Atheist Volunteers

Question:Your links from several questions to a list of known transitional species is broken. What's up with that?Atheist Answer

TalkOrigins, the site with the list, is currently trying to recover its domain. An archived version is still available, and the list is intact.

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:Hi, I'm a middle-aged woman whose belief system has evolved from basic Christianity to not knowing what to think. Unfortunately, I am not content with not knowing what the truth is and feel the need to find answers. (To be honest, I am very disturbed by it and rather bitter.) I find it almost impossible to find people willing to analyze and discuss from a neutral perspective which makes my quest extremely frustrating and virtually impossible. I am hoping you can add some new insight. :) I must warn you that I will likely end up asking a zillion questions over time, but to start with I am wondering an atheist's perspective on why life has such drive. It seems odd to me that if we just happened (with no real reason behind it), that we, and all life forms, would have such a drive to survive. Why would we care, and why SHOULD we care? Rather than bungle this up with a subset of questions, I will leave it at that and let it play out as it will. I will greatly appreciate your thoughts and insight. :)Atheist Answer

Hello and welcome, Celia. The one-thing-at-a-time approach will be just fine. Amber123 recently did the same thing.

The answer to this specific question is rooted in human evolution. At every stage in our development as a species there has been fierce competition for the resources necessary to survive. The survivors all the way along have been not just the strongest or the smartest, but those with the greatest will to live.

We didn't always have religion to drive us, you know. Before our ancestors even had the intelligence to conceive of gods or ponder the meaning of life, if they lacked a strong will to survive they would not have survived and we wouldn't be here. Those who were content not to survive or procreate were quickly scooped out of the gene pool by the dangers of the harsh ancient world. The survivors passed down their determination to us, as instinct.

On a personal intellectual level, I'm an atheist and I want to survive because I don't think I have any other life but this. There is a great deal of joy to be had, and to spread, and I want to make the most of it before I die.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:How worried should I be about the Australian government's plans for internet "filtering" in order to "protect the children". Is my belief that religious conservatives will hijack the system in order to censor material they disagree with a justified one, or am I being overly paranoid? And do you or any other atheist honestly think that they WON'T manage to force their way in to the censorship process?Atheist Answer

Though it is a concern, I'm not overly concerned.

Conservatives of all sorts will be trying to add all kinds of material to the exclusion list, not just the religious ones. It'll be a battle for many different groups to keep their material available, not just the non-religious.

That said, there's always a way round. The internet outside the World Wide Web is almost completely unaffected; torrents and most bulletin boards will carry on regardless. Even banned websites can be accessed using a number of methods: mirrors, proxies, etc.

That's assuming that the new laws are actually enforced in any serious way. Going by precedent, that's not likely.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:ok i said i wasn't gonna ask this but i lied...i'm a lesbian i'm gonna set that out here and now but i want to know the views of homosexuality good evil unnatural my mother says that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong (lovely to live with her i assure you) anyways but i have been doing research on homosexuality, the biblical references to such and science etc and i wanna know more on all of it so what do you know that might help? i do soo much research about stuff these days i might explode ...but i'l;l explode smart (i think) so yeah help me out here. Atheist Answer

Yes, let's tackle the issues which matter most to you.

Most Bible references to homosexuality are concerned only with male homosexuality, for instance Leviticus 18:22 which is addressed to a man: "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

References to lesbianism, if any are even intended, are more oblique, for instance Romans 1:26: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." (Romans 1:27 goes back to talking about men.) Nevertheless, male homosexuality is universally derided and condemned in the Bible, and Christians have tended to generalise that to cover all LGBT behaviour.

The current scientific consensus on homosexuality is that it is largely hard-wired into the brain six to eight weeks after conception. All embryos start female, but at that point if there's a Y chromosome it causes a burst of testosterone which converts first the body, then the brain, to that of a man. If something interferes, a man might not get the full dose and be left with a partly feminine brain which desires men. Under other circumstances, a woman might get a small dose by mistake and have her brain partly converted, and thus desire women.

Therefore homosexual desire is not a choice. The abundance of homosexual activity in the rest of the animal kingdom demonstrates that it doesn't even require the ability to make a fully reasoned choice. It's instinct.

Homosexual activity, on the other hand, is a choice as much as any sexual activity is. That brings us to the question of whether homosexual activity is a sin to Christians. Even if you ignore the direct condemnation throughout the Bible, all sex outside of marriage is sinful. According to most denominations marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Thus homosexuals can never marry their desired partners, and any sex they might enjoy is sinful. Their only sinless choice is celibacy, or else reluctant marriages to the opposite sex.

This is the problem right here. Why has God supposedly created people who can never be sexually fulfilled without damning themselves? Why does marriage, the only haven for sinless sex, exclude them?

Some Christians respond to this, and to gay rights campaigns, by attempting to prove that even homosexual desire is a choice by converting gays into straights. This is the impetus behind the whole "ex-gay" movement. The success rate of these programs is abysmal; since all the subjects are doing is suppressing their natural urges, they are tremendously likely to "relapse". Even the instructors, most of them "ex-gays" themselves, are regularly in the news after being caught having gay affairs.

While homosexuality is not the expected norm for a human being, it's hardly unnatural. It's not your choice, it's not your fault and it's not something you can truly change. You and those around you are just going to have to live with it. Fortunately, if you meet the right woman you can live happily thanks to it.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:This is the only life you have. Why waste it conforming to the morals and customs of others and answering questions on this site? Life is short, it defies rationality to waste it in this way. Atheist Answer

A few reasons.

- I get free on-the-job training in written debate, research and effective writing in general, with rapid feedback if I do badly.

- I'm relatively new to atheism, and I'm crash-testing it. I'm actively seeking the best arguments against it to see whether I've missed something obvious. Nothing so far.

- Many religious folks paint a really horrid picture of atheism and atheists themselves. That reflects badly on me and any of my friends and family who are atheists. I want anyone who's genuinely curious about atheism to be able to ask an atheist about it directly, and set the record straight.

- You call this conforming to morals and customs? I spend half the time here explaining to people why I don't conform to their doctrines.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

More Tree of Knowledge coverage on this site:

THE BOOKS ON THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE

Tree of Knowledge on Fox

Christ out of Christmas article featuring Margaret Downey

 

Information from the creator of this video: READ MORE »

Bookmark/Search this post with: delicious •  digg •  reddit •  magnoliacom •  newsvine •  furl •  google •  yahoo •  technorati

Question:You have an atheist community. Just living in this world quite a few years, I know people do some of the most dastardly things to each other. Whether the people are believers in God or not I've experienced this nastiness in both groups and have heard stories from others. I'll even be real honest and say I can be quite troubling sometimes. The question for the Atheists is When one atheist verbally attacks, insults, abuses or belittles another atheist, how does an atheist who is on the receiving end deal with this? I know you atheists attack each other because I saw Kelly in one of your videos complain about other atheists belittling her representation of them. In the Christian faith, the bible basically predicts that people in general and christians are going to get shafted by others and to look for it in your experiences (Micah 7:5; Jeremiah 9:4). People have never disappointed me in living up to these predictions, which helps confirm my faith.Atheist Answer

Sure, atheists fight amongst themselves as much as any other group. Not everybody likes the RRS, for instance. The difference from religions is, we can't resort to schisms in order to draw clear battle lines. When it happens, we respond like people do in any non-religious argument. We reply, we rebut, or we rebuke. Sometimes, unfortunately, we retaliate. We're human.

Everybody knows that people will sometimes attack and betray each other...including the authors of the Bible. Passages like those you mention use the observational fact of constant human conflict. All the authors do is predict based on their own observation that it will continue, in other words human behaviour will not change in the forseeable future, any more than it had in the thousands of years of history available to the authors. I argue that the Bible is wrong in many of its claims, but nobody's saying there isn't a single true word in it.

Approaching this prediction using my new reference post on prophecies and predictions, it fits squarely into the first suggestion: High Probability of Success. It is indeed an implicit prediction, and it is correct so far, but it was pretty darn easy to guess. Did it really need to be divinely inspired to be accurate?

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I have an odd request: I need a mediator, perhaps a logical referee. I am a Christian theist with an on-going debate with an atheist over the relationship between the Omni-max Christian God and human free will. The argument has devolved into a stalemate over a dispute regarding formal argumentation. I suggested obtaining an outside opinion in order to resolve the dispute, and I also suggested it be an atheist opinion to allay any concerns of bias. I am comfortable with this as most atheists consider reason more important than winning an argument, and based on a quick tour of your site I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case here. I am hoping you will be willing to invest a small amount of time in an effort to resolve this question. In fairness to my opponent, we should remain anonymous, until at least that time that he wishes to identify himself. Thanks in advance.... The point of order that needs to be answered is whether a contradiction between omnimax and free will can be proven deductively, or whether it should be approached evidentially or probabilistically. Whether the argument is true or not is unimportant at this stage, though you are more than welcome to comment on it after providing the primary answer. I'm sure I can predict where you stand, but it would be fun to hear anyway if you have a mind to. At any rate, here's the issue: P1) God is omni-max. P2) Humans have free will. P3) The existence of an omni-max God precludes human free will. C) Therefore, an omnimax God and free will humans cannot coexist. Let's assume my quick formulation of the argument is free from equivocation (we could argue definitions of free will and omni max), and is logically valid; that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. Setting aside my defeaters for P3, I contend that your example supporting P3 is an expression of your limited, finite perspective. You cannot know all the potential supernatural factors surrounding omnimax (OM) and human will (FW). If you can't know all the factors due to your finitude [or for whatever reason], there may exist an OM/FW harmonizer in the supernatural realm, or the natural realm for that matter, that you are unaware of. Therefore, you can't know with certainty that OM precludes FW, and if you can't know with certainty, you can't demonstrate P3 to the level required to execute a deductive argument. But if something is logically contradictory, it's false in all possible worlds, right? We could argue that, though I tend to agree. Please note, though, that my contention here does not disavow logic, it only claims that the mechanics of logic are working with insufficient data based on your finitude and limited knowledge. With additional data, the OM/FW harmonizer for instance, the conclusion driven by the logic would change. The POE deductive argument fails for the same reasons as listed above: P1) God is omnimax and omnibenevolent. P2) Evil exists. P3) God does not have a morally sufficient reason to allow evil. C) Therefore, God does not exist. In the same manner, your limited perspective precludes you from demonstrating P3. But what if I substituted the following for P3 of the POE argument? P3) God does not appear to have a morally sufficient reason to allow evil. I have now transferred my claim to an inference to the best explanation. The argument is weaker propositionally, but it more than compensates by virtue of the claim I can now maintain, especially since I can now defy any theist to demonstrate the morally sufficient reason for allowing babies to be tortured. The same is true for our current argument. If I substitute P3 thusly: P3) The existence of an omni-max God appears to preclude human free will. I now have a defensible argument for my contention that OM and FW are inconsistent concepts. Thanks again. Sorry to put you on the spot out of the blue, but I think your answer will be interesting.Atheist Answer

I'm honoured to help. I think I can be properly impartial, because I don't agree with either of you; I don't believe in free will at all. We can do what we want, but we can't choose what to want.

Just a quick note before I begin - isn't "Christian theist" partly tautological? Is it possible to be a Christian and either a deist or an atheist? How would a person of either combination reconcile the supposed miracles of Christ?

Plus, a quick glossary for those not used to this kind of discussion: omni-max means omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent all at once, as Christians claim God is. P1, P2, etc. are premises from which conclusion C is derived. If the combined P doesn't lead to the C, it's a bad argument.

You can do better than an unknown hypothetical OM/FW harmoniser. There are known hypotheticals out there. For free will to exist, let's go large and say it must be possible for any human to make any choice at any time, even if that choice may not agree with a god. One solution which also allows an omni-max god is that all choices agree with that god; the nature of benevolence is that all human choices, regardless of the suffering they may cause, are ultimately beneficial. The god has used its infinite mind and intuition to predict all possible futures, and has found (or declared) all of them to be good. This is a potential solution to the Problem of Evil as well.

Therefore I don't think there's a deductive path to a contradiction between an omni-max god and free will, so if you're going to argue it anyway evidential and probabilistic arguments are the way to go.

To add my own spin, the fact that there are answers to the tough questions like supposed free will and the Problem of Evil does not help Christianity as much as you'd think. The problem is that there are too many answers coming from the one religion. The PoE is the better-known example. Answers to that can involve exempt demons, free will, "mysterious ways" and the nature of evil itself. It would sound better if Christians settled on one answer, because the current multitude demonstrates that nobody actually knows.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:Just got done with a pm debate with a gentleman who considers himself a deist. One thing that came up in conversation, he says "In the United States the government classifies atheism a religion". Is this true? he certainly believes it.Atheist Answer

No, it's not true, but I can see how the deist fellow might get that idea.

Laws against discrimination on the basis of religion extend to cover atheists. That's not because atheism is officially a religion, but because there are additional clauses in the laws to include those with no religion.

If atheism really were classified as a religion, atheist organisations could apply for the same tax exemptions as churches. As it is, the best they can do is get recognised as non-profit charities, like the secular Red Cross.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:If God exists and you live as if He does, your reward is infinite. If God does not exist and you live as if He does, you lose nothing. If God does not exist and you live as if He doesn't, you gain nothing. If God exists and you live as if He doesn't, your punishment is infinite. Therefore if there is the slightest chance that God exists, by any analysis of benefit it is better to live as if He does, in other words believe in and worship Him. The same argument is often expressed in shorter form: "What if you're wrong?"Atheist Answer

This is an argument I've been answering constantly ever since I started here. No matter how many times it comes up, there are always those who think it's a brand new, ingenious zinger which will take us by surprise. I'll address it once more and then refer back to here in future.

There are four main issues with the Wager, any one of which would render it nonsensical or inadequate.

1. It presents a false dilemma: that either God exists or no god does.

There is an obvious third option, namely that any deity besides the expected god exists. If the real deity is Thor, for example, the punishment for Christians is infinite (possibly worse than for atheists, who at least do not worship a rival god).

Humans have imagined something like 20,000 different major deities or equivalents so far. Together with the countless ones we haven't thought of yet, there are an infinite number of possible gods. Without evidence for any particular god, all gods share equal probability of practically zero, and the probability of a particular god existing is infinitesimal compared to the probability of one or more rival gods, so worshipping any god is a hugely bad bet.

The response to this, I know, is to argue that there is evidence for your particular god and not for any of the others. That's a valid response, if true. However, if you have proof positive that your god is the one and only there's no need to mess around with probabilities, so you don't need to use Pascal's Wager in the first place. Just push your evidence instead.

2. If there are no gods, you don't lose nothing by living as if there is one. You lose plenty.

You spend hundreds or thousands of hours attending religious services. You give money to organisations whose primary purpose is not to help people but to convert them. You prevent yourself from doing some things you enjoy, not because they hurt anyone but because a book told you to. And so on.

3. Belief in gods is not a choice.

A person either believes there's a god or doesn't. This may change, but it's not a conscious decision by the person. Her or she has to be convinced, or else no longer convinced, one way or the other. The idea that it's beneficial to believe in a god does not support the idea that there is one. They're two independent issues.

4. Any decent god would spot a faker.

This is related to the third point. If an atheist were convinced that it's beneficial to believe in and worship God, he or she could certainly worship, but would still not believe. The worship would therefore be insincere on a fundamental level. It'd be a farce, maintained to give the appearance of belief. Would the Christian god, for example, accept this lip service?

It's said by some religious folks that if you pray with doubt, but pray with sincerity, belief will come. I don't doubt it; if you pray as if there's a god there for long enough, you may manage to forget that there isn't. If brainwashing yourself like this is the only way to believe, however, are you really doing the right thing?

In short, Pascal's Wager uses an incomplete and incorrect premise, and is useless to nonbelievers even if they agree with it. Blaise Pascal was a brilliant mathematician to whom we are all indebted, but his apologetic really let him down. Let this one go, people.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:Are Islam, Jewish, Christian religions classified as revealed religions? How many revealed religions are there? Atheist Answer

A revealed religion is defined everywhere I can find it as, "A religion founded primarily on the revelations of God to humankind." Of course that means there can only be one genuinely revealed religion at most, and if atheism is correct then there aren't any at all. To allow for all competing religions, I would amend the definition to, "A religion which claims to be founded primarily on the revelations of a god or gods to humankind." Otherwise, we can talk about which religions see themselves as revealed religions.

Into that category we would certainly put Judaism, Christianity and Islam by virtue of the messages from God/Allah via Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and various angels' messages to others. Within Christianity, Mormonism has a claim of additional revelation through the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith.

Outside of the Abrahamic religions, it's difficult to find even solid claims of revelation, let alone evidence. The first Buddha was apparently a self-made miracle worker who received his holy powers from the universe itself. Hinduism had a period in its mythological history where the gods regularly interacted with humans, but the subject of conversation wasn't usually the religion itself so I'm not sure that counts. There may be others, like Zoroastrianism in the Middle East, but their histories are harder to find.

The status of "revealed" seems moot when actually comparing religions, as each one will summarily dismiss any contradictory revelations as false.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:The basic form of this argument is that the Bible or some other holy text predicted some event or phenomenon its author(s) could not possibly have known about without divine inspiration. Examples: Jesus' life and death fulfilled hundreds of prophecies made about him in the Old Testament, every detail of the 9/11 World Trade Centre attack was laid out in Revelations, the Bible or Quran describes scientific facts only discovered later by scientists themselves. There were a great many arguments like this coming in, so it's time for a summary question for future reference.Atheist Answer

Claimed predictions by the Bible (from which my examples will be drawn, since they're what I've been receiving lately) and other old texts are presented along with a false dilemma: either the authors took wild guesses and were correct multiple times purely by chance, or they were divinely inspired and therefore granted knowledge the rest of humanity didn't have at the time. There are a number of other possibilities for each supposed prophecy or prediction, which are generally more likely than either. The names below aren't universal, they're my own.

1. High Probability of Success: the event predicted was likely almost to the point of certainty, especially given unlimited time in which to occur.

In Jeremiah 49:16, the fall of the city of Edom was prophesied. Edom had many enemies, including Israel, and was regularly at war. Which was more likely, that it would triumph forever or that at some stage it would be destroyed?

2. Still Unknown: the fact given by the text is in dispute even today.

Christians credit the Bible with foreknowledge of cosmology for saying that the universe had a beginning. Even if this is correct, it had a one in two chance which is hardly imposing odds. Importantly, though, the Big Bang might be the very beginning or it may have been caused by some precursor. There's still the possibility of an eternally old universe or multiverse. Claiming credit for predicting a beginning at this point is like trying to collect your winnings from a horse race before it's ended.

3. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: the very existence of the prophecy assists in its fulfilment.

There were prophecies, at least as told in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that the captive Jews would return to their homeland of Israel. Assuming for now that the non-supernatural parts of the stories are true to begin with, the Jews themselves knew of this prophecy. They believed God had stated directly that they would return. To do so was to obey His will. No wonder they did everything they could to get back.

In a more general sense, the Bible lays out a complete future history of Israel and Jerusalem. The Jews there do everything in their power to follow the instructions as far as rebuilding and protecting it, and largely use the actions of the Muslims to fill in the bits about invasion, destruction and exile.

4. Shoehorned: the text only applies to reality or to the present day through an unwarranted act of lateral interpretation.

Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth." Some take this as a signal that the author knew ahead of everyone else that the Earth is a sphere, when the word "circle" seems more likely to refer to the apparent disc one sees when one looks out from atop a mountain. The now-all-but-defunct Flat Earth Society, which believed the statement as much as any other Christian group, maintained their position of a flat Earth because they interpreted it as I do.

5. Made to Order: accounts of an event in the same compiled text as a prophecy of that event were in fact tailored to fit the prophecy.

This possibility is most often applicable to the story of Jesus. The authors of the Gospels had access to the writings of Isaiah et al, and had every opportunity to make sure their own accounts lined up with the old prophecies. Jesus, after all, would have been just one of an army of self-proclaimed Messiahs at the time. He needed everything possible to make him stand out, and that meant fitting the bill to the letter.

This is not a direct accusation that any of the above is in fact the case for any given prediction in an ancient text (extending beyond religion, to writers like Nostradamus). However, any given prediction in texts I've read can be explained by one or several of the above. These extra possibilities must therefore be considered in addition to the false dilemma of chance or God. In this company, divine inspiration is less of a sure thing to say the least.

So what kind of a prediction would bypass all of the above and appear truly, plainly supernatural in its accuracy? Simple: one that we are able to test ourselves, without any prior knowledge. An obvious example is the Rapture: if it happens, those of us who are left will know that prediction was right. You can't engineer the Rapture, or interpret the bodily disapparation of every Christian (of only one denomination, you would assume) any other way.

For a less extreme example, say that instead of interpreting dates gone by to match counts of days in the Bible, someone uses Revelations to predict the day of a future earthquake in Los Angeles, far in advance of seismologists. It could still be coincidence, but it couldn't be Shoehorned or Made to Order. Further, the chances are low, the outcome is known and the prophet couldn't fulfil it him/herself without a nuclear weapon.

That, therefore, is what believers in Biblical prophecy need to do in order to score credibility: use the old texts to make new and accurate predictions, instead of cultivating awe for those gone by. Many do try this, of course, and so there's a growing list of dates for the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Second Coming and lesser events like the collapse of the United States. So far, all of these dates have passed by uneventfully.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:ok i am probably becoming a nuisance but oh well. my question this time is i was arguing with my mother (what the hell else is new) and she told me that even though humanity has found ways of figuring out how planets and stars form now that when God created everything he controlled time and space and could do anything such as creating our earth before our sun for example even though that isn't how it works. my mom told me that god doesn't follow logic becausae he made logic i mean she asked me about what is logical about a blind man seeing or a dead guy coming alive well truth is their is no logic to it so how do i aswer that? mom says that seeing as god is all powerful then he can do whatever he wants, but to me thats sounds like a penny explanation for the stuff in the bible that makes no logicaal sense. i told her that everything has a logical explanation whether we know it or not and that even if there was a god why would he set up a logical route for planets and stars to be formed and then completely disregard it? so really i don't know how to answer these things because it seems eveytime i ask a question of something in the bible that completely disregard sience,history etc they always give me the "well God can do anything answer" which i still see as a penny answer. Atheist Answer

Amber, it might be a typo but I've never seen this use of the word "penny" before. From context I'm assuming that it means "inadequate".

What your mother says is true in a way. If a god exists and is truly omnipotent, then it can do anything it wants to: form the solar system in the wrong order, make it look billions of years older than it really is, give a man the power to cure blindness by touch, and bring the same man back from the dead. Such a being, hypothetically, can change or suspend the laws of physics to achieve its goals, and also manipulate or bypass whatever constant logical constraints the universe may have.

This can have varying effects on an argument, depending. It's basically useless to argue that an omnipotent god can't do something. The possibily that a god is omnipotent pretty much guarantees that a god is possible (since it could be hiding anywhere). However, that which is possible is not necessarily true.

If we conclude from research that the Bible's stories are illogical, then we would have to dismiss logic to believe them. That means we would need an entirely different reason to believe, or we wouldn't do such a thing. So what reasons do people have to believe in the Bible besides logic?

It may be an emotional reason, like simply wanting there to be a Heaven. It might be a default, since one's family might always have believed and one follows along by sheer trust. It might be because of apparent personal experience of God: while at a charismatic church someone is "taken by the Holy Spirit" and starts speaking in tongues. (I think this is a combination of over-enthusiasm and subtle hypnosis, but it certainly does happen.) Otherwise, maybe someone has a particularly convincing dream or hallucination of God. What the hell, maybe God really does exist and comes down to say hi to some lucky sod.

So think about the people you know, for example your mother. Why does she believe, if not because of logic? (Relating back to your other question, has she ever used a bible dictionary to sort out an apparent contradiction herself?). Most importantly (and this is the reply to her which I think you're looking for), why should you believe the stories in the absence of substantive evidence or logical support as far as you can tell?

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:Taken directly from the site Cosmic Fingerprints, often linked from ATA by the Google ad sidebar (or just Google it): 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.Atheist Answer

Perry Marshall presents himself as an invincible defender of his supposed proof of an Intelligent Designer, standing atop a mountain of vanquished counter-arguments from hordes of atheists.

The plain logical error in the argument is in the second premise, and it's the one logical fallacy I come across more than any other: an argument from ignorance. "There is no natural process known to science that creates coded information." That's not the same as saying there really is no such natural process (which would be a simple unsupported statement rather than a fallacy), but it expects us to assume as much. Is Mr Marshall, or any human alive, familiar with "all codes" in the universe? What qualifies anyone to make such a sweeping statement? This attempted proof by elimination of the origin of DNA must leave room for unknown alternatives to maintain any honesty, and is therefore not a real proof.

I realise that the fact of the logical error is not such a brilliant counter-argument when you're actually trying to convince people. There are plenty more objections, and Marshall has posted and replied to many on his site. He hasn't always done so convincingly, though you can judge that for yourself. I'll just take one approach as an exercise.

As support for the argument that all codes are designed by a mind, Marshall argues that random processes do not produce information. (I've been through this at length.) His primary demonstration is his own text-based random mutation generator which takes a sentence and, through single-letter changes, turns it to nonsense.

Marshall admits that the mutation utility does not simulate natural selection, the non-random element of evolution. Furthermore, he's not interested in adding that functionality to test his own argument. (He says instead that the reader is free to do it for him; if someone has taken him up on this, please let us know. Meanwhile, here's a more complex simulator.)

He argues that natural selection would only create sensible sentences if words only mutated into other meaningful words, but that's not applying natural selection at the letter level. An ideal extension of his program would present several choices of mutation at each step, and allow those letter mutations which destroy the legibility of a word to be manually or automatically ruled out. (The real world equivalent is a serious birth defect, which would keep a creature from breeding or even living long enough to breed.) In Marshall's program, detrimental mutations are allowed to compound until all sense is lost. Of course we won't likely get anything useful out of it.

Forgetting even the mechanism of natural selection, I submit a basic argument for the possibility of chance creating information which I've used before: think of a large grid of squares which can be either black or white, but all start as white. If you randomly pick the colour of every square at once, there is a chance, however small, that the newly black squares will form a simple but clear picture of a rectangle, or the letter G, or Elvis. Without adding any extra material, chance can increase the amount of information the grid provides. The prebiotic chemicals only had to manage a feat like this once, given potentially unlimited opportunities, to come up with DNA or its precursors.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:hi i have a weird question that maybe you can help solve i've been researching this for some time. i have heard and found contradictions and outright scientific errors in the bible and i am trying to find a way to prove that errors and or contradictions are there let me give you a few examples, the one that talks about four legged insects is claimed to be false because there is no such thing as a four footed insect but butterflies do have four legs so is their something i'm missing here or what. and the whole bats aren't birds their mammals well my mom asked me what exactly is the classification of mammal and i really don't know, these are only a few and i'm trying to research them all so any help on this would be appreciated. also my mom told me that the errors in the bible can easily be explained using cross referencing and a good bible dictionary and concordance but those weren't written until years after so any errors that you know about either through science.historical etc in the bible any information on said thing would help a lot in my research. Atheist Answer

You're really going at this. Good on you.

Butterflies are all in fact six-legged. The two front legs are sometimes non-functional (an evolutionary hold-over, like the remnants of our ancestors' tails) and are tucked up against the body where they're difficult to see.

Mammals are uniquely identified by the presence of sweat glands, and the related glands which produce milk. All female mammals nurse their young (except in the mammal species that was clever enough to invent "baby formula", although we do still have the option of course). Bats have both.

Birds, on the other hand, are defined most reliably by the presence of feathers, which bats definitely do not have. The only non-bird creatures which ever had feathers were specific late-age species of dinosaur identified as the ancestors of birds.

Internal errors in the Bible (that is, the Bible disagreeing with itself) can be explained, sure, but not always easily or satisfyingly. The Skeptics' Annotated Bible is the best-known repository of Biblical contradictions. Just look for the Contradictions section.

In the interests of fairness, Christian responses to each contradiction are linked in at the bottom of each comparison in the SAB. This doesn't always help the Bible's case, because the explanations given are often quite long and elaborate and not always convincing. But you can decide that for yourself. You've already realised that people have believed the whole book, and some continue to do so, without bothering to reconcile the apparent contradictions.

More difficult to reconcile with the Bible, of course, is scientific reality. The six-day creation story set six thousand years ago contradicts most of biology, geology and cosmology (which is like astronomy but more theory-based and less observational). Just looking at the earth, we have billions of years' worth of sediment under us and just as much evolutionary progress around us and within us. The response by those who still think Genesis is literally true nowadays is to argue that Noah's Flood (not an accepted historical event either) created some of the apparent signs of an old Earth in under a year, and God did the rest via intelligent design and various miracles. This view has yet to gain mainstream scientific support.

On a smaller scale, some of the individual stories contradict ordinary historical evidence. Take Moses, for example. There's no indication that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, let alone working as slaves, wandering in the desert for forty years or forcibly taking any land for the "12 tribes". The Egyptians would have written about some of this, had it happened. The Tenth Plague, which supposedly killed the first-born in most families in the capital including the Pharaoh's, would also have rated a mention. So there's really no place in real-world history for Moses.

Good luck with your own research.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:From the sidebar of Ray Comfort's blog at raycomfortfood.blogspot.com comes his satirical guide to being an atheist: "If you are a beginner atheist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice: 1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining." 2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument." 3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'" 4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None. 5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn. 6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'" PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense. 7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself. 8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train. 9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades. 10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God."Atheist Answer

I was looking for a piece of Way of the Master propaganda suitable for analysis, to apply real criticism to the real thing rather than just dealing with the occasional WOTM quotes people use. I found what I wanted on Comfort's own blog, which while not officially WOTM turf is certainly by the same author.

This piece flabbergasted me with its bare-faced sophistry. It is, in the main, an attempt to characterise legitimate objections to apologetic arguments as mindless talking points which believers can safely ignore. I'll be handling each one in turn, by number.

Introduction> There is no atheist belief. Comfort denounces the belief that there is no god, but most atheists don't have this. They simply don't believe in any gods, and are of the opinion that there are none.

1> Calling a credible argument these things is deceitful, but if you're calling a spade a spade...
- A straw man argument misrepresents the opposing view to make it easier to rebut, e.g. "Atheists have no morals."
- Circular reasoning relies on the conclusion in the premise, e.g. "Creation must have had a creator." (Response: what if it isn't a creation?)
- Quote mining is finding quotes which, out of context, appear to say something the author didn't. There's a quote by Darwin where he asks how the eye could possibly have evolved, and it's often used to say that he didn't know. In fact the very next thing he wrote was the answer to his own question.

2> The "Creator" argument is the watchmaker argument, but that would be fine if the watchmaker argument were sound. The real problem is that it illegitimately expands our reaction to complex and obviously manmade objects to all complex objects. It is the artificiality of a watch that tells us it's created, not its complexity.

3> Pascal's wager presents the same choice as the gain-loss argument. The trouble is that if you consider the possibility that other gods besides the Christian one, you realise you may have everything to lose by choosing Christianity or any other religion.

4> "Adultery in the heart" is Comfort's way of making sure anyone with working eyes and hormones has to admit to sinning. If sexual attraction without action is only a sin to the Christian god, it's important to determine whether that specific god exists. Therefore it matters whether Jesus not only existed, but performed miracles and came back to life as the son of God would do. That's the part that's lacking in evidence.

5>
- Well, the Bible is full of mistakes. Many are listed here. That doesn't disqualify the whole thing automatically, but it does mean it's not inerrant. It is worth reading regardless, whether or not you believe it.
- Dawkins did say those things about the God of the Old Testament in The God Delusion, and much more besides in that sentence alone. It's meant to be funny (it always gets laughter and applause from an audience), but every word of the takedown is supported by at least one action taken by God in those old books.

6> "No true Scotsman" means taking those who do not fit your image of your own group and finding excuses to exclude them. Comfort's definition of a Christian doesn't seem to match the usual one (scroll down to the Noun section).
- If the Lord doesn't exist, then it's impossible to know Him and according to Comfort there's no such thing as a genuine Christian.

7> Atheists question evolution all the time. The difference from faith is that evidence for evolution answers those questions. Here is an inventory of hundreds of species-to-species transitional species for which there is substantial credible evidence.

8> If there is no Hell, there is no eternal punishment. If there is a Hell, it could be anybody's Hell, and have any arbitrary entry requirements (say, eating with a fork). We have no way of knowing whether we're already on the train tracks, and that's how it is for our whole lives. So it's not worth worrying about.

9> Sorry, but this really is "no true Scotsman". Catholicism was Christianity in Europe until the 17th century and the advent of Protestantism and Lutheranism. With few exceptions, all Christians were Catholics, or branded heretics. If the true Christians in Europe weren't the Catholics, who were they?

10>
- It's doubt, unbelief and lack of faith that makes people atheists in the first place. We don't abandon all that as soon as we find a new name for ourselves. We all entertain the possibility that we might be wrong, and to some extent we look for that one obvious argument for gods that we missed. That's partly why I write for this site. On behalf of all atheists, bring it on.
- This is Comfort's true opinion of atheists: that we're all theists in denial. Of course, denying something isn't the same as being in denial. Sometimes, a person will deny something because it really isn't true.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:There is a man named Larry Ammons that wrote a book and he claims that 9/11 was foretold in the bible. I asked this question before in a facebook group. He told me that this is proof of God because he believes the bible predicted 9/11. Revelation 9/11 The Seventh Plague 36 facts that prove the attack on the World Trade center was Foretold in the Bible’s book of revelation by Larry Ammons Now I will try to summarize the “36 facts” that the author is talking about in the book. Look at Revelation 17 verse 7 up to the end of revelation 18 in the bible 1) Were there seven mountains on which the women sat? The WTC had exactly seven buildings , they weren’t little they were mountainous . 2) Were there seven kings, five that have fallen, one that is and one yet to come? This means the seventh king, (44th president of the U.S) will continue for a short time. When the WTC was built Gerald Ford was the president, then Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, “One is” George W. Bush. It says the seventh king as not yet to come. Ammons looks at Rev 17 verse 10 “And there are seven kings: five have fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a short space.” So the 44th president will not do a full term. The 45th president will be the anti-christ, look at rev 17 verse 11. 3) Were there ten kings? The two planes that hit the WTC had 10 terrorists. A king rules over people, these ten men ruled over everyone in both airplanes. 4) Did the ten terrorists have power as kings for one hour? At 8:03 am the terrorists got up and started their duty and at 9:03 the last plane flight 175 crashed into the south tower of the WTC 5) Were the kings of one mind? Each terrorist read the exact same letter of religious brain washing over and over until they had it memorized. So if all ten men had the same things memorized, they were of “one mind” 6) Did the ten kings hate the WTC? Look at rev 17 verse 16b. These men hated the WTC center so much that they flew two planes into it and killing themselves. 7) Did the ten kings not have a kingdom? They were in the air (in the airplanes) so they had no land thus they had no kingdom 8) Did the WTC reign over the kings of the earth’s trade? Look at rev 17 verse 18. 28 nations had offices in the WTC, everything that was traded by ships, was traded through the WTC. 9) Were these peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues in the WTC? The WTC had people from 28 nations working in her, 28 different peoples and tongues in one place. Can any other city in the world beat that? If so, I would like to know where that place is. 10) Did the WTC sit on many waters? Yes, Hudson river (315 miles long, upper New York Bay, Jamaica Bay, Gardiners Bay, Lower New York Bay and others. The Hudson river caused an underground water problem, they had to pump the water out and seal it with cement before they started to work on the construction 11) Was the WTC divided into three parts? One part was the seven WTC buildings, the second was the sixteen acre plaza, the third part was underneath which was the shopping mall, the underground transit. 12) Did people come out of the WTC before her collapse? The WTC had 50,000 people working there, all but 2,749 came out of her. 13) Was the WTC’s plagues doubled? Two planes crashed into the WTC. 14) Was she utterly burnt with fire? A study was done and it stated that all seven buildings suffered extensive fire damage. 15) Did her plagues come in one day? On 9/11 the WTC was destroyed. 16) Did the kings of the earth see her burn? The “whole world” saw her burn because it was on television. 17) “What is like this great city?” Is it true that nothing on earth was like the WTC, yes. The WTC was a landmark for New York. 18) Did the merchants weep and mourn for her? Look at rev 18 versus 11. They wept because they saw their business go up in smoke, they cried because they had a sweet deal going on in the WTC. 19) Did her judgment come in one hour? Ammons says “I took business law in college and found out that a judgment is a process of different action leading up to a verdict. The ten terrorists did a “process” of different action in their hour of power that lead up to their verdict: death and destruction.” 20) Did the WTC trade the merchandise written in rev 18 versus 12 and 13? Look at the diversity of the products, gold, and silver, fine linen and silk, flour, wheat, oil, and cattle. Where do you shop to find linen and cattle together? The only place that all the world’s products could possibly be traded would have to be a WTC. 21) Was everything burned in the fire? Everything had fire damage. Nothing was saved 22) Did every shipmaster that traveled by sea see her burn? Satellite television. 23) Was every shipmaster, standing at a far distance? When the twin towers collapsed, debris shot out for blocks and blocks. The only real way to avoid the debris was to board a boat and move out away from it. 24) Was the city thrown down with violence? The planes hit them with a violent speed of 124 miles per hour and they came down with violence to say the least. 25) Was the sound of music stopped? Look at rev 18 versus 22a. There was recorded music played on speakers in the 16 acre plaza. When the WTC came down the music stopped. 26) Were all the craftsmen gone and could not be found in her? Fact; there were craftsmen there. Fact; they are gone. Everyone is gone. 27) Was the sound of a millstone not heard in her any more? The sound of a milestone came from trains under the WTC. The six level basement they were in was completely destroyed. So no more do we hear the sound of the millstone. 28) Were all the WTC lights out? The electrical power was destroyed so no power, no lights. 29) Was the voice of bridegroom and bride gone and not heard anymore? Rev 18 versus 23b. Windows on the World restaurant that was on top of the North Tower of the WTC was the place where the wedding receptions were held. 30) Did the terrorists make war with the lamb? The lamb is referring to Jesus. The Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, this is a holy war we’re fighting against the terrorists. Ammons continues saying “There’s a book out called “God is not great” It’s by an atheist who says the problems and wars of this world are caused by people’s belief in their gods. Well, in this case the terrorists belief in their god “is” causing problems.” 31) Did great hail fall upon men, every hailstone about the weight of a talent? When the WTC fell the intense heat caused large sections of metal to rain down from the Towers. People had to run away. 32) Did every island flee away? The six level basement of the WTC was destroyed, and later trucked away. So yes, the islands fled away in trucks. 33) Did the nation of the world share in her wealth? Companies from 28 nations shared in her wealth. Business corporations to 28 nations fell into sin. 34) Were the mountains “not found?” The seven buildings were brought down. 35) Did the planes fly into the WTC towers with violence the way the angel showed John when he cast the stone, shaped like a great millstone, into the sea? The two airplanes hit the buildings with great force. 36) Was the WTC a city? The WTC sat on a giant 16 acre plaza. It was so large it had its own zip code and power plant. Most buildings were off limits to the general public, you needed clearance badges to enter. Back in the time of John, some 2,000 years ago, they had walled cities to keep the people safe from enemy attacks. They had two big doors that were opened during the day to let commerce in and out, but at night they were closed. Just like the WTC was closed and guarded at night especially since the 1993 bombing of the parking lot basement. That is it. Now 2 people have pointed out that predictions should be made before the event not after. That is reasonable, that way it is easier to interpret these versus. Ammons actually said that the reason nobody has been able to explain the 7th plague because it had not happened and he said that only God knew what those versus really meant (you might laugh at that). Also some may be wondering why the WTC? Ammons explains that the trading that was going on made a lot of products more expensive. God got mad at this and decided to destroy the WTC. Things like the price of oil went up, the price of houses went up, and corporations were price fixing. That is it. Are you a believer now or are you on the floor laughing? Atheist Answer

Hey BB. Don't worry about the spacing; it's not possible in the question field. In future, if you've got a large hunk of text to paste, put it in a comment.

I don't believe, but I'm not on the floor laughing either because many people do believe this stuff.

9/11 was also predicted, according to some people, by Nostradamus and/or by the Quran, and various other ancient sources too. For some it's only an oblique reference, for some it's purely a hoax. The Bible-based prophecy claim has easily had the most effort put into it.

The convenient thing about the tragedy is that the world's premier business centre has enough trades, commodities, people, money and numbers associated with it that you could connect just about anything to it if you are loose enough. Honestly, presidents and terrorists as kings?

On a more general note, this isn't the first event which people have claimed, after the fact, was predicted someplace. The real test of a prophet is whether you can take prophecies which have not yet come true, and use them to predict future events.

Project this back to the year 2000: if the connection to the WTC was so clear, why weren't evangelicals all over the world warning the American government of an impending attack on it? What's the point of a public prophecy if only the source understands it?

Consider the present day: Ammons has gone ahead and predicted that Obama won't serve a full term, and his successor will be the anti-Christ. If Obama leaves early, that'll be Joe Biden. This is something we can test. Therefore all we have to do is wait. I'm optimistic, because somehow I don't see Biden being the one who wants to damn us all.

Edit: On the other hand I'm really worried, because it's a dangerous prediction to make on Biblical authority. Remember the throngs of evangelicals at Sarah Palin's campaign rallies who seethed with hatred for Obama based on completely false premises? Well, now some of them may see an opportunity to fulfil an ancient prophecy, and please God, by ousting or murdering the President. If someone with any legal knowledge reads this, let us know: might Ammons therefore be guilty of incitement?

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

It’s not easy not believing in God in the USA. That’s why a group of non-believers is trying to shed the strident image of past atheists by promoting a better side of those sitting on religion’s sidelines.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/11/atheism-a-posit.html

Bookmark/Search this post with: delicious •  digg •  reddit •  magnoliacom •  newsvine •  furl •  google •  yahoo •  technorati

Question:In a Universe where duality is observed to be the most common factor of existence, it is safe to assume that energy can only fundamentally exist in one of two states, positive or negative, when you couple this information with laws such as every particle has an anti particle it kind of makes sense, the only thing is that there is more to it, a particle that does not have an anti-particle, is its own anti-particle, this means that it exists in two states at once, which is technically impossible(on our scale) unless you take quantum mechanics into account, when you understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics you will understand that there is really three states energy can exist in, positive, neutral and negative, which can be written as such A+B=C where C is merely the product of A and B simply existing, so to recap, Neutral doesnt really exist, yet it does exist simultaneously, Neutral IS our universe, the "housing" or vacuum that we observe around us, We also refer to this as Matter, Matter houses the energy which defines what particle it is to be, the periodic table shows us which energy levels(Ev) each element requires to be stable, if there is more, it is radiated away into the vacuum where it will be added to another particle, if it is less, then it will keep loosing Ev untill it reaches a lighter stable element. So what does this have to do with god then... Well, if everything we can comprehend is made from energy and our consciousness is made from energy, is it not then safe to assume that collectively as a consciousness, WE are god... "the whole equals more than the sum of its parts". Anyway imagine the collective mind power of every conscious being in the universe... how godly would that be... God manifests "himself" in various forms... God sustains and nourishes god cannot be created or destroyed... Thats the bullshit they tried to brainwash me with as a child. This is the ammo I have to fire in retaliation!! I am looking forward to your reply, thank you in advance :-) Howard Atheist Answer

Blimey, that's a hunka hunka burnin' pseudoscience if ever I saw one. Thanks for bringing it in.

First I'll put on my fact-checking hat.
- The two most commonly accepted examples of duality in our universe are the wave-particle duality of light and the decayed/not decayed state of unobserved unstable atoms (often explained using Schroedinger's Cat), and they're not even mentioned here.
- There probably isn't antimatter equivalent to all matter, or vice versa. We observe tremendous asymmetry, for example the fact that our part of the universe appears to contain almost entirely matter and almost no natural antimatter.
- In contrast to antimatter, which we can not only observe but deliberately produce and store, negative energy is still entirely hypothetical and may not exist at all. Antimatter in fact appears to consist of positive energy.
- There's an old saying that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. The author of this argument apparently thinks he understands quantum mechanics.
- A vacuum may not be neutral at all, according to zero-point energy theory.
- Matter doesn't just house energy, it is energy in another form. It's really not separate from it.

Ultimately, none of this has anything to do with consciousness, so if the argument had left out everything before "So what does this have to do with god then..." it wouldn't make any less sense.

Next up, I'll put on my targeting scope and go for the central point of this shemozzle.

If consciousness is energy, just because it's made of the same stuff as everything else doesn't give it power over everything else. Our collective consciousnesses have no godlike influence over the rest of reality. Besides, we don't have a collective consciousness or "hive mind" as we understand the concept so we've got no way of combining our mental powers to physically affect the universe. All we can do is move our own bodies and get things done through ordinary teamwork. Not much of a god, are we?

Even the idea of consciousness as independent energy is a contested premise. It requires a position of mind-brain duality (that is, mutual independence) that most atheists don't share. Consciousness in any materialist view is simply a function of the brain itself, kept running by electrical impulses which have no external influence and no autonomy. It's like a computer program: wipe the computer, and it disappears.

Finally, there's a more general point to be made, so I'll go up in my mehve to see the big picture.

If when considering the world at large you feel you must posit the existence of a major hypothetical entity, like a collective consciousness or a Prime Mover or a Designer (none of which are likely necessary), you're free to call it anything you like. However, if you arbitrarily give it an existing name which also refers to an separate, well-established concept, it's an unsupported link between the two entities. It's a big problem with the Transcendental Argument and all others which end with, "We call this creator/lawmaker/intelligence/feeling/cupcake God." Even if the argument is sound, the entity you've successfully argued for may well not be your god at all, and it's a dishonest leap to assume that it is.

I hope this is the kind of ammo you're looking for.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:Is it not true that a fundamental strategy of the "atheist" is to neutralize the theists in service of a larger objective: to erase a sick preoccupation with the theme altogether? If so, aren't we sinking to their level? Obama won not by calling the guy names in return but by a more holistic argument that rendered McCain small and pitiful.Atheist Answer

I'm gonna say no.

Religion is hardly an unjustifiable preoccupation when it attempts to pervade so many aspects of life: politics, education, civil rights, foreign relations and so on. Anyone who supports the separation of church and state can combat the above. To those of us who also think each religion is labouring under a false premise, though, it's doubly sad that they have such power.

Obama made positive arguments, sure, but he called Republicans out when they accused him of associating with terrorists, perpetrating voter fraud, being a Muslim, etc. Atheists are the targets of similar smears: that we have no morals, that we want to outlaw religion, that we want to take children away from religious parents, even that we're Satanists. Too many people are willing to swallow this stuff hook, line and sinker for us to stay silent.

Further, Obama generally criticised the Republican administration as a whole, not McCain himself. He went on and on about what a disaster "the last eight years" had been. Similarly, rather than insult theists we try to attack religion itself, encouraging people to abandon it and become non-theists (like Obama's call for Republicans to vote Democrat). I can't speak for all atheists, but we do try to reserve personal vitriol for those who constantly use it against us, if only to show them up as hypocrites.

In short, we are not mounting unprovoked attacks. We are defending ourselves against a huge body of anti-atheist propaganda. Sometimes, the best defence is a good offence.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |