You are on page 1of 9
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2009 <a href=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 Existence of God , by Nicholas Everitt, for a list of arguments that I will be debunking. 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). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming 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 which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble. With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology. The Euthyphro Dilemma: The Euthyphro Dilemma is so named because it comes from Plato's Euthyphro , in which it's asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" 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. Assuming god exists, it would be horrible to have morality dictated by such a being. The reasons are the following: "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." ­ Noam Chomsky BLOG ARCHIVE 2009 (36) March 2009 (11) 100 Years in Jail for Providing Medical Marijuana? ... Who the Hell Is Joe Hinman? The Red Light Camera Con The Speed Enforcement Propaganda Machine Roid Rave: Steroids, They Do A Body Good? by Jorda ... Richard Dawkins and "Child Abuse" A Web of Lies: An Addendum to My Review of The Tru ... America: Freedom to Fascism ­ Director's Authorize ... Is Religion "Hard­Wired?" A Question of Miracles: Faith Healing The Lucifer Effect ­ March 2009 February 2009 (15) January 2009 (10) 2008 (216) 2007 (201) " id="pdf-obj-0-10" src="pdf-obj-0-10.jpg">

MONDAY,

FEBRUARY

16,

2009

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 Existence of God, by Nicholas Everitt, for a list of arguments that I will be debunking.

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). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming 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 which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.

It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble.

With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology.

The Euthyphro Dilemma:

The Euthyphro Dilemma is so named because it comes from Plato's Euthyphro, in which it's asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

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.

Assuming god exists, it would be horrible to have morality dictated by such a being. The reasons are the following:

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2009 <a href=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 Existence of God , by Nicholas Everitt, for a list of arguments that I will be debunking. 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). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming 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 which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble. With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology. The Euthyphro Dilemma: The Euthyphro Dilemma is so named because it comes from Plato's Euthyphro , in which it's asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" 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. Assuming god exists, it would be horrible to have morality dictated by such a being. The reasons are the following: "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." ­ Noam Chomsky BLOG ARCHIVE 2009 (36) March 2009 (11) 100 Years in Jail for Providing Medical Marijuana? ... Who the Hell Is Joe Hinman? The Red Light Camera Con The Speed Enforcement Propaganda Machine Roid Rave: Steroids, They Do A Body Good? by Jorda ... Richard Dawkins and "Child Abuse" A Web of Lies: An Addendum to My Review of The Tru ... America: Freedom to Fascism ­ Director's Authorize ... Is Religion "Hard­Wired?" A Question of Miracles: Faith Healing The Lucifer Effect ­ March 2009 February 2009 (15) January 2009 (10) 2008 (216) 2007 (201) " id="pdf-obj-0-50" src="pdf-obj-0-50.jpg">

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to

speak the truth and expose lies." ­ Noam Chomsky

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2009 <a href=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 Existence of God , by Nicholas Everitt, for a list of arguments that I will be debunking. 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). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming 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 which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble. With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology. The Euthyphro Dilemma: The Euthyphro Dilemma is so named because it comes from Plato's Euthyphro , in which it's asked, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" 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. Assuming god exists, it would be horrible to have morality dictated by such a being. The reasons are the following: "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." ­ Noam Chomsky BLOG ARCHIVE 2009 (36) March 2009 (11) 100 Years in Jail for Providing Medical Marijuana? ... Who the Hell Is Joe Hinman? The Red Light Camera Con The Speed Enforcement Propaganda Machine Roid Rave: Steroids, They Do A Body Good? by Jorda ... Richard Dawkins and "Child Abuse" A Web of Lies: An Addendum to My Review of The Tru ... America: Freedom to Fascism ­ Director's Authorize ... Is Religion "Hard­Wired?" A Question of Miracles: Faith Healing The Lucifer Effect ­ March 2009 February 2009 (15) January 2009 (10) 2008 (216) 2007 (201) " id="pdf-obj-0-58" src="pdf-obj-0-58.jpg">

BLOG

ARCHIVE

1. The first question that must be asked is what god are you interpreting? The god of the bible, or nature?

2. If it is the god of the bible then you have already lost the argument because god commands the murder of

the inhabitants of multiple cities in Joshua 10:28­42, " the Lord the God of Israel had commanded." (40)

...

as

1. The first question that must be asked is what god are you interpreting? The godCopyright Information [NEB] This is one of many other slaughters found throughout the bible, including, Hosea 13:16: "Samaria will become desolate because she has rebelled against her God; her babes will fall by the sword and be dashed to the ground, her woman with child shall be ripped up." [NEB] Clearly, any sane human being will see that this is an immoral act, therefore, god cannot be considered a source for good morals since he commands the murder of many people. Some christian apologists attempt to explain these acts away. Take the author of the apologist website godandscience.org for example. He says, "The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not kill."1 Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill." However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations ­ because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6­8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11 MY CUMULATIVE CASE AGAINST STATISM &THEISM The Tyranny of the State, Part 1 ­ Taxes The Tyranny of the State, Part 2 ­ Prison The Tyranny of the State, P art 3 ­ War On Drugs The Tyranny of the State, Part 4 ­ Speed Limits The Abolishment of the State, Part 1 The Abolishment of the State, Part 2 Contracts and Coercion Speed Cameras: Are They Really Reducing Accidents? Or is it a Lie by the Government to Steal Our Money? Say NO to Red­Light Cameras The Genius of Charles Darwin, presented by Richard Dawkins Altruism in Primates and Humans Atheism Is No Defense Against Ignorance Against the Gods: Arguments Against God's Existence Evidence Against the Supernatural Evidence Against the Supernatural, Part 2 The Bible and Its False Prophesies Communism and Atheism: Revised and Updated Way of the Master Reviews and Reviews of Ray Comfort's Books A Review of the Book The Truth Behind the New Atheism , by David Marshall A Web of Lies: An Addendum to My Review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism 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 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 murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples. 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 plotting evil!13 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. What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?14 What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.15 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO ARIZONA A Posts Comments PLAY THE GAME JESUS DRESS UP! Click Here! THE BASICS ABOUT ARIZONA ATHEIST ARIZONA, UNITED STATES VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.16 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others17), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed .... 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 FOLLOWERS " id="pdf-obj-1-13" src="pdf-obj-1-13.jpg">

[NEB] This is one of many other slaughters found throughout the bible, including, Hosea 13:16:

"Samaria will become desolate because she has rebelled against her God; her babes will fall by the sword and be

dashed to the ground, her woman with child shall be ripped up." [NEB]

Clearly, any sane human being will see that this is an immoral act, therefore, god cannot be considered a

source for good morals since he commands the murder of many people.

Some christian apologists attempt to explain these acts away. Take the author of the apologist website

godandscience.org for example. He says,

"The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not kill."1 Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in

ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The

Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the

hypocrisy of the God of the Bible?

One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV)

translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In

the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the

KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances

because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to

Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."

However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different

words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV

translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations ­ because these translations

represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put

anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to

intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental

killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional

killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah,

which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew

words also can refer to killing.6­8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be

convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right

to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11

MY

CUMULATIVE

CASE

AGAINST

STATISM

&THEISM

2

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

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

murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples.

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

plotting evil!13 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.

What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?14 What

crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that

the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.15 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells

WANT

WANT

TO

SUBSCRIBE

TO

ARIZONA

A

Posts
Posts
 
Comments
Comments
Comments

PLAY

THE

GAME

JESUS

DRESS

UP!

<a href=Click Here! " id="pdf-obj-1-250" src="pdf-obj-1-250.jpg">
 

THE

BASICS

ABOUT

ARIZONA

 

ATHEIST

 

ARIZONA, UNITED STATES

us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.16 So we see that these

people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others17), God ordered the destruction of the

peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed ....

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

FOLLOWERS
 

FOLLOWERS

FOLLOWERS

extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to

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

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."

So, according to this guy, murder is killing another without cause, therefore god did not murder since he had

Get the Democracy Now! widget and

many other great free widgets at

reasons to do so. Alright, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. A wife cheats on her husband, which gives him

extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption hadWelcome 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." So, according to this guy, murder is killing another without cause, therefore god did not murder since he had Get the Democracy Now! widget and many other great free widgets at 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. 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 22:29­30: "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?" WHAT I'M READING NOW ... NUMBER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS 3. A theist could look around at nature and conclude this god is a wonderful god, but nature, as even Charles MURDERED IN IRAQ 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? COST OF THE IRAQ WAR This has been proposed by theologians for centuries. Christian apologists even today use this claim of "Natural Law Theory." One example is David Marshall, author of the book The Truth Behind the New Atheism , who seemingly tries to dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology which is studying the innate nature of our moral sense, by saying that, "The naivete displayed by [Marc] Hauser's questionnaire is even more remarkable. Can a Harvard professor writing about morality have never heard of Natural Law Theory? Christians (and others) have been talking about it for thousands of years" (page 103). Marshall seems to be trying to give credit to theologians for this concept and not science for discovering it's truthful biological basis. First of all, I wouldn't trust a "moral sense" put inside me by a being who is clearly hypocritical in nature and oftentimes horribly cruel. 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 ? Atheists and christians would be getting their morals from the same source. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Many theists insist homosexuals are to be put to death, but this isn't shared by atheists and others. So, where are theists getting this information? The bible. If god is supposedly the author of the bible, or at least inspired it, and god is the one who created this moral sense, why wasn't he consistent with what he deems moral (according to divine command theory, whatever god commands is moral)? Our human conscience (for most of us anyway) sees the persecution of homosexuals as cruel and wrong, and yet it is a law given in the book supposedly written/inspired by this same god. A third stumbling block is the fact that god has never been proven. If god cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the most logical answer for our morality would be our biology and our culture. A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to. Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who feel compelled by god to help the poor but there are also people who commit horrible atrocities such as Dena click here to learn more NOTE TO VISITORS: I'd like to remind everyone that I try to make this a visitor­ friendly blog because in the past I've gone to websites and a video the poster had put up was no longer available from the source website, or a website that was referenced was no longer there. I found that frustrating because if I was interested in what the author had to say I wouldn't be able to fully understand what was being talked about. So, with my blog I try my best to save all referenced websites with a screenshot, or at least copy the information directly into my post. I also try to keep backups of all videos I post. So, if anyone ever finds that a video isn't working, or a website I linked to is no longer there, please contact me and I'll " id="pdf-obj-2-35" src="pdf-obj-2-35.jpg">

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.

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 22:29­30: "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?"

WHAT I'M READING NOW ...
WHAT
I'M
READING
NOW ...
extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption hadWelcome 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." So, according to this guy, murder is killing another without cause, therefore god did not murder since he had Get the Democracy Now! widget and many other great free widgets at 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. 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 22:29­30: "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?" WHAT I'M READING NOW ... NUMBER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS 3. A theist could look around at nature and conclude this god is a wonderful god, but nature, as even Charles MURDERED IN IRAQ 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? COST OF THE IRAQ WAR This has been proposed by theologians for centuries. Christian apologists even today use this claim of "Natural Law Theory." One example is David Marshall, author of the book The Truth Behind the New Atheism , who seemingly tries to dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology which is studying the innate nature of our moral sense, by saying that, "The naivete displayed by [Marc] Hauser's questionnaire is even more remarkable. Can a Harvard professor writing about morality have never heard of Natural Law Theory? Christians (and others) have been talking about it for thousands of years" (page 103). Marshall seems to be trying to give credit to theologians for this concept and not science for discovering it's truthful biological basis. First of all, I wouldn't trust a "moral sense" put inside me by a being who is clearly hypocritical in nature and oftentimes horribly cruel. 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 ? Atheists and christians would be getting their morals from the same source. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Many theists insist homosexuals are to be put to death, but this isn't shared by atheists and others. So, where are theists getting this information? The bible. If god is supposedly the author of the bible, or at least inspired it, and god is the one who created this moral sense, why wasn't he consistent with what he deems moral (according to divine command theory, whatever god commands is moral)? Our human conscience (for most of us anyway) sees the persecution of homosexuals as cruel and wrong, and yet it is a law given in the book supposedly written/inspired by this same god. A third stumbling block is the fact that god has never been proven. If god cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the most logical answer for our morality would be our biology and our culture. A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to. Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who feel compelled by god to help the poor but there are also people who commit horrible atrocities such as Dena click here to learn more NOTE TO VISITORS: I'd like to remind everyone that I try to make this a visitor­ friendly blog because in the past I've gone to websites and a video the poster had put up was no longer available from the source website, or a website that was referenced was no longer there. I found that frustrating because if I was interested in what the author had to say I wouldn't be able to fully understand what was being talked about. So, with my blog I try my best to save all referenced websites with a screenshot, or at least copy the information directly into my post. I also try to keep backups of all videos I post. So, if anyone ever finds that a video isn't working, or a website I linked to is no longer there, please contact me and I'll " id="pdf-obj-2-72" src="pdf-obj-2-72.jpg">
 

NUMBER

OF

INNOCENT

CIVILIANS

3. A theist could look around at nature and conclude this god is a wonderful god, but nature, as even Charles

MURDERED

IN

IRAQ

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?

COST OF THE IRAQ WAR
COST
OF
THE
IRAQ
WAR

This has been proposed by theologians for centuries. Christian apologists even today use this claim of "Natural

Law Theory." One example is David Marshall, author of the book The Truth Behind the New Atheism, who

seemingly tries to dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology which is studying the innate nature of our

moral sense, by saying that, "The naivete displayed by [Marc] Hauser's questionnaire is even more remarkable.

Can a Harvard professor writing about morality have never heard of Natural Law Theory? Christians (and

others) have been talking about it for thousands of years" (page 103). Marshall seems to be trying to give credit

to theologians for this concept and not science for discovering it's truthful biological basis.

First of all, I wouldn't trust a "moral sense" put inside me by a being who is clearly hypocritical in nature and

oftentimes horribly cruel.

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? Atheists and christians would be getting their morals

from the same source. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Many theists insist homosexuals are to be put to

death, but this isn't shared by atheists and others. So, where are theists getting this information? The bible. If

god is supposedly the author of the bible, or at least inspired it, and god is the one who created this moral

sense, why wasn't he consistent with what he deems moral (according to divine command theory, whatever

god commands is moral)? Our human conscience (for most of us anyway) sees the persecution of homosexuals

as cruel and wrong, and yet it is a law given in the book supposedly written/inspired by this same god.

A third stumbling block is the fact that god has never been proven. If god cannot be proven beyond a

reasonable doubt then the most logical answer for our morality would be our biology and our culture.

A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to.

Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do

anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who

click here to learn more

extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption hadWelcome 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." So, according to this guy, murder is killing another without cause, therefore god did not murder since he had Get the Democracy Now! widget and many other great free widgets at 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. 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 22:29­30: "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?" WHAT I'M READING NOW ... NUMBER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS 3. A theist could look around at nature and conclude this god is a wonderful god, but nature, as even Charles MURDERED IN IRAQ 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? COST OF THE IRAQ WAR This has been proposed by theologians for centuries. Christian apologists even today use this claim of "Natural Law Theory." One example is David Marshall, author of the book The Truth Behind the New Atheism , who seemingly tries to dismiss the findings of evolutionary psychology which is studying the innate nature of our moral sense, by saying that, "The naivete displayed by [Marc] Hauser's questionnaire is even more remarkable. Can a Harvard professor writing about morality have never heard of Natural Law Theory? Christians (and others) have been talking about it for thousands of years" (page 103). Marshall seems to be trying to give credit to theologians for this concept and not science for discovering it's truthful biological basis. First of all, I wouldn't trust a "moral sense" put inside me by a being who is clearly hypocritical in nature and oftentimes horribly cruel. 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 ? Atheists and christians would be getting their morals from the same source. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Many theists insist homosexuals are to be put to death, but this isn't shared by atheists and others. So, where are theists getting this information? The bible. If god is supposedly the author of the bible, or at least inspired it, and god is the one who created this moral sense, why wasn't he consistent with what he deems moral (according to divine command theory, whatever god commands is moral)? Our human conscience (for most of us anyway) sees the persecution of homosexuals as cruel and wrong, and yet it is a law given in the book supposedly written/inspired by this same god. A third stumbling block is the fact that god has never been proven. If god cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then the most logical answer for our morality would be our biology and our culture. A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to. Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who feel compelled by god to help the poor but there are also people who commit horrible atrocities such as Dena click here to learn more NOTE TO VISITORS: I'd like to remind everyone that I try to make this a visitor­ friendly blog because in the past I've gone to websites and a video the poster had put up was no longer available from the source website, or a website that was referenced was no longer there. I found that frustrating because if I was interested in what the author had to say I wouldn't be able to fully understand what was being talked about. So, with my blog I try my best to save all referenced websites with a screenshot, or at least copy the information directly into my post. I also try to keep backups of all videos I post. So, if anyone ever finds that a video isn't working, or a website I linked to is no longer there, please contact me and I'll " id="pdf-obj-2-168" src="pdf-obj-2-168.jpg">

NOTE

TO

VISITORS:

I'd like to remind everyone that I

try to make this a visitor­ friendly

blog because in the past I've gone

to websites and a video the poster

had put up was no longer available

from the source website, or a

website that was referenced was no

longer there. I found that

frustrating because if I was

interested in what the author had

to say I wouldn't be able to fully

understand what was being talked

about. So, with my blog I try my

best to save all referenced websites

with a screenshot, or at least copy

the information directly into my

post. I also try to keep backups of

all videos I post. So, if anyone ever

finds that a video isn't working, or

a website I linked to is no longer

there, please contact me and I'll

,

,

Now, an apologist will likely say that Schlosser was clearly insane and god would never command someone to

do such a thing. But if they dismiss this woman's testimony so quickly, why do they accept a christian's so

easily, as long as they're doing something good? The simple answer? Bias.

Morality has nothing to do with god and, therefore, it cannot be used as any kind of "evidence" of god.

see if I saved it, and I can send you

the information.

I'd also appreciate it if anyone who

is browsing the site finds a link, or

video, that isn't working to please

tell me about it even if you're not

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.

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:

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

be is dumb founding.

Teleological Arguments:

Teleological arguments are arguments in which theists cite the apparent design and order in the universe as

proof of a creator.

<a href=, , Schlosser who chopped off her eleven month old girl's arms because god told her to. Now, an apologist will likely say that Schlosser was clearly insane and god would never command someone to do such a thing. But if they dismiss this woman's testimony so quickly, why do they accept a christian's so easily, as long as they're doing something good? The simple answer? Bias. Morality has nothing to do with god and, therefore, it cannot be used as any kind of "evidence" of god. see if I saved it, and I can send you the information. I'd also appreciate it if anyone who is browsing the site finds a link, or video, that isn't working to please tell me about it even if you're not 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 . 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: 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 be is dumb founding. Teleological Arguments: Teleological arguments are arguments in which theists cite the apparent design and order in the universe as proof of a creator. RRS' KELLY78'S BLOG Get this widget! THE OUT CAMPAIGN RECOMMENDED WEBSITES Acharya S' Website An Anarchist FAQ Webpage Anarchism.net Anarchist Theory FAQ Anarchy Archives Create Cognitive Dissonance Debunking Christianity " id="pdf-obj-3-139" src="pdf-obj-3-139.jpg">
RRS' KELLY78'S BLOG Get this widget! THE OUT CAMPAIGN
RRS'
KELLY78'S
BLOG
Get this widget!
THE
OUT
CAMPAIGN
RECOMMENDED WEBSITES
RECOMMENDED
WEBSITES

To quote Nichloas Everitt about this argument, "This argues from the fact that the universe is orderly, or

displays regularities, to the conclusion that there must be a cosmic intelligence responsible for creating or

imposing and maintaining the order."

As far as design, this implies intelligent design and creationism. Both of these arguments I've written about at

some length so I will point you to other sources for that information.

Life shows evidence of evolution, not of being created:

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

thrive even in immensely hot and cold temperatures:

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).

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.

The Secular Web The Skeptic's Dictionary What's the Harm? World Future Society MOJOEY'S ATHEIST BLOGROLL
The Secular Web
The Skeptic's Dictionary
What's the Harm?
World Future Society
MOJOEY'S
ATHEIST
BLOGROLL

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

saying that 'if he had been one part in 10­ 16 of a light year shorter

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

One of the many major flaws with most studies of the anthropic principle coincidences is that

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 "sixty­six 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.

Because there is no evidence of any gods the most likely explanation is that these experiences caused the

belief in gods and not the other way around.

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 ex­theologians such as John Loftus in representing the arguments of theists (and

argu ng aga nst).

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.

It is precisely for this reason that I consider christian apologetics to be a huge pile of bullshit, and half ass

attempts by unenlightened and superstitious individuals to convince themselves that they aren't going to die.

POSTED BY ARIZONA ATHEIST AT 2:24 PM

argu ng aga nst). I also think it would be a near impossible task to presenthere , 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. It is precisely for this reason that I consider christian apologetics to be a huge pile of bullshit , and half ass attempts by unenlightened and superstitious individuals to convince themselves that they aren't going to die. POSTED BY ARIZONA ATHEIST AT 2:24 PM 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 " id="pdf-obj-7-72" src="pdf-obj-7-72.jpg">

1 COMMENTS:

argu ng aga nst). I also think it would be a near impossible task to presenthere , 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. It is precisely for this reason that I consider christian apologetics to be a huge pile of bullshit , and half ass attempts by unenlightened and superstitious individuals to convince themselves that they aren't going to die. POSTED BY ARIZONA ATHEIST AT 2:24 PM 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 " id="pdf-obj-7-77" src="pdf-obj-7-77.jpg">

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 law­giver created it; but instead because societies that don’t manage to have a working

morality fall apart and tend not to endure.

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.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

ALL CONTENT ON THE WEBSITE ARIZONA ATHEIST IS COPYRIGHTED. HOWEVER, I WILL

ALLOW ANYONE TO USE MY WORK IN WHOLE, OR IN PART, FOR NON­COMMERCIAL

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. © 2009

"ARIZONA ATHEIST" ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.