Behold Religion in the 21st Century

This week, religious people committed an unspeakable atrocity in Boston.  Other religious people immediately described the act as "godless."

I've had enough.

I am, at least for the time being, suspending all online activities related to religion, including this blog.  I have decided that those who promote religion are no longer worth engaging in dialog, and they are deserving of nothing but scorn.

I'm happy to defend your right to have your religion; I just don't want to hear about it.  Religion simply has no place in reasoned discourse in the 21st Century.

As Christopher Hitchens pointed out, there is no benefit that religion provides society that cannot be achieved without it. 

Keep your religion to yourself.  I don't even care enough to talk about it any more.

This solves a big mystery for me

Great euphemism over at American Vision:

A fetus is a "pre-born baby."  That explains why Christian activists care more about fetuses than actual living human beings: we're simply pre-dead corpses.

All atheism is "McAtheism"

Confusing piece from Graham Veale that conflates YouTube sound bites with some of the in-depth writing on religion by folks like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.  I'll select a few points to respond to:

"The result was what Chuck Colson labelled ‘McChurch’³ . The Christian message was sliced down to easily digestible portions. The nutritional value of the church’s message was neglected in favour of more appetising nuggets with mass appeal. We believe that in the 21st century many atheists are making the same mistakes that evangelicals made in the late 20th century. It is this general ‘dumbing down’ for mass appeal that we label ‘McAtheism’."
How do you "dumb down" the belief that no gods exist?  That's about as digestible a portion as you get.

"Maher is incredibly ill informed — his film inexplicably states that there is no historical evidence for Jesus,"
Oh, is there?  Let's see it.

The result of these three movements — online atheistic communities, the literature of ‘New Atheism’ and iconoclastic satirists — has been what we call ‘McAtheism’. McAtheism is marketable, popular with the young, and fun. It is also ill-considered, wilfully ignorant and on the rise. McAtheism has no time for complexities, for once careful thought enters the equation the product ceases to be fun."
He's really suggesting that reading the works of the "New Atheists" detracts from the use of careful thought?  The "ill-informed" charge is pretty ironic, if so.

"As an illuminating example, the ‘Problem of Evil’, once the bedrock of atheism, is not central to McAtheism."
It's not central to atheism at all.  It's irrelevant to the belief that there are no gods.

"Feelings are central to McAtheism, arguments are peripheral."
No atheist is required to make a single argument.  If religious people can't show evidence for the existence of gods, atheism results by default.

"It is an attempt to give atheism a mass appeal by avoiding serious thought and dialogue."
What attempt has the author made to engage in such dialogue?  This is an easy conclusion to reach when you're not even trying to make the connections you're saying "McAtheism" lacks.

"What is it about your faith that offends them so very much?"
In my case, it's your desire for it to have special treatment under the law.

"What merits such ill-considered ridicule?"
The fact that your beliefs are ridiculous.

"We should not answer in kind, with marketing campaigns and sound-bites of our own."
Sounds good.  I'm sure Christian activists everywhere will quickly abandon billboards, TV commercials and YouTube videos, on your advice.

"McAtheism answers mankind’s deepest questions with witticisms and clichŽs. If the Church can have the courage to whisper God’s answers to anyone who will listen, God’s kingdom will continue to grow."
Criticizing the use of cliches with a big fat cliche.  Well done.

There's just nothing to this "McAtheism" thing.  What they're talking about is plain old atheism, which has not changed in and of itself.  What has more and more young Americans are finding it appealing.  Since people like Veale can't wrap their heads around the fact that society is starting to wise up to religion's bogus claims, they have to try to minimize it with goofy labels.  Tough luck, fellas; atheism's here to stay.

Source Analysis: "Scientific Racism, Militarism and the New Atheists"

Murtaza Hussain published a rambling piece on the Al Jazeera website that is one big exercise in bald assertions, misrepresentation and argument from analogy.  The whole point of the piece is to discredit the "New Atheists."  To his credit, he links out to lots of sources.  Let's have a look at them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Hussain uses this entry to establish that atheism has a history of "scientific racism."  However, the entry doesn't support that; it merely states that phrenology was "accused" of promoting atheism.  No real connection.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/diafwt_ratsism.htm
http://pat.tamu.edu/journal/vol-1/thompson.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/question/nov05.htm
http://www.messynessychic.com/2012/03/02/the-haunting-human-zoo-of-paris/
These are also intended to establish his premise, but they don't even mention atheism or atheists at all.  So still nothing.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-defends-islamic-barbarians-twitter-comment-89304/
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html
Hussain cites these two sources but then immediately backs off on them, saying they're not representative.  Okay, then his inclusion of them is dishonest; it's an obvious attempt to provoke a reaction.  This isn't a rational argument Hussain is making; it's anti-atheist propaganda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/honesty-the-muslim-worlds-scarcest-resource
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjBjRnhUqA 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
Now we get into the only areas of potential legitimate criticism of one of the New Atheists, Sam Harris.  Great.  So how do these things tie back in with his earlier points?  Does the author refute what Harris is saying?  No, he doesn't; he simply tosses them out there as if to say "See? Bad!"  Hussain's refusal to engage, refute or address the quotes he's providing actually supports Harris's claims about dishonesty among Muslims, at least with regard to its activists.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.320848557944963.100715.184731454890008&type=3 
Here Hussain references peaceful protests by Muslims to refute the idea that all Muslims are evil.  However, he has failed to establish that the New Atheists believe that, rendering this a red herring.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sam_Harris/Shadow_God_TEOF.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3141t.html
Here's the only actual parallel we've seen Hussain try to draw so far, saying that Harris's ideas are an "echo" of George Fitzhugh's.  However, Fitzhugh is not an atheist, at least not that Hussain establishes.  Given that he was a 19th-century Southerner, my money's on his being a Christian.  Do Hussain can't even hit the target when he does finally decide to shoot at it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html
From this source, Hussain pulls a quote from Harris stating that Muslim outrage tends to be on theological grounds.  He then fails to refute that idea, and moves on.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This is thrown in for sheer shock value, never bothering to establish the percentage of those deaths that came at the hands of atheists.

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Scientific_Racism_in_Modern_South_Africa.html?id=C4m8Vc2rWyYC
Here's a link to a book about South Africa; we have no idea why.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
This is quote-mining, since Harris is lamenting the fact that only fascists seem to have sensible policies, not supporting it.

http://uaf.org.uk/2013/01/golden-dawn-activist-arrested-for-athens-racist-murder/
Here's a link that says "recent murders" but documents only a single murder; the article never mentions atheists or atheism.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/443257/20130307/golden-dawn-immigrants-soap-oven-greece.htm 
http://reducetheburden.org/scientific-racism/
References to atheism in either of these?  None.

So what Hussain has done is said, "Here's a bunch of bad stuff.  Here's a bunch of bad stuff.  Therefore, atheists are bad."  No connections drawn, no refutations of the points criticized; he's just throwing against the wall and hoping enough sticks to outrage his readers.

And look at the sources he's using!  oodegr.com?  messynessychic.com?  Christian Post, for fuck's sake?  This piece would get laughed out of any serious intellectual discourse.

But that's okay with Hussain.  Critical thinking and analysis is not the point here; this is pure, unadulterated propaganda.  This is designed to provoke an "Atheists bad!" gut-level, emotional response.  It's irresponsible and shameful.

Hussain ends with this gem:
"Just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalize their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview."

Okay, yeah.  You go talk to those Muslim terrorists, I'll go talk to Sam Harris, and we'll see who commits the next suicide bombing.

A Big Thank-You

Many thanks to everyone who clicked through to my April Fools blog post.  But even more thanks to everyone who DIDN'T!  You see, I got a lot of "praise Jesus" and advice on what to do from here, which means that people only saw what I posted and didn't bother to read what I linked to.  I think that's telling.  It goes a long way toward explaining why sites like Christian Post get away with posting sensationalistic headlines that the bodies of the articles don't actually support.  Apparently, for many Christians, you only need to read enough to decide you agree with it, rather than get all of the information and think critically about it.

We Have We Learned from American Vision

Over at the American Vision website, they have a signature approach to apologetics (by which I mean the doomed attempt to provide a rational basis for something that requires faith).  It consists of three elements:

1) Assume the Bible is 100% true, but only in exactly the way you interpret it, and get butthurt when someone asks you to support that idea.  When you do provide support, use only circular logic and documents that don't actually back up what you're saying.  Since this is pretty standard for apologetics, it's the next two elements that really set the website apart.

2) Lie.  Lie about atheists to their faces and to anyone who will listen.  Tell them what they believe, even when they express the exact opposite, and pretend they've said things they never did.  Because, really, what better way to promote the belief in a loving God that to be dishonest in the most ridiculous and offensive ways?

3) Repeat this mantra, over and over:
Atheism makes no claim about morality
therefore
Atheists have no "basis" for morality, except what they get from Christians [I really wanted to explore the reasoning behind this idea, but no one could provide it. -DVDB]
therefore
For atheists, nothing is right or wrong
therefore
Atheists cannot say anything is wrong
therefore
Atheists believe that lying, stealing and genocide are right.

Two glaring issues here...  The first is one I've pointed out before; you can substitute any belief that says nothing about morality, and the "logic" would still hold up:
The belief that the earth goes around the sun makes no claim about morality
therefore
People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no "basis" for morality...  and so on.

Second, even if you could honestly get from the start of that process to the end (which you can't), the final conclusion violates the premise only two steps earlier.  That is, if nothing is right or wrong for atheists, then you CANNOT conclude that atheists believe that lying, stealing and genocide are right!  So they can't even keep from violating their own bogus logic!

Since I've been banned from commenting there (adding another trophy to my case), all further thoughts on that website will be related on this blog.  I look forward to seeing if they come up with anything new.

Responding to Jeff Paschal

In today's News-Record, Jeff Paschal took on "new atheism" and is so often the case, offered no support the claims he makes in defense of religion.

Here are a few of his points:

"Talk-show host Bill Maher produced an entire movie, “Religulous,” devoted to deriding religious faith of any kind. During a “Tonight Show” appearance with Jay Leno, Maher proclaimed, “Faith is the lack of critical thinking.” This haughty assertion was not challenged by Leno or the studio audience, and television viewers were simply left with Maher’s final words."
So challenge it.  How does believing something without evidence constitute critical thinking?  We don't know, because Paschal, given an opportunity to defend that idea, chooses not to.

"While decrying the dogma of religions, these new atheists themselves demand rigid adherence to their own dogma that, as Haught summarizes, “there is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death, ... nature is self-originating, ... the universe has no overall point ... and all causes are purely natural and can be understood only by science. ... Faith is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds. ... Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith than with it.”"
These are, of course, not atheist dogmas.  While individual atheists may or may not believe any point mentioned, there is nothing in the definition of atheism that requires such.

"The new atheists reduce and define faith as mere credulity, rather than a direction of the heart, the commitment of one’s being to the Holy. They seem to be ignorant of any scholarly criteria for the interpretation of the Bible or other holy texts."
Great, so what are they?  Again, Paschal fails to tell us.  He criticizes atheists for missing things but then can't articulate what those things are.

"But they establish their own criteria for how something must be judged to be truthful or not, namely it must be something provable by science."
Not really.  We'd just to see evidence that any gods exist.

"But can you scientifically prove such things as love, beauty, wisdom and eternity?"
There's evidence that those things exist.  Except maybe eternity; Paschal fails to explain what he means by that one.

"And while ostensibly discarding God, the new atheists unwittingly retrieve God as they lift up their own “absolutes” and notions of what is “right” and “wrong.”"
Support for this idea?  None given.

"But if we are going to judge all religion by its misuse by some, then we should also judge all atheism by its abuses as well, e.g., Communist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Stalin in the Soviet Union, etc."
I don't judge religion by its misuse.  But if Paschal wants to count bodies, I'm game; I don't think he'll like the results.

"The answer to faith practiced oppressively is faith practiced with its true intent: love of God, people and God’s world."
Ah, so those people are not TRUE Christians.  This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

"Many Christians, for example, believe that in Jesus, God experiences suffering, evil and death, and ultimately overcomes them all to redeem the universe. The resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday is evidence of that."
No it isn't, since there's no evidence that the resurrection happened.

"Nobody can prove the existence of God, and nobody can disprove the existence of God, either."
Right, which is why we reject the idea until evidence supporting it can be provided.  The default position is skepticism.  I can't prove Odin exists.  You can't prove that he doesn't.  So we reject the idea, pending evidence.

"But atheism has other questions to answer. A core one is: Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Atheism makes no claim about something and nothing.  But invoking God to answer that question doesn't answer anything; it merely changes the question:  Where did God come from?

"“Just as believers in a beneficent deity should be haunted by the problem of natural evil, so agnostics, atheists, pessimists and nihilists should be haunted by the problem of friendship, love, beauty, truth, humor, compassion, fun. Never forget the problem of fun.”"
Why are those things problems?  Atheism doesn't postulate a god who hates fun, and it isn't accurate to lump them in with pessimists and nihilists.  Also, he quote arrogantly assumes that Christians have cornered the market on these things (just like they did back in the Middle Ages, huh? Wooooooooo!)

"Atheism must also be puzzled by people such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose commitment to justice flowed from his knowledge of Jesus and the prophets of the Bible."
King was also heavily influenced by Ghandi.  Are you suggesting the Hindu gods exist as well?

"Faith has an answer: God."
It just offers no reason for that answer.  If it did, it wouldn't require faith.

Responding to Randy on Morality

This is a response to a post by Randy on his blog, on my views on morality:

Thank you for your comments and questions.

It should be noted that I've published an update to my views on morality at this location.  You might look over that and see if it changes anything in your response.  The main revision is that I've conceded that my view of morality is in fact subjective, but then, by the same criteria I'm using, so's everyone's.  This includes you; since you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which ones to reject, your morality is no more objective than mine.

Followers of the Bible like to hold it up as an infallible moral guide for all humanity for all time, written by an all-knowing, all-powerful deity.  However, if this were true, every follower of the Bible would have the same view of morality, which they clearly don't.

I can hear you now:  It's because we're imperfect humans who, with our limited capacities, are unable to discern with complete precision what God expects from us.  But if God were all-powerful, he could have made these expectations crystal-clear in such a way that even the most imperfect human could understand them.  The fact that he didn't do that is a failing on the part of God (or would be, if he existed).

So until you get God's instructions right, your morality is no more objective than mine is.  Let me know if there's anyone you think has it perfect, so we can examine their beliefs.

On the points you've made:

"Suffering is kind of the basic bad thing."
"Where did we get the idea that respect for private property is a moral principle? "
"Shiftless bums, fundamentalist Christians, NY Yankee fans, do we really care about all their suffering the same way?"
To all of these points, I say: You don't agree?  Please explain how your view of morality differs.

"We hate sexual morality because it might cause somebody somewhere to suffer by denying themselves certain pleasures."
I should have been more clear that I meant inflicting suffering on others.  If you want to suffer yourself, go for it; I have no problem with that.

"Is this really a moral dilemma? That would see to be a weakness of a moral system if that is really true. Defending your wife is clearly the moral thing to do."
Is it fair to say, then, that you believe pacifism is immoral?  Doesn't that put you into conflict with Jesus's "turn the other cheek" teaching?

"Why isn't he asking whether legal pot or illegal pot causes less suffering?"
I have; it doesn't.  Suffering hasn't increased in any area that's legalized it.

"If a majority feel something is so immoral it should be illegal then that is enough whether their opinion comes from the majority religion or not. I do feel respecting minority rights is important but there is a limit. Where that limit should be set is something that should be decided democratically."
I only agree to a point.  I've heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  Part of the beauty of the American system is that the courts protect the rights of minorities.

Since I've taken the position that morality is subjective, I expect that you will probably come back with a defense of objective morality.  If so, please establish that such a thing exists in the first place; then we'll have something to compare with the subjective morality I believe everyone has.

I've decided to ask Jesus to be my Lord and Savior

April Fools!

Thanks for helping make this my most-read blog post ever!

An Amusing Set of Questions

Stumbled upon this particularly goofy set of questions for atheists.  Why not?  I'll bite...

"Do you take pleasure in telling lies or are you just so gullible that you believe any anti-religious lie you hear?"
Neither.

"Are you only capable of mimicking and copying arguments you heard from Dawkins and other atheists?"
No.

"What’s the reason that you continue to use racist atheists as viable sources, celebrate racist atheist biologists and racist/atheist countries?"
Unsupported premise.  The sources are not specified.

"Do you have any independent mind of your own or ability to question what other atheists say or think?"
Yes on both.

"Why do you consider any criticism of atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs as “trolling” but not consider condemning, ridiculing, or making fun of religion as “trolling”?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why have you intentionally remained silent in opposition to racism but not silent in opposition to Intelligent Design, Creationism, and many other things?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why do you value high IQ as being worth more than contributions?"
I have no idea what this question is asking.

"Why do you discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality?"
I'm not sure why someone would want to believe something without evidence, and I'm not sure how the questioner is using the other two terms.

"Why are you an anti-science fanatic who strongly opposes free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning?"
False premise.  I'm strongly pro-science.

"Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?"
False premise.  I don't hate anyone who hasn't earned it.

Well, that was constructive...

More Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at the list of questions for atheists on the "Who Is He?" website...

"How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that the universe has a "high degree of design."

"How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?"
Lots of mythology is based on real people, places or events.

"Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that "no Bible prophecy has ever failed."

"How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?"
False premise.  Neither Jesus nor crucifixion are mentioned in Psalm 22.

"How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?"
False premise.  No units of time are given in the passages in Daniel.

"How could any mere human pinpoint the precise birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?"
False premise.  The term "Messiah" does not appear in Micah.

"How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?"
Unsupported premise.  The given odds are not established.

"How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?"
False premise.  The verse refers to someone named Immanuel.

"How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?"
Unsupported premise.  This information about copied manuscripts has not been established.

"In what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as "the Good Book"?"
False premise.  Only Christians regard the Bible this way.

"Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?"
False premise.  Best-seller lists did not exist in 1436.

"If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?"
It evolved from the need to live together in societies to survive.

"If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?"
False premise.  A human being's molecular structure is not random.

"Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?"
I cannot, because I am not an expert in the required fields.  However, I could direct the reader to sources on the topics.

"If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have been willing to face death for what they knew to be a lie?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence and characteristics of the people mentioned in the question have not been established.

"How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?"
Assuming the question refers to Jesus, unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?"
Not enough information to answer; the thinkers in question would need to be specified.

"Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?"
No.

"If time never had a beginning, but rather goes backwards infinitely or has gone through an infinite number of cycles, then how is it possible that we are here today?"
Unsupported premise.  Whether or not time had a beginning has not been established.

"How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals?"
I am unqualified to answer questions on neuroscience, but I would be happy to direct the reader to sources.

"But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that nature "creates" has not been established.

"Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?"
No.

"When you look at a lot of creatures such as zebras, turtles, butterflies, bees, lady bugs, leopards, etc., you will notice amazing color patterns designed into them. Who came up with those?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that they had to be "come up with" by a "who" is unsupported.

"Does nature have a “taste” in colors, and does it know which colors go together nicely?"
No.

"How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?"
False premise.  The idea of irreducible complexity has been debunked.

"How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?"
"How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?"
Thermodynamic laws and entropy only hold true in closed systems.

"How come there are some things on our planet seem that they are especially designed for us? For example, the 2 most comfortable colors are blue and green , which happen to be the color of the sky and most of the nature around us."
False premise.  Those things do not seem designed at all.

"Who chose those colors to be there , before earth even existed?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that those things require a "who" to choose them.

"Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's holy books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that anything in the Bible describes a future event.

"Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?""
False dichotomy.  It has not been established that these are the only two options regarding truth.

"Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?"
No.

"Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?"
Yes.

"How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?"
Not enough information to answer; the believers in question would need to be specified.

"Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?"
False premise.  They have not.

"What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?"
Not enough information to answer; sources would need to be specified.

"Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of such worldwide attempts has not been established.

"Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?"
Unsupported premise.  This fact has not been established.

"How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?"
Unsupported premise.  Evidence is not provided.

"If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?"
"If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?"
"If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?"
Unsupported premise.  The historical accuracy of these accounts his not been established.

"How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?"
False premise.  The cited passage contains no such testimony.

"If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He show evidence of lunacy in any other areas of His life?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?"
No.

"How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?"
False premise.  The Bible is not one unified message.

"Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?"
False premise.  Evolution does not describe how life originated, only how it diversified.

"What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?"
If by "theological awareness," you mean belief in some sort of deity, there are evolutionary hypotheses to account for the development of religious beliefs, with varying degrees of support.  I can direct the reader to sources if desired.

"If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that the universe is the effect of a cause has not been established.

"How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that people have experienced heaven or hell has not been established.

"How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?"
Not enough information to answer.  The people and "miracles" in question would need to be specified.

"Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?"
I would absolutely believe in any god if compelling evidence could be provided.

Stripping God Down

In a Fox News blog post, Johnnie Moore makes the tired argument that atheists are religious, but he has strip away much of the definition of God in order to do it:

"Religion certainly includes an idea of a God under whom man is inherently subservient, but religion also governs the belief system undergirding the way people think about, and live, their lives.  It tells them who their authority is and it informs their values and behavior."

To illustrate his point, he says:

"First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore."

Christians, is this really how you want to define God?  Anything to which you're subservient and thus compels you to make value choices?

By this definition, you employer is God.  Your employer has authority over you, and you have to make choices in line with making him or her happy.  You might want to stay up late watching TV, but being at work the next day requires you to do the ethical thing and go to bed instead.

No omnipotence.  No omnipresence.  No supernatural element.  No Scriptures...  THIS is how you define God?

Amazing how you have to water Him down to make this bogus argument about atheists.

Relying on the Gospels

I do love it when apologists pretend to be experts on information sources, as Eric Metaxas did in a recent Christian Post article.  For the record, it's unclear whether Metaxas is an expert in anything, since the bio page on his website fails to mention his degree.

In his article, Metaxas meekly tries to provide support for the idea that the Gospels are reliable sources.  His whole piece is based on a false premise, and he offers exactly two arguments to back himself up:

"But what if the Gospels are indeed what they claim to be? Eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?"
False premise.  They never claim to be that.  They aren't written in the first person, and even if you believe every word of them, they describe numerous events that the author could not have been present for, like the temptation of Jesus in the desert, as well as the resurrection itself.  So Metaxas is defending the idea that they are something that they aren't, even with the most literal reading.

Here is the entirety of his support:
"If the young church wanted to make up a rosy propaganda piece about its leaders, they would not have painted the picture of Peter as a coward and the other disciples as consistently clueless!"
False dichotomy.  He's saying that if they aren't propaganda, then they're true.  And the best he can do to argue against their being propaganda is to suggest that he'd have written them differently if they were?

"Or take the role of women in the Gospel of Mark. They were the first to discover the empty tomb. But in the Jewish and Roman worlds, women couldn't serve as witnesses in court! So there's no way Mark or any of the gospels would rely on their testimony-unless, of course, the women really were eyewitnesses and what they said really happened."
But if the Gospel authors wouldn't have relied on their testimony, then it wouldn't matter whether that testimony was true or not!

Apologists everywhere are going to have to do a lot better than that if they want to convince those of who really are experts on the reliability of sources.

Thoughts For Young Men is Banned

The conversations with Thoughts For Young Men, on this blog and on American Vision, have been very stimulating for me; they’ve been at times fun, at times challenging.  They’ve even compelled me to revise my views on some issues, and for that, I give him credit.

So it’s profoundly disappointing to see him take everything that he’s learned about my views and lie about it to pretty much anyone who will listen.  The comments on this blog and on American Vision contain lots of examples, and I try to point them out when I see them.  But this was the last straw for me:

Thoughts For Young Men had, ironically, brought up Hitler in a conversation about the supposed moral weaknesses of non-religious people.  I had stated categorically my belief that what Hitler did was morally wrong.  I further stated that I believe people who think Hitler’s actions are morally right are wrong as well.  And this is how he restated that for the readers of American Vision:

“Don’t get me started again about how you think that what Hitler did was okay”

That really is about the most blatant, offensive lie someone could tell about my view of morality.

Thoughts For Young Men apparently believes that American Vision is a safe place to slander me in such a way.  So he can just stay there.

No further comments from Thoughts For Young Men will be approved on this blog.

If you’re interested in more of what Thoughts For Young Men has to say, he has two websites; I don’t know what’s on them, since I’m not:

http://thoughtsforyoungmen.com/
http://www.theinconsistentatheist.com/

So long, Thoughts For Young Men; it’s been good to know ‘ya.

Shame on Me

...for not spotting the glaring flaw in this whole Bible-as-evidence argument sooner.  Think of the time and energy I could have saved.

The argument hinges on one of three premises:
1) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, it must be true.
or
2) Since the Bible says a few things that can be shown to be true, the whole thing must be.
or, a combination of the two:
3) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, then it's possible.  Since the Bible says a few things that are true, anything it says that is possible must also be true.

The trouble is, all of these are false premises.

Whether or not something cannot be disproven is irrelevant to its veracity.  Consider the following claims:
a) My first name is Billy.
b) My first name is Bob.

Since I don't reveal my true identity, you cannot disprove either claim.  However, either one could be true.  It's possible that neither are true.  It's possible that both are true, if my name is Billy Bob.

So who cares if a claim can't be disproven?  The fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

As for both of the other premises, the fact that Bible might get one thing right doesn't mean that it's right on anything else. Jerusalem exists, but that doesn't mean that God does.  Athens exists, but that doesn't mean that Zeus does (even though Homer mentions both).

The fact remains that in all of the above cases, there's still no positive support provided for any claims.

So you know what, I'll play along...  I concede that it's possible that every single thing the Bible says is true.  I'll even go further:  I concede that it's possible that every single story ever told about all of the gods humanity has ever believed in (over two thousand in all) is true.

But the fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

So, with that in mind, when someone can show me why I should believe anything in the Bible is true (and not just possible), I'll be happy to do so.

CARM Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at Matt Slick's questions for atheists on the CARM website:

"How would you define atheism?"
The belief that no gods exist.

"Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?"
False premise; I act according to what I believe, but I believe many more things than just "there is no God."

"Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?"
False premise.  God has no existence to work against.

"How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?"
"How sure are you that your atheism is correct?"
Same answer to both: I am thoroughly convinced.

"How would you define what truth is?"
That which can be demonstrated to be accurate in the real world is true.

"Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?"
Because no one claiming any gods exist have been able to support that claim with evidence.

"Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?"
I would not use either term to describe myself.

"Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?"
It is only a worldview to the extent that it is a belief that people share.

"Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?"
I am only antagonistic to Christians who work for special treatment under the law for their religion.

"If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?"
I never believed in the Christian god.

"Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?"
"Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?"
"Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?"
Same answer to all three: Not necessarily.

"Must God be known through the scientific method?"
As opposed to what?

"If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?"
If this immaterial god had any interaction with the material world, there would be material evidence for that.

"Do we have any purpose as human beings?"
"If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?"
We only have that purpose which we choose to undertake.

"Where does morality come from?"
The need to live together in societies.

"Are there moral absolutes?"
"If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?"
I do not believe there are moral absolutes.

"Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?"
I use the word evil merely as an adjective to describe very bad actions.

"If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?"
My conscience.

"What would it take for you to believe in God?"
Compelling evidence.

"What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?"
I'm not sure, but an all-knowing god would know.

"Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?"
By definition of the word evidence, it would need to be verifiable.

"Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?"
Not enough information to answer the question.  Safety of a society is not determined solely by religious beliefs.

"Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion)."
Yes.

"If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?"
No.

"If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?"
"If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?"
I recognize that evolution is a fact, but we do not currently have enough information to know if the universe will expand forever, or if the outcome you're asking about is possible.

Answering Bodie Hodge

I always find it telling that Christian activists post a bunch of questions for atheists on websites that don't allow us the opportunity to respond.  I'll address a recent set of questions from Bodie Hodge below.

"Are you tired of all the evil associated with the philosophy of atheism—Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on?"
False premise; atheism isn't a philosophy.

"Even if they claim to believe in the God of the Bible, they are not really living like a true Christ follower (who strives to follow God’s Word), are they?"
Sure they are.  If they say they think Christ is divine, they're a Christian.

"Do you feel conflicted about the fact that atheism has no basis in morality (i.e., no absolute right and wrong; no good, no bad?)"
If you mean "that atheism makes no claim about morality," then no.  It doesn't bother me that morality has nothing to do with belief in gods.

"Are you tired of the fact that atheism (which is based in materialism, a popular worldview today) has no basis for logic and reasoning?"
If you mean "that atheism makes no claim about logic and reason," then no.  It doesn't bother me that those things have nothing to do with belief in gods.  Materialism, by the way, is not part of the definition of atheism.

" Is it tough trying to get up every day thinking that truth, which is immaterial, really doesn’t exist? "
False premise; I believe in truth.

"Are you bothered by the fact that atheism cannot account for uniformity in nature (the basis by which we can do real science)? "
No, since it doesn't claim to.

"Why would everything explode from nothing and, by pure chance, form beautiful laws like E=MC2 or F=MA?"
False premises; the Big Bang wasn't an explosion from nothing, nor do things in nature happen by chance.

"Do you feel like you need a weekend to recoup, even though a weekend is really meaningless in an atheistic worldview—since animals, like bees, don’t take a day of rest or have a weekend?"
False premises.  Time off from work is certainly meaningful.

"So why should atheists?"
Why should any human?  Because it's nice not to have to work seven days a week.

"Why borrow a workweek and weekend that comes from the pages of Scriptures, which are despised by atheists?"
False premise; my employer didn't say anything about Scriptures when I was offered my schedule.

"And why look forward to time off for a holiday (i.e., holy day), when nothing is holy in an atheistic worldview?"
Because it's time off from work.

"Do you feel conflicted about proselytizing the faith of atheism, since if atheism were true then who cares about proselytizing?"
False premise; faith and proselytizing are religious concepts.

"Are you weary of looking for evidence that contradicts the Bible’s account of creation and finding none?
False premise; I'm not.

"Do the assumptions and inconsistencies of dating methods weigh on your conscience when they are misrepresented as fact?"
False premise; dating methods confirm one another.

"Where do you suppose those missing links have gone into hiding?"
Missing links from what to what?

"In fact, why would an atheist care to live one moment longer in a broken universe where one is merely rearranged pond scum and all you have to look forward to is . . . death, which can be around any corner? "
False premises; I'm a human being who looks forward to lots of things.

"I invite you to reconsider..."
I politely decline until such time as you can provide evidence to support the claims that you make in your invitation.

Bible contradictions...

...are really not the central issue in why the Bible is not considered reliable information.

The issue is that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had no understanding of even the most basic facts about the world around them.  They didn't know that microorganisms cause disease, or the the world is spherical and orbits the sun, or that humans have only existed for the merest blip on the time scale of the universe.

The Bible is mythology, the attempt by primitive humans to make sense of things by casting them in terms of angry deities and protector gods.  In that sense, the biblical god is no different from the gods of the Greeks, Egyptians or Sumerians.

What it comes down to is this:  Why should we believe a word the Bible says?  If something in the Bible is true, it can be shown to true without using the Bible.  If Jesus walked the earth at all, why are there no other records of him?  If hundreds of people witnessed a dead man come back to life (which would be pretty big news), why did that not find its way into any other historical accounts?  If the Egyptians have one of the best-documented histories of any ancient civilization, why do they have no record of ever taking the Hebrews as slaves?

Whether or not the Bible is false is not the issue; the issue is that it can't be shown to be true.  It must be assumed to be true, to be taken on faith.  Why should we do that?

The answer to the contradiction involving the age of Jehoiachin goes as follows:  The Bible gives two different ages for when he became king because he became king twice.  Great!  Did we discover historical records confirming that he became king twice, thus putting to rest the idea that one of the Bible passages might simply be wrong?  No.  We say that he MUST have become king twice because the Bible MUST be true.

Apologists will not accept the possibility that the Bible might be slightest bit wrong on anything; they just assume it's always right, for no reason.

I'm not willing to assume that.  I don't give the same benefit of the doubt to the Koran or to Homer or to Norse mythology.  Why should I do so with the Bible?

You want me to believe that any idea expressed in the Bible is true?  Demonstrate that it's true.

Contradictions

I've been told there are no contradictions in the Bible; only different perspectives of the same event, all of which are true.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

Definitions

I couldn't help noticing that Thoughts For Young Men has not defined a single term that I've asked him to define.  From here on out, I'll be asking for a definition on every claim that he makes.  Failure to provide the definition will result in a claim being treated as unsupported and thus refuted.

I will continue the conversation on evolution when the term "kind" is defined.

I will continue the conversation on the accuracy of the Bible when the terms "rabbit" and "cud" are defined.

I will continue the conversation on knowledge when the term "basis" is defined.

All comments on these subjects from Thoughts For Young Men will be blocked as refuted claims until this information is provided.

Even once these definitions are provided, any equivocation of them will render the claim refuted until a source supporting the definition can be cited.

Unhappy about the rules?  Tough.  It's my blog.