Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Against the Gods: Arguments Against God's Existence
Introduction:
It's been my hope to create a blog which attempts to answer a great majority of the claims and arguments put
forth by theists about the existence of god, evolution, etc. I think I've amassed a great deal of information
since I began my blog about a year and a half ago, but there seems to have been some arguments I've missed or
just didn't bother to cover because, to put it simply, I thought they were too stupid to be taken seriously. For
this reason I won't cover the Ontological arguments for god's existence, but I will cover all others. Because I
have spent so much time on the arguments against "design" I will skip those sets of arguments as well (but I will
place links that will point you to posts I've already written about it).
Because I began my blog in the first place to argue against the creationist/intelligent design nonsense a
majority of my counter arguments and posts have been geared towards those kinds of arguments but because
of reader feedback I've decided to address more arguments for god. I have referenced the book The Non "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to
speak the truth and expose lies." Noam
Existence of God , by Nicholas Everitt, for a list of arguments that I will be debunking.
Chomsky
The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally
flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence). BLOG ARCHIVE
When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming
▼ 2009 (36)
they're using "philosophical bullshit" because, while I like philosophy, it can oftentimes be abused and just
because something sounds logical doesn't mean it represents reality. Take, for example, the experiment in ▼ March 2009 (11 )
which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would 100 Years in Jail for Providing
dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. Medical Marijuana?...
This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you Who the Hell Is Joe Hinman?
eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. The Red Light Camera Con
The Speed Enforcement
It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the Propaganda Machine
time, can sometimes get you into trouble. Roid Rave: Steroids, They Do A
Body Good? by Jorda...
With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology.
Richard Dawkins and "Child Abuse"
A Web of Lies: An Addendum to My
Review of The Tru...
The Euthyphro Dilemma:
America: Freedom to Fascism
Director's Authorize...
Is Religion "HardWired?"
The Euthyphro Dilemma is so named because it comes from Plato's Euthyphro , in which it's asked, "Is the pious
A Question of Miracles: Faith
loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Healing
The Lucifer Effect March 2009
This essentially means, "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is
commanded by God?" This is also called the divine command theory. ► February 2009 (15 )
2. If it is the god of the bible then you have already lost the argument because god commands the murder of Copyright Information
the inhabitants of multiple cities in Joshua 10:2842, "...as the Lord the God of Israel had commanded." (40)
[NEB] This is one of many other slaughters found throughout the bible, including, Hosea 13:16:
MY CUMULATIVE CASE AGAINST
STATISM &THEISM
"Samaria will become desolate because she has rebelled against her God; her babes will fall by the sword and be
The Tyranny of the State, Part 1 Taxes
dashed to the ground, her woman with child shall be ripped up." [NEB]
The Tyranny of the State, Part 2 Prison
The Tyranny of the State, P art 3 War On
Clearly, any sane human being will see that this is an immoral act, therefore, god cannot be considered a
Drugs
source for good morals since he commands the murder of many people.
The Tyranny of the State, Part 4 Speed
Limits
Some christian apologists attempt to explain these acts away. Take the author of the apologist website The Abolishment of the State, Part 1
godandscience.org for example. He says, The Abolishment of the State, Part 2
Contracts and Coercion
"The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not kill."1 Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in Speed Cameras: Are They Really
ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Reducing Accidents? Or is it a Lie by the
Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the Government to Steal Our Money?
hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? Say NO to RedLight Cameras
The Genius of Charles Darwin, presented
One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) by Richard Dawkins
translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In Altruism in Primates and Humans
the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the Atheism Is No Defense Against
KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances Ignorance
because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Against the Gods: Arguments Against
God's Existence
Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."
Evidence Against the Supernatural
Evidence Against the Supernatural, Part
However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different
2
words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV
The Bible and Its False Prophesies
translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations because these translations
Communism and Atheism: Revised and
represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put
Updated
anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to
Way of the Master Reviews and Reviews
intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental of Ray Comfort's Books
killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional A Review of the Book The Truth Behind
killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, the New Atheism , by David Marshall
which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew A Web of Lies: An Addendum to My
words also can refer to killing.6 8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be Review of The Truth Behind the New
convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right Atheism
to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11 The Delusion of David Aikman: A Review
of The Delusion of Disbelief
To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, we need to determine if God
committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause). [emphasis mine] The Bible is quite clear that
WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO ARIZONA A
God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples
to be killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of Posts
murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples.
Comments
According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives in the flood.
Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his
family) had become corrupted.12 Not only had all people become corrupted, but they were continually PLAY THE GAME JESUS DRESS UP!
plotting evil!13 Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the
Click Here!
point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed.
When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along
with the plan. Further examples are given on another page. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people THE BASICS ABOUT ARIZONA
ATHEIST
were killed in the flood.
ARIZONA, UNITED STATES
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate.
The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing murder. Although God ordered the
extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to
Welcome to Arizona Atheist
extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an
exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He
A Little More About 'Arizona Atheist'
demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction.
The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical
texts." Get the Democracy Now! widget and
many other great free widgets at
So, according to this guy, murder is killing another without cause, therefore god did not murder since he had Widgetbox !
reasons to do so. Alright, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. A wife cheats on her husband, which gives him
a reason to murder her, and so he carries out his plan and kills her. Now, by this apologist's own argument, he
would not have murdered his wife because he had a reason; it would have been justified. WHAT I'M READING NOW...
Clearly this isn't the case (I've got to say too that this thinking is literally insane. The lengths apologists will
go...). Even if we accept this author's claim that the people were "corrupted" and "evil" what exactly does this
imply, and who is to judge what is 'corrupt' or 'evil?' The author's claim that the people were "evil" for their acts
of child sacrifice sounds like a decent reason (to protect the children) but god is being a hypocrite if that was
the case, because in the very next book of the bible god asks for a sacrifice:
Exodus 22:29 30: "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the first
born of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers from seven
days, but give them to me on the eighth day (NIV)."
If god cannot even be consistent in what he deems immoral and moral, how are we to judge what is moral or
not by looking at the actions of god in the bible?
Again, we're back at the same question as before. "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or
is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
Darwin wrote, is often cruel and inhumane. Animals kill and eat others for food, sometimes while still alive.
Natural cells in a body turn cancerous and a person dies, etc.
True, there are very many things in nature that we could call "beautiful" but there are many cruel things as
well, and if god is given credit for the good, he must also be given credit for the bad.
If god's commands cannot be considered moral, then is it possible that god is responsible for some kind
of "moral sense" within us, which helps guide us?
Now, an apologist will likely say that Schlosser was clearly insane and god would never command someone to
I'd also appreciate it if anyone who
do such a thing. But if they dismiss this woman's testimony so quickly, why do they accept a christian's so
is browsing the site finds a link, or
easily, as long as they're doing something good? The simple answer? Bias. video, that isn't working to please
tell me about it even if you're not
Morality has nothing to do with god and, therefore, it cannot be used as any kind of "evidence" of god. interested in getting the
information. That's just so I can go
fix it, and repost the information
The Cosmological Argument: for future visitors.
Thanks.
The Cosmological argument has a few variations but ultimately it is the famed "first cause" argument.
Theologians postulate that the universe cannot possibly be eternal and therefore something had to have
brought it into existence. They call this thing god.
It can be broken down as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
There are a few major flaws with this. First, theologians assume that nothing can be eternal; that it's impossible
for the universe to just be, to just exist. Second, because of their claims that the universe cannot be eternal
they then make a wild claim full of hypocrisy and nonsense and state that their god is eternal and does not
need a cause. Third, they also assume that events that took place in the past could not go on indefinitely. But
again, they contradict themselves and claim their god is infinite and has always existed, though they can never
articulate "where" their god was or" what" he was doing the eternity before he just happened to create this
universe. A related point is the fact that if the currently most widely accepted model of the big bang is one in
which time didn't exist before the big bang, how could god exist in a "time" before time even existed? It's a
contradiction. Fourth, with the Kalam Cosmological Argument claiming god has no beginning, thus needs no
cause, they have no proof of this, and it's unknown if the universe even had a cause to begin with. The big bang
we know of may have been just one out of countless "bangs" that have occurred throughout time, following
Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's theory.
Because of these facts and the lack of knowledge human beings have regarding the universe (though more is
being learned through science; religion sure hasn't done anything to help out on the matter) no one truly
knows if the universe is eternal or not (though there are some plausible scientific theories that state the
universe could be eternal such as those endorsed by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, authors of the book
Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang ), but one thing is for sure, completely contradicting themselves in
order to claim "god did it" is a completely bogus answer and leaves one to ask: "If nothing can be eternal, who
made god?" Theologians have yet to come up with a reasonable answer that doesn't violate some scientific
principal or use the bible for their proof, ahem, Ray Comfort .
RRS' KELLY78'S BLOG
Get this widget!
The fact is, though, that there are things that happen at the subatomic level which appear to have no
cause. "When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light,
we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus" (Source: THE OUT CAMPAIGN
God: The Failed Hypothesis, by Victor J. Stenger, page 124). So it seems it's known that things can happen
without a cause, which would put to rest the entire cosmological argument at the beginning. Since it's known
that some things happen without a cause then it's scientifically possible for the universe to have come about
without some definite cause.
Even assuming that the universe wasn't eternal, and the previous research was flawed in some way, it's pretty
presumptuous of them to claim their god did it. They have no proof. All they have is a book written by very
superstitious individuals who didn't know what we do today about the world and how it works. How theists can
claim this book that is full of oftentimes silly and cruel statements and stories tells us how the universe came to RECOMMENDED WEBSITES
be is dumb founding. Acharya S' Website
An Anarchist FAQ Webpage
Anarchism.net
Teleological Arguments:
Anarchist Theory FAQ
Anarchy Archives
Create Cognitive Dissonance
Teleological arguments are arguments in which theists cite the apparent design and order in the universe as
proof of a creator. Debunking Christianity
Democracy Now!
To quote Nichloas Everitt about this argument, "This argues from the fact that the universe is orderly, or Freedom From Religion Foundation
displays regularities, to the conclusion that there must be a cosmic intelligence responsible for creating or godisimaginary.com
imposing and maintaining the order." KurzweilAI.net
Liars for Jesus
As far as design, this implies intelligent design and creationism. Both of these arguments I've written about at
LysanderSpooner.org
some length so I will point you to other sources for that information.
My Friend Bob Clapp's Website
Official Website of Richard Carrier
Life shows evidence of evolution, not of being created:
Pat Condell's Godless Comedy
Another "Gap" Is Found Richard Dawkins' Official Website
Science Daily
Earth is not the only planet located in the "sweet spot" for life to thrive; it's also known for a fact that life can Talk2Action.org
thrive even in immensely hot and cold temperatures: TalkOrigins Archive
The Official Website of Richard Carrier
Design in the Universe...There's No god Behind It! The Rational Response Squad
The Secular Web
More Evidence Against the "Design" Argument
The Skeptic's Dictionary
What's the Harm?
Ignorance and More 'Design' Nonsense
World Future Society
A website that is excellent and handily debunks many claims of "design" and "order" is the TalkOrigins Archive
(along with many other creationist and intelligent design lies and deceptions).
MOJOEY'S ATHEIST BLOGROLL
The finetuning argument suffers from the same lack of reasoning, lack of scientific knowledge, and "god of the
gaps" thinking that dominate all arguments for the existence of god.
First of all, it seems that many numbers have been manipulated to make these constants seem extraordinary.
Some examples are irrelevant. Victor J. Stenger says, "Many of the examples of finetuning found in
theological literature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics. For example, any references to the fine
tuning of constants like the speed of light, c, Planck's constant, h, or Newton's gravitational constant, G, are
irrelevant since these are all arbitrary constants whose values simply define the system of units being used.
Only 'dimensionless' numbers that do not depend on units, such as the ratio of the strengths of gravity and
electromagnetism are meaningful.
Some of the 'remarkable precision' of physical parameters that people talk about is highly misleading because
it depends on the choice of units. For example, theologian John Jefferson Davis asserts, 'If the mass of of
neutrinos were 5 x 10 34 instead of 5 x 10 35 kg [kilogram], because of their great abundance in the
universe, the additional gravitational mass would result in a contracting rather than expanding universe.' This
sounds like finetuning by one part in 10 35. However, as philosopher Neil Manson points out, this is like
saying that 'if he had been one part in 10 16 of a light year shorter (that is, one meter shorter), Michael Jordan
would not have been the word's greatest basketball player.....'
One of the many major flaws with most studies of the anthropic principle coincidences is that the investigators
vary a single parameter while assuming all the others remain fixed. They further compound this mistake by
proceeding to calculate meaningless probabilities based on the grossly erroneous assumptions that all the
parameters are independent....
Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that result when six cosmological
parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in
which 'stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.' Physicist Craig Hogan has done another
independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. And, theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in
Japan have shown that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars independent of
what the exact parameters for star formation may have been" (Source: God: The Failed Hypothesis, pages 145
149).
Other theories seem to put the Anthropic Principle to rest, including possible multiple universes, and string
theory. If our universe is just one out of many the chances are very good for different values in the universe to
happen to be within the right parameters to facilitate life.
According to Gordon L. Kane, and associates, "In string theories all of the parameters of the theory in
particular all quark and lepton masses, and all coupling strength are calculable, so there are parameters left
to allow anthropic arguments... "
Even Stephen Hawking's more recent studies seem to cast doubt upon the Anthropic Principle. "He proposed
that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the Anthropic Principle claim it is. According to
Hawking, there is a 98 percent chance that a universe of a type as our own will come from the Big Bang
[emphasis in original]. Further, using the basic wave function of the universe as a basis, Hawking's equations
indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it
could come out of nothing" (Source: Did Man Create God?, by David E. Comings, M.D., page 272).
Because physics and cosmology are not my strong suit I suggest reading Victor J. Stenger's book dealing in
much detail with many of these arguments.
One of the best arguments I've heard against the anthropic principle isn't scientific arguments, but one that just
relies on pure logic. If the universe wasn't suitable for life we wouldn't have evolved to witness it! Proof of our
being here is no proof of any designer or creator.
After giving the previous examples of false reasoning and evidence that proves several of the finetuning and
design arguments incorrect, I think it stands to reason that most others are just as faulty. That's something I've
noticed about theists' arguments. After you debunk one they throw another argument out at you; you then
successfully debunk it, and so it goes again and again. It would be nearly impossible to catalogue each and
every single argument ever used, but again, if a majority are found wanting then most likely the others are as
well. Especially since their beliefs oftentimes blind them from seeing the truth anyway, they won't give up until
they find something you cannot effectively answer. Then they'll raise their arms in victory (after about a
thousand wrong arguments in a row), but once again, the gaps in our knowledge is really the only avenue
theists have for arguing their god. If that's the case they really have no arguments at all.
Appeals to Miracles:
I find the use of miracles to be one of the most absurd "proofs" of god's existence. It is once again a "god of the
gaps" argument: because we don't understand precisely how someone may have been healed, it was a miracle.
Most of these are far and few between. For example, in Richard Dawkins' two part series called The Root of All
Evil? Part 1, it was said how within the last century and a half there were "sixty six declared miracles" to have
taken place out of the yearly 80,000 people who go a pool of water where the virgin marry is said to have
appeared. Obviously not anywhere close to a significant percentage to declare any genuine miracles.
Other than this example, the failure rate of prayer is another devastating blow to the theologian. I've gone over
this evidence in the past, along with other arguments against the supernatural, and those are located here .
Instead of trying to debate whether or not miracles exist I try to argue against the entire concept of the
supernatural, or the existence of an immaterial world. If it cannot be reasonably shown that the supernatural
exists, then no miracle could possibly occur. I have given several challenges for anyone to give me unbiased
evidence (no personal accounts, secondhand stories) of the supernatural. No one has been able to present any
evidence, nor debunk my two papers Evidence Against the Supernatural , parts 1 and 2.
The fact of the matter is that there have been many people have have experienced "something" in their lives
they cannot explain but it seems that the mind is wired for personification and people apply human traits to
objects and events. People tend to "see" something intervene in their lives if it goes the way they want; if their
prayer was answered, if someone's injuries are healed all of a sudden, if a disease disappears. Again, just
because these events occur doesn't even imply the existence of god! What if it was some other being that
humans have never discovered? What if it was a different god? What if there were laws of nature that we haven't
discovered yet and that's what was responsible for such and such event occurring? If these things happened
due to this unknown law of nature, then it couldn't be considered a miracle nor supernatural.
There are countless examples of this throughout history. It's not a stretch of the imagination to any degree to
think that these current claims of some supernatural agency are just as likely to be false as the ones that
happened in the past. Because of the many natural events that took place in the past, lightning, wind, and other
forces, human beings were sure to give these events human traits and think "something" caused them to
happen. It's only with our more advanced knowledge do we know how wind and other natural disasters
happen. No doubt the same will take place with certain instances of a medical "miracle" or other such events in
the future.
Religious Experiences:
In this final section, I will attempt to argue why I think religious experiences aren't any form of evidence for
god, let alone the supernatural, because of the large body of research which shows that these experiences are
happening at the level of the brain only, and most religious experiences have been duplicated in subjects when
certain areas of the brain are stimulated.
Mostly performed on epilepsy patients these tests confirm that when the temporal lobes, amygdala and
hippocampus are stimulated many different experiences take place. Everything from out of body experiences,
deja vu , a feeling of not being in this world, hearing voices, feeling a presence, etc.
In fact, one man who had been diagnosed with left temporal lobe epilepsy, his brain was stimulated at the point
of the inferior temporal lobe and at this time he exclaimed, "I'm going to die." When he was asked if he saw
anything, he replied, "No, God said I am going to die."
One case reported that while a man's brain was stimulated in the right superior surface of the temporal lobe he
had an out of body experience. He exclaimed, "Oh God! I am leaving my body!"
In a case with a twentyfive year old woman who had TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), an MRI showed a right
sided, mesial temporal focus and hippocampal sclerosis. The auras, seizures, and religious thoughts she was
experiencing were almost completely eliminated after the removal of the right amygdala and hippocampus.
In 1997 Vilayanur Ramachandran developed the idea of "The God Module" when studying epilepsy patients.
During the experiments one subject with TLE felt a "oneness with the Creator" and others made statements
like, "I finally understand what it is all about..."
Other experiences elicited feelings of a god and feeling as if they were "filled with the spirit" and felt the
presence of god (Source: Did Man Create God?, by David E. Comings, M.D., pages 347, 349, 354, 355, 362).
This is only a tiny fraction of the experiments and examples of this kind of experiment. Direct stimulation of
the temporal lobes seem to consistently bring out spiritual and religious thoughts, feelings, and visions.
This seems to be bedrock evidence that all of these religious experiences are caused completely at the level of
the brain and humanities' experiences of god and spirituality are truly just in our heads.
Obviously religious believers would likely respond that this is proof of a god; that god placed these parts of our
brains inside us so we might be aware of his presence. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I don't see how that's
possible. god supposedly will send his creations to hell dependant upon if they believe or not based on some
clue he left in our brains that might or might not give us the sensations of his presence. That's like rolling the
dice and whoever gets a certain number gets themselves engulfed in flames, and others get "saved" just by the
luck of the throw. Not a very kind thing to do in my opinion (of course theists always have silly excuses for the
cruel acts of their god).
Another problem with this is the fact that this "spiritual feeling" one might characterize as "god" just points us
to a belief in "something out there" that's bigger than us; points to ghosts, fairies, and a multitude of gods. If this
belief was truly put in place by the one true god (according to christians) then why do humans have such a
variety of beliefs about spiritual agents and gods? Wouldn't god implant a belief that just included him if he is
the one and only true god in existence, if it was him, and only him, he wanted his creations to worship?
Based on this evidence, it seems clear to me that this "spiritual feeling" does not point to any god; the god a
person believes in depends upon the culture they grow up in, and is not "hardwired" into our minds; it is only
this vague spiritual belief that is hardwired (possibly for survival purposes and to cope with the fear of death)
and humans built upon these vague, innate beliefs by making up everything else about these various spiritual
agencies.
Conclusion:
I'm sure there are many apologists who may feel as if I've created strawmen arguments, or did not represent all
theological views during this discussion. I would argue strongly that I created no strawmen; I consulted the
books of philosophers and ex theologians such as John Loftus in representing the arguments of theists (and
arguing against).
I also think it would be a near impossible task to present every theological argument, or variation of those
arguments. I tried to pick the most common ones and go from there. Besides, most arguments are variations
upon a basic theme anyhow, so if I debunked a major argument I likely debunked its variations as well.
It's sad that the a large majority of the human race must feel it has to lie to itself for whatever reasons it has for
believing in some higher power or god. What it ultimately amounts to is ignoring and/or distorting evidence,
and having a preconceived bias that leads you to believe in your god (while disbelieving in everyone else's for
the same reasons they don't believe in yours!). This is surely the case with many believers and one such
example is the christian apologist William Lane Craig, as told from John Loftus' book Why I Became an Atheist
(page 214):
"Mark Smith (of www.jcnot4me.com) set up the following scenario for Craig: 'Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument
let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33
AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We
continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection Jesus is
quietly rotting away in the tomb.'
Smith asked Craig, given this scenario, if he would then give up Christianity, having seen with his own two eyes
that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Smith wrote: 'His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected. He told
me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he
would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there
WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the 'holy spirit' within him, he would assume a trick
of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This selfinduced blindness astounded me.'"
There is no evidence of god in our biology, in the cosmos, nor within our uses of logic. This is why I often make
the claim that there is no evidence for god, as I did here , in the review of the first chapter, despite these
arguments being held up as such. I've even been insulted because of this view (though no one has yet to offer
one argument against my position).
Because of the facts and logic that I have presented I see no reason to believe in any god. There are miles wide,
gaping holes in every single argument ever put forth for a god and these arguments will only get weaker as
science discovers more and more about the universe and us.
1 COMMENTS:
Kyt Dotson said...
“Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather
well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they
began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan.
Further examples are given on another page. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the
flood. ”
This particular paragraph thou cited really caught me as a problem. If this statement is true about Nazi
Germany then the author needs to explain exactly why the Allied forces did not feel justified in killing
everyone who lived in Germany —including civilians and babies. The Allied forces were not a flood,
indiscriminately sweeping away everything in their path; they did not kill every German they came across
because they had been “corrupted ” and therefore not innocent.
Second, if god supposedly placed this moral sense within all humans, then how can theists claim that atheists
are immoral if god gave this moral sense to everyone ?
This claim has always made me snicker. The response to this question is, of course, that atheists benefit from
Christian morality because their god gave it to everyone (therefore also atheists) —and included with that
conscience is also the knowledge that the Christian god exists. The problem that I have with this weird
consolation is nearly the same as thine. I say,
“If this is true, why is it therefore an anthropological fact that Christian communities embedded in differing
cultures happen to shift towards the morality of the major culture? Two Christian communities, surrounded by
different cultures, have differing moralities —and those differing moralities more closely match the cultures
they are part of. This suggests that while Christian morality might have its own core concepts, it is not
unbendable to the influence of communal moral forces. ”
This is especially evident in the schisms of Christianity, who oftentimes have directly conflicting mores or
internally inconsistent morality ( “Thou shalt not kill” vs “Homosexuals should be put to death. ”)
To me this smacks of culture shock. A profound misunderstanding by those who are steeped in Christian
culture that not only is their Christian culture potentially fundamentally different from another Christian
culture, but that their culture is certainly different than another one. That we don ’t see core morality today
because some immortal law giver created it; but instead because societies that don ’t manage to have a working
morality fall apart and tend not to endure.
F E B R U A R Y 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 1 : 3 2 P M
POST A COMMENT
Thank you for considering to leave a comment. I highly value both
positive and negative feedback but please keep the language clean
and to the point. If this is not done your comment may not be
published. If you wish to leave a comment I usually respond to all of
them, so if you'd like to begin a discussion please check back to see if
I've responded.
Thanks.
C O P Y R I G H T I N F O R M A T I O N
ALL CONTENT ON THE WEBSITE ARIZONA ATHEIST IS COPYRIGHTED. HOWEVER, I WILL
ALLOW ANYONE TO USE MY WORK IN WHOLE, OR IN PART, FOR NON COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES AS LONG AS IT IS UNMODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL AND THEY ATTRIBUTE
THE WORK TO THE AUTHOR ('ARIZONA ATHEIST') AND/OR PROVIDE A DIRECT LINK TO
THE PAGE THEY BORROWED THE CONTENT FROM. THE BORROWING OF, OR THE LINKING
TO, THE CONTENT OF MY WEBSITE IS NOT AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT I ENDORSE THAT
AUTHOR'S WORK OR THE USE OF MY WORK. SOME CONTENT ON ARIZONA ATHEIST HAS
BEEN BORROWED FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS CONTENT WHICH I'VE BORROWED HAS BEEN
ATTRIBUTED TO THE AUTHOR AND THE SOURCE WHERE I FOUND THE INFORMATION HAS
BEEN LISTED. THOSE POSTS ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED BY ME AND BECAUSE OF THAT YOU
WILL NEED TO GO TO THE SOURCE TO GET THE COPYRIGHT INFORMATION. © 2 0 0 9
"ARIZONA ATHEIST" ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.