What harm could belief in Bigfoot cause? Or Santa Clause? Surely, these things bring people happiness or satisfaction.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video is worth a thousand eye-witnesses. Objective evidence is almost always more compelling that subjective, anecdotal accounts. In recent decades, the use of DNA research has exonerated many people who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Consequently, this has saved the lives of hundreds of innocent people. But how many more people have been wrongfully executed? Perhaps more importantly, how many murderers have slipped through the cracks of our justice system as someone else takes the fall?

Whenever an innocent person is convicted for someone else's crime, the real perpetrator walks free and can strike again. Contentment with a wrong answer generally means a halt on further investigation. This is the inherent problem with believing some false conclusion, even if you are comforted by it, as I'm sure the families of murder victims are comforted by the closure of a conviction.

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church suppressed scientific studies defying established dogma, which has likely set us back several centuries. Imagine the advances in cosmology and space travel we could be enjoying right now if various Popes hadn't killed and exiled scientists for heresy, like Galileo Galilei. Imagine the types of devices which could have sprung from Michelangelo, if science could have kept up with his vision. Imagine a working flying machine in the 1500's. Imagine Christopher Columbus teaching the Native Americans how to harness the power of electricity. Imagine an immunization shot for AIDS just a few months prior to Freddy Mercury's death. Imagine if all this had occured before the Inquisition! Where would we be if those in power, not being content with unjustified assertions, had put reason and evidence above faith and dogma?

If you believe that you really did see Bigfoot, then you will likely miss the fact that it was a man in a suit. If you believe that Santa gives you presents, then you might not appreciate all the work your parents put in to give you a memorable Christmas. Similarly, if you believe in the biblical creation story and that god created the universe--without any justification--then you might dismiss discoveries in physics which show how a universe can come from nothing, or how life can come from non-life through abiogenesis, or how evolution accounts for the diversity of the millions of species surrounding us.

Perhaps your unsupported beliefs are more comforting, but missing out on the majesty and awe of reality is tragic. Isn't it better to know the truth than to enable a delusion? Wouldn't you like to know if you are wrong about god? Wouldn't you like to be able support your beliefs with reason and evidence instead of inserting faith?












BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Neil Degrasse Tyson discussing how Islam screwed up math and cosmology for the rest of us:

LEGEN--WAIT FOR IT--DARY

"Ya know, if you think about it, the Jews kind of deserved the Holocaust, because they killed their savior."
--Person sitting behind me at a BYU concert



I have a feeling this one might get a little heavy, so let's start light. Here is Mr. Deity and the Promised Land:

Several months ago, back before Netflix totally screwed up their DVD policy, I watched a BBC film called "God on Trial." Set during the Holocaust, a group of Jews in Auschwitz awaits execution and discusses the nature of their covenant with god, as his chosen people. A lengthy debate about the Exodus and Moses, and taking over the Promised Land, ensues; ultimately deciding that god has failed to uphold his end of the agreement. It was interesting to see a Jewish perspective on the Exodus. Over the years I have heard many different rationalizations attempting to validate the genocide of the Canaanites by the Jews, ranging from, "the Canaanites had it coming," to "god was testing the Jews' loyalty." An emphasis is usually placed on context, as if there exists a context which could possibly make genocide OK.

I think it is safe to say that if such a grotesque act of war were to take place today, we would do everything we could to stop it. Oh wait, that is exactly what happened during WWII as the Nazis attempted to take over Europe, and kill all the Jews in the process. This is one of the more poignant points made in "God on Trial," as one of the men postulates that the Holocaust they are experiencing is justice for all the tribes they wiped out. Sometimes irony kills your family.

Now, I'm not saying the Jews deserved the Holocaust--far from it. In fact, there is good evidence that the story of Moses and the Exodus never happened. Besides, Hitler said many times that the Jews deserved to die because they killed Jesus. And I don't feel that the "sins of the fathers carry on to the sons." If this were the case, then I would be morally responsible for the deaths of many slaves and Native Americans during the 1700's. No, this is absurd. But one has to ask oneself, whether the stories of the Exodus, in light of the subsequent Holocaust, make more sense as being literally true, as Mormons and many fundamentalist Christians profess, or that the whole thing is just a fantastic legend or myth passed down many generations from a primitive, ignorant tribe of marauding Bronze-Age Palestinians?

C.S. Lewis once said ("Mere Christianity") that Jesus Christ must be either a lunatic, a liar or the Lord. Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience added a fourth option: Legend. One of the tried and true methods of getting people to remember important stories is through embellishment, making them more interesting and memorable (Ya know, like Robin Hood). Having left the Mormon church, I have reconsidered my entire world view, and I am no longer convinced that the stories in the Bible or the Book of Mormon are true. They make more sense, rather, as fables and traditions. 

Is it more likely that god actually gave the Israelites Manna from Heaven, or that it is a myth of some Jewish ancestors? Is Jesus more like Daniel Boone or Paul Bunyan? How does a believing Christian deal with the competing creation myths of the Hindus or Native Americans? How can you say that the stories in the Bible are more true than the Odyssey, if they are equally over the top and lack any evidence whatsoever? How does faith justify believing absurdities?

BLAZIN HOT LOGIC

“It is not possible for all religions to be true; but they can all be wrong.”

--common sense

In a previous post I discussed how the probability of a god existing drops as one actively searches, but finds no evidence. I wish to continue along this same vein, and consider a common apologist argument known as Pascal’s Wager. 

Blaise Pascal was a mathematician who attempted to give a reason for belief in god based on probabilities, despite a lack of evidence. Pascal’sWager goes like this:

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Concerning god’s existence, Pascal is saying there are two possible outcomes: either god exists or he doesn’t. The probability for either outcome, like a coin toss, is 50%. If god exists and you believe in him, then you “win” eternal life. If god exists and you do not believe in him, then you go to hell. If god does not exist, whether you believe or not, you lose nothing. So based on this reasoning, it is better to hedge your bets and believe in god—just in case.  

The logic of this wager is pretty solid, however, it is based on faulty premises. First, it assumes that the only possibilities are either the Christian god, or atheism. If this were the case, then we would have a true dichotomy, and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But, there are many different gods—even in the Bible—so we cannot assume a dichotomy in this case. Second, Pascal claims the probability of god’s existence to be 50/50. As I explained in another post, while we may not be able to say there is 0 probability of a god, if our searches are continually fruitless, the probability drops and we can at least say it is unlikely.

People often hold humans on a pedestal in the animal kingdom. Much of this stems from the traditional creation myth in Genesis, where man is given dominion over the Earth and all the animals. While it is true that man is very good at certain things, there are many things which we cannot do. Yet, many of these things (i.e. flying, breathing in water, sleeping for several months at a time) are done quite easily by other animals. But still, because of our intellect, we can figure out ways of doing these things despite our limitations (i.e. airplanes, scuba gear, anesthesia/cryofreezing, ok we’re still working on that last one).  

Humans are likely the smartest animals on Earth. If god gave us our intelligence, why would he punish us for using it, and reward us for neglecting it? If we use our reason to determine that a god is unlikely to exist and withhold belief, why would he send us to hell?

In scripture, there are many instances of prophets condemning lawyers and judges for using reason in this way. If god exists it seems strange to me that he would despise intellectual honesty and award people for believing something for no good reason. It makes more sense to me that these scriptures were inserted by religious hucksters in order to scare the credulous into belief. This is what Pascal’s Wager is all about. It is an attempt to trick people into believing something for which there is no evidence, simply out of fear of eternal torture. This is no different than a mafia boss telling you to give him money or he will break your thumbs. If god would really use such an underhanded and evil tactic, then he is not worthy of worship.  

Intellectual honesty is greater than faith.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience discussing Pascal's Wager:

And Christopher Hitchens:

One more, How evangelists sound to Atheists: