Hello everyone. Before I even begin writing, I am going to ask that everyone read this letter, as it will have relevance in everything I have to state:
http://www.iamanatheist.com/correspondence/notable/notable-2006-08_favorite.html
Everything I have to say is going to be brutally honest and will probably offend some people, but they are my views and how I truly feel.
Ok, where to begin? Some people have told me that they enjoy my writing, and that they would enjoy having a discussion or debate with me. So here it is, my big debut.
Let me start by saying thank you if you took the time to read that letter I posted a link too. I greatly appreciate it if you did.
I am going to start out with a hypothetical situation to prove a point about logic and reasoning and the nature of things. Have you ever heard a person say that you can't prove a negative? Well, if you don't understand what that means, let me tell you a little story that I think will help clarify things:
If you were to go inside my Green 1997 Dodge Intrepid, and open up the glove compartment, inside would be a tiny, invisible, pink elephant named Floyd. Floyd is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. This means that he is everywhere at all times, is all powerful, and he sees everything. Now, you say to me, "You're full of crap! Elephants aren't pink, and they can't fit inside a glove compartment! Also, if he's invisible, how do you know he's pink?" I say that it is because he is all powerful, so he can do whatever he wants. You even stick your hands inside and wave them around. "See there's nothing in there!" I say that the reason you didn't touch him is because he moved after shrinking himself even smaller. You see the flaw? You can always prove within a certain margin of error the probability of whether or not something exists, but you can NEVER prove that something does NOT exist. It's an impossibility, and it's called "proving a negative," which is impossible.
Now, you might say, "Well, doesn't this argue for the case of the agnostic more than the case of atheist?"
I say to you no. This is called Pascal's Wager. Pascal states that if given two options, one of there being no god, and believing in him, and the other being that there is a god, and not believing in him, believing in god is far less risky, because, hey, if there's no god, then you didn't really lose anything, did you?
But there is one major flaw with Pascal's Wager. You know my pink elephant scenario? Well, you could apply that to literally ANYTHING you want. And there's nothing you can ever do to prove that the person is wrong. So if you are going to believe in god just to "be safe," which god are you going to pray too? There are an infinite number of choices, and you can't pray or worship them all. This is why being an agnostic is pointless. What's the point of believing in a supreme being that you have no proof of in the off chance that there is one? What if you aren't doing something he likes?
There are two types of atheists in the atheist community. Strong atheists, and weak atheists. Weak atheists are called weak because they have nothing to prove. They simply "don't believe" in anything. So they have no burden of proof. Strong atheists "believe there is no god." They base this off of the fact that there is no evidence for his existence, so until then, there's no point in believing in him. I go beyond strong atheists though, and I do not even consider myself an atheist. I take the middle ground:
I state that I am an atheist until given undeniable proof of a supreme being's existence. But until then, I have no reason to ever believe in a supreme being, because I have enough evidence as of now to show me that the probability of there being a supreme being is close to none. However, I also concede that I can never prove that there isn't a god, so I stand by that there is always the possibility of one existing, just that it's so low that it's probably not true.
Now that I am done with this part of my rant, you are all probably asking, "what does this have to do with low self-esteem and shyness? Well to be honest, it has plenty to do with it.
You see, I believe that being religious and relying on an all powerful supreme being to give your life meaning and to give you strength is lazy and a crutch. This gives people an excuse to be unethical and to lack morals, because they know that later on they can just be "forgiven" by their god. People should be more pragmatic than this. If you need a "God" to force you into being a good person with morals, by providing you with the fear of being punished, then there is something wrong with you. You shouldn't need some supreme being to "tell you" to be good. You should reach deep down inside yourself to find your inner strength, and everything about you should come from that.
Yourself is all you will ever have in life. By relying on some imaginary, man-made concept, you will only weaken yourself, and make yourself dependent.
People created religion as a means to CONTROL the population through fear. It makes you weak and dependent on something that doesn't exist, so that you can be brainwashed and easily controlled. Religion has been called the "opiate of the masses" and that's exactly what it is.
Reach inside yourself! Create yourself! Develop your OWN sense of self and discover your own strength! Create your OWN identity! Because that's all you ever truly have! YOUR actions determine where you end up at the end of the day, no one else's! Don't use religion as an excuse to be weak!
-Matthew Brodie
http://www.iamanatheist.com/correspondence/notable/notable-2006-08_favorite.html
Everything I have to say is going to be brutally honest and will probably offend some people, but they are my views and how I truly feel.
Ok, where to begin? Some people have told me that they enjoy my writing, and that they would enjoy having a discussion or debate with me. So here it is, my big debut.
Let me start by saying thank you if you took the time to read that letter I posted a link too. I greatly appreciate it if you did.
I am going to start out with a hypothetical situation to prove a point about logic and reasoning and the nature of things. Have you ever heard a person say that you can't prove a negative? Well, if you don't understand what that means, let me tell you a little story that I think will help clarify things:
If you were to go inside my Green 1997 Dodge Intrepid, and open up the glove compartment, inside would be a tiny, invisible, pink elephant named Floyd. Floyd is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. This means that he is everywhere at all times, is all powerful, and he sees everything. Now, you say to me, "You're full of crap! Elephants aren't pink, and they can't fit inside a glove compartment! Also, if he's invisible, how do you know he's pink?" I say that it is because he is all powerful, so he can do whatever he wants. You even stick your hands inside and wave them around. "See there's nothing in there!" I say that the reason you didn't touch him is because he moved after shrinking himself even smaller. You see the flaw? You can always prove within a certain margin of error the probability of whether or not something exists, but you can NEVER prove that something does NOT exist. It's an impossibility, and it's called "proving a negative," which is impossible.
Now, you might say, "Well, doesn't this argue for the case of the agnostic more than the case of atheist?"
I say to you no. This is called Pascal's Wager. Pascal states that if given two options, one of there being no god, and believing in him, and the other being that there is a god, and not believing in him, believing in god is far less risky, because, hey, if there's no god, then you didn't really lose anything, did you?
But there is one major flaw with Pascal's Wager. You know my pink elephant scenario? Well, you could apply that to literally ANYTHING you want. And there's nothing you can ever do to prove that the person is wrong. So if you are going to believe in god just to "be safe," which god are you going to pray too? There are an infinite number of choices, and you can't pray or worship them all. This is why being an agnostic is pointless. What's the point of believing in a supreme being that you have no proof of in the off chance that there is one? What if you aren't doing something he likes?
There are two types of atheists in the atheist community. Strong atheists, and weak atheists. Weak atheists are called weak because they have nothing to prove. They simply "don't believe" in anything. So they have no burden of proof. Strong atheists "believe there is no god." They base this off of the fact that there is no evidence for his existence, so until then, there's no point in believing in him. I go beyond strong atheists though, and I do not even consider myself an atheist. I take the middle ground:
I state that I am an atheist until given undeniable proof of a supreme being's existence. But until then, I have no reason to ever believe in a supreme being, because I have enough evidence as of now to show me that the probability of there being a supreme being is close to none. However, I also concede that I can never prove that there isn't a god, so I stand by that there is always the possibility of one existing, just that it's so low that it's probably not true.
Now that I am done with this part of my rant, you are all probably asking, "what does this have to do with low self-esteem and shyness? Well to be honest, it has plenty to do with it.
You see, I believe that being religious and relying on an all powerful supreme being to give your life meaning and to give you strength is lazy and a crutch. This gives people an excuse to be unethical and to lack morals, because they know that later on they can just be "forgiven" by their god. People should be more pragmatic than this. If you need a "God" to force you into being a good person with morals, by providing you with the fear of being punished, then there is something wrong with you. You shouldn't need some supreme being to "tell you" to be good. You should reach deep down inside yourself to find your inner strength, and everything about you should come from that.
Yourself is all you will ever have in life. By relying on some imaginary, man-made concept, you will only weaken yourself, and make yourself dependent.
People created religion as a means to CONTROL the population through fear. It makes you weak and dependent on something that doesn't exist, so that you can be brainwashed and easily controlled. Religion has been called the "opiate of the masses" and that's exactly what it is.
Reach inside yourself! Create yourself! Develop your OWN sense of self and discover your own strength! Create your OWN identity! Because that's all you ever truly have! YOUR actions determine where you end up at the end of the day, no one else's! Don't use religion as an excuse to be weak!
-Matthew Brodie