Neutrality and objectivity - concepts that are hotly debated. What counts as neutral? Certainly, as a critic of religion, few religious people would not describe me as neutral or objective. But from the point of view of a skeptic, my position is perfectly neutral and objective - I haven't accepted claims that are not backed by evidence. So, bizarrely, neutrality and objectivity are treated as subjective concepts! But I think I can make a case as to why skepticism is a neutral and objective position.
Skepticism, specifically empirical skepticism, can be shown as the best method for approaching claims of all kinds. By questioning ideas, it enforces a kind of natural selection on thought. An idea that is found to be entirely wrong will be discarded, an idea that is found to be incorrect in specific circumstances will be modified, and an idea that is found to be correct will be affirmed. However, even ideas that have been found to be correct will still be questioned, as we are constantly finding new evidence. This leads to our ideas not necessarily becoming true - we aren't sure yet if they ever can be completely true - but becoming less false.
So what is the reverse of skepticism? Dogmatism. The tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Religions by their nature are inherently dogmatic - they have a central set of ideas that are never questioned within the religion. In light of new evidence, things rarely change. Instead the goalposts are shifted, so that the evidence suddenly isn't enough to challenge their ideas, or the evidence is outright dismissed or attacked. On the other side of the coin, they don't feel that they need evidence for their claims, or that their evidence is being ignored by those who disbelieve, or one of many other shaky arguments. With dogmatism, our ideas never change, only the excuses we make for them do.
So which system is more objective and neutral? One that modifies it's ideas based on the available evidence and proposes new ideas from the same? Or one that holds to the same ideas and ignores evidence altogether? You decide.
Tuesday 30 October 2012
Saturday 27 October 2012
Here's a point we should all agree on - perhaps for different reasons, but nevertheless. The Universe. It's an amazing place, no matter how you look at it. Enormous spheres of continuous nuclear fusion scattered across space throw their light on interstellar dustclouds bigger than the solar system, onto giant gas planets covered in constantly raging storms, and even have it devoured by the inescapable gravitation of a black holes.
But what about our place in it? Most religions tell us to limit our view to this world. To them, it was specifically created, we were specifically created, and the rest of the universe is mainly scenery (I will note here that some religious groups, such as Mormons, have it as an explicit part of their doctrine that there is life on other planets.) Events of ultimate importance, they say, took place here - the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of Mohammed, the various children of Zeus, whatever. The various superbeings that they believe control reality all focus their efforts here, doing whatever it is they do.
But why would we think that? Earth is, on the grand scheme of things, insignificant. To us it is of vital importance, but if the planet were to vanish tomorrow, the universe at large would keep running the same as it had been. We are one planet orbiting one star in one galaxy. There are more than 7 trillion galaxies - large or dwarf - and more than 30 billion trillion stars (3*10^22) in the observable universe. So what makes us special? Nothing. Why would a creator god need to make so much extra stuff, if he has the power to create a universe? It doesn't make sense.
But what about our place in it? Most religions tell us to limit our view to this world. To them, it was specifically created, we were specifically created, and the rest of the universe is mainly scenery (I will note here that some religious groups, such as Mormons, have it as an explicit part of their doctrine that there is life on other planets.) Events of ultimate importance, they say, took place here - the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of Mohammed, the various children of Zeus, whatever. The various superbeings that they believe control reality all focus their efforts here, doing whatever it is they do.
But why would we think that? Earth is, on the grand scheme of things, insignificant. To us it is of vital importance, but if the planet were to vanish tomorrow, the universe at large would keep running the same as it had been. We are one planet orbiting one star in one galaxy. There are more than 7 trillion galaxies - large or dwarf - and more than 30 billion trillion stars (3*10^22) in the observable universe. So what makes us special? Nothing. Why would a creator god need to make so much extra stuff, if he has the power to create a universe? It doesn't make sense.
Friday 26 October 2012
Whoacrap, missed some days. No excuses this time, it just slipped my mind. Shut up.
Today we'll talk about respect, where it applies, and what people think they have to respect. I'll begin with a short statement. I respect the right of an individual to believe what they choose. I would even be willing to stand up for this right, even though I may disagree with the belief itself. The right to free thought is one of the most important rights.
However, I am under no obligation to respect the beliefs themselves. If they are unjustified, it is my right to say that. If they're ridiculous, then I can point this out. This is the core of free speech - to be able to say what others may not want to hear. People who oppose my beliefs are more than welcome to rebut my comments, or to make some of their own - they have exactly as much right to say what they want as I do. But the same process applies again - I will not hesitate to point out flaws in what they are saying.
Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are well established as basic rights. What isn't - and shouldn't be - established is freedom of action. Morally, you are free to think that homosexuality is bad, you are free to say homosexuality is bad but you are not free to enact legislation discriminating against them. You are not free to use your words to incite action against them. In a counterexample, I'm free to think religion is bad, I'm free to say it's bad, but I cannot legislate or incite action against religious people.
And if you dare claim otherwise, you'd better have some solid basis, or else I will tear your argument to shreds. I have even heard suggestions (from the US, where else) that preventing christians from discriminating against homosexuals is persecution. No. When your organisation doesn't have to pay taxes, is often automatically consulted in the public arena on any matters of ethics, has unparalleled access to world leaders, receives large donations from the rich and has entire governments listen to it's pronouncements...
You. Are. Not. Being. Fucking. Persecuted.
Today we'll talk about respect, where it applies, and what people think they have to respect. I'll begin with a short statement. I respect the right of an individual to believe what they choose. I would even be willing to stand up for this right, even though I may disagree with the belief itself. The right to free thought is one of the most important rights.
However, I am under no obligation to respect the beliefs themselves. If they are unjustified, it is my right to say that. If they're ridiculous, then I can point this out. This is the core of free speech - to be able to say what others may not want to hear. People who oppose my beliefs are more than welcome to rebut my comments, or to make some of their own - they have exactly as much right to say what they want as I do. But the same process applies again - I will not hesitate to point out flaws in what they are saying.
Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are well established as basic rights. What isn't - and shouldn't be - established is freedom of action. Morally, you are free to think that homosexuality is bad, you are free to say homosexuality is bad but you are not free to enact legislation discriminating against them. You are not free to use your words to incite action against them. In a counterexample, I'm free to think religion is bad, I'm free to say it's bad, but I cannot legislate or incite action against religious people.
And if you dare claim otherwise, you'd better have some solid basis, or else I will tear your argument to shreds. I have even heard suggestions (from the US, where else) that preventing christians from discriminating against homosexuals is persecution. No. When your organisation doesn't have to pay taxes, is often automatically consulted in the public arena on any matters of ethics, has unparalleled access to world leaders, receives large donations from the rich and has entire governments listen to it's pronouncements...
You. Are. Not. Being. Fucking. Persecuted.
Wednesday 24 October 2012
From carm.org, questions by Matt Slick. Warning - this guy is a total fuckwit. Seriously, avoid the site. He's a homophobic idiot whose reasoning skills are far smaller than his truly titanic ego.
How would you define atheism?
How would you define atheism?
As having the position of not believing in claims that a god exists
Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in
God)?
God)?
False dilemma. My stance on the existence or not of god doesn't drive my actions. My stance on
other issues, such as people trying to force religion on me, does.
other issues, such as people trying to force religion on me, does.
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?
Nobody is trying to show God doesn't exist. What we are trying to show is that there are no good reasons to believe in one. Different things
How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
Reasonably sure.
How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
Atheism is only taking the position that you do not believe a god exists, not that you believe that no god exists. We're disbelieving your claim, not making one of our own.
How would you define what truth is?
Truth is that which is based on, grounded in, and reflected by that which we perceive to be real. No, you don't perceive your god to be real. That would take EVIDENCE, something you seem not to understand.
Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold? Because theism is unjustifiable. Easy.
Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold? Because theism is unjustifiable. Easy.
Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?
Physicalist.
Physicalist.
Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Atheism is not a worldview because it is only a rejection of a specific category of claims - that gods exist. Is the non-belief in pixies a worldview?
Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Because you try and shove your stupid religion down our throats, make laws based upon it, and practice discrimination against social groups with no moral standing whatsoever.
If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
I never was, but I can tell you why I deny his existence. Because the christian god, as defined, CANNOT exist. It's a logical impossibility. No all caring god would create hell, for a start. I've got more, but I'm only going to type this for so long.
Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
Yes.
Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Yes.
Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
No, but I believe it's unjustified.
Must God be known through the scientific method?
To be proven to exist, yes. The bible is not good enough, personal experience is not good enough, arguments based in their entirety on a single logical fallacy are not good enough. We need proof.
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 he's immaterial, then he can't interact with reality. If he can't interact with reality he doesn't exist. QED
Do we have any purpose as human beings?
Nope. Not inherently.
If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
We can choose our own purpose. That is what makes life worth living.
Where does morality come from?
Our minds.
Are there moral absolutes?
Nope.
If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?
See above.
Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?
Not in the metaphysical sense, but there are actions that I find to be abhorrent, which I judge to fall into a category that I name evil.
If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
By the standards of my own conscience. I just don't think that genocide, child murder, rape in marriage, and slavery are things that are morally good.
What would it take for you to believe in God?
Demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence of an event that could not possibly be explained any other way than a creator deity.
What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
Demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence of an event that could not possibly be explained any other way than a creator deity.
Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?
Present it and then we'll see.
Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
I think that issue is too complex to answer either way.
Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion [sic]).
I believe in the perception of free will. The future is not determined (see quantum mechanics), therefore we perceive the outcome as being a result of free will. Whether or not we truly have free will is, in my view, not yet determined, and possibly unknowable.
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?
I don't take a position on the existence or not of free will.
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?
Why would a physical thing randomly stop obeying physical laws? Even ignoring that, something that does not exist in space or time cannot be said to exist at all!
If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
We're done here. Moron.
Nope. Not inherently.
If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
We can choose our own purpose. That is what makes life worth living.
Where does morality come from?
Our minds.
Are there moral absolutes?
Nope.
If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?
See above.
Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?
Not in the metaphysical sense, but there are actions that I find to be abhorrent, which I judge to fall into a category that I name evil.
If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
By the standards of my own conscience. I just don't think that genocide, child murder, rape in marriage, and slavery are things that are morally good.
What would it take for you to believe in God?
Demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence of an event that could not possibly be explained any other way than a creator deity.
What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
Demonstrable, testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence of an event that could not possibly be explained any other way than a creator deity.
Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?
Present it and then we'll see.
Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
I think that issue is too complex to answer either way.
Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion [sic]).
I believe in the perception of free will. The future is not determined (see quantum mechanics), therefore we perceive the outcome as being a result of free will. Whether or not we truly have free will is, in my view, not yet determined, and possibly unknowable.
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?
I don't take a position on the existence or not of free will.
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?
Why would a physical thing randomly stop obeying physical laws? Even ignoring that, something that does not exist in space or time cannot be said to exist at all!
If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
We're done here. Moron.
Aaaaaaand the last ones. Finally! I could feel my braincells dying one by one reading these questions.
41. There are many skeptics who didn’t believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.
The existence of converts is not evidence for the existence of god. Just like the existence of people who think aliens exist is not evidence for the existence of aliens.
42. Albert Einstein said; “A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'." - Albert Einstein
43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. “Who threw that?” He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; “No-one threw it – it threw itself!”
An unsubstantiated anecdotal account of a suicidal self-propelled vegetable is not evidence for the existence of god. Duh.
44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.
It's easier to believe that subatomic things are either particles or waves. It's also wrong - subatomic things have properties of both waves and particles. Just because something is easier to believe doesn't make it correct.
45. Stephen Hawkins [sic] has admitted; “Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?”
Where did he admit this? And the bible says nothing of why the universe was created either. At least science has an approximately accurate view on when and how the universe began.
46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.
So? That's just circular reasoning - you assume that god exists and try to use that to prove that god exists.
47. If we are the product of evolution – by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?
This again.
48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!
Many different species of what we think of as 'missing links' have already been found. Besides, this just goes back to the "Evolutionary theory might not be right (even though it is), therefore God" argument that's been popping up all the time.
49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?
Why doesn't he simply do something to prove his existence? As we've seen so far, to call the evidence incredibly paltry is to exaggerate to the extreme! Many of these arguments are based on logical fallacies or are just outright attacks!
50.Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.
Or, he was partially or wholly fictional, maybe?
41. There are many skeptics who didn’t believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.
The existence of converts is not evidence for the existence of god. Just like the existence of people who think aliens exist is not evidence for the existence of aliens.
42. Albert Einstein said; “A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'." - Albert Einstein
43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. “Who threw that?” He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; “No-one threw it – it threw itself!”
An unsubstantiated anecdotal account of a suicidal self-propelled vegetable is not evidence for the existence of god. Duh.
44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.
It's easier to believe that subatomic things are either particles or waves. It's also wrong - subatomic things have properties of both waves and particles. Just because something is easier to believe doesn't make it correct.
45. Stephen Hawkins [sic] has admitted; “Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?”
Where did he admit this? And the bible says nothing of why the universe was created either. At least science has an approximately accurate view on when and how the universe began.
46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.
So? That's just circular reasoning - you assume that god exists and try to use that to prove that god exists.
47. If we are the product of evolution – by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?
This again.
48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!
Many different species of what we think of as 'missing links' have already been found. Besides, this just goes back to the "Evolutionary theory might not be right (even though it is), therefore God" argument that's been popping up all the time.
49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?
Why doesn't he simply do something to prove his existence? As we've seen so far, to call the evidence incredibly paltry is to exaggerate to the extreme! Many of these arguments are based on logical fallacies or are just outright attacks!
50.Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.
Or, he was partially or wholly fictional, maybe?
Monday 22 October 2012
And even more!
31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.
Eyewitness accounts written 40 years after? Life expectancy in those days meant that if you lived to 50, you were VERY old. And with all the strife about heresies and apocryphal texts, confusion and anger is an accurate representation of what happened. Does this mean they aren't true?
32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological [sic] evidence to confirm many details we’re provided with in the Bible.
In the future, there will be archaeological evidence of New York, and the Spider-man comics are set there. Does this prove that Spider-man exists? Of course it doesn't. Just because there is archaeological evidence for some of the things in the bible does not mean that all the bible is true.
33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.
Yes, there can. Here's a list.
34. The evidence from liturature [sic] & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.
There is no evidence that anything of the supernatural things written about in the bible happened. In fact, not a single non-biblical or non-church source verifies any of it.
35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.
So what if some scientists were christian? That doesn't prove the religion true. See the oppression of Galileo, Copernicus and others, and even your own comments on evolution for counterexamples.
36. Science can explain ‘how’ something works, but not ‘why’ something works.
Why presupposes a narrative, something which reality lacks. So the question is not relevant.
37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present ‘discoveries’ may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.
And this is EXACTLY why science is a more accurate picture of the universe than religion.
38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn’t explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.
Actually, it doesn't. Abiogenesis is the description of how life started, not evolution. And again, why presupposes a narrative. Plus many of your own arguments have been attempting to discredit evolution to prove god, which is entirely fallacious. Evolution has been proven, and god has not. Simple as that.
39. The two people who discovered Jesus’ empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn’t – we’re left with the historical & Biblical truth.
So what? What if they went into the wrong tomb? What about graverobbers? What if the people who wrote were just lying about the whole thing? Why must you assume the bible is accurate, despite the fact there is mountains of evidence to the contrary?
40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It’s naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn’t have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing “a dream”. We’re not silly – we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.
Obviously you have no imagination then, if you think you need eyes to generate visuals. You've never pictured something in your head? Besides that, you still haven't given me any evidence that any of that happened.
31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.
Eyewitness accounts written 40 years after? Life expectancy in those days meant that if you lived to 50, you were VERY old. And with all the strife about heresies and apocryphal texts, confusion and anger is an accurate representation of what happened. Does this mean they aren't true?
32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological [sic] evidence to confirm many details we’re provided with in the Bible.
In the future, there will be archaeological evidence of New York, and the Spider-man comics are set there. Does this prove that Spider-man exists? Of course it doesn't. Just because there is archaeological evidence for some of the things in the bible does not mean that all the bible is true.
33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.
Yes, there can. Here's a list.
34. The evidence from liturature [sic] & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.
There is no evidence that anything of the supernatural things written about in the bible happened. In fact, not a single non-biblical or non-church source verifies any of it.
35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.
So what if some scientists were christian? That doesn't prove the religion true. See the oppression of Galileo, Copernicus and others, and even your own comments on evolution for counterexamples.
36. Science can explain ‘how’ something works, but not ‘why’ something works.
Why presupposes a narrative, something which reality lacks. So the question is not relevant.
37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present ‘discoveries’ may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.
And this is EXACTLY why science is a more accurate picture of the universe than religion.
38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn’t explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.
Actually, it doesn't. Abiogenesis is the description of how life started, not evolution. And again, why presupposes a narrative. Plus many of your own arguments have been attempting to discredit evolution to prove god, which is entirely fallacious. Evolution has been proven, and god has not. Simple as that.
39. The two people who discovered Jesus’ empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn’t – we’re left with the historical & Biblical truth.
So what? What if they went into the wrong tomb? What about graverobbers? What if the people who wrote were just lying about the whole thing? Why must you assume the bible is accurate, despite the fact there is mountains of evidence to the contrary?
40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It’s naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn’t have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing “a dream”. We’re not silly – we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.
Obviously you have no imagination then, if you think you need eyes to generate visuals. You've never pictured something in your head? Besides that, you still haven't given me any evidence that any of that happened.
Sunday 21 October 2012
Another 10 from that list
21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!
This is arguing against reason 12 from the last post. Just because you think it's absurd doesn't make it wrong. I know quantum mechanics feels absurd, but it's an accurate - up to a point - representation of what we perceive to be reality.
22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.
I plug my computer, which requires electricity, in to the socket, and it works. I have evidence that it does - I can operate the device that demonstrably depends on it. But no matter how hard you will it, "supernatural God forces" won't power it.
23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.
Matter can organise itself - crystals are a prime example. And again, for what feels like the millionth time I've said this, EVOLUTION IS A FACT. DEAL WITH IT.
24. Our ‘inventor’ of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; “I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire – people made a religion of them.” Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. “What shall I speak about?” She asked. He replied; “Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?”
This is ignoring the fact that that could have easily been sarcasm. Plus this story seems to be apocryphal - there is no evidence that any of it happened.
25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we’ve no-one to be accountable to.
Why can't we be accountable to those around us? And if you thought there was no God, would you go around murdering and raping all the time? If not, then you don't need a God to be moral. And if so, you are a scociopath.
26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn’t he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.
We are actually still animals - the idea that we are somehow separate from them is baseless. What does civilised mean? Are we really civilised? And why should that fact influence our belief in a god?
27. ‘Chance’ isn’t the cause of something. It just describes what we can’t find a reason for.
Strawman ahoy! Chance is merely what we say when an event is probabilistic in nature - that the outcomes are either intrinsically too complicated for us to work out, such as atmospheric turbulence, or that the event is inherently random, such as whether a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay.
28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers – many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.
Just because many people think they are aware of these "forces" does not mean they exist. Even ignoring that, just because we have no control over something does not mean science applies. We have a pretty good understanding of how black holes form, but we can't make one.
29. Look at the date/year on our calender – 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus’ existence.
No. No they don't. Show me some contemporary accounts of this Jesus guy, and then we'll talk.
30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!
They didn't think it was a lie, did they? Nazis died for their ideology, so by that same argument their ideals must have been true.
21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!
This is arguing against reason 12 from the last post. Just because you think it's absurd doesn't make it wrong. I know quantum mechanics feels absurd, but it's an accurate - up to a point - representation of what we perceive to be reality.
22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.
I plug my computer, which requires electricity, in to the socket, and it works. I have evidence that it does - I can operate the device that demonstrably depends on it. But no matter how hard you will it, "supernatural God forces" won't power it.
23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.
Matter can organise itself - crystals are a prime example. And again, for what feels like the millionth time I've said this, EVOLUTION IS A FACT. DEAL WITH IT.
24. Our ‘inventor’ of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; “I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire – people made a religion of them.” Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. “What shall I speak about?” She asked. He replied; “Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?”
This is ignoring the fact that that could have easily been sarcasm. Plus this story seems to be apocryphal - there is no evidence that any of it happened.
25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we’ve no-one to be accountable to.
Why can't we be accountable to those around us? And if you thought there was no God, would you go around murdering and raping all the time? If not, then you don't need a God to be moral. And if so, you are a scociopath.
26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn’t he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.
We are actually still animals - the idea that we are somehow separate from them is baseless. What does civilised mean? Are we really civilised? And why should that fact influence our belief in a god?
27. ‘Chance’ isn’t the cause of something. It just describes what we can’t find a reason for.
Strawman ahoy! Chance is merely what we say when an event is probabilistic in nature - that the outcomes are either intrinsically too complicated for us to work out, such as atmospheric turbulence, or that the event is inherently random, such as whether a particular atom will undergo radioactive decay.
28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers – many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.
Just because many people think they are aware of these "forces" does not mean they exist. Even ignoring that, just because we have no control over something does not mean science applies. We have a pretty good understanding of how black holes form, but we can't make one.
29. Look at the date/year on our calender – 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus’ existence.
No. No they don't. Show me some contemporary accounts of this Jesus guy, and then we'll talk.
30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!
They didn't think it was a lie, did they? Nazis died for their ideology, so by that same argument their ideals must have been true.
Saturday 20 October 2012
Next ten!
11. What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don’t understand or know what came first. I don’t care – they both exist!
This actually refutes reason 4 from the last post. Ignoring that, eggs came first. Eggs were around long before the existence of birds, never mind chickens. Plus the statement at the end is still unproven - where is the evidence?
12. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.
Refutation of reason 5 from the last post. The first sentence also contains implicit special pleading - they want to apply it to the assertion of the existence of their god, but they wouldn't like it if I threw that logic back at them as a reason to believe in Odin or Cthulhu.
13. How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?
Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's impossible. Besides that, evolution is fact. Until you provide legitimate evidence to the contrary, it will stay that way.
14. How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?
Why can't consciousness emerge from individual unconscious elements? Aeroplanes fly, but we don't expect individual nuts and bolts to fly, do we? In the same way, the emergent process of consciousness does not require individual conscious parts.
15. What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we’re supplied with?
Hurrrr, this one is easy. If we couldn't eat or drink, the species wouldn't have lived past a week. Of course food and drink are suitable for our consumption - it's a bit like finding out that our skulls are just the right size to fit our brains in.Well, duh.
16. Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we’re provided with.
Again, of course we can. If we couldn't, the species couldn't survive, hence we wouldn't be here to discuss this. Why is it surprising to think that we have qualities that help us survive? Does this mean that the existence of blind and deaf people mean you shouldn't believe in god?
17. What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?
18. What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?
19. What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?
20. What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?
Yet more of these arguments. Look, now I'll just point you to the anthropic princple. That should clear this up. Even discounting those easy explanations, that is still only a "god of the gaps" argument.
11. What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don’t understand or know what came first. I don’t care – they both exist!
This actually refutes reason 4 from the last post. Ignoring that, eggs came first. Eggs were around long before the existence of birds, never mind chickens. Plus the statement at the end is still unproven - where is the evidence?
12. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.
Refutation of reason 5 from the last post. The first sentence also contains implicit special pleading - they want to apply it to the assertion of the existence of their god, but they wouldn't like it if I threw that logic back at them as a reason to believe in Odin or Cthulhu.
13. How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?
Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's impossible. Besides that, evolution is fact. Until you provide legitimate evidence to the contrary, it will stay that way.
14. How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?
Why can't consciousness emerge from individual unconscious elements? Aeroplanes fly, but we don't expect individual nuts and bolts to fly, do we? In the same way, the emergent process of consciousness does not require individual conscious parts.
15. What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we’re supplied with?
Hurrrr, this one is easy. If we couldn't eat or drink, the species wouldn't have lived past a week. Of course food and drink are suitable for our consumption - it's a bit like finding out that our skulls are just the right size to fit our brains in.Well, duh.
16. Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we’re provided with.
Again, of course we can. If we couldn't, the species couldn't survive, hence we wouldn't be here to discuss this. Why is it surprising to think that we have qualities that help us survive? Does this mean that the existence of blind and deaf people mean you shouldn't believe in god?
17. What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?
18. What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?
19. What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?
20. What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?
Yet more of these arguments. Look, now I'll just point you to the anthropic princple. That should clear this up. Even discounting those easy explanations, that is still only a "god of the gaps" argument.
Friday 19 October 2012
Sometimes, I get email. This particular one was sent to me as a laugh. "50 proofs of God". Now with commentary! I'll split this one up into a few parts, mainly because I'm lazy.
It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
- Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.
Yep. It's the evolutionary process. Who said the designer had to be sentient, singular or supernatural? - How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine – I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.
We only have your word that that happened at all, and no reason to believe you without evidence. Even if you did see a ghost, that doesn't prove the existence of your god. - Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?
Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to supernatural intervention regarding any outcome? Confirmation bias ahoy! - The law of cause & effect – in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.
It's actually "When an effect is caused, the cause must occur before the effect." That is causality. It does not imply that every effect must have a cause. - Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.
A random sequence is as complex as is possible, as there is no pattern, and the writer agreed in point one that random sequences occur naturally. Besides, inserting a god only leads to special pleading as the theists claim their god can't have the rules applied. If the rules don't always apply, then why not just assume they didn't apply to the beginning of the universe, and that the universe emerged spontaneously uncaused? - Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.
Those things do consist of matter in the brain, and we may not be able to directly examine them yet, there's no reason to assume it's impossible. - Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the ‘theory of evolution’. It’s a fairy tale for grown ups!
A theist accusing something else of being a fairy tale for grown ups? Hooray for hypocrisy. By the way, evolution is demonstrably true - organisms have indeed changed over time. It's still a theory because that is what you call a predictive model. - Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no ‘good news’ to preach in atheism.
We don't have faith. This is a common mistake. We have reasonable expectations based on empirical evidence. The very fact that we have not witnessed anything is WHY we don't believe. And believers haven't witnessed anything either. Were they there at the supposed resurrection of Jesus? OF course not. - How much of the atheist’s faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?
See my last point on faith. And how can we be angry at something we don't think exists? Are you angry with unicorns? - Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don’t believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don’t they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don’t they leave this ‘God nonsense’ alone?
We rant and rave because you try and shove your bullshit down our throats, and try to influence political decisions using said bullshit. Even if this were not the case, the assumption that we don't have lives is an ad hominiem, and tells us nothing about the existence of your god.
Wednesday 17 October 2012
Sorry about the lack of posting - a combination of sickness and business has kept me away from posting.
This is what I'll be taking apart for today : This article. I won't be taking a position on satanism, mainly due to lack of knowledge, but I will definitely show the flaws with his arguments against atheists.
First off, the writer states that atheism automatically implies philosophical materialism. All atheism implies is the lack of belief in gods, nothing else. Yes, some atheists are philosophical materialists because both positions can extend from and are supported by skeptical inquiry. However, a person who doesn't believe in gods but thinks that their house is haunted by a ghost is an atheist, but not a philosophical materialist. Atheist is a larger category that philosophical materialist.
The very next paragraph, he asserts that atheists deny YHVH. Again, not necessarily true. Weak atheism is simply the position that they do not believe the claim that gods (in this case, the Judeo-christian one) exists, not the assertion that they do not. That is strong atheism. Again, the writer demonstrates that either they are not familiar with the terms or they are merely presenting a strawman because they cannot address the position of weak atheism.
In the same line as the previous statement, he asserts that atheists are angry with YHVH. He seems to think that it is logically inconsistent to believe something doesn't exist and be angry with it at the same time. This is a complete non-sequitur, and a blatant one at that. Is he angry with Santa Claus? Or the tooth fairy? The very next line, he makes a similar comment on sin. We don't believe in sin, yet we somehow celebrate it? I don't see how this conclusion could be reached.
His next implication is one I agree with - that atheists do not have an absolute ethical foundation. Of course not. There would be no basis for one in reality. But an inflexible and absolute ethical system based on a book written by unknown authors thousands of years ago is a much worse system than a non-absolute secular-derived system based upon reality. Times change, new information comes in, so ethics must change with them.
Later on, he claims that "Large atheist meetings feature cult of personality hero worship..." and similar claims. This is a tactic often employed by people who attack atheism. They say that atheism is not so different from religion. It all goes back to the flaw of thinking that atheism is, basically, a religion. The idea is that because all Christians worship a god, that because some atheists engage in hero worship, all do, or that because some atheists treat science like dogma, all go.
But atheism, as I have stated before, is merely the position of not believing in a god. It does not imply anything else. And until they figure that out, their arguments will still be based on flawed premises and hence be unsound. Every time.
This is what I'll be taking apart for today : This article. I won't be taking a position on satanism, mainly due to lack of knowledge, but I will definitely show the flaws with his arguments against atheists.
First off, the writer states that atheism automatically implies philosophical materialism. All atheism implies is the lack of belief in gods, nothing else. Yes, some atheists are philosophical materialists because both positions can extend from and are supported by skeptical inquiry. However, a person who doesn't believe in gods but thinks that their house is haunted by a ghost is an atheist, but not a philosophical materialist. Atheist is a larger category that philosophical materialist.
The very next paragraph, he asserts that atheists deny YHVH. Again, not necessarily true. Weak atheism is simply the position that they do not believe the claim that gods (in this case, the Judeo-christian one) exists, not the assertion that they do not. That is strong atheism. Again, the writer demonstrates that either they are not familiar with the terms or they are merely presenting a strawman because they cannot address the position of weak atheism.
In the same line as the previous statement, he asserts that atheists are angry with YHVH. He seems to think that it is logically inconsistent to believe something doesn't exist and be angry with it at the same time. This is a complete non-sequitur, and a blatant one at that. Is he angry with Santa Claus? Or the tooth fairy? The very next line, he makes a similar comment on sin. We don't believe in sin, yet we somehow celebrate it? I don't see how this conclusion could be reached.
His next implication is one I agree with - that atheists do not have an absolute ethical foundation. Of course not. There would be no basis for one in reality. But an inflexible and absolute ethical system based on a book written by unknown authors thousands of years ago is a much worse system than a non-absolute secular-derived system based upon reality. Times change, new information comes in, so ethics must change with them.
Later on, he claims that "Large atheist meetings feature cult of personality hero worship..." and similar claims. This is a tactic often employed by people who attack atheism. They say that atheism is not so different from religion. It all goes back to the flaw of thinking that atheism is, basically, a religion. The idea is that because all Christians worship a god, that because some atheists engage in hero worship, all do, or that because some atheists treat science like dogma, all go.
But atheism, as I have stated before, is merely the position of not believing in a god. It does not imply anything else. And until they figure that out, their arguments will still be based on flawed premises and hence be unsound. Every time.
Friday 12 October 2012
Do you believe in sky pixies?
You really should believe in sky pixies! I've got this neat book that talks all about them. I haven't read it thoroughly, but my friend tells me it's got some really great stuff. This book is really old, and tells you how to live your life. We can't listen to all of it though, some of it is just a bit silly or outdated. But it's the truth, I swear! Besides, these sky pixies like it when you believe in them. In fact, they invite you to live with them in their castles in the sky when you die if you believe they exist! But these pixies also know that bad people deserve to be hurt forever. If you don't want to believe in these sky pixies, that makes you a bad person. You don't want to be bad, do you?
Besides, if there were no sky pixies, how would we know what was bad and what was good? The Book of Sky Pixies makes it all so clear! Just follow most of the rules in there - although not many of the old ones - and you'll be guaranteed to live with the sky pixies when you die! Anyway, do you think rainbows happen on their own? That dew spreads itself over everything? I can't think of any other way for those to happen.
One thing though... The Book of Sky Pixies tell us that some types of people are always bad. These people can never go to live with the sky pixies unless they stop doing those really bad things, and start doing what the Book of Sky Pixies says to do. If they don't, they go to the hurting place forever. So we should make laws, to save people from being hurt forever when they die. The Sky Pixies would like that!
This is what religious claims sound like to me.
You really should believe in sky pixies! I've got this neat book that talks all about them. I haven't read it thoroughly, but my friend tells me it's got some really great stuff. This book is really old, and tells you how to live your life. We can't listen to all of it though, some of it is just a bit silly or outdated. But it's the truth, I swear! Besides, these sky pixies like it when you believe in them. In fact, they invite you to live with them in their castles in the sky when you die if you believe they exist! But these pixies also know that bad people deserve to be hurt forever. If you don't want to believe in these sky pixies, that makes you a bad person. You don't want to be bad, do you?
Besides, if there were no sky pixies, how would we know what was bad and what was good? The Book of Sky Pixies makes it all so clear! Just follow most of the rules in there - although not many of the old ones - and you'll be guaranteed to live with the sky pixies when you die! Anyway, do you think rainbows happen on their own? That dew spreads itself over everything? I can't think of any other way for those to happen.
One thing though... The Book of Sky Pixies tell us that some types of people are always bad. These people can never go to live with the sky pixies unless they stop doing those really bad things, and start doing what the Book of Sky Pixies says to do. If they don't, they go to the hurting place forever. So we should make laws, to save people from being hurt forever when they die. The Sky Pixies would like that!
This is what religious claims sound like to me.
Wednesday 10 October 2012
Scientology. Hoo boy. Where to start? First off, I'll say this. I don't like Scientology. Actually, I think it's an obvious cult that uses horrible coercive techniques and frivolous lawsuits to advance it's cause.
So what do they actually believe? (Any actual scientologists that have not reached OTIII will want to look away now. Actually, on second thoughts, read it. Maybe you'll realise how stupid your shitty cult is)
Evil alien called Xenu used psychiatrists to call in billions of people for tax inspections, where they were instead drugged and kidnapped. He took them all to Earth in space DC-8s and stacked them around volcanoes, whence he nuked them. He then captured their souls using special electronic traps. He then showed these souls propaganda videos to make them believe in mainstream religions. This caused them to bundle together in groups of a few thousand each to cram into the same bodies because so few people were left alive. Xenu was then overthrown and imprisoned in a forcefield powered by an eternal battery. Today, 75 million years later, he's still alive.
Yes, this is actually the core of their doctrine. You just can't make this shit up. Well, actually, you can... Here's a selection of quotes from the founder of Scientology
"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard
"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!" - L. Ron Hubbard, again
"Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!" - Guess who? L. Ron Hubbard
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion." - Hey look! It's this L. Ron Hubbard guy again!
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." - L. Ron Fucking Hubbard.
Well, have a look at that. Kinda makes you see it in a new light, doesn't it? Actually, probably not, but now at least you have some evidence.
I don't want to write too much on this, mainly because it's been covered better and more in depth elsewhere. Goto http://www.xenu.net/ if you want to find out more about the cult.
So what do they actually believe? (Any actual scientologists that have not reached OTIII will want to look away now. Actually, on second thoughts, read it. Maybe you'll realise how stupid your shitty cult is)
Evil alien called Xenu used psychiatrists to call in billions of people for tax inspections, where they were instead drugged and kidnapped. He took them all to Earth in space DC-8s and stacked them around volcanoes, whence he nuked them. He then captured their souls using special electronic traps. He then showed these souls propaganda videos to make them believe in mainstream religions. This caused them to bundle together in groups of a few thousand each to cram into the same bodies because so few people were left alive. Xenu was then overthrown and imprisoned in a forcefield powered by an eternal battery. Today, 75 million years later, he's still alive.
Yes, this is actually the core of their doctrine. You just can't make this shit up. Well, actually, you can... Here's a selection of quotes from the founder of Scientology
"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard
"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!" - L. Ron Hubbard, again
"Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!" - Guess who? L. Ron Hubbard
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion." - Hey look! It's this L. Ron Hubbard guy again!
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." - L. Ron Fucking Hubbard.
Well, have a look at that. Kinda makes you see it in a new light, doesn't it? Actually, probably not, but now at least you have some evidence.
I don't want to write too much on this, mainly because it's been covered better and more in depth elsewhere. Goto http://www.xenu.net/ if you want to find out more about the cult.
Sunday 7 October 2012
Deism. The idea that a deity "wound the key that drives the universe and let it go". This deity created the universe, but does not interact with it.
Deism is much harder to address than theism. It rejects the notions of supernatural events and of holy scriptures, making it a much more rational belief system than theism. These rejections also mean that deism, much like atheism, has no real doctrine or dogma. All of these things are definitely a more reasonable way of looking at the universe than theism. However, the basic premises are still flawed.
First of all, it has not been demonstrated that it is in any way necessary - or even possible - for the creation of the universe to have an intelligence behind it. After all, intelligence is an emergent property based on incredibly complex interactions of chemicals in the human brain. We cannot yet even say it exists elsewhere in the universe. But we do know that it arises out of measurable physical reactions grounded in naturalistic physical principles. Why then is it asserted that an intelligence can exist separate from these principles? To exclude it from requiring these principles to exist in the first place is merely making a fallacy of special pleading.
Secondly, many deists also assert that "Reason" (capitalisation theirs) is the basis for their beliefs. However, by the classical definition of the word, someone who uses reason is rational. And there can be no rational justification for the belief in a creator deity, even a non-interventionist one. An application of Occam's Razor on the opposing arguments can show this.
With deity1.1 It is possible for something to exist outside a universe
1.2 It is possible for something that exists oustide a universe to possess traits that exist inside a universe
1.3 A thing exists outside a universe
1.4 This thing possesses sentience
1.5 This thing is capable of action
1.6 This thing possesses power sufficient to cause a universe to come into existence
1.7 This thing possesses knowledge sufficient to cause a universe to come into existence
1.8 This thing possesses desire sufficient to cause a universe to come into existence
1.9 This thing possesses the intention to cause a universe to come into existence
1.10 This thing takes he action necessary to cause a universe to come into existence
1.11 This universe comes into existence
Without deity2.1 A universe is capable of coming into existence without a deity
2.2 This universe comes into existence
Both arguments explain the fact of the existence of the universe. Occam's Razor recommends the one that has the least assumptions in explaining this fact.
Finally, deism has one last point it comes up against. If a deity does not interact with the universe with supernatural events, only natural ones can be evidence of it's existence. Natural events occur as consequences of the physical properties of the universe they are in. What, then, distinguishes this non-interventionist deity with one that does not exist? Nothing does.
Deism is much harder to address than theism. It rejects the notions of supernatural events and of holy scriptures, making it a much more rational belief system than theism. These rejections also mean that deism, much like atheism, has no real doctrine or dogma. All of these things are definitely a more reasonable way of looking at the universe than theism. However, the basic premises are still flawed.
First of all, it has not been demonstrated that it is in any way necessary - or even possible - for the creation of the universe to have an intelligence behind it. After all, intelligence is an emergent property based on incredibly complex interactions of chemicals in the human brain. We cannot yet even say it exists elsewhere in the universe. But we do know that it arises out of measurable physical reactions grounded in naturalistic physical principles. Why then is it asserted that an intelligence can exist separate from these principles? To exclude it from requiring these principles to exist in the first place is merely making a fallacy of special pleading.
Secondly, many deists also assert that "Reason" (capitalisation theirs) is the basis for their beliefs. However, by the classical definition of the word, someone who uses reason is rational. And there can be no rational justification for the belief in a creator deity, even a non-interventionist one. An application of Occam's Razor on the opposing arguments can show this.
With deity1.1 It is possible for something to exist outside a universe
1.2 It is possible for something that exists oustide a universe to possess traits that exist inside a universe
1.3 A thing exists outside a universe
1.4 This thing possesses sentience
1.5 This thing is capable of action
1.6 This thing possesses power sufficient to cause a universe to come into existence
1.7 This thing possesses knowledge sufficient to cause a universe to come into existence
1.8 This thing possesses desire sufficient to cause a universe to come into existence
1.9 This thing possesses the intention to cause a universe to come into existence
1.10 This thing takes he action necessary to cause a universe to come into existence
1.11 This universe comes into existence
Without deity2.1 A universe is capable of coming into existence without a deity
2.2 This universe comes into existence
Both arguments explain the fact of the existence of the universe. Occam's Razor recommends the one that has the least assumptions in explaining this fact.
Finally, deism has one last point it comes up against. If a deity does not interact with the universe with supernatural events, only natural ones can be evidence of it's existence. Natural events occur as consequences of the physical properties of the universe they are in. What, then, distinguishes this non-interventionist deity with one that does not exist? Nothing does.
Saturday 6 October 2012
On to a more general skeptical topic now. Homeopathy. What bullshit. I don't think it can be said enough. There is not even a scrap of evidence it does any better than a placebo. I have never and will never understand why people think it works - it's water, face it!
For those lucky few not in the know for this topic, I'll give as good a summary as I can. Homeopathy is based on the idea of 'like cures like' - if a substance causes symptoms, it can be used to treat diseases that cause the same symptoms. This came from the fact that the founder of the modern homeopathic movement, Samuel Hahnemann, noticed that ingesting cinchona bark - an early treatment for malaria - produced similar symptoms to malaria itself. He then jumped immediately to the conclusion that it was this similarity of symptoms that was curative.
Now, since taking toxic substances undiluted is an idea so moronic that not even homeopaths would believe it, it was decided - for no clear reason - that the more diluted a solution was, the better it's curative effects. The degree of dilution recommended currently is such that you would need to consume 10^41 pills (a billion times the mass of the planet) or 3*10^34 litres of liquid solution (10 billion times the volume of the planet) to ingest a single molecule of the original substance. So, again - it's water!
"But Nathan, why is this so enraging for you? Why can't people believe it if they want to?"
That is very easy to answer. Because this idea is dangerous. It can cause people to not seek legitimate medical treatment, hence staying sicker for longer and infecting more people. Even for something as simple as the flu, if they believe their homeopathic treatment is working and refuse real treatment, it could cause their death. Or it could spread when it otherwise wouldn't have and cause the death of an elderly person. That is why this pisses me off so much. It's a matter of life and death.
For those lucky few not in the know for this topic, I'll give as good a summary as I can. Homeopathy is based on the idea of 'like cures like' - if a substance causes symptoms, it can be used to treat diseases that cause the same symptoms. This came from the fact that the founder of the modern homeopathic movement, Samuel Hahnemann, noticed that ingesting cinchona bark - an early treatment for malaria - produced similar symptoms to malaria itself. He then jumped immediately to the conclusion that it was this similarity of symptoms that was curative.
Now, since taking toxic substances undiluted is an idea so moronic that not even homeopaths would believe it, it was decided - for no clear reason - that the more diluted a solution was, the better it's curative effects. The degree of dilution recommended currently is such that you would need to consume 10^41 pills (a billion times the mass of the planet) or 3*10^34 litres of liquid solution (10 billion times the volume of the planet) to ingest a single molecule of the original substance. So, again - it's water!
"But Nathan, why is this so enraging for you? Why can't people believe it if they want to?"
That is very easy to answer. Because this idea is dangerous. It can cause people to not seek legitimate medical treatment, hence staying sicker for longer and infecting more people. Even for something as simple as the flu, if they believe their homeopathic treatment is working and refuse real treatment, it could cause their death. Or it could spread when it otherwise wouldn't have and cause the death of an elderly person. That is why this pisses me off so much. It's a matter of life and death.
Friday 5 October 2012
Alrighty then, today's topic will be the burden of proof. You may have noticed that I mentioned it in yesterday's post to do with the argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is a major component of many atheists reasoning when it comes to god claims. A common fallacy fallen into by theists in a debate is to try to shift the burden of proof.
When it comes to existential claims - ranging from "I own a cat" to "God exists" - the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. However, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required. To look at the examples, the claim "I own a cat" is a relatively simple one to prove. Seeing a cat in the claimant's house with a collar on would satisfy most people, because the person owning a cat or not isn't something that has a great deal of importance.
But when it comes to the claim "God exists", the answer is much more important - indeed, the answer has implications for the fundamental nature of reality. Because of this, the standard of evidence is much, much higher. This means that presenting anecdotal evidence is meaningless - what one person thinks they have experienced is not enough. In fact, even if thousands of stories are presented is still not enough. We already know that human beings are fallible and prone to false assessments of reality - for many thousands of years, it was believed that the sun orbited the earth, which we know now is entirely false. Since anecdotal evidence is not sufficient, and there has never been any other actual evidence presented, theism has not met it's burden of proof.
A common response to this is "If you think there is no god, prove it!" This is merely a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. Atheism is what is called the 'null hypothesis', the default position. This is because, as with every claim that something exists, the default position is to disbelieve the claim until sufficient evidence is provided. The null hypothesis can never be proven, it can only be either disproven or not disproven. Atheism still stands at 'not disproven', and until there is evidence, will stay there.
When it comes to existential claims - ranging from "I own a cat" to "God exists" - the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. However, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required. To look at the examples, the claim "I own a cat" is a relatively simple one to prove. Seeing a cat in the claimant's house with a collar on would satisfy most people, because the person owning a cat or not isn't something that has a great deal of importance.
But when it comes to the claim "God exists", the answer is much more important - indeed, the answer has implications for the fundamental nature of reality. Because of this, the standard of evidence is much, much higher. This means that presenting anecdotal evidence is meaningless - what one person thinks they have experienced is not enough. In fact, even if thousands of stories are presented is still not enough. We already know that human beings are fallible and prone to false assessments of reality - for many thousands of years, it was believed that the sun orbited the earth, which we know now is entirely false. Since anecdotal evidence is not sufficient, and there has never been any other actual evidence presented, theism has not met it's burden of proof.
A common response to this is "If you think there is no god, prove it!" This is merely a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. Atheism is what is called the 'null hypothesis', the default position. This is because, as with every claim that something exists, the default position is to disbelieve the claim until sufficient evidence is provided. The null hypothesis can never be proven, it can only be either disproven or not disproven. Atheism still stands at 'not disproven', and until there is evidence, will stay there.
Thursday 4 October 2012
Today, we will talk about the argument from ignorance. How does this relate to this blogs (nominal, at least) topic? It's a common fallacy used by both theists and athiests - yes, I can and will take potshots at athiests if they are using faulty reasoning.
Wikipedia sums the argument from ignorance up thusly;
To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty.
The theistic use of the argument from ignorance generally falls under the first part - if a claim about the existence of a deity has not been disproven, then that deity exists. Note that usually proof is used to mean evidence, but can sometimes mean logical arguments such as I made in the first post - although mine were against the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity instead of a specific god claim.
Not only is that argument fallacious, it could also apply equally to all major religions. After all, the existence of Allah is just as unfalsifiable as the existence of Yahweh, just as unfalsifiable as the existence of Zeus. But very few theists would claim that all three exist! So this argument, even if it was sound, could not be used by any religion without allowing other deities to exist.
The atheistic - or more correctly, anti-theistic - use of the argument falls under the second part. Here it is often used to "prove" the assertion that it is certain there are no deities - if none have been proven, none exist. This time, the claim is falsifiable - all that would need to be done is to prove the existence of a deity and the claim would be false. But, as always, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, so it's up to them to prove the non-existence of unfalsifiable deities - an impossible task.
However, atheists in general can avoid this fallacy. Many atheists - myself included - don't assert that all deities are non-existent, but rather reject assertions that they do exist. Rejecting a claim is not the same as asserting the opposite. Since theists are making the claim, they have burden of proof. Since they have not fulfilled the burden of proof, we reject the claims. Simple as that.
Wikipedia sums the argument from ignorance up thusly;
- If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
- If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty.
The theistic use of the argument from ignorance generally falls under the first part - if a claim about the existence of a deity has not been disproven, then that deity exists. Note that usually proof is used to mean evidence, but can sometimes mean logical arguments such as I made in the first post - although mine were against the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity instead of a specific god claim.
Not only is that argument fallacious, it could also apply equally to all major religions. After all, the existence of Allah is just as unfalsifiable as the existence of Yahweh, just as unfalsifiable as the existence of Zeus. But very few theists would claim that all three exist! So this argument, even if it was sound, could not be used by any religion without allowing other deities to exist.
The atheistic - or more correctly, anti-theistic - use of the argument falls under the second part. Here it is often used to "prove" the assertion that it is certain there are no deities - if none have been proven, none exist. This time, the claim is falsifiable - all that would need to be done is to prove the existence of a deity and the claim would be false. But, as always, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, so it's up to them to prove the non-existence of unfalsifiable deities - an impossible task.
However, atheists in general can avoid this fallacy. Many atheists - myself included - don't assert that all deities are non-existent, but rather reject assertions that they do exist. Rejecting a claim is not the same as asserting the opposite. Since theists are making the claim, they have burden of proof. Since they have not fulfilled the burden of proof, we reject the claims. Simple as that.
Off the topic of religion for a bit an onto something else. Still something that people spend a lot of time thinking about, but certainly not as philosophical.
I caught up with someone I hadn't spoken to in a while today (no names will be given), and asked them if they were still with their girlfriend that they were with last time I saw them. The answer was that they had gone through 3 other girlfriends since then - this is about a year-ish. He then asked if I was still single, and when I said yes he asked why (this coming from a guy whose longest period of singledom for the time I knew him was less than a week, so I took this with a grain of salt)
The answer I gave him to that probably says a lot about me. In summary, I said that not only did I not feel that being single was not a bad thing, but I couldn't understand why other people thought that it was. The analogy I often use is that of ice cream. Ice cream is nice, and I enjoy it, but I don't need to have it. And during the times I don't have it, I never think I'm missing out. The same goes for a relationship. Why should it be the default state that being single is some sort of step down from? I just don't get it.
That isn't to say that I'm rarely attracted to someone, or that I don't often feel like finding a girlfriend. Hell, there's someone I'd like to ask out now. But rationally, I know that my wanting to stems not from a conscious assessment, but natural hormonal drives. So, I rule in favour of reason. If anybody was to convince me rationally that it would be a good idea, then I'd certainly consider it. But for the moment, my position will stay as it is. I don't need another person to complete me, as some people might believe. I'm perfectly capable of happiness in my own self.
I caught up with someone I hadn't spoken to in a while today (no names will be given), and asked them if they were still with their girlfriend that they were with last time I saw them. The answer was that they had gone through 3 other girlfriends since then - this is about a year-ish. He then asked if I was still single, and when I said yes he asked why (this coming from a guy whose longest period of singledom for the time I knew him was less than a week, so I took this with a grain of salt)
The answer I gave him to that probably says a lot about me. In summary, I said that not only did I not feel that being single was not a bad thing, but I couldn't understand why other people thought that it was. The analogy I often use is that of ice cream. Ice cream is nice, and I enjoy it, but I don't need to have it. And during the times I don't have it, I never think I'm missing out. The same goes for a relationship. Why should it be the default state that being single is some sort of step down from? I just don't get it.
That isn't to say that I'm rarely attracted to someone, or that I don't often feel like finding a girlfriend. Hell, there's someone I'd like to ask out now. But rationally, I know that my wanting to stems not from a conscious assessment, but natural hormonal drives. So, I rule in favour of reason. If anybody was to convince me rationally that it would be a good idea, then I'd certainly consider it. But for the moment, my position will stay as it is. I don't need another person to complete me, as some people might believe. I'm perfectly capable of happiness in my own self.
Wednesday 3 October 2012
Not sure how many or who read this, but I don't really care to be honest. It's more about putting my views out somewhere. In meatspace, I've only got one person I can talk to - feel comfortable talking to - about this sort of thing, and I don't get to do that nearly as much as I like. But enough about that
Yesterday I stated my reasons for not believing religious claims. I neglected to add that I also apply this reasoning to all supernatural or pseudo-scientific claims also - ghosts, ufology, homeopathy, and so on. But today I want to touch on how my skeptical views impact societal issues - more specifically, one particular issue. Same sex marriage. I use the word marriage here not in a religious sense, but in the sense of any civil union that has all the legal privileges that marriage possesses.
Basically, I can see no convincing reason it shouldn't be allowed. People's objections seem to be based on that old argument, "Think of the children!" For one thing, I have not yet seen any evidence that children raised by same sex couples have it any worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. For another, the argument that the children would be bullied for it is itself an example of the the prejudice that people have that causes the bullying in the first place.
Finally, the idea that if something is against your religion it should not be legal is asinine. Jewish people don't argue that pork or shrimp should be outlawed. Even Scientologists, batshit crazy as they are, aren't stupid enough to argue that psychologists should be illegal. And if either of those groups did argue those things, we would dismiss the idea that just because one religion has a belief that it should be imposed on non-believers also. So why do people think religious objections are valid in this case.
I'm not saying that their arguments hold no weight at all. They are perfectly welcome to forbid members of their own faith from participating in same sex marriages. But to impose this on others is not only wrong, but dangerous. Where would you draw the line? Once there is precedent that religious beliefs can hold legal weight, there is a huge risk of starting on a slippery slope, to a society where people can enforce their views on the unwilling in the name of "saving" them.
Same sex marriage. Why the fuck not?
Yesterday I stated my reasons for not believing religious claims. I neglected to add that I also apply this reasoning to all supernatural or pseudo-scientific claims also - ghosts, ufology, homeopathy, and so on. But today I want to touch on how my skeptical views impact societal issues - more specifically, one particular issue. Same sex marriage. I use the word marriage here not in a religious sense, but in the sense of any civil union that has all the legal privileges that marriage possesses.
Basically, I can see no convincing reason it shouldn't be allowed. People's objections seem to be based on that old argument, "Think of the children!" For one thing, I have not yet seen any evidence that children raised by same sex couples have it any worse than children raised by heterosexual couples. For another, the argument that the children would be bullied for it is itself an example of the the prejudice that people have that causes the bullying in the first place.
Finally, the idea that if something is against your religion it should not be legal is asinine. Jewish people don't argue that pork or shrimp should be outlawed. Even Scientologists, batshit crazy as they are, aren't stupid enough to argue that psychologists should be illegal. And if either of those groups did argue those things, we would dismiss the idea that just because one religion has a belief that it should be imposed on non-believers also. So why do people think religious objections are valid in this case.
I'm not saying that their arguments hold no weight at all. They are perfectly welcome to forbid members of their own faith from participating in same sex marriages. But to impose this on others is not only wrong, but dangerous. Where would you draw the line? Once there is precedent that religious beliefs can hold legal weight, there is a huge risk of starting on a slippery slope, to a society where people can enforce their views on the unwilling in the name of "saving" them.
Same sex marriage. Why the fuck not?
Tuesday 2 October 2012
First post
Test post, make sure it's all working.
Lets lay down the basics. There probably are no gods of any sort. No evidence to support them, they do not emerge as a consequence of any demonstrated physical law, and are not necessary for the formulation of said laws. The christian god, in particular, I believe could not possibly exist in the sense that most people believe in. I point here to the "problem of evil". To simplify:
1. If there exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, suffering would not.
2. Suffering exists.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent cannot exist.
Note that I have specified suffering rather than evil, as specifying evil allows an argument from morality (this being that there would be no universal moral system without a deity). So, the christian god, in order to exist, could not possess all three of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence (which, I may add, many christians assert that he does). I also argue that if an intelligent being possesses of omnipotence, they then by definition possess the ability to grant themselves omniscience. This reduces the number of possibilities to three.
1. God exists, but does not possess the ability to lessen suffering. The fact that a human individual can lessen suffering means that there is no reason to put this god above yourself.
2. God exists, but is unwilling to lessen suffering. Since it is possible to imagine a world with less suffering, this one cannot be the best of all possible worlds, meaning that any individual who wants a better world is more moral - in my view - than this god.
3. God does not exist.
I am only specifying the christian god here for a few reasons. The first being that I don't know enough about other religions to comment on them specifically - although I still see no reason to accept their claims either. The second being that these arguments apply to any religion that specifies the three qualities mentioned as ones their deity possesses. The final reason is that it is most likely that anybody who reads this will be more familiar with christianity than other religions and hence more able to understand my reasoning.
Lets lay down the basics. There probably are no gods of any sort. No evidence to support them, they do not emerge as a consequence of any demonstrated physical law, and are not necessary for the formulation of said laws. The christian god, in particular, I believe could not possibly exist in the sense that most people believe in. I point here to the "problem of evil". To simplify:
1. If there exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, suffering would not.
2. Suffering exists.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent cannot exist.
Note that I have specified suffering rather than evil, as specifying evil allows an argument from morality (this being that there would be no universal moral system without a deity). So, the christian god, in order to exist, could not possess all three of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence (which, I may add, many christians assert that he does). I also argue that if an intelligent being possesses of omnipotence, they then by definition possess the ability to grant themselves omniscience. This reduces the number of possibilities to three.
1. God exists, but does not possess the ability to lessen suffering. The fact that a human individual can lessen suffering means that there is no reason to put this god above yourself.
2. God exists, but is unwilling to lessen suffering. Since it is possible to imagine a world with less suffering, this one cannot be the best of all possible worlds, meaning that any individual who wants a better world is more moral - in my view - than this god.
3. God does not exist.
I am only specifying the christian god here for a few reasons. The first being that I don't know enough about other religions to comment on them specifically - although I still see no reason to accept their claims either. The second being that these arguments apply to any religion that specifies the three qualities mentioned as ones their deity possesses. The final reason is that it is most likely that anybody who reads this will be more familiar with christianity than other religions and hence more able to understand my reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)