Too many stars – the ultimate argument against all religions on Earth

Too many stars:

Darkmatter2525 articulated the argumentum ad absurdum about there being too many stars to believe our planet or Israel is the special center of it all better than I had thought of. He did so by drawing from teleology (Aristotle’s four causes). We totally live in a universe that requires no gods to function, but all religions and their deities seem to have been created to meet the ends of humans. For power and influence over others, and tithes from their fellow man. Occam’s razor says the simplest explanation tends to be the most likely one, and a universe that is not run by any of the gods mankind believes in makes more sense.
Totally wish this video existed sooner. I embarrassed myself by presenting the argument to my philosophy professor after I developed it for feedback, without realizing it was a fairly common argument apostates develop. I still do not know the name of the argument but it is one of the strongest ones. It has become my favorite argument because it is rooted in empirical evidence of the scale of the universe, and logic, and is all encompassing. (I prefer it even over the problem of evil.)

My Mastery of Religion:

I’ll remember it for the rest of my life and never believe any Earthly religion again as a result. There is no need to study religion further for the truth about Gods since I have thoroughly collected the evidence they are all bullshit. The only reason to study religion is to understand sociology, or how religion changes the behavior of people, and how delusions changed history. It also helps to develop critical thinking which is essential in philosophy, except that there are better questions that have not been decisively solved. (Probably well over 70% of philosophers turn Atheist.) Currently I can think more objectively than anyone in the family, and in this niche I know many more facts.

It would be fun to take a class in the history of religions with that professor (except he isn’t currently teaching it), but I would probably learn more from taking a class in ethics or symbolic logic. Then again math would probably just be a tool of proving your arguments to others, and you might learn more by taking a different class. But it would be something that requires more rigorous work since I already currently know more about religion than most people, even most Christians much older than me.  I could probably refute any argument on religion that is likely to come up as of this year. Regardless, it is mostly a waste of time to seriously pay attention to the religious or political worldviews of my relatives, when I could be listening to the reasoned arguments of philosophers.
My aunt sent me a Christmas card with a cd inside to try and convert me to Catholicism because a certain relative snitched and told her my views. She is an irrational idiot with a huge ego not matched by her level of knowledge, and I have no interest in debating her, but since she sent that cd she might try to edge me into an unavoidable debate eventually, which will simply piss her off as a Fundie. Christians don’t stop proselytizing and trying to moralize you because they think they’re saving your life from hell when they send that shit; in their mind they think they’re doing a good thing, but it’s all spooky bullshit.
The Atheists wanted to have fun tearing the arguments on the cd apart when I mentioned my Christmas present, so I copied it and showed them. They were amused that it immediately started with false premises, and the priest calls out his opponents for attacking a strawman (“we don’t believe in a sky fairy anymore Dawkins!”), while by doing so he is misrepresenting his opponent and actually attacking a strawman. I put it aside after two tracks as more unsophisticated stupid bullshit, and they probably did the same. We had all heard of this priest before anyway.
It has been fun acquiring a bit of liberal education which I didn’t opt for when I majored in business. I don’t like manipulating people, lying,  or killing my sense of justice for egotistical reasons so the major was a poor choice. Then again I did glimpse truths of how the world and its economy operates which I wouldn’t have had I not been exposed within that major. My courses did not let me do the sort of specialized research (i.e. at a library) that I would have probably enjoyed, but now I feel justified to think of myself as a competent master of this subject with respect to most people, (and almost all Christians), although I am humble enough to recognize my limitations when I meet an older atheist who has studied philosophy or religion longer.Only if I were challenged by a superior opponent to a hypothetical formal debate, (which will probably never happen), would I have a rational need to dig further; still, there is satisfaction from getting better and better arguments, writing better, and doing research.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s