Last Updated December 6, 2003
The Home link will now take you to the blog. This site is no longer being updated.
Soulcrusher is a bigot that posts on the MacAddict forums. He started a thread called "Reasons why I hate some atheists" on those boards, going on to list several qualities that apply to all atheists as reasons why he hates "some." After complaining that he couldn't see all the posts people were making, he asked anyone interested in discussing the topic further to E-mail him. So, I did. This really isn't mail regarding the site, but I felt that it would add to the section and help its purpose.
They critize religion without knowing that their very own moral comes from it.
This is the post on the MacAddict forums that started the exchange. Due to his complaint that he couldn't view new postings on the forums, I E-mailed him personally, as he'd requested of anyone who wished to discuss this topic further with him. The discussion was well underway, and he eventually asked where evil came from and such. I sent him this E-mail in response.
To answer your question: Evil comes from the violation of others' inalienable human rights (outside of those being incarcerated as a punitive measure). When you kill someone out of cold blood, you are violating their right to lead a happy, joy-filled life. This is an evil act, regardless of who does it.
Here is his reply, with my point-by-point response.
Well, probably my ignorance and relying always in God is why I've decided to study Physics at Cambridge :-P
I don't care what you're studying or where you're studying it. That makes no difference in the fact that you said that you "hated" certain people in a group because they possessed certain traits that everyone in that group does. That's like saying "I only hate a few black people because they're black."
[Editor's note: He's appealing to the undoubtedly irrefutable authority that being a physics student at Cambridge offers to try and dispel my attack on his demonstrated evidence. This is a classic example of a completely unscientific mindset. Instead of looking at observation to draw conclusions, he looks to authority. If these are the kinds of peopel Cambridge lets into t=its physics program, it really doesn't deserve the name. You'll never catch me appealing to my own authority on this site, partially because I have no authority to appeal to (I'm a first-year university student; gee, lots of credibility there). Everything I say is backed up by the reasoning I used to arrive at that conclusion. In other words, everything I say is open to criticism, because everyone knows how I got there, and they can point out the flaws in the process if there are any. Appealing to authority doesn't allow this kind of evaluation, which is why it's a logical fallacy.]
You are one of those people that think that because I believe in God I am religious, well I am not. I was raised in a Catholic home, true, I do not follow this religion.
No, I don't think that. I think you're a bigot because you openly declared your hatred for "some atheists" who exhibit qualities that virtually every atheist has.
[Editor's note: Notice how he tries projecting his brand of bigotry on to me. Just because he arrives at conclusions through fallacious means, everyone does. Oh, and yes, he is religious because he believes in God. That's the foundation of religion! He probably means that I think he's a miniature Pat Robertson because of his belief in God, which isn't true. I think that he's a bigot because of what he's said.]
I've been always consider myself someone able to realize what others can't. You say that there is no need for religion and that a society can be established without it meanwhile you have no proof of a single society which has come to existance without a common belief.
The burden of proof is on you, not me. You're making the claim that no society can exist without religion, so provide an example of a society that tried to form from non-religious grounds that failed. There's no reason why a society of atheists can't form, unless you'd care to provide one like "They don't believe in God," thus making you an even bigger bigot.
[Editor's note: Common belief doesn't mean that something is good. The Nazis had a common belief. So did the Crusaders. This is the kind of stuff that religious people will use to justify their desire for a unification of church and state: that religion is a necessity to society. When asked why that is so, they spout this kind of crap. That it's a common belief and serves as a unifying force. This may be true, but there are other unifying forces aside from beliefs (nationality, social status, race). Is unifying by virtue of race a good thing? It can be, but then again the Ku Klux Klan is a direct result of such unification.]
Having a common belief without an established institution is like having a state without a government, merely utopic ideas. You feel there is no need for God today? Then who can answer me what created the Universe? As long as there are unsolved questions there would be a place for God. God is what Aristoteles, and even today Hawking, considers the "thing" with the property of having only consequences and no causes. Everything must have come from somewhere and this is where God comes into place.
Nothing "created" the Universe. As someone who is allegedly studying physics at Cambridge, you should be able to recognize this blatant violation of Conservation of Energy. The Universe has literally existed for all time, because the Big Bang created time and space, according to General Relativity. The energy in the Universe has existed forever and will exist forever because of Conservation of Energy. That is what I believe. You can believe that God created the Universe all you want, but don't try and say that it's a logically acceptable conclusion.
Furthermore, your own logic contradicts itself. If everything must come from something, then an uncaused cause is impossible, by your own reasoning. Where did God come from?
[Editor's note: I've put this challenge to lots of people lately, and they just come up with, "Well, God is different because he transcends space and time." If God transcends space and time, then how can we possibly observe him or know anything about him?]
I remember my first IB year when my atheist Physics teacher told the class that Black Holes have no volume and infinite density. I asked him: "Why do you want me to believe in a theory that to me does not make sense? Should I accept it as right? Should I trust you?". He never answered, stayed quiet for a seconds and changed the topic. I say this to se on how life is full of unanswered questions and everyone has a different answer unless proved wrong.
Then you're physics teacher didn't know what he was talking about sufficiently enough to defend what he was saying. Science doesn't give a shit if you don't think it's theories make sense. Special Relativity is completely counter-intuitive, but it's a fact. It's been tested and demonstrated. No one cares if you don't like it.
[Editor's note: I'm not sure what "IB" is, but it may be the UK equivalent of high school, since he explains later on that he was 16 at the time. My physics teacher in high school was a great guy, but he sure as Hell wasn't the be-all and end-all of scientific knowledge. He made a couple of glaring mistakes that can either be explained by his own simplistic understanding of physics, or his own extreme dumbing down of certain concepts so the class could understand. For example, he once said that scientists believed that the universe wasn't spherical in shape, but was flat, like a tabletop. The truth of it is that the universe has no shape. Shape is a Newtonian concept that doesn't apply on large scales like the universe. It is spacetime which is believed to have a net curvature of zero, or flat. This is vastly different from saying the shape of the universe, but try explaining principles of general relativity to a room full of high school seniors, many of whom are struggling with extremely simple Newtonian physics. The bottom line is that high school teachers don't generally possess bachelor's degrees in the classes they teach. They possess teaching degrees, and they don't generally have the depth and understanding of the concepts the way someone with a BSc would.]
Also, your physics teacher was greatly dumbing down the concept so that it could make some sort of sense in classical physics. Black holes have almost infinite volume, because when you pass the event horizon, your spatial direction of "inward" becomes the time dimension of "forward" because of the immense warp in space-time a black hole produces. Thus, you can keep putting stuff into a black hole, and it will never "fill up." This is also due, in part, to the fact that, as a black hole gets more massive, its event horizon radius grows.[Editor's note: For all the non-science minded, what I'm basically saying is that black holes warp space and time in such a way that dimensions become really fucked up, and volume becomes an almost meaningless concept.]
For someone who is supposedly studying to become a scientist, you've got a decidedly unscientific mindset. Just because we can't answer your questions now is proof of God's existence? There was a time when we couldn't explain the energy production mechanism in the sun, but we eventually nailed it, with no God required. You can have personal faith all you want, but trying to justify it with logic will get you nowhere.
When I see you calling me 'religious bigot' I just realize your ignorance and why you deny to understand what I say. I see that my proposal of the disability of a society bring founded without a religion is much more supported than your atheist view. I understand what you are trying to say, but you show no evidence whatsoever. I never started this thread from a religious point of view but from a sociological point of view. And, you got me wrong simply because you are against everything related to God, your ignorance blinds you while I am open to hear from you and most certainly, like always, prove you wrong.
You most DEFINITELY started the thread from a religious point of view, claiming that all morality comes from religion, and then complaining about how atheists "don't listen" when you try to explain as-of-yet scientifically unexplainable occurrences with divine appeals to authority, and then complained about how we don't accept your "personal discovery of God" as evidence of his existence. If that's not a religious point of view, then you're doing a damn good job of plugging for religion.
And, please, enough of this "you're not accepting my completely unsupported claim that God exists, so you're not open-minded" crap. I don't believe in the power of psychics, does that make me closed-minded? I don't believe in Voodoo, witchcraft, or divination. Does that make me closed-minded? No, it makes me a thinking person, because none of those beliefs have any logical backing, nor have they been tested in controlled environments. Same deal with God. I'm not against "everything related to God." I don't care if you pray in the privacy of your own home, Church, or even the street. I AM against people claiming that something we can't explain presently must be God's work, because that's just jumping to conclusions and trying to pass it off as logical, a.k.a.: fraud.
Here is his response, complete with no direct rebuttals to anything I've said.
Yeah, the Universe being there forever makes soooooo much sense...
About as much sense as God existing forever. Relativity doesn't make any sense either; do you DARE dismiss IT out of hand, the way you have Conservation of Energy? Is this going to be the basis of your dismissal of my point? "I DON'T GET IT! IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!"? Don't hold ME responsible for your own intellectual laziness.
And about the black hole thing I was 16 that time, that does not mean that I have not accepted the existance of black holes yet, because now, I understand, at that time it really didn't make sense to me.
So, what was the point of you using it as an example of an "unanswered question," or an example where the "atheist physics teacher" was wrong? You eventually came to understand it, just as science eventually came to understand the energy production mechanisms of the sun. On what grounds do you use it as the basis for your opinion that God exists?
[Editor's note: His example only lends credence to what I'm saying. He didn't completely understand a black hole, so he just dismissed the theory because it didn't make sense to him, then used it as proof of divine existence. Then, he grew to understand the concept more fully, realizing that no divine explanation was required. Of course, his fallacy is in his previous statement that everyone's answers to questions are correct until proven wrong. He starts with the assumption that everything that cannot be explained is proof of divine origin, and then demands that the scientists prove him wrong! His reasoning is traveling a very distinctly circular course, generating enough centripetal force to flatten itself. I wonder if the vaunted physics student at Cambridge would understand that concept...]
OK, so what I said describes you? because I've known respectful atheists who listen and understand and debate fairly, if you are not one of those, then I hate you... fuck off.
I HAVE been debating. You'll notice that I was good enough to respond to your messages and posts point-by-point, in length, with all my reasoning and evidence behind my claims. You've done nothing but make sweeping generalizations, and you haven't managed to find any flaws in my criticisms of your claims and "logic" concluding that God exists. You're strangely silent on my claim that the Universe being created from nothing defies Conservation of Energy, and you haven't satisfied your burden of proof that you wished to impose on ME. It's not that atheists don't listen when you spout your claims about there being a god; it's that we don't BUY INTO those claims off-hand. We critically evaluate them, show their flaws to you, and you get angry that we have the audacity to shatter your illusion that the belief in God is a logical one. To top it all off, you're concluding your E-mail with a message that you hate me because I don't consider your perversions of logic and science to be logical. THAT is why you're a bigot. So, in response, blow me.