Posts Tagged ‘bible’

« Older Entries

Obama finds hidden reference to God in the Constitution

Friday, August 21st, 2009

WASHINGTON DC — During President Obama’s conference call with dozens of faith leaders that provoked a 40-day campaign of religious activism in the form of prayer vigils, advertising, and more, the President revealed that he had uncovered undeniable proof that the nation’s founders intended to invoke the Christian god (“God”) in the U.S. Constitution.1

“It was a clerical manipulation intended to be found at the right moment,” said Obama of the Constitutional reference to God. “Just like ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied throughout the ages, creating and perpetuating early translation and other mistakes while hiding key messages from early religious leaders. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, was drafted and redrafted, and we actually put on display differing copies of what we think is the same document, and it is full of Masonic and other mysterious code.”2

Obama told the religious leaders that “I am my brother’s keeper,” referring to the biblical passage from Genesis where God asks Cain where his brother Abel was,3 and Cain replies, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”4

Obama insisted that passing health care reform was a biblical mandate, a moral and ethical obligation established by God. Some critics have chided Obama’s decision to invoke the Christian god, but Obama was adamant that the Constitution clearly established the government as a Christian nation. When asked to clarify, Obama pulled his personal, redlined copy of the Constitution from his desk drawer and showed it to reporters attending the conference.

Upon viewing Obama’s copy, the religious experts on hand agreed that Obama had successfully spotted the name of God (Yahweh) spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Compare for yourself:
yah-con
(Obama’s redlined copy)
const-unedited
(an unedited copy)5
Yahweh
(the Hebrew for Yahweh)

“Despite the fact that the language of the pre-God Constitution not only justifies, but also requires the U.S. government to reform health care for the welfare of America’s citizens,” Obama continued, “the biblical god, by way of the Constitution, demands it, so we must follow accordingly. Without our faith, this couldn’t be accomplished.”

A small minority of opponents still argue that prayer and religion have no place in government meetings, but Obama’s administration is well on its way to homogenizing the American religious point of view.

Up to this point, no one had been able to successfully find a pro-religious reference in the Constitution, and religious leaders worldwide have expressed their relief that the United States is finally falling into place among its fellow theocracies.

  1. Seriously, he more or less did. [<]
  2. This is absolutely true. See My Inalienably Unalienable Rights and Masonic signers. [<]
  3. Obviously a rhetorical question, since an omniscient being would already know the answer. [<]
  4. See Cain & Abel [<]
  5. I think it’s obvious from the intentionally drawn strong lines of “WE THE” compared to the rest of the Constitution that the author was trying to capture the attention of someone who would recognize how closely it and the Hebrew were matched. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Government, Morality, Religion, Satire | 7 Comments »

DNA Sculpture is “Vile and Offensive”

Monday, July 27th, 2009

NOTE: If you are 1 ) easily offended, 2 ) mentally challenged, 3 ) humor challenged, 4 ) challenged, 5 ) boring, 6 ) righteous, 7 ) myopic, 8 ) gullible, 9 ) boring, or 10 ) an anal-retentive omniscient non-existent being, then please read THIS either now or at minimum after you’ve read the following.

DNA Sculpture exhibit at UC Berkeley playground turning heads, sparking complaints1
evilDNA2

PTA president asks school’s parents to file complaints with the county

By Richard Vernon, P.O.E.
State of Protest
July 27, 2009

EAST BERKELEY – Think of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man . . . zoomed in to an ungodly scale.
V-Man
The large, plastic and metallic sculpture parked outside UC Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science, is stoking the angry fires of parents of children who attend nearby Claremont Park Elementary School.

“My daughter suggested that it was funny,” said John Copeland, whose 7-year-old daughter attends summer camp there. “She shouldn’t be talking to me about this. Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her, and why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.”

The genetically correct structure is part of an ongoing exhibit titled “DNA Sculpture,” created by acclaimed artist Ashe Kutchya, which represents “genetic material from an enzyme,” according to Lawrence Hall of Science’s website.

It depicts a DNA double helix — two congruent helices with the same axis, differing by a translation along the axis. The structure is larger than life, and elongated. Its genetic analogy to human life is subtle.

“It’s a piercing piece, quite abstract,” said Francis Pegro, the groundskeeper in charge of maintaining the sculpture as well as other displays in the playground. “It’s honest and natural.”

Pegro said he’s received some complaints, but also praise.

Although DNA Sculpture has been on display in various public parks and playgrounds, Jenny Garrotte, Claremont Park PTA president, said she found it distasteful and verging on obscene, and e-mailed parents Wednesday morning, asking them to file complaints with Pegro and with Alameda County Code Enforcement.

“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion regarding what art is,” said Garrotte. “If this piece weren’t visible to passersby and available for children to play on, I would not have a problem with it.”

Still, Terence Lythma, a teacher in the school’s summer program, said he has not heard any of the children talking about the piece.

“It’s the parents who have been talking about it,” he said. “The children don’t really make an issue of it.”

Kutchya, the creator of DNA Sculpture, could not be reached for comment despite attempts by phone. But it’s not the first time his sculptures have drawn public scrutiny. In 1996, the Oakland City Council made him modify the depiction of DNA so that it matched a dog’s DNA structure rather than a human’s until public pressure and national attention reversed the city officials’ position. He later reverted the structure to depict human DNA.

In 2006, The Ovum, a sculpture of a human unfertilized egg by Sonoma-area artist Nabry Gussom and installed at the Petaluma Community Center, generated complaints over its super-realistic undulations and dampness.

“It’s awful that people react to art in this manner,” said Amy Boswin, director of the Novato Ignacio Art Gallery near Petaluma. “If they opened a biology textbook, they’d see a lot more risqué stuff than that.”

Meanwhile, Copeland said he hopes the owner of the plaza removes the sculpture before school starts next month.

“There are 1000 kids in the school that are going to be exposed to it,” he said. “It’s vile and offensive, and kids have no business seeing what God thought fit to hide from our eyes.”

No word yet from local government officials, who apparently have their hands full with other depictions of human reality in art.3

—

  1. No one ever reads the footnotes. [<]
  2. Photo by Schnitzel [<]
  3. To paraphrase someone who eventually saw what I’m doing here, I’m not exactly satirizing the people who wanted to ban the naked sculpture (it’s not like they’re not easy targets anyway), I’m instead targeting the people who think that banning nudity is okay, but at the same time find the banning of a DNA sculpture to be over the line. I’m ultimately asking what the difference is. What rational standard could exist that would warrant perpetuating the right not to be offended by exposure of human flesh, but would prohibit that right not to be offended with regard to the building blocks that make up that very same flesh? At the same time, I’m chiding the so-called skeptical audience for not holding my article to reasonable skeptical standards that they’d apply, say, on religious, psychic, or other websites. Yes, it reads like news, but even reliable sources have their significant flaws (or, in this case, satirists). See my relevant article for more clarification and to learn how I got spanked by the Poe Monkey, too. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Government, Morality, Religion, Satire, Science, Sexuality | 113 Comments »

Relative Morality? Absolutely

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

I’m currently slightly engaged in a conversation in Atheist Revolution’s comments to vjack’s “If you don’t believe in an afterlife, why be moral?” question. Vjack does a great job examining various atheist moral foundations, but he can’t address them all. Because, of course, morality is relative. Yes, I invent my own morality. But so do you.

I commented to add another moral foundation that should not be overlooked: selfishness. “What?”, you say, “Selfishness is immoral!” I don’t agree. Here’s my comment:

And there’s mere selfishness, a sense of survival. Humans are social creatures, meaning that our survival depends on our ability to work together. My individual survival depends greatly on my ability to acquire things from others that I could not acquire on my own. In return for such things, I help perpetuate an exchange of goods so that my supply is perpetuated. When I interrupt that supply for myself or for others, I threaten survival of others, but also, not unimportantly, myself. This is a fundamental incentive that I carry with me and apply both directly and indirectly. In other words, I’m not going to rob a bank, even if no one in my “food chain” (i.e., chain of necessaries) has money in that bank, because I would not rob a bank that is part of my food chain. That’s establishing a general moral principle based on a single applicable situation.

This is why I can simultaneously declare it immoral for myself to kill out of greed, but moral for myself to kill in order to protect my life (and, fundamentally, the things that sustain my life).

The sheer complicatedness of applied morality in itself precludes the idea of an absolute morality, let alone the idea of an omnipotent creature that enforces such a morality in an intangible post-mortem realm, but either fails or somehow desires not to enforce that “absolute” morality in the realm in which it occurs.

Perhaps I should have anticipated it, but following my comment came the classic theist response:

Hey Procrustes, you can declare it moral, but that doesn’t mean it is. What you’re describing is moral relativism, and that’s just logically inconsistent and incoherent, and hence irrational.

It seems that, perhaps, we’re dealing with a few different variations of the term “morality,” but despite such semantics, the context indicates that we’re really talking about the question of whether we can or should define morality (rules of behavior) as transcending individual human reasoning, or as a product of human reasoning, and thus subjective, therefore relative. Thus my perhaps too lengthy response:

Indeed, I am describing moral relativism. However, just by saying it’s logically inconsistent, incoherent, and irrational does not make it so. Feel free to provide some evidence that it’s logically inconsistent and incoherent.

By the way, if there is no absolute morality, then all morality is relative. I don’t buy into the nonsense that morality is absolute (and those who do cannot seem to come up with any consistent set of those supposedly divinely-given rules or the consequences for violating them), so morality to me (and all the other rational persons of the world) is inherently relativistic.

Here’s an example of how even “absolute” morality is not absolute: God says thou shall not kill, correct? But God also says kill in certain circumstances. So, what’s the absolute? “Just do whatever God commands, as interpreted by your preferred clergyman”? If there are exceptions, it’s not absolute. What about the classic example of not telling a lie? Is it *ever* okay to tell a lie? I could overwhelm you with hypothetical situations where you’d either dodge the question or rationalize your answer, but I lack the patience to humor you.

Instead, I’ll set out a proof, and you can feel free to go about attacking it if you like.

1) There is no evidence that morality is absolute.
2) If there is no absolute morality, human morality would not exist without the presence of humans.
3) Humans exist (therefore human morality exists).
4) Human thought and reason exists independently from human to human (i.e., humans do not have a collective intelligence).
5) Morality is a concept created by human thought and reasoning.
6) Morality in concept exists independently from human to human (i.e., humans do not have a collective moral concept).
7) Therefore morality is relative.

I also contend that applied morality may be treated as if it were collective among certain persons (e.g., in creating a society, rules are adopted, often based on a majority of agreed-upon interpretations of the members’ personal perceptions of what is and is not moral). But the fact that some samples of some societies may appear to agree across the board on certain moral issues does not prove that absolute morality is the cause and the application is the effect. For instance, if an African tribe practices polygamy and has no moral qualms about it, that does not prove that polygamy is absolutely moral. Obviously it is not accepted by much of the rest of the world as being moral, but if the rest of the humans in the world did not exist, polygamy would, to an alien observer, be absolutely moral to the existing humans. The fact that humans in different societies have agreed upon quite differing moral rules and freedoms without those societies succumbing to self-destruction is indicative that morality is relative and applied relatively en masse, but collectively in specified groups.

The argument that there is some external being critical of human behavior, who will judge humans upon death for their behavior, but not allowing those humans insight during their lives into what exact behavior is acceptable or prohibited, is outright nonsense, unsupported by evidence, and laughable at best. The fact that there are those who use this hogwash to manipulate other people is a testament to the fact that, indeed, there is no absolute morality, unless it happens to be human greed and corruption, which seems to be the reigning behavior among those who purport to spread the word of that very same imaginary being.

—

If you’re interested, there’s a decent discussion beginning in the Reddit comments.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Morality, Religion | 6 Comments »

Supreme Court Review 20090421

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

All 50 states have laws banning animal cruelty and dogfighting. In 1999, the federal government passed a controversial law banning the sale of images of animal cruelty, such as video of dogfighting or “crush” videos depicting women crushing to death small animals. The law acts as an exception to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Although a federal appeals court in Philadelphia indicated that preventing animal cruelty is a worthy goal, the court held that banning the sale of videos showing animal cruelty illegally restricts speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The case is U.S. v. Stevens (08-769). For more information, see Supreme Court to consider whether ban on pit bull videos violates free-speech rights.

The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to the constitutionality of a jury verdict in a death penalty case. The jury had consulted a Bible during deliberations to help decide on a sentence. The case was Oliver v. Quarterman (08-833). More information about this and other cases regarding a jury’s use of a bible can be found at the following links: Ninth Circuit OKs jury’s use of the Bible in death penalty deliberations; Jurors consulting the Bible; Supreme Court won’t disturb death sentence in case of Texas jurors who had Bible with them.

Also see the Supreme Court Blog for more details about those and other cases.

[Ed's Note: I'll be doing regular Supreme Court Review posts, but they'll be limited to the topics that interest me (which are generally those regarding free speech, privacy rights, religion, etc.). I'll also be on the lookout for prominent federal and state cases.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Supreme Court | 8 Comments »

Let’s Talk…Atheism

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

Ivy is a guest writer for State of Protest.

Just for a moment. While taking a break from some work, I — rather unfortunately — came across a few of the most ridiculous talking points for atheism that I’ve ever seen. Matt Slick, the Christian apologist, has a website which led me to CARM, and I happened to notice a “cut and paste” section in which visitors to the site are encouraged to copy and paste the arguments neatly listed for them. Please don’t take my word for it. Click the link and see with your own eyes. Now, this strikes me as incredibly humorous because, to me, most forums that have discussions of religious nature exist for the sole purpose of exchanging ideas and partaking in critical thinking (ideally). It seems to me that encouraging people to copy and paste arguments rather than figuring out arguments for themselves is detrimental to the poster.

In any case, with great interest I clicked on the Atheism topic. I was immediately dismayed. It’s fair to note that Slick says, “Please understand that these are not ’stoppers.’” They certainly aren’t. In fact, it is my belief that Slick is doing a huge disservice to his visitors by listing these points because they’re so common that any atheist in any debate forum will get pissed just for having to deal with the same old nonsense.

Here are just a few points from this site that gave me the most *headdesk* moments.

Slick begins:

Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don’t have any evidence for their atheism and they can’t logically prove there is no God.

Now hold on there, Slick. We’re already starting off on a very huge misunderstanding. First, I think it’s helpful to define terms (it’s going to be important a little further down). So what is atheism? Atheism, at its barest, is a lack of belief in a deity. A — without, theism — God. Please note: this does not automatically equate to “There is no God.” That is a variation of atheism (sometimes called “strong atheism”). Atheism comes in shades, and the only thing each shade has in common is a lack of a deity. Some go all the way to denial (“There is no God”), but denial is not required.

Thus, atheism is not, in itself, a claim. If I am an atheist, I have absolutely nothing I need to prove (unless I am a strong atheist and my claim is, “There is certainly no God”). If I am not making a claim, I do not require evidence. Let me put it another way: assume that someone states, “There is a pink, magical monkey that lives in my room, often flying around at night while I sleep. It is invisible, so you cannot see it. However, I believe that it is there.” Now before this individual told you this, you held no belief of this pink monkey. You were an a-pinkmonkeyist. And after this person made the claim, your natural reaction is to say, “I have never heard of such a thing. Before I believe your claim, I would like you to prove it to me. Until then, I cannot believe you.”

Is it then logical for the individual to retort, “You have no evidence that my monkey doesn’t exist and you cannot logically prove that it does not exist, therefore, your position is illogical”? Certainly not. This is exactly why you cannot tell an atheist, “You have no evidence for your atheism” and “You cannot prove God does not exist.” The burden of proof falls upon the person who is making the claim. Unless coming from the position of strong atheism, the atheist has absolutely no claim to make and no burden of proof to meet. Right off the bat, Slick is mischaracterizing the atheist position (or at least failing to clarify that he is describing strong atheism).

Slick continues…

Please understand that these are not “stoppers.” But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions.

No, they are not stoppers. Nor are they particularly challenging to most atheists who hang out on debate forums or spend a great deal of time having these discussions.

Unfortunately, many atheists do become condescending, but I have a few points to make on that. First, the condescending attitude is not exclusive to the atheist community. There are plenty of theists who are just as condescending, in some cases even more so. It’s a problem for both sides, so I find it irritating that it is brought up here in such a…well, ironically, the way it’s mentioned here is quite condescending. Yes, just you see how long it takes for those heathens to become condescending. Right. Secondly, the condescending attitude, I think, often stems from frustration more than anything else (for both sides). When you repeat a point over and over and over while the person from the opposition does the same, both sides are likely to become frustrated and emotional. It’s almost inevitable, and happens to even the most level-headed of people who started the conversation with only the best of intentions. Sorry, Slick, this isn’t a problem of the atheist. It’s the problem of the human being.

So let’s move on to some of the points.

Ways to Attack Atheism

  1. By asking questions
    1. Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

1

I am an atheist for several reasons. The biggest reason is because I simply have yet to see any evidence for a deity, and all logical “proofs” for any sort of deity have been circular or otherwise logically flawed. I believe that people are basically influenced by their culture and the predominant religion found within their culture, and they come to the “truth” of their religion because that is the only religion they know. A devout Christian here would likely be a devout Muslim had he or she been born in the Middle East. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to make this all about the problems with theism and belief.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn’t that simply faith?

I have no idea how Slick comes to his conclusion here. My atheism needs no evidence because it makes no claim, so I do not see how I am taking anything on faith. It’s important to note that I would never claim with certainty, “There is no God” because I don’t know and I cannot know. I do not believe in a god of any type because I have yet to be shown that there is, but I do not claim that no god exists. I would assume many other atheists feel the same. There is no faith involved in that.

  1. If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.

As for Number 3, I do agree that my atheism comes, in part, from a lack of evidence for God, but I make no claim that there is no evidence for God. I claim that I have yet to see evidence for God. This does not hurt my position any because, again, I do not claim that a god does not exist.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence…like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?

I think Number 4 is silly because it appears that Slick is trying to mock, when it’s actually the closest he has gotten to what atheism is. I do not believe in screaming blue ants, and if we were to speak in a casual, practical sense, I would tell you they do not exist.

However, I could not claim with absolute certainty that screaming blue ants do not exist.

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren’t absolute). So, how do you account for them?

1) Why is a god required?
2) How are they conceptual by nature?
3) How do you know they are not properties of the universe?

There are a lot of problems with TAG, and the best rundown I’ve seen on the argument recently is the argument found here.

Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to “now” you’d have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can’t that be God?

Sure, why can’t it? Nobody said it couldn’t be. Now I ask Slick, why does it have to be God? How did Slick make that jump? Could a god have brought about the universe? Yes! But so could have any other phenomena that we have yet to discover. How do we know our universe was not created as a byproduct of a previous, dying universe? Why not aliens? Or if it’s a god, why must it be your God? Why must “God” be the very first answer?

The Universe exists

  1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
  2. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
  3. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
  4. Uncaused Cause
    1. Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
    2. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

This goes back to what I was saying to the point above. The universe had a beginning. Yes. But to Number 2 I say, “Atheism does not NEED to account for our existence!” Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity. It does not seek to answer any questions or offer any ideas. Slick is criticizing atheism for not doing something it was never supposed to do in the first place! I repeat myself for the last few points: yes, something caused the universe. But there’s no way of saying that it must have been God. To immediately jump to a god as a cause is highly illogical.

Responding to Atheist Statements about God

  1. “I Lack of belief in a God”
    1. If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
    2. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not…or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of “lack of belief.”
    3. If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don’t you go around attacking that idea?

For Slick’s first point I say, yes, your cat is also an atheist! That’s why it’s silly to even have a word for a concept like atheism because you don’t have words for people who don’t believe in unicorns. I’m sorry if he finds the definition “insufficient” but that’s really what the word means.

As for the second point: Lacking belief is not necessarily a non-statement. And here is where Slick gets confused with terms like “atheist” and “agnostic.” Atheism and agnosticism deal with two separate things: atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge (a — without; gnostic — knowledge). Technically, all of us — theists or nontheists — are agnostics, and for anyone — religious or non — to claim otherwise is simply ignorant or dishonest. So back to myself — I am what is considered an agnostic atheist; I do not know whether there is a god because I cannot know, but I do not believe there is a god. If you are a Christian, you are an agnostic theist, meaning you do not know for certain that God exists, but you certainly believe that God does.

Lastly, the third point. Why do atheists not attack ideas like the pink unicorn? It’s very simple: I’ve never had a believer in the Pink Unicorn interfere with my schooling, my science, my sexuality, my life. No Pink Unicorn believer has ever flown planes into buildings; no Pink Unicorn believer has hated me without knowing me just because his or her Sacred Unicorn told him or her to.

  1. “I believe there is no God.”
    1. On what basis do you believe there is no God?
  2. “I don’t believe there is a God.”
    1. Why don’t you believe there is no God?

1) An apparent lack of evidence.
2) Looks like you’ve got a typo, Slick. “Why don’t you believe there is no God?” Well, I do believe there is no God. ;)

“There is no proof that God exists”

  1. To say “there is no proof for God’s existence,” is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn’t yet seen.

Again, we’re getting into agnosticism and atheism. I freely admit that there is perhaps evidence that I’ve never seen. However, at this point I would consider that unlikely because if there were such compelling evidence, it would be all over the place. I have frequented many forums, watched many videos, and listened to many people. I can say that after a while the arguments are all the same — just as the reasons for atheism are all the same. I would be delighted to hear anything I have not already heard.

“All of Science has never found any evidence for God”

  1. That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God’s existence through science.
  2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
  3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.

I would have to say that Number 1 is an exaggeration. There are many scientists who believe in a god, however, to say they “affirm evidence” is to say that there is scientific evidence, and scientific evidence would go through the process of peer review. If that were the case, the evidence would be confirmed as scientific truth (it would have to — science does not go by opinion), and there would be no debate over whether there is scientific evidence for a god. But if it has not gone through peer review, or has and failed to pass, then it is not scientific evidence, but rather a matter of subjectivity. So no, there has yet to be “scientific” evidence, so that covers Slick’s second point regarding opinion. Scientific evidence is scientific. It would be well documented and testable.

Slick’s third point is just a cop-out. So you declare God outside of the universe. Well isn’t that just too easy, as Dawkins once commented. Declaring God outside of the universe thus removing all responsibility of having to prove him? How convenient!

What is God? or Define God.

  1. God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.

First, I ask how anyone would know this about any god. You cannot cite a Bible or a holy text because for all we know the description of God is false. If you claim that the Bible says God doesn’t lie because God cannot lie because God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God cannot lie…see the circular argument? You do not know the nature of God. You cannot know the nature of God. Therefore, I cannot accept that definition.

  1. Prove your God is real.
    1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don’t love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
    2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgment of many types of evidence…because your presuppositions don’t allow it.
    3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
      1. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count.

Right off the bat, if you cannot prove your claim, you cannot be upset if someone dismisses it. And in that case, you probably shouldn’t even get into these conversations. “Believe in God or you will burn!” Well, prove God. “I can’t prove God anymore than I can prove that I love my family, silly!” Well…okay? Then I don’t believe. Have a nice life.

For the second point, I need not prove that the universe is all that exists. I don’t know if the universe is all that exists. The only thing I claim is that I don’t hold a belief in a deity.

For the Number 3 — okay, Slick asserts that God brought the universe into existence. Great, but didn’t he also say, “Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count”? Oh, irony! For the umpteenth time, yes, the universe had a beginning. However, that does not automatically mean that the beginning was a god, and even if it was a god, it doesn’t necessarily have to be Slick’s God. How did the universe come about? I don’t know. But “I don’t know” is not a problem. “I don’t know” is an honest answer. Saying it’s a god is an opinion that could be right or could be wrong, but is no better than “I don’t know.” Atheism does not set out to explain where the universe came from. It is a lack of belief in a deity.

And lastly…

  1. Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
    1. “Evolution is a fact”
      1. That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
      2. Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
    2. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
      1. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

This is, admittedly, very frustrating. These are very common points that people bring up regarding evolution, and I think it’s a shame that the subject of evolution isn’t better covered in schools. Slick’s questions show a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. So let’s wrap up this post with a brief lesson on evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

It is also a scientific theory.

Contrary to popular belief, a scientific theory is not “just a theory.” In the context of science, a theory is something backed up with evidence; it’s not like the colloquial use of theory that means a guess. Science considers gravity, the idea that germs cause disease, and that your body is made of cells all theories. All of those are scientific theories. And they are facts. Evolution is scientifically documented and hugely supported by evidence. I promise.

Now let’s get into this micro/macro nonsense. When I first saw Slick make that distinction, I knew I was dealing with someone who hasn’t kept up with his evolution research. Science makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution in terms of processes. Both are evolution. The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is time. Macro evolution comes from micro evolution. To say that macro evolution cannot happen while micro evolution can is akin to me saying that I can walk to my kitchen but I cannot walk to the state of Washington. I can, and it will take many more steps, but it is the same process. We get macro evolution from a lot of micro evolution. Slick is being dishonest if he tries to tell anyone that there is a difference.

Also, this “gap in the fossil” record is disingenuous at best. We have a very thorough fossil record. Let me demonstrate how opponents of evolution make the gap argument.

I have fossil A and fossil B. Someone says, “Well what’s the fossil between those?” I produce a fossil between A and B. Well look what I just did! Now I’ve opened the door for my questioner to say, “Well where are the two fossils that link it to A and B?” And so on. The more fossils I produce, the more “gaps” I have. It’s an infinite process. Are there gaps in the record? Surely. You cannot possibly have every single fossil that ever existed. You can, however, have so many that the picture is clear, and that’s exactly what evolution has.

As for Question 2, no, I have not read any books. I have discussed evolution with people on forums and in blogs, though, on many occasions and I have read several arguments against evolution. None of them have held water. Honestly, the majority of people (majority, not all) who don’t believe in evolution simply don’t understand what it is or how it works. Evolution does not say that everything came from nothing. Evolution does not say that life came from non-life. Evolution does not say that God cannot exist if evolution is true. Evolution doesn’t “fail to explain things like the eye.” In fact, evolution is probably one of the most important discoveries of science. Evolution ties together so many disciplines of science and biology that it has been said that none of these would make sense without evolution. Evolution is so important to science. And yet it is one of the most controversial topics. What’s worse, people seem to believe that there is still actually a debate over whether evolution is true. I assure you — science has moved on from that debate ages ago. Science does not question whether evolution is true. There is no debate. The only question now regarding evolution (in science) involves the specifics (“Does evolution work through punctuated equilibrium?”).

I would urge Slick to reconsider posting these copy and paste points for theists. All he is accomplishing is a gross misinformation campaign for his readers, along with depriving them of the chance to use their own reasoning when engaging in debate with those who don’t share their viewpoints.

  1. Editor’s note: The original website used multiple instances of lists of ones; not all of the quotes in this article reflect the exact numerical positions of the subparagraphs. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 8 Comments »

« Older Entries