There have been numerous anti-atheist articles popping up recently, mostly on Salon but elsewhere too. That’s their right, but you would think they would at least limit their articles to well argued ones. Or at least exclude arguments that have not already been easily refuted numerous times. (Admittedly that might not leave them with much to say, but that’s hardly atheists’ fault.) Case in point, today’s article at The Week by Damon Linker, Why atheism doesn’t have the upper hand over religion. Apparently this is something of a series from him, as he starts:
In my last column, I examined some of the challenges facing religion today. Those challenges are serious. But that doesn't mean that atheism has the upper hand. On the contrary, as I've argued many times before, atheism in its currently fashionable form is an intellectual sham. As Exhibit 653, I give you Jerry Coyne's latest diatribe in The New Republic, which amounts to a little more than an inadvertent confession that he's incapable of following a philosophical argument.
Except he gives us no example of how Coyne can’t follow a philosophical argument. Argument by assertion is rarely convincing, and is a poor start to his article. Regardless, what is Linker’s argument for how religion trumps atheism? It’s altruism. Seriously, get a load of this:
Or consider Thomas S. Vander Woude, the subject of an unforgettable 2011 article by the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. One day in September 2008, Vander Woude's 20-year-old son Josie, who has Down syndrome, fell through a broken septic tank cover in their yard. The tank was eight feet deep and filled with sewage. After trying and failing to rescue his son by pulling on his arm from above, Vander Woude jumped into the tank, held his breath, dove [sic] under the surface of the waste, and hoisted his son onto his shoulders. Josie was rescued a few minutes later. By then his 66-year-old father was dead.
This is something that any father, atheist or believer, might do for his son. But only the believer can make sense of the deed.
Nonsense. The theory of evolution explains this very well. Those who were prepared to sacrifice themselves for their offspring were more likely to pass on their genes, since their offspring themselves were more likely to live longer and have offspring of their own. Also, our ancestors lived in large social groups, and those who helped other group members were more likely to be accepted by the group, and were therefore more likely to find mates and reproduce.
The funny thing is that Linker has heard of this, but the way he refutes it shows he has not understood it.
But of course, as someone with Down syndrome, Vander Woude's son is probably sterile and possesses defective genes that, judged from a purely evolutionary standpoint, deserve to die off anyway. So Vander Woude's sacrifice of himself seems to make him, once again, a fool.
Linker seems to think that evolved kin selection (which is what he is talking about) is a rational decision making process. Linker is suggesting that the father’s thought processes would be something like: ‘My son is going to die. If he does I won’t pass on my genes, so I must rescue him, even if I die myself. Oh wait – my son is sterile. No point in risking my life then, I’ll let him die.’ But that is an incredibly naive way of looking at it and not how it actually works. What actually happened in our evolutionary past is that those who developed altruistic feelings, especially those feelings towards their kin, were more likely to pass on their genes (because they were more likely to save their kin from dying young). Consequently, altruism became prevalent in human populations and now many humans are altruistic, especially towards their kin. It doesn’t matter if some of that altruism is “wasted” in evolutionary terms. Altruism has an evolutionary advantage in enough cases, that the few “foolish” acts (ie acts that don’t actually result in genes being passed on), are not significant. Linker would know that if he had spent five minutes researching the subject (and perhaps even reading Coyne’s book).
Those of us who have been debating creationists on the internet for years have heard such silly arguments from commenters numerous times and are not surprised to hear them again. However, I think we have a right to expect better argued articles than this one from a supposedly proper news outlet. Linker has the nerve to say that Coyne can’t follow an opposing argument, and yet Linker shows quite clearly his own inability to follow a well known, simple, evolutionary explanation. Talk about an intellectual sham. Linker’s hubris can not be demonstrated any better than by just quoting the last line of his article:
Don't buy it? I dare you to come up with something better.
You dare me? You moron, I just did. Unfortunately Linker’s article doesn’t allow comments, so his “dare” is just empty posturing. But at least it keeps him insulated from the uncomfortable feeling of learning about his errors. Which is why he will probably keep making them.
Let me get this straight... a Down's Syndrome boy - a Down's syndrome boy - falls into a septic tank and loses his loving father as a result...and this explains that there must be a loving, caring, giving god in the sky?
If he's right, then it suggests that his presumably perfect god is somewhat impotent or incompetent to the point of being useless, and surely unworthy of praise.
But I guess it's better than the notion that random mutation over thousands of generations resulted in a pretty good but generally imperfect means by which an organism might thrive.
Slate's interest might best be explained by one word - "clicks". Online news is a tough business.
Posted by: Andy | April 18, 2014 at 08:48 PM
Nothing wrong with your content, but you didn't have a single link to Slate or to a pane talking about Slate. Your Jerry Coyne link is about Salon.
Posted by: Sean Leather | April 20, 2014 at 04:41 AM
You're right Sean - I really spaced on this one.
I think I was reading an article at Salon, and followed a link to Linker's article at The Week. I then wrote Slate instead of Salon. Quite a mess up on my part. I must be out of practice or something.
Anyway, I just re-wrote the bits that were in error, and removed all erroneous references to Slate. Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by: Skeptico | April 20, 2014 at 02:26 PM
Good to see a new post on the site, Skep.
On balance, I think Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument is a much better one than this tenuous attempt at pseudo-scientific pseudo-rationalism.
And I think that's a pile of philosophical bovine excrement.
Posted by: Big Al | April 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Dammit, HTML tags letting me down again. I reckon goddidit.
[Tag fixed - Skeptico]
Posted by: Big Al | April 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Cheers for the fix, Skeptico.
Posted by: Big Al | April 24, 2014 at 03:22 PM
I find a lot of headdesk-worthy moments when Creationists try to divide "rational" and "emotional/instinctive" in their complete misunderstanding of evolution, and worse, human nature.
Most often in my experience, they stupidly think that selfishness is inherently rational (and imply anyone who advocates rationalism is thus inherently selfish), therefore altruism disproves evolution. Naturally, this makes me question their psychological state, since they just unthinkingly assume that there are never rational reasons to help someone else.
Here, it's a denial of the existence of irrationality born of the messiness of nature, as if they think we believe the universe is a perfectly designed machine like they do.
Yes, altruism can make 'mistakes' from a raw evolutionary survival perspective. But it still works often enough to keep altruistic emotions and instincts. That altruism is why we advocate something kinder than evolution as a model for our society.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 24, 2014 at 05:31 PM
Skeptico...you are are major dick head!
Posted by: Kendra Kell | May 07, 2014 at 08:16 PM
Kendra:
Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned rebuttal. It's given us all much food for thought.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 08, 2014 at 07:29 AM
For anyone interested in solving all this for good, you can't approach it purely from a narrow perspective of "us vs. them".
The detail and implications of the psychology of the religious experience is just as much rejected by Dawkins/Harris/etc. as it is by the Abrahamists. It would be clearer to define what we're even talking about, specifically. What does this disagreement really boil down to? And there are other perspectives not covered by this oversimplified "religion vs. science" narrative. If you have not read and psychoanalyzed the irrational teachings of each major religion, you can't expect to think clearly about the systemic effects religion has on the world. Where is this field of science? It's non-existent because academia selects for extreme conservatism, and because actually doing substantial analysis of psychology is impossible for people who only trust empirical data (see Carl Jung's books for something modern science still cannot do). In a Meta Paradigm where these presumptions can't be challenged, you have the end of rational evolution. The external society is not rational, either. It doesn't reflect the optimal behaviour for the best type of society to come forth.
Modern science can't explain its own dependence upon evidence without evidence. Modern science is not based on pure reason and rational behaviour. The dogma of modern science fails its own crucial check. If there is no need for evidence to explain the need for science in society (let alone that particular minimal scientific presence vs. major) then why is empirical evidence so well guarded? It's not consistent, so it's not rational.
For truly coming to a resolution of two logical suggestions that ignore everything else by being presented as though there's only ever been two options (sound familiar?), the entire world's problems and complexity are dragged into the mix, and it would be foolish to think you could have any one-line "answer to everything" without truly pulling everything into consideration. Modern science *IS* being contested, by the rational claim that the universe is made purely of ontological mathematics. Where is the response to that? It's non-existent, because scientists don't want to deal with anything that can't be disproven through sampling empirical evidence. I've suggested it and got no real response, because it doesn't fit the empirical evidence ideology of modern science (integralworld.net/smith47.html). You hit the same barrier as with "faith". It's not an improvement over organized religion if you still can't get through to someone without appealing to their preferences/worldview. It's a problem which can never go away under this Meta Paradigm of science. It's a dead end for wondrous, truly inquisitive, open thinking. That's a shame because when you look through something like Carl Sagan's writing/videos you see that a science doesn't have to be this way:
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
Carl Sagan, 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' (1995, Ballantine Books)
_______________
"If you believe that the world is sensible rather than intelligible (what you see is what you get; there are no hidden variables) then you must adopt an indeterministic, probabilistic approach to reality and say that the universe is ultimately grounded in randomness, i.e. you must accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which asserts, in effect, that the moon does not exist when no one’s looking at it, and God is a dice player.
If you accept that the world is intelligible rather than sensible (there are truths of reason that no sensory experiment can ever reveal) then we live in a rational, determined, causal system of ontological mathematics, and quantum mechanics is not probabilistic at all: the wavefunction is ontologically real, not unreal (hence is in no need of being turned into a probability function)."
Hockney, Mike (2014-01-05). The Mathematical Universe (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 5147-5154). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.
"Evidence versus Proof
Never get evidence and proof confused. Evidence is fallible and proof infallible. Evidence is temporal and proof is eternal. Evidence relates to truths of fact while proof refers to truths of reason."
Hockney, Mike (2014-01-05). The Mathematical Universe (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 2537-2540). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.
_______________
If science exists within an unobservable universe, and yet you stubbornly insist on only considering empirical evidence, you will never reach any kind of resolution. That in itself isn't rational. It fits the dogma of ultimately only trusting empirically sampled data, but it's not sensible. Not wise. Not intuitive. This is why people can correctly refer to science as yet another religion with a set of followers: the followers don't need to actually do any investigation themselves; and all they're required to do is contribute their money. The bar is set rather low! And again; where is the reasoning for this? If everyone in society was a scientist, then even that would produce far more skepticism in general, which would be endlessly beneficial to human civilization. Why don't we do that? We have these half-effort excuse-words like "capitalism"; capitalism but more importantly society is not rational and does not make any inherent sense. Society is a group of people that got together out of rules that constantly change, not a rational agreement for what would benefit them all. This complexity of reality (as it gets portrayed by society's perceived lack of explanation) is a further systemic reason why people afraid of nihilism will flock to someone with a soothing emotional story.
Look at the history of the world. Science is nothing substantially new if is has no answer to the existential crisis of nihilism or absurdism, or anything that unifies and empowers the individual just by learning it. You're just as guilty for ignoring things you don't particularly like (such as the needs of humans totally isolated from industrial civilization) if you can't answer things like free will but still then go on to declare that science is the very best thing humanity has. No, it's not. Modern science alone is not helpful for personal psychological self-actualization for all of us, which directly affects the world around us; and everything does not boil down to logic that is devoid of the difficult hard critical thinking (which empiricist scientists would love, such as Ray Kurzweil's promises). It also doesn't count that Neil DeGrasse recently did this—
http://theweek.com/article/index/261042/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-is-a-philistine#axzz33LmS3D8N
—because that's not a rational ontological claim; it's not even evidence; it's an ancient tactic of organized religion to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in alternate perspectives about what life itself is.
That then gets interpreted as offensive, and it swings back around to personal attacks. This has not changed the paradigm of organized religion's wars of ideology. What is needed to break the chain is true rational debate, free of opinion and the appeal to bodies of authority (science is not allowed to criticize industrial civilization like, say, Chris Hedges; it's an arm of empire); the kind of which the world very rarely sees today. If you can't be bothered to think critically about the very society and framework of presumptions all of this scientific research is predicated and financially dependent on, you are again limiting the range of discussion which is not rational at all. If it's ignorance that's being fought then modern science and scientism is just as guilty from an informational perspective of reality, for cherrypicking its information. If you cannot see things from others' perspectives then you will not understand them, yet ideology is a major factor in all the human behaviour on the planet. "Being the bigger person" is not just a moral appeal, but a generally superior strategy for understanding and cooperating with the world. It's the only general attitude that's rational. Modern science makes no preparations for how best to respond to society and ultimately reality in the long-term. It is in this context that modern science can be seen simply as an inert extension of empire or industrial civilization and its consumer conformity. The types of social movements ignored by science have everything to do with the state of the world today, and yet spirituality is sometimes mixed in with them. Consider that non-science-minded people might see emptiness in the kinds of things academia releases to the world. https://www.google.com/search?q=protests+2014
_______________
Meritocracy is a good consideration for contrasting the differences between scientific studies within the mainstream and the systemic, informational reality that highly intuitive thinkers perceive:
"Every institution that produces a "thesis" (which could be anything: a song, a shoe, a law, a service, a meal, a method of banking, a psychological innovation…whatever) should be matched with a Devil's Advocate institution that seeks to find faults with it, and to suggest refinements, improvements or completely new ideas. These should, in turn, be matched with a third set of institutions known by the term of Tertium Quid (Latin for "third something"). These correspond to the synthesis phase of the dialectic. Their function is to look at what has been produced by the thesis and the antithesis phases and to create a third thing, a better thing, a higher thing (the synthesis), from the two inputs, which then becomes the new thesis (as a prototype). This is then returned to the thesis phase, where the prototype is refined and resubmitted to the antithesis phase, and so on, until the original thesis has arrived at its omega point of completion. In this way, everything can be scientifically, systematically, and continuously improved."
http://rondetafelbeleid.nl/merit
This Facebook page has some interesting points to make, in a similar vein. This does not refer to Abrahamistic religions, which are entirely irrational and full of mythos:
"
In his 2009 book, The End of Materialism, Dr. Charles Tart, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California at Davis, states that the conflict is not between science, per se, and spirituality, but between scientism and spirituality. Scientism is, he says, a rigidified and dogmatic corruption of science. In effect, scientism is scientific fundamentalism and is to science what religious fundamentalism is to religion. While the religious fundamentalists are locked into the “letter” of whatever good book they adopt, the scientific fundamentalists are dogmatically locked into the scientific method.
It is difficult to generalize, but it has been our observation that many Atheists are former religious fundamentalists. When their faith was tested and things didn’t work out in their favor, they blamed it on God and divorced “Him,” moving to the other extreme and vowing never again to be duped. First Santa Claus, then God, such a person does not want a third strike. But we have also encountered a number of Atheists who had issues with their parents, who were fundamentalists. Atheism was a way to rebel against their parents. In effect, the move is often from religious fundamentalism to scientific fundamentalism without any real understanding of spirituality outside of religious fundamentalism. The smug Atheists jump to the conclusion that religious fundamentalism is representative of all spiritual belief, and they end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.
"
https://www.facebook.com/467083139976777/photos/a.468456309839460.112956.467083139976777/734450146573407/?type=1
_______________
If governments and police interactions or Internet discussions were anything rational at all they'd be in constant evolution, not simply regurgitating the same mistakes of the previous generations of, mostly, subtle systemic forms of violence masquerading as genuine development or virtue. In a rational discussion you need to be able to respect the viewpoint of the other party, which includes any emotional disposition and indoctrination. It's not rational to divide, to exclude potentially new opinions, or to make outright false ontological claims.
This all collapses into *rational* sense, but not scientific evidence. Empirical evidence can never challenge an unbservable universe, because it will be an incomplete result thereof; but an unobservable universe can always contain empirical evidence. Modern science seems to take on just the same negative qualities of other institutions in society, in an utter non-responsiveness towards the broader issues of the world. Modern science has an incredibly narrow focus at all times, with e.g. NASA taking its guidance from government psychopaths who contribute things like getting caught playing iphone games on the job (McCain) or the incredibly stupid suggestion of moon colonies that can only come from either a child or someone who knows next to nothing about the state of the world.
Science is very much so backing these incompetent types of people. That's part of the appearance it generates. Scientists again will dodge notions like this with the usual non-responses. What about copyright? What about the degradation of civil liberties practically overnight? What about JSTOR and Aaron Schwarz? There's endless things modern science refuses to discuss in any meaningful capacity. This is the wide space which is occupied by the religious experience among many other small corners of the Internet and life. The only "answer" that would function for every aspect of life and society is an all-encompassing life philosophy and ontological theory, including of course rationalism. Science hasn't figured this out yet and scientists will vehemently deny or plain ignore criticisms like this. Why? Because they have the pretense of being right; the identity to preserve (as with religion) in Twitter and journals and so on. The government funds and protects the illusion. The scientists go to speak on TV about the strange events. Countless other things are connected, while science can't find a voice for any of it. Science doesn't want to explain conspiracy theories now; just mock them like any effective Abrahamist is told to.
It's still on the level of childish behaviour in a very real, solemnly serious sense. Massive, great changes are happening in the world right now. Science is not responsive. Science seems like more of the same authoritarian garbage to people who can't perceive the forces of intellect and reason in the physical structures all around them. Similarly, modern science foregoes any general critical assessment of the world and its function; of power and the control mechanisms; of every aspect not closed-off to the source of power and money itself. Modern science isn't realistic and doesn't speak up in any capacity for the common people who are being reduced to extreme financial poverty. Modern science is itself a poverty of critical wider awareness of the world. And that's not the issue; the issue is what science is going to do in the future.
Posted by: Gavin Taylor | May 31, 2014 at 09:23 PM
Judging by your homeopathic comment, you'd better take you own advice and start reading. Don't forget to include history and the history of science.
What is "modern science" anyway. There's just science. The Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Muslims were making a good start and/or had no idea what they were on to.
Then Christianity/Islam grabbed the reins around the Mediterranean and progress largely stopped until the power of the church (in Europe anyway) waned and the dawn of the Emlightenment, from which came what we call science.
This is only in the last couple of hundred years, after they stopped burning the open minded. All those centuries in power and VatiCorp produced how many vaccines? Irrc, the Muslims were on to smallpox before the Greeks.
Our current mandarin in chief in Canukistan is gutting science budgets and the scientists are protesting because there's far less money to study global warming or ocean health.
Posted by: al kimeea | June 05, 2014 at 11:57 AM
Gavin, I skimmed through your comment (sorry TLDR) but I think you missed the big point here. This is a comparison between science and religion. It is not a false dichotomy if there are only two players on the field for a particular event.
Of course 'S'cience has flaws. It is run by humans. But 's'cience is just a method or (at worst) a philosophy. Sure, we 'accept' some basic concepts (like the existence of quarks) to get the ball rolling but always try to back fill with evidence. We probably can't produce real first principle evidence using our flawed senses from within a vast universe but we've been able to do rather well when allowed to.
Where does 'spirituality' come from? Is it not an electro-chemical process in the brain? No? Than what un-natural system do you propose? What is the interface to the 'natural' world that allows us to know that the 'spirits' exist? At least the interface on the rational side should be detectable. No Ideas? Didn't think so.
Science (like democracy) may not be perfect but it beats the pants off the alternatives.
Posted by: Chuck Colht | August 25, 2014 at 09:37 AM
Great post, Chuck... with the small exception that the epistemology alternatives to science don't really have any pants in the first place. They just brazen it out as if to dare anyone to say differently.
Posted by: Big Al | September 08, 2014 at 05:08 AM
God has the upper hand. The teachings of men through so called science or so called religion is always flawed. God has the final Word. He is the final Judge. We are all subject to Him. The teachings of men will always fail you. Trust the Lord with all your heart and do NOT lean on your own understanding. Why? Because even our own understanding is limited. It is finite. His is NOT limited. It is infinite. Receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Turn away from your sins and rebellion and trust that His hand is indeed mighty to save. And strong to guide. God Bless
Posted by: Mark | September 12, 2014 at 07:40 PM
Mark, your whole Jesus-sacrifice-salvation thing, the foundation of your whacky religion, is nonsense out of the gate. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his "salvation" bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla, just to begin with? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Posted by: Bob | September 14, 2014 at 06:18 AM
Mark, we acknowledge that science is always flawed. We're not infallible gods, we're humans subjected to a wide variety of cognitive biases. Science exists as a means of reducing the impact of those biases so that we can stumble in the general direction of the truth. We'll never get all the way there, but we can accomplish something. Science is what led us to produce these tools you used to speak with us.
How is your faith better? To me, it sounds like giving into sloth and hubris. How do you know that you've obtained the right faith in the right god? Theists can't even agree on what gods are or how many there are. Creationism is in a perpetual state of chaos. With so many faiths disagreeing about so many things, what, aside from arrogance, makes you so certain you're right and they're all wrong?
I can point out the reliability of science's predictions and the relative ease at which scientists reach a consensus by using the same methods, regardless of personal background. What comparable accomplishments can theology claim?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 14, 2014 at 09:02 AM
Bronze, when we step up to the plate and answer God's invitation by faith something wonderful often happens as it did with me. WOW! Suddenly I am flooded with peace and joy that I never knew before. "His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." As for me then, I know the truth 1st: Because Jesus rose from the dead, and over 500 people saw Him after He had risen...I Cor. 15 Christianity stands alone with such a witness from God the Father. 2nd: I have His witness within me (His Holy Spirit) leading and guiding me continually. 3rd: I see His answers to my prayers regularly. He is indeed an awesome God, and if we are willing to leave behind our stubborn rebellion and trust Him with our lives than WOW, we can know His awesome power, and peace, and presence in our lives. and have His promise of eternal life after this one is over. God Bless
Posted by: Mark | September 14, 2014 at 06:16 PM
Mark, stuff your blathering already. We've heard your sick nonsense too many times before about your crazy Jeebus delusion. "Eyewitness" accounts written decades after the supposed event, or earlier, are not credible 2000 years later, and reasonable doubt is more than justified when there is no modern evidence that you can put forward.
Furthermore, the whole Jesus-sacrifice story, the foundation of your crazy superstition, is a steaming pile of bull-do. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. And if you keep up your blathering, we'll remind you of how nasty the violent and vengeful and murderous god of your sick Christian fairy tales would be, if it actually existed -good thing it doesn't.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Posted by: Bob | September 16, 2014 at 06:57 AM
Bob, I didn't answer you the first time because of your disrespect for God and for Christians. You have asked me twice, so I will respond. But if this conversation is to continue you will have to be respectful, as say, one human being is to another, or is that difficult for atheists? You have an idea in your mind of who God should be. You have made Him in your own image. It doesn't work that way. He made us in His image and we answer to Him, not the other way around. First of all Jesus was NEVER created. He was in the beginning with God, and all things were made by Him. (John 1) Jesus is God The Son. Or The Son of God. He doesn't have a beginning or an end! God The Father, in His great love for mankind, sent Jesus to die for our sins so that we could have peace with Him. God is Holy. We are NOT! Sin has a consequence. Just as here on earth when someone breaks the law there is a consequence, so how much more it is true with God's law! The god you have made up in your own mind is lawless. Maybe you are projecting, I don't know. But God is Holy, He is a God of order. Sin must be dealt with. We will pay for our own sins, or Jesus will pay for them. Jesus paid for mine. Blessed be His Name.
Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2014 at 06:45 PM
Mark, don't confuse ideas and people. Ideas deserve critical examination, not respect, and the disgusting ideas of your awful superstition AKA Christianity don't pass critical examination. You have not answered my questions with any substance, despite your claim to the contrary. It is utterly ludicrous to claim that an omnipotent being needed its son to die to save anything.
Now, as to the nature of your disgusting sky fairy, your Christian book of horrors AKA the bible reveals the murderous, violent, and grossly vengeful nature of your man-made sky fairy very clearly, as can be seen in the following quotes from both foul testaments:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
1 Timothy 2:11
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving entity would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish superstitions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Posted by: Bob | September 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM
Mark, I'm an ex-Christian atheist. I don't feel all that much different than when I was a Christian, though with more moral urgency to do good in life than I did as a Christian. Additionally, everything you've said about your god sounds very much like so many other alleged gods out there.
Also, just because holding a belief feels good doesn't mean it's true. Humans are very vulnerable to wishful thinking.
I notice you've avoided my point: What advantage does faith have at finding the truth over science? If faith had consistent results, why do we have so many different religions and denominations? What makes your faith-based claim any more solid than any competing faith claim? This isn't just your particular god against atheism, it's also your particular god against every other god humanity has ever had faith in.
We're asking you to make your god stand out against the enormous background noise of gods created out of deceit, sloth, pride, and greed. Bear in mind, there are numerous "Christian" god versions that fall into that category. We've seen far too many try to lie and cheat their way through arguments to be charitable.
---
No matter how civil, coldly logical, or compassionately we speak, we're always deemed "militant" and the like. It's a common excuse to ignore the meat of a minority's arguments and fixate on or invent imperfections in their tone. Is it really that surprising that some of us have gotten very blunt in how we ask questions?
By the way, how do you know you're not doing what you're accusing Bob of? How do you know you're not inventing a god in your own image?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 18, 2014 at 11:04 AM
What I'd like Mark to explain is what possible sin could he, or anyone, have committed while in utero or is it simply being born that so offends The Mighty Yahweh and His Zombie-Offspring Self?
Posted by: al kimeea | September 19, 2014 at 10:38 AM
Bronze, I certainly did answer your question on what distinguishes Christianity from the other so called religions. That would be THE RESURRECTION! What other world religion is based on this? Really, you can't see the difference? Jesus said to a Samaritan woman who was confused about God and the truth: "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4). The God of Israel is God. He chose Abraham from all the people of the earth through whom He would make the nation of Israel. And through whom He would bring forth The Messiah, the Savior of the world. Jesus/Yeshua is The Promised Messiah who takes away the sin of the world. John 1/Isaiah 52-53. God's forgiveness is realized through faith in Christ.
Posted by: Mark | September 19, 2014 at 06:47 PM
Bob, bad attitude. You don't seem to be able to restrain your venom towards God. Get it together if you want a response!
Posted by: Mark | September 19, 2014 at 06:51 PM
Forgiveness for what, breathing?
Resurrection is not an original idea. Ganesh, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Attis, Odin among others, all involve rebirth.
Posted by: al kimeea | September 20, 2014 at 04:29 AM
Mark, stop your cowardly ad hominem attacks. Grow some courage for a change, stop your cowardly dodges, and try instead to respond to what you have been presented with:
Again, the whole Jesus-sacrifice story, the foundation of your crazy superstition, is utter nonsense. Seriously, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?
And again, the nature of your nasty sky fairy is made quite clear by these direct quotes from your Christian book of nasty. I repeat, these are direct quotes, and note the following text about interpretation and context. It is your own horrible holy book, not me, that presents how nasty and vengeant your fictional Christian asshole in the sky would be, if it existed -which it plainly does not. From both foul testaments:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
1 Timothy 2:11
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Posted by: Bob | September 20, 2014 at 07:21 AM
Not only is there no good historical evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected, his birth and life are a matter in dispute. The sources you draw from are followers of a religion centered this Jesus figure, coming from a very superstitious time in history. I see no reason to trust testimony coming from one side with a vested interest.
The resurrection does not address the point I'm trying to make. I'm talking about evidence and rigorous methodology in obtaining that evidence. I don't see Christian theology doing or accurately predicting things other theologies can't. I don't see any faith doing or accurately predicting things science can't.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 22, 2014 at 06:51 AM
Bronze, Bob and Al. The witness of the resurrection is recorded in the heavens through the constellations. This witness has been there from the beginning of time. The other false religions you mentioned wrote of it, but never experienced it. They could NOT. For salvation is from the Jews. It was done God's way and in God's time. As the scriptures say "in the fullness of time God sent His Son". Jesus is The Way, the Truth, and the Life. As for posting scriptures that are NOT PC in our era. What is the point of that??????????????????? Really??? As if God answers to us? Again Bob, you have it backwards. We answer to Him!!! This concept seems difficult for you to grasp. Bronze, I agree with you when you say about yourself. "I don't see". That is a true statement. Thank God, He has given me eyes to see. Blessed be His Name.
Posted by: Mark | September 22, 2014 at 02:41 PM
You're really grasping at straws there, Mark. Many myths other than yours, such as the Greek and Norse ones, make various claims about the constellations. Your own myth about your vengeant, violent asshole in the sky is nothing special that way.
But now, let's bring you back to the questions about your whacky Christian blood cult that you keep avoiding. First, the whole Jesus-sacrifice story, the foundation of your crazy superstition, is utter nonsense. Seriously, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?
And again, the nature of your nasty sky fairy is made quite clear by these direct quotes from your Christian book of nasty. I repeat, these are direct quotes, and note the following text about interpretation and context. It is your own horrible holy book, not me, that presents how nasty and vengeant your fictional Christian asshole in the sky would be, if it existed -which it plainly does not. From both foul testaments:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
1 Timothy 2:11
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Posted by: Bob | September 23, 2014 at 03:45 AM
Your desperation is showing, Mark.
1. How is it recorded in the constellations?2. If you're talking about your god being the witness, how can I obtain this testimony? If it's through the Bible, why should I trust it to accurately represent this god's account? How can I get verification of its accuracy from this god? What lines of physical evidence can I use for corroboration?
3. You're saying the false religions fall short because they lacked people claiming first hand experience of their resurrection events? Okay, big whoop. The first hand accounts of humans who lived in superstitious times isn't exactly reliable, even if they wrote them down immediately instead of waiting a few centuries for their predecessors to write down the oral tradition. The difference you're asserting seems rather negligible to me.
No idea what point you're trying to make, here. I sense a tone of Antisemitism, by the way. Personally, I find the notion of collective sin of an ethnic group across generations to be antithetical to the concept of morality. What does this nebulous concept of political correctness have to do with anything? We're talking about basic morality. Bob is saying your god is evil because he is described as performing quintessentially evil acts. He's not merely "offensive," he's villainous.Also, do you realize that your reaction suggests that you do not believe there is a difference between right and wrong? Is it because you believe might makes right? Or do you believe that your god gets to kill and torment people because property rights override the rights and well being of people who wind up declared property?
You'll find that we do not condone such a supremely permissive culture, Mark.
It's funny you say that because theists like you usually label me as "arrogant" for daring to say things like 'I don't know' or 'please explain.'Of course I don't see. You seem more interested in trotting out cliches than trying to understand where I'm coming from and bridge the gaps in my understanding of your god. I've seen all sorts of absurd beliefs, including numerous Christian variations. Pardon me if I'm not psychic enough to read your mind and reluctant to risk erecting straw men by trying to predict your particular idiosyncrasies.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 23, 2014 at 06:26 AM
A point I'd like to emphasize: Faith isn't a methodology, it's chaos. The only consensus faiths have ever achieved were localized and enforced by the sword or at least discrimination. Authoritarian systems and mindsets were necessary to keep people from saying they heard differently from their gods. There's no way to tell who's telling the truth from the delusional or who's lying for personal gain.
Another problem is that for all the supposed gods out there, not one has any discernible impact on the world beyond the humans who worship them. The "miracles" have only gotten less impressive as we've gained an understanding of science.
Even if one of those gods provided evidence of his existence, that wouldn't garner my loyalty by itself. Such a god would need to prove worthy of my support. The god of the Bible doesn't even meet the standards I hold for human beings. I'd expect more of a god, but this one is worse than any human I've ever met.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 27, 2014 at 06:27 AM
Which constellations? Things, BTW, devised by pre-christian cultures. Things, BTW, which shift and change form over time as all is spinning through spacetime.
The other false religions all have tradition and holey texts backing their resurrection myths just as you do. You likely had parents indoctrinate you whereas I did not. Yet I read The Cristian Holey Book anyway and learned what a monster God/Yahweh/Allah is. Truly.
Despite the nice old ladies in Sunday School telling me the BuyBull has all life's answers, it never mentioned spacetime or vaccines or railed against slavery.
I fear Mark has heathen fatigue syndrome and prostrate from proselytizing to keep the evil "thought" at bay.
Posted by: al kimeea | October 09, 2014 at 01:23 PM
"sky fairy" - everything you've said Bob had me cracking up the entire time.
Posted by: Sera | January 28, 2015 at 03:38 AM
This is superb.. I have nothing to add other than thank-you for providing me with some laughs this morning :)
Myself, I'm currently attempting to override the brainwashing of a pair of Jehovah's who came knocking at my door a few months back, I have had them in a few times and am working my step by step program. Their last visit ruffled some feathers but I remain polite and focused on reason and logic, they have reacted well so far but their next visit will be tough on them, I will get to see if efforts have been wasted or not :)
You may find this funny, and really it is, but beyond the entertainment factor I feel that it is my duty as a caring human being to save these people from their 'ever evolving to suit itself' cult/religion that is as nasty itself as its own "sky-fairy" This particular couple visiting me seem like really nice people, and not stupid either, they have not gotten offended at all so far and are open to discussion. It's amazing to me how these cults/religions are able to override logic and rational thought on so many people without anything other than the fall-back of 'faith' and man made books of fairy tales.
Last time I attempted this a few years back they stammered and stuttered and recited verse that made no sense until they left bewildered looking and never came back. That time though I wasn't very subtle and didn't respect the level of brainwashing that I was dealing with.
These people love scripture so I like to use their own scripture as much as possible against them but I am no bible scholar. If anyone has any good polite additions for me that I may not have thought of I welcome all the help I can get.
Posted by: MrT | February 02, 2015 at 01:38 AM
Boy, I agree with you here. Science has the upper hand on religion.
Ken Ham once asked his group of followers, "Who do you believe, God or science?" Of course, his audience said, "God," but they didn't realize that Mr. Ham had given them a false dichotomy. If God exists, then He would be in agreement with science, because science studies the products of such creation and does a damned good job of it. The real dichotomy with Ken Ham is his interpretation of things versus God and science. Ken Ham loses.
The "creationists" show their bias when they also leave out or marginalize the idea that God created evolution.
The biggest problem with religion is the ego (arrogance) that blinds them. Of course, some scientists are not immune to ego, either.
Knowledge by ridicule serves no purpose other than to stroke the ego of the person clinging to those ideas. Fans of Ptolemy ridiculed Copernicus and Galileo, but only showed their ego was strapping healthy.
One minor error in this article has the Latin "sic" added after "dove." Why? This is the proper past tense of "dive" which seems to be what was intended. Yes, let it stand, because it is proper and correct, but needs no such comment.
The idea that evolution occurs by random mutation may be flawed. Evidence that some changes in evolution occur very rapidly seem to be on the rise. Could it be that an intelligence is built into living matter allowing it to will itself (subconsciously?) in a certain, evolving direction? Could the urge to survive harness some control over the DNA to push it along in a more comfortable direction?
The study several years ago that showed complexity being added to simple compounds upon meteoric collision speeds seems to support such a "crazy" notion.
We may yet create life in a test tube. I hope we're wise enough to deal safely with the results.
But does science have the upper hand on the spiritual? If there is a non-physical intelligence which is source for physical reality, then all "effect" would be downstream (inferior) to the source or "cause." Of course, that remains a big "if" for a lot of skeptics.
Posted by: Rod Martin Jr | March 09, 2015 at 07:39 PM
"If God exists, then He would be in agreement with science.." "If" being the operative word there, and there is no scientific evidence for gods of any kind. Which shows that the idea is merely a primitive concept derived from a lack of scientific knowledge.
Posted by: BD | May 16, 2015 at 04:15 AM