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.

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:

1. 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?
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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!
   
4. 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.
   
5. 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?
   
6. 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.
   
7. 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.
   
8. 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.
   
9. 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?
   
10. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.