Posts Tagged ‘Love’

« Older Entries

Carnival of the Godless #117

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

COTG

It’s my pleasure once again to present an edition of Carnival of the Godless, #117. This edition is packed full of outstanding articles, reviews, and advice.

I’m adding italicized comments below the articles with some personal quips. Take them with a grain of salt.

Enjoy!

Mike at Brain Stimulant asks about a Religious Pill:

Does a selective drug exist that could increase a person’s spirituality and religiosity? Are there pills available that would allow a person to suffuse their perceptual consciousness with a feeling of the presence of an otherworldy supreme being? Will the very same drug increase feelings of serenity, peace and magic?

Note the comments after the article where Mike clarifies his reasoning. There’s a lot of pharm-science and some subtle hypothesizing, but it’s certainly worth reading even for the non-scientist who might be interested in how the brain may delude and how it may be manipulated (tailored?) with pharmaceuticals.

Lukeprog at Common Sense Atheism examines and analyzes a debate regarding escapism in Escaping Hell (Part 1):

If God wants to reconcile with us, why would he shut the door on us forever at death? Two philosophers argue that a loving God would always give us the option to escape hell.

Most Christians think of hell as a punishment for evil actions or non-belief, but philosophical attacks on this view are so powerful that most Christian philosophers today instead defend the view that hell does not exist (universalism or annihilationism) or else they defend an “issuant” view of hell, which says that God provides hell out of love. (He provides a place for those who choose not to be with him, so that they are not forced to be in the presence of someone they don’t like.)

If you were ever brought up in the southern American traditions of worrying about your almost guaranteed descent into hell, or if you weren’t so raised but have wondered how Christians live with the belief that God is both loving and will send people to hell, then this article would certainly interest you. If you don’t fall under any of those categories, read it anyway to find out what you’re missing.

(((Billy))) The Atheist shares a high school horror story quite likely shared by the majority of American graduates. Graduation and Prayer: Some Schools Are Stuck In The Last Century at (((Billy))) The Atheist.

He told us that we were sinners. That we would only find success through the intercession of the one loving god. That we could only be accepted by god if we make a personal relationship with Jesus the center of our life. That we would burn in hell for eternity if we failed to take advantage of this life choice.

I like Billy’s articles because they’re narratives about situations I’ve shared, but wish I had not. He infuses the articles with critical analysis of religion, and his personal experiences give him more than enough credibility. Don’t miss his two submissions.

(((Billy))) The Atheist recounts his experience in the PTA and the negative social ramifications resulting from being openly non-Christian, and describes how Christians claim to be a persecuted minority while simultaneously persecuting non-Christians based on “majority rules.” Christianists: Please, Make Up Your Mind!.

For American Christians, the idea that majority always rules is a comfortable part of their life. Even if something is blatantly unconstitutional, if the majority likes it, it must be okay. Quick history lesson, folks: the Constitution of the United States of America exists, in part, to protect the minority from the majority.

Paul Gowder challenges the idea that the non-religious are ignorant. On the claim “you are ignorant of Christianity” and the metaphysics of religion. at Uncommon Priors.

On the equivocation that critics of the new atheism make between the content-free religion that they claim we’re ignorant of and the hellfire and bearded guy in the sky religion that we criticize and that people actually believe.

Paul Gowder touches on something I’m sure most of us have experienced, and something I resent. How dare anyone accuse me, without any evidence, of being ill-informed about the religion that has pervaded my life and invaded this nation like a creeping moss over the past fifty or so years.1

The Whited Sepulchre lists a select set of Bart Ehrman quotes “for the next time someone claims that eyewitness accounts “prove” that a miracle happened.” “Jesus, Interrupted” – Bart Ehrman on miracles at The Whited Sepulchre.

Okay, so TWS’s personal contribution to this article is “Hmmmm….” But don’t let that stop you from taking a look at the excerpts from Bart Ehrman’s pinnacle of achievement, “Jesus Interrupted.”

larryniven offers up his own lambasting of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against (belief in) naturalism, supplementing the reaction of The Daily Show’s John Oliver. Plantinga vs. …The Daily Show?? at Rust Belt Philosophy.

It says something very interesting about the state of religious philosophy when the single most revered theologian can be flat-out wrecked by a late-night cable comedy show.

A straightforward criticism of what is evidently a severe abuse of neurological energy.

Greta Christina presents Not Religious, But Spiritual at Greta Christina’s Blog.

Why should disorganized religion be seen as more valid than organized religion? A critique of the “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual” trope.

Any time I see a new Greta Christina article pop up in my RSS reader, I know it’s going to be good. I’m never disappointed. Her submission reminds me of an article I wrote back in December, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand. Both touch on the question of whether spirituality, loosely defined as some desire or perceived connection with the unexplained and attributing it as a necessity to something supernatural, is something worth keeping after rejection of organized religion. Mine focuses generally on religion and religious belief, and Greta Christina’s focuses on spirituality. After you’re done reading her article, take a listen to her interview at Secular Nation, and then visit the Blowfish Blog for some of her excellent articles on sexuality (like her recent “My Partner Cheated On Me With Their Right Hand“).

The first part of Reed Braden’s refutation of the teen book “Extreme Answers to Life’s Tough Questions” deals with abortion. Extreme Questions for Extreme Answers 1: Abortion, at Homosecular Gaytheist.

The first question the book asks is, “When does life begin?” Rather than examining the scientific and medical arguments for the beginning of life or trying to create a working definition of the word, it jumps straight into the Bible:

Psalm 55:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(ESV)

It then interprets this as saying, “The Bible makes it clear that life begins at conception, not merely at birth.” It makes it clear? In that verse? Really? Clear, as in lucid, cogent, well-explained? And what is this, “merely at birth,” nonsense? Whatever happened to “the miracle of birth?”

Learn some of the hogwash being fed to Christian teens from this review that makes even the most progressive of us want to burn a few particular books.

Transplanted Lawyer proffers a more realistic Resolution For Religious Freedom at Not A Potted Plant.

In response to the proposal pending in Congress to adopt a seventy-five article resolution containing a laundry list of violations of the principle of separation of church and state, this is what I would have Congress adopt instead.
…Whereas, William Penn, the founder of the colony that later became the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, decreed as Governor of that colony that “perfect religious tolerance of all” be extended even to atheists…

I’m a fan of the Transplanted Lawyer, and although this article is meant to show how asinine it is to proffer government resolutions to acknowledge Christianity, the points are valid and true enough that perhaps there should be a resolution to have taught “the real foundation of the United States” in schools, based on TL’s list.

I was pleased to see another post from Tree Dreamer guest poster Mathurine in one of my COTGs, and sadly it seems this may be her last post at Tree Dreamer. When You Leave Islam contains “advice for people who have quit or want to quit Islam and living your life to the fullest.”

You’re going to feel like you were lied to, betrayed, bamboozled. This is natural, and you have to confront it and deal with it. I guess there are a few people who can walk away cleanly, and my hat is off to them. But for the most part, you’re going to have some very negative emotions to deal with.
…You were lied to. You were betrayed. You were fooled. You have the right to be angry.

Even though Mathurine suggests that she’s writing to ex-Muslims, her words ring true for every former believer. Additionally, even those who have never experienced some of the harsher religious practices can gain some insight into the emotional turmoil felt by people who are trying to shed the anger, regret, and feelings of betrayal felt by so many worldwide.

Magdalune rants familiar about the Nature of God in The Nature of God Part I: Plagues, Infanticide, and War … oh my! at Sowing Seeds in Winter.

God is the God of sickness. He has caused plagues, hardened hearts, inspired insanity. He is a God of death as well as life, yet I hear none praising him for that, in part because Christians do not tend to pray for more pain.

Magdalune shares the frustration we have dealing with Christians who characterize God inconsistently in order to perpetuate their unfounded delusion.

Mikkal Travvis asks, American Christians Approve Of Torture? at The Last Days.

One of the most shocking things in these memos is that they recognized that the techniques that they were authorizing were ones that we condemned other countries for using.

However, the reality of American torture goes far beyond what was described in those four memos.

Travvis examines a Pew poll indicating that the majority of Americans felt that torture was sometimes or often justified against suspected terrorists. In an emotional rapid fire fact attack, Travvis expounds on the released torture memos and an investigative report into the actions of the military police, ultimately asking from where comes the support for such heinous acts.

Bryan Perkins’ title says it all: American political opportunities are loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest. at Science. Why not?.

I was looking over my blog archives when I came across a lecture by Richard Dawkins in which he urges all atheists to openly state their position — and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. About 17:50 into the video, Dawkins comes to a depressing conclusion.

Bryan (with a ‘y’) cites the poll numbers to show what we all know in our hearts to be true: gotta lie to be a politician. Well, a smart one, anyway.

RagingRev offers Job: An Assault on Logic and the Character of God at RagingRev.

What Job does defies all logical thinking, he worships God, he barely questions God and he submits to God…while everything in me would be giving YHVH the finger Job is on his face before him. Job neglects his own need for real answers and justice…My guess is that he does this out of a mixture of fear and devotion.

RagingRev explains further his assertion that the book of Job makes God look like a “huge asshole,” using examples from the biblical text while clarifying some common misconceptions about the characters involved in Job’s trials and tribulations, finally asking the obvious question: Does this make any sense?

Yvette argues that “Objective Morality Proves God”? at Blue Linchpin.

You’ve probably heard the argument that revolves around “objective morality exists, therefor God exists”. I’ve read various attempts at refuting this argument, which theists tend to ignore completely it seems or scream “GOD IS A MYSTERY HOW DARE YOU TRY TO COMPREHEND HIM OH PRAISE JEEZUS!”.

This one is easy, since I commented on it! I’ll just be lazy and use my comment:
Good indirect point about how the Christian argument that the bible is still inerrant because when it was written, the culture was different (and therefore, dashing babies against the rocks was okay then, but not now) is self-defeating because it shows that either God changes his mind (and is therefore not objective), or that if God does really have an objective morality, no one has ever consistently followed it or even knows what the hell it is. What’s the point in having an objective morality if even within the same religious sect, the specific rules of that morality are ambiguous, at best?

Jen attempts to offer up An uncontroversial atheist ad? at Blag Hag.

We all know the only reason Christians don’t go around killing, raping, and stealing is because of the reward of heaven and the threat of hell. Ask any Christian what they would do if they were suddenly certain that their was no God, and I’m sure they’ll confidently state that they’ll go on a murderous rampage and take part in drunken orgies (two of the favorite past times of atheists).

There aren’t many articles that make me laugh out loud, but Jen’s falls clearly into that category.

Another one from Jen at Blag Hag, Boobs and Atheism.

Are we not allowed to joke about anything sexual at all because of the fear of not being politically correct? My friends and I make jokes that uber-feminists would consider sexist, but you know what, it’s about context. We’re not making them because we think it’s true that women are dumb or emotional or whatever – we make them because we think it’s ridiculous that people actually do think that way. We’re mocking people’s intolerance.

I must say that prior to this COTG, I had not visited Blag Hag, but after reading this article, I subscribed to the RSS feed. Jen is a down-to-earth realist with a great sense of humor, and I need an intellectually-stimulating laugh at least once a day, or life isn’t worth living.

Ron Britton presents Comedy Gold at Bay of Fundie.
collecting-pants

Cartoon captions, ftw!

Finally, Andrew Bernardin offers up a serious piece (of flesh?), The Devilish Penis and Curbing Desire at the evolving mind.

“Thou must be circumcised” is quite a creative commandment. It says, To follow me and have a relationship with me (formalized via our covenant) you must take a knife to your reproductive organ and trim a bit off.

The final question is a great one.

—

If you made it this far, I hope you enjoyed COTG #117. It was really fun and informative to write it, and I thank all who submitted, and all who partook. If you’ve been enjoying COTG, why not host it?

Right to Think is hosting the next Carnival of the Godless. Go Submit something!

—

Note2

  1. On a forum I frequent, I recently noticed that a Christian forum member was finger-pointing at an atheist member, accusing him of violating one of the commandments. I then challenged the Christian to name the commandments, where they’re cited, and to name the prescribed punishments for them. That was weeks ago, and despite being an active participant in his and other forums, he has, to this day, only listed one commandment, with citation, and with an ambiguous apologetic explanation (excuse) of why the biblical punishment (stoning to death for adultery) was no longer valid. The inconsistency among Christians is indicative of the lack of an authoritative, reliable, consistent, absolute, objective doctrine of morality. The other religions have the same problem. If anything, go read Paul’s article to make up for my using this occasion to vent. ;) [<]
  2. There was a contest on my blog where the winner would have a pic put in this COTG, but I received no entries, so, I guess I win. Yay. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in COTG | 18 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 »

There is something wrong with Teh Gays

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

Yes, there is something wrong with gay people. Terribly, demonstrably wrong. Horrific, actually. Well, at least with most gay people.

Today, in the land of corn fields, and amongst the meadows and barns dedicated to animal husbandry (how ironic), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that gays should have the right to marry. This is IOWA! The gays invaded the heartland and won a victory. It’s a rather hollow victory. All that victory does is secure the civil rights gays have long sought to put them on par with heterosexuals. That’s all. No big deal.

But why? Sure, there are a host of social benefits in acknowledging formalized homosexual relationships (even the informal ones), but to what end? There is something very wrong with teh gays. Teh gays, many of them at least, still believe in the bible. They believe in religions of various kinds that don’t just dislike gay people, which should be sufficient, but no, their holy books call homosexual interactions an “abomination unto the lord” (or some variant). The cure normally is death to the perpetrator.

If you are gay, and you believe in the bible, particularly the Christian Bible — my favorite being the King James Version — why on earth do you actually believe in that god? In that religion? Why do you attend a church whose very words and practices do more than simply insult your existence, they often require the extinguishment of your innate characteristics and attributes from reality?

Oh, that’s right. Many of teh gays attend a gay-friendly church, like MCC. WHY? Because Jesus loves them. Yeah. Well, Jesus didn’t love teh gays enough to really come out in the New Testament and say something wonderful and loving and uplifting that would erase all the prior hate-filled scriptures. NOPE! But, teh gays love Jesus anyway.

WAKE UP QUEER FOLK!! THE TIME HAS COME TO STOP PLAYING THE WRONG GAME AND STRAIGHTEN UP YOUR LOGIC!!

GAYS NEED TO GO STRAIGHT! FUCK AN ATHEIST AND YOU’LL BE TURNED ON BY REGULAR LOGIC!!

Andrew, I know you really want to go straight and fuck an atheist. I have seen you sit on the fence many times, looking as though you really want to break on through to the other side. If you already fucked one, then maybe it wasn’t the right one. Just go to Dupont Circle and ask around. You’ll find one. It’s okay.

IF YOU ARE GAY AND DON’T KNOW AN ATHEIST, VISIT AN ONLINE FORUM LIKE ATT OR WWGHA, FIND AN ATHEIST AND THEN GET BUSY GOING STRAIGHT.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Government, Religion, Sexuality | 1 Comment »

Longing for Something? Maybe it’s Sex.

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

This morning, one of the trains on my metro line went out of service, which isn’t unusual, forcing the excess of passengers in the next train to huddle in quiet desperation, trying their best not to touch one another or, heaven forbid, utter more than a monosyllabic grunt toward strangers they share such claustrophobic space with on a daily basis. That is the nature of the DC metro. I remember someone asked me a question while I was riding home one evening, and it took me a few moments to realize that I was being spoken to, and that someone actually wanted a response. It was like being acknowledged as alive in a sea of zombies. Perhaps that’s the same feeling religious people get when they delude themselves into thinking they’re being singled-out by a divine being. Jesus is my friend. God loves me. When there’s nothing else in the world giving me the attention I crave, I seek God’s attention. That’s a major selling point of religion — a cure for eternal loneliness.

It’s sad to think that we’re so antisocial or unnurtured that we crave something imaginary to make up for it. It’s like a child’s imaginary friend — always there, always loving. A pity that adults feel the need to do this, as well, but it’s also realistic. The world is a harsh environment, despite our luxuries. Not only are people generally cruel and unforgiving, but the actual environment is also unrelenting — people freeze and starve to death, and it’s 2009! It’s pretty easy to think how someone might wish to think that there is something out there better than this, and that the creator of everything is more than just a fairy tale. It might very well soften the pain that this world gives us.1

While standing there, in the metro train, trying to hold on to a handlebar straining my reach while simultaneously trying to avoid getting butt-bumped by the people behind me and trying not to shove my groin too far into the faces of the people sitting in front of me, I gave up my feeble attempt to read the morning paper. I looked up and saw the following advertisement: “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God. Come find out more. Maybe-its-God.org”, with an image of a church, emblazoned with a bright white star. At the bottom, “Archdiocese of Washington.”2

I didn’t grimace. I didn’t frown. My eyebrow may have shot up in curiosity, but my first thought was, “I might have easily had missed this. I really need to look around more and pay attention to my surroundings.” I groped for my camera and shot a few seconds of the poster while not caring what anyone else had to think about my behavior (which is unusual for me — I like my religio-curious anonymity). After putting the camera away, I read the poster a few times. How did I feel about it? Did it anger me?

I’ve written a bit about these pro- and anti-god posters on public transportation, and I insist that everyone has an equal right to say what they think — censorship of one is censorship of all. So, unlike many of the religious people protesting the atheist signs, I don’t condone judging on the basis of content whether a statement can or cannot be made. However, that doesn’t prevent me from having my own feelings and opinion about the content of these ads. An earlier ad, near the holidays, suggested quite sternly (using a paraphrasing of a bible verse) that since I am an atheist, I must be a fool. I didn’t much like that one. It’s name-calling, rude. Although ads like that might depict honest perspectives, such callousness is not necessarily beneficial for either side.

Taking that into consideration, this new sign was actually quite well done, and believers and nonbelievers alike can learn a bit from it. First of all, the sign doesn’t point fingers. It doesn’t accuse, and it doesn’t assume anything about the reader. If you’re not longing for something, it’s not speaking to you — perhaps your life is filled with the joy of astrology or pet grooming or even biochemistry; it allows for that and doesn’t pass judgment. If you are longing for something, it’s speaking to you, but it’s passively offering a suggestion — maybe it’s God. Certainly. It may be that you are, indeed, longing for God. Plenty of people do long for some sort of spirituality, divine connection, keen insight into the whys of the world. God, to many, fits that description. Of course, I don’t personally think that God is the answer to any longing I may feel, but who am I to deter others from taking that path or testing it to see if it’s right for them?

An ad like that is simple, compelling, non-judgmental, and, most of all, it’s true. I’m not saying that God exists, but I am saying that the statement “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God.” is not untrue, and the gentleness of its delivery, with the added “Come find out more” is a hook quite difficult with which to find fault. This is what is missing from many other pro- and anti-god ads, and something that should be seriously considered by advertisers.3

One example of a potentially neutral, possibly inviting message is that of the atheist billboard campaign started by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (“PhillyCOR”), stating simply, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
Don't believe in God?
This is a straightforward, not untrue message, offering a bit of social comfort to those who think similarly. Although it’s not as immediately inviting as the Archdiocese ad, it’s not harsh or bitter like other ads from both sides. Anyone should be able to look at the ad, answer the question, and then either ignore the ad or read on for more information. “Don’t believe in God?” Yes, I don’t believe in God. What now? I’m not alone? There are others out here in the world bold enough to call out to me on a billboard? Now I’m interested! In the alternative, if I did believe in God, I could just stop right there, theoretically, and this billboard, just like the Archdiocese poster, doesn’t demand that I continue. Most importantly, neither make accusations about my morality, intelligence, or eternal soul if I do read on.

A more holiday-oriented atheist ad states, “Is belief in God necessary? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” suggesting that morality is pre-religion, either genetic or just a result of reason, or both, and that one can be good without God. This sign got a lot of flack in the media. It’s the “controversial atheist sign.” The perhaps subtle difference between this and the previous sign is that the former was passive, while this sign preaches. Yes, I said preaches. What I mean by that is that it is effectively telling you what to do — “be good” — and why — “for goodness’ sake.” Although I might agree, it’s still an imposition. It’s not unlike an evangelist telling me that if I don’t repent, I’ll go to hell. That’s making a factual assertion. Despite the fact that I fully agree with the idea that God is unnecessary, the idea that I must be good for goodness’ sake (if I’m to be good at all) is not something I can fully back, and not something I think is supported by science.

What in hell is goodness, anyway? Yes, it’s just a play on words, I know that. But, again, it’s someone telling me what to do, and why. That rubs me the wrong way, as, apparently, it did for various religious complainers who tried to have DC metro remove anything with an anti-god message (kudos to DC metro for refusing). Some religious organizations, on the other hand, responded in kind, offering up a twisted retort4 — Why believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – GOD.

Although those advertisers should get a hell of a lot of flack from their own side for being so arrogant as to put words in God’s mouth, they do get a modicum of credit for wordplay from the atheist ad. It might have come off as less abrasive had it taken a different perspective other than from God’s own lips — for example, if it had said, “Why believe? Because God created you and loves you, for goodness’ sake.”, then it’s slightly less self-righteous. However, still, it’s making a factual claim — this is the way things are, period. That feels almost threatening to me. It reminds me of the fire and brimstone sermons of the south, where I lived much of my life. It’s not inviting at all, and it presumes that whoever created it is a literal spokesperson for God, or that the person is, indeed, delusional. Contrast that with the first atheist campaign ad I addressed that merely asks a question, and then comforts the reader, suggesting that there are others who don’t believe. No forcefulness or coercion. No threats. No accusations. Also, no promises or questions of fact. That makes it appealing.

Considering what might be a set of positive characteristics for any ad, atheist or religious, a good response to the newest pro-God ad could borrow the original pattern, but make it inviting.

Here’s my humble attempt:

—

Longing for something?
Science
Maybe it’s science.
Come find out more.

—

What do you think?

—

UPDATE: I’ve gotten a lot of “longing for science? doesn’t lift up my skirt” comments. Is the idea that God takes care of some emotional need that science or other worldly pursuits cannot match, or is it just that out of all the categories to choose from, “science” just isn’t appealing in a way that would ever reflect “longing”?

Fine. Here’s my new one:

Longing for something?
The Kiss
Maybe it’s sex.
“Come” find out more.

  1. You might be thinking that rich people feel no such pain; they have every luxury, whatever they want, they get. However, that would be overlooking the fact that we’re all very emotional beings, and similarly limited in our physical and mental capabilities. Rich people feel physical and emotional pain, and they eventually die, like the rest of us. There’s no reason to think that a rich person wouldn’t feel the need for a special friend, as much as anyone else. [<]
  2. Head to the Archdiocese website for more information, an explanatory video from Archbishop Wuerl, and the suggestion that the ad is focused mostly on former churchgoers. It’s evident that church attendance is constantly in decline, and that obviously worries religious organizations that are fueled by donations and popularity. The Archdiocese site even says, “If you have been away from church for some reason, I invite you to come back again to pray and to attend Mass.” Honestly, one of my first wicked thoughts upon seeing the poster was, “What, are you longing to have your children sexually abused?” But I found that unfair. Although the Catholic church should be brought up on charges (and its tax-exempt status revoked) for its reprehensible mismanagement of the sexual abuse situation, every individual in the church cannot be blamed for the acts of a few, just as we cannot blame an AIG administrative assistant for causing a financial disaster. Unfortunately, the church does create the conditions where sexual deviancy thrives, and it perpetuates falsehoods about sexuality in ways that endanger entire nations. So, why am I not riled up at the advertisement? Because I endorse individual choice and responsibility as well as free speech. Which is why I think maybe an ad that departs significantly from my suggestions in this article might be appropriate in response: “Longing for something? Please don’t let your path end at the Catholic church. It stands for tyranny and injustice everywhere, and it harbors dissatisfaction, distrust, and doubt even within its own ranks regarding its adherence to medieval doctrine and sexuality. Go there and learn all you can about it, though, and make your own decisions. When you want to learn the facts about life and not some old man’s perverted vision of the truth, come back here, and we’ll talk.” Perhaps that’s too harsh. [<]
  3. See http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/156393.asp for a quick take on the Washington State controversy over the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s anti-religious sign; also see the Atheist Bus campaign at http://www.atheistcampaign.org/ for Ariane Sherine’s “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” bus ads. Is this another imposition, or is this message somehow carefree and friendly? [<]
  4. that’s extra-twisty for you linguists [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Religion, Video | 2 Comments »

Why Believe? ad on DC Metro Bus Offends Me

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

So, it should be taken down, right?

Wrong.

The ad on this video (that I took, yay) depicts a loving god encouraging belief in that god because that god loves you. Despite the fact that it was designed and written by human beings; despite the fact that it’s fabrication and, frankly, silly; I wouldn’t want to impose my judgment on the content of something I believe should be protected speech.

But it offends me! Certainly, in a fundamental way, it does offend me. It offends me that people are still brainwashed with obsolete mythology into thinking it is real, or at least thinking that they’d better place their bet on it being real, lest the flip side of God’s “love” snatch them into a fiery pit of hell.

I don’t mind the volleying of ads. What I do mind is when one of the players tries to cripple an opponent by arguing that the opponent has no right to make contrary statements. I also mind when one of the players tries to indoctrinate school children in public schools with a skewed faith-based view of reality, when the alternative isn’t “anti-”religious, but, instead, is pro-reason. Pro-reason may exclude religiousness from the curriculum, but that doesn’t indicate a problem with reason, and it doesn’t mean that everyone who is pro-reason is anti-religious (although when people find reason, they tend to abandon religiousness).

If you’ve been following the Atheist/Humanist/Fundamentalist/Whatever bus ads, check out my other related posts:

DC Metro Bus Anti-God Campaign Watch

Why Believe in God? … He believes in You, Good or Bad. Dun Dun Dun!
(This article refers to the ad I saw above, when Friendly Atheist pointed out in December that a Christian woman was campaigning for it.)

DC “You’re a Fool, Atheist,” New Bus Ads

DC Metro Bus Ad “Commendation” Equals “Complaint”

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 9 Comments »

« Older Entries