Thought on theism(with an a at the start)

Today in what is more or less a discussion class in school(Social Religious Education) we had to position ourselves in accordance with our own view, or supposed view, on the idea of the existence of a deity, not primarily focusing on the school's most humble Roman Catholic one(hmm). Ironically enough, non believers were told to sit on the right wing of the room.
We went, or nearly went, around in a circle when people gave their reason(s) for their respective position. Two things stick in my head which I will get of the way briefly.
(i)The first being one particular persons' claim that whether or the not there is a god, that we should act as if there is, as it gives us someone, or something, to answer to with regards our morals. The teacher proceeded to then say he would have no moral qualms with robbing a bank should he not harbour the aforementioned belief. Though he admitted this was a reductionist claim to make. I thought it polite not to give my own personal response on a degree too insulting as I would eventually, as the saying goes, get my turn. Though I will outline my position here nonetheless - Is it not an insult to human solidarity to say that we need a divine judicial court to prevent us from doing wrong? I am by no means a moral exemplar but the idea that I was any more discouraged from commiting any sort of atrocity when I did have a certain belief would be an insult not just to me, but to my family. I feel this is the kind of response everyone should adopt when told, more or less, that they are immoral without biblical supervision. We must be aware of the moral zeitgeist innate in our own perception of society, not the so called moral code set down pre-medieval times.
(ii) Another class member also stated that whilst the theist belief may not be one he finds plausible to adopt, his outview leaned towards a karma-type system wherein this could be a way of deciding morality and non-morality. My own response to this would be that while it is impossibe to disprove "justice" as a universal law which irons throughout society scientifically, it is one that can be disproved in the sense that we can see the injustice around us and before us. An easy example is that surely Hitler deserved a more horrifying death than the one he did suffer? The idea of karma simply doesn't hold up in my perception primarily because it poses that our own universe actually cares about us, which I simply cannot see any degree of evidence for. It is in fact, a direct contradiction to my own sympathy towards Camus' Adsurdism which whilst my knowledge is limited on, I find it both compelling, morally superior and above all, rational. I would not say this of the person who said this in the class, as it would not be true, but I feel there is an arrogance in saying that the laws of physics and nature vibrate towards justice.

The main point of this was to outline a thought that entered my head on the subject. It can be said that we are all, more or less, agnostic. In that we cannot prove or disprove 'God' in the same way we cannot prove or disprove pink unicorns, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, a tea pot in space, and so on(shamelessly plucked from 'The God Delusion'). Though I will say this, does it not depend on how you define God, to say whether or not it can be proved or disproved? My own aim here is to outline how I believe it is feasible to disprove a Catholic, or Christian God, for example.

Let us take into account a god which cannot be disproved. The god of many of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution. I am talking in particular about Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine. This god, in simplified terms, flicked the first domino of our existence, but has since found more consuming things to occupy itself with. It cares nothing for our continued existence, much less about whether or not some of us are homosexual, or whether we eat pork, or whether or not our foreskin has been bladed off, or more commonly hacked off with a stone. This god cannot be disproved by its' very definition. To say that this god set the laws in place but has since taken no interest is a losing game from the outset. A deist could say the proof exists in us, and the lack of any other form of proof, is in fact further proof. It is what I call a logical circle. This god cannot be proved, or disproved. We can be nothing but agnostic towards deistic beliefs.

A Christian God is a bit different, is it not? A Theism such as this has the inherent arrogance to say not only that the Deist God is there, but he is infact still here, and takes great interest in the things I mentioned above. That is to say, a Christian should believe that the deists are partly right, but would go one step further to say he has revealed himself through the prophecies, the scriptures, the magificence of the Earth, and so on. This is why I believe, very plainly, why it is possible to be an atheist with regards this God.
Those who are raised Christian, as I was, are told that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent(yet of course we still have free will, privacy and there is still a lot of evil in the world). The main reason I say that He can be disproved is because of the obvious lies, and obvious contradictions, within the book He supposedly penned. I will be brief and touch only on the points which are most obvious; there is no recognition of dinosaurs existing, there is no reason to believe that there was a Noah's Ark, or that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt, or that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, I could go on but I won't. As well as this, Jesus claims in the New Testament that his return, admist galactic warfare and chaos, will come soon, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." [Luke 21:30-32]. As well as this, very simple things like the Virgin Birth are only mentioned in two of the Gospels.
My point is this, if the God of the Christian religions is what they claim him to be, then why is his own book littered with lies, contradictions, fallacies and obvious tripe? In other words, why do the claims he make not stand up? This is not a scientific attempt at a disproof by any means but I feel that the points I have raised are something which have to be considered when judging your own definition of god, atheist and agnostic.

This is why I believe it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Neglectful update on 12/11/09

Having neglected the lonely chronicling of my own thoughts I felt it necessary to update this after well over two weeks of avoidance. Indeed I can claim excuse in the fact that a lot of my recent time was completely consumed by preparation for the first round of the 'Northern Ireland Schools Debating Competition' in which my good friend Davin, and I, opposed the motion, "This House believes Student Debt is a fair price to pay for an education." Here is a near final draft of what my speech was(having discarded the tangible final version after the debate itself);

Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed adjudicator, members of the proposition and of the audience, not only is it inherently obvious that for the vast majority of graduating university students today and for the foreseeable future, that their prospective debt ailments dominate their lives, career options and indeed happiness, but it is also the conviction of Davin and I that the system in place is an intrinsically corrupt, class based and chasm creating one. I will begin by outlining the failings of this unfair system and then focus on the misleading tales of post-graduate prosperity. Davin will then follow by focusing on how our government have failed to improve social mobility and the economy to the extent where this can really be deemed a fair price.
Let us primarily take into account the student loan system in and of itself, which the proposition have so stoutly defended as a beacon for social mobility, the emancipator of class struggle, leading to the educational liberation of minds from lower middle class families, is this the case? Certainly not. Whilst the proposition would have us believe that this infallible system works as an ironing board in the quest for a productive, intelligent and broad society, I pose that whilst our government has displayed a screen of supposed commitment to this issue, that after over a decade since Labour introduced the means-tested system and with it, imposed the idea of University fees upon us, that higher education is still dominated by white, upper and upper middle class students. Why is it the case that students from the richest 2% of households dominate the top universities? Why is it the case that they are twice as likely to go to university at all? Why is it the case that the poorest 25% of households make up less than 6.3% in these universities? The answer, ladies and gentleman, lies firstly in the fundamentally flawed Student Loans Company, the red brick stumbling block on the hazy road that is a University education.
Hazy because we, the opposition, think it illogical to suppose that it is a ‘fair price’ that students be fed the propaganda of the equality interests of student loans. Let us realise that student loans are not earmarked by a fixed interest rate, indeed it is a variable one that is more often than not in line with the Retail Price Index inflation figure. The example I propose is that a student who leaves University with a general degree, which has no direct career path, for example strikes lucky and finds a job at a starting wage of £17,000 per annum, now compare this to a student who graduates what I will call a ’platinum’ degree(which falls under the banner of Law, Medicine, Actuary and so on), this student will have more job opportunities and will of course earn more money when he/she acquires this job, and will pay off their loan in bigger instalments than the other student, in proportion to what each earns. With the addition of interest rates though, we have a system which punishes those on lower wages, since the student with a general degree is paying in smaller instalments, the interest builds up and over time they end up paying off more money to the Student Loans Company than the graduate who did a higher powered degree and earns a substantially greater amount of money. This is simply prejudiced and unjust.
The proposition will no doubt enlighten us on how students have to be aware of the interest added on to their loans, but what incentive is it, to take out a loan that can be at a similar level to some of the best fixed rate mortgages currently available? The best rate that new borrowers can hope for is 3.98% in a mortgage, while students in the past couple of years have had to deal with interest rates as high as 4.8%. How can it be justified that the average student in Newcastle for example, should he/she take out a loan each year to cover simply their tuition fees starting a three year degree, will have just under £10,000 of debt once they graduate. This figure may be harrowing but it is also kind, as it does not take into account possible loans for maintenance fees, which is just as much of a reality as loans for tuition fees are, using the proposition‘s logic. This is not fair, when just a few miles north, Scottish students have the opportunity to attain third level education free of charge. Let me also clarify, that since the Labour government refuse to pay tuition fees, that any English, Welsh or Northern Irish student who goes to Scotland does have to pay fees. The proposition believe this to be fair?
It is not in the nature of our argument to suggest that all third level education should be free, or indeed that third level education is a birth right. But the government simply aren’t rewarding the academic excellence of students who show the capability and capacity to excel, they are turning University education into a yearned for right, instead of an earned one.
What then, of the argument of the job market? The housing market? Surely, you would assume, graduates, having been sold University as a route to employability, are flourishing and will be the cogs, pulleys and gears to pull us out of our current economic depression? Indeed I would claim that the antithesis is harder to falsify. ‘Out of school and on the dole’ is the latest cry from students as they face a harsh job market simply trying to economise. It is believed that after the class of 2009 graduated, under 25 unemployment hit the one million mark. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development released figures that nearly half of employers had no plans to recruit graduates in the summer just past. meaning one in ten of the class of 2009 will be unemployed as a result. Ladies and gentlemen we are faced with a lost generation, the class of 2009 were the first set of students to leave University with unprecedented levels of debt, and the job market has been slashed by roughly 25% amidst extremely optimistic and unctuous predictions at the time in which the fees were bumped to around three thousand pounds per year. They graduate to find very few jobs in the market. They could not join the First Time Buyer market during the boom because the prices were too high, and now the Student Loans Company have made it clear that there are plans to give their credit files to banks, so any missed payment on the student loan system will show up as a black X beside their name, making a mortgage near impossible for graduates when also taking into consideration the mortgage rates. I will say it again, somehow the are trying to tell us, that this is fair?
It is a sad state of affairs ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubting that Universities are economically driven, but at increasing rates the economic benefits which they offer are limited. Ladies and gentlemen student debt is not a fair price to pay for an education.

Suffice to say, we won the debate by an anorexic margin of one point. Though simply by not being embarrassed on a public stage such as that was a small victory in itself for me. I am now sick of the very topic of student debt, let alone prepared to face it once this school year ends.