Thu, 22 Jan 2009
Lee Strobel ask: What would you ask an atheist?
I’d like to answer that.
1. Apologist Mike Licona: “What turns you off about Christianity? Irrespective of one’s worldview, many experience periods of doubt. Do you ever doubt your atheism and, if so, what is it about theism or Christianity that is most troubling to your atheism?”
The whole concept of “magical thinking” annoys me. The idea that in all things in life we react to evidence, logic, and rational thought EXCEPT for religion. In religion we must put aside logic and simply lay down and believe what we’re told. Hearing a religious person defend their faith usually results in textbook examples of logical fallacies. For some reason otherwise intelligent and logical people completely shut down that part of their brain when discussing religion. But the real harm comes from the idea that by ignoring evidence, facts, and logic one becomes more “righteous”. That is a very dangerous idea that spawns misogyny and bigotry.
2. Scholar William Lane Craig: “What’s the real reason you don’t believe in God? How and when do you lose your faith in God?”
The more I learned about how the world worked scientifically, the less I need God as an explanation. It became apparent to me that the Bible was written by people who didn’t know about atoms, germs, DNA, evolution, geology, astronomy, physics, medicine, or any of the technology and knowledge that drives our world today. As Sam Harris said: “We must remember that the Bible was written by people for whom the emerging technology was the wheelbarrow.”
3. Author and pastor John Ortberg: “How can you create a meaningful life in a meaningless universe?”
Why do you assume that my life has no meaning? Taking care of my family gives my life meaning. Contributing to society gives me meaning. Teaching gives me meaning. I find joy in hiking, fishing, and walking my dog. I find wonder and fascination when I look through my telescope. I receive the same love and comfort from my friends and family that you do. The only thing I don’t have is a belief in an invisible, unprovable, supernatural being. I make my own meaning, I make my own purpose.
But let me ask the same question back to you. Why would your life be meaningless without your belief in God? Is your life so empty that you can think of no reason to live if it wasn’t for your invisible friend?
4. Resurrection expert Gary Habermas: “Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself.”
Well, I’m willing to bet that the majority of those “scholars” are believers and therefore have a vested interest in showing the Jesus story to be true. But since we know for a fact that the vast majority (if not all) of the Jesus story was lifted from previous hero stories it makes far more sense to see the Jesus story as simply a retelling of even older myths. So I completely disagree that ” virtually all contemporary scholars” agree on the historical facts of Jesus’ life. In fact, this annoying little fact that just about every aspect of the Jesus story was a retelling of earlier Greek myths is such a problem that the Catholic church has deemed that Satan must have counterfeited the story in advance in order to deceive us.
So it’s not up to me to prove an alternate explanation of Jesus’ resurrection. It’s up to you to prove that it actually happened. It’s up to you to prove that the resurrection isn’t just a retelling of the stories of Dionysus, Tammuz, Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Apollo, Hercules, Attis, or Woton.
5. Philosopher Paul Copan: “Given the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief that the universe (all matter, energy, space, time) began to exist a finite time ago and that the universe is remarkably finely tuned for life, does this not (strongly) suggest that the universe is ontologically haunted and that this fact should require further exploration, given the metaphysically staggering implications?
Fallacy #1: Straw Man! There is actually quite a bit of science being done on what was happening before the big bang. So saying that the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief is that the universe started out of nothing is a misstatement of the facts. It’s easy to trash an idea if your first misstate what that idea is.
Fallacy #2: False Premise. The earth was not created to fit the life upon it. Life evolved to fit the conditions of the earth. Even on our own earth you see vastly different ecosystems. That’s why you don’t see elephants in volcanic trenches at the bottom of the sea. They didn’t evolve to live there.
I’m reminded of something that Douglas Adams once said:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!”
The hole was no more designed to fit the puddle than this world was designed to fit us. We evolved to “fit” this environment, not the other way around.
6. Radio host Frank Pastore: “Please explain how something can come from nothing, how life can come from death, how mind can come from brain, and how our moral senses developed from an amoral source.”
First of all, isn’t “something from nothing” exactly what your creation story suggest? Also, your ignorance of how the big bang occurred does not mean that God is the only other explanation. You’re using the “false dichotomy” fallacy.
How can life come from death? Show me that it does! Unless you’re talking about our bodies biodegrading and nourishing plants then you better show me some proof. The rest of your points are all “argument from ignorance” and “false dichotomy” fallacies.
As for the last point let me ask you this: If the Bible did not say “Thou shall not kill” would you be completely unaware that killing is wrong? How do you know that “thall shall not kill” and “thall shall not steal” are good rules but “Stone a man to death for gathering sticks on a Sunday” is not a good rule? Why is hatred of gay people OK (according to your belief system) because of Leviticus but the ban on eating pork or shellfish or the ban on cutting your hair (also in Leviticus) is not a good rule?
I would suggest it’s because you’re making decisions based upon your view of what’s best for society. I do exactly the same thing. But if the only reason for a moral point of view is “because the Bible says so” then I reject it. I can make a perfectly reasonable argument against murder, theft, adultery etc. without invoking a supernatural being. Empathy for other human beings is where I get my morality.
7: Apologist Greg Koukl: “Why is something here rather than nothing here? Clearly, the physical universe is not eternal (Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology). Either everything came from something outside the material universe, or everything came from nothing (Law of Excluded Middle). Which of those two is the most reasonable alternative? As an atheist, you seem to have opted for the latter. Why?”
Once again, the Christian apologist is using the straw man fallacy, unstated major premise fallacy, the false dichotomy fallacy and ignorance of scientific facts to make his point. It’s not my job to educated this person on big bang cosmology or why the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to evolution (Hint: we are receiving energy every day as sunlight, we’re not a closed system).
But this goes back to my very first point. This Christian apologist is completely uneducated in science and because he doesn’t understand it he relies on magical thinking and logical fallacies to posit that the only other explanation is God. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy because it assumes that there are only 2 answers to his question: God or Not God. There is are least 2 other explanations: 1) There is a non-supernatural explanation for every one of your questions that scientist have yet to discover. Or 2) A non-supernatural explanation has already been discovered but the Christian asking this question is ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of that answer.
Is this the best you’ve got? Are bad analogies, logical fallacies and lies the best explanation you have? You’d think that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God would have a better explanation of his own existence.
But there’s an even bigger problem here. Every one of these questions presents a “moving goalpoast” fallacy. This is the fallacy where a person ask a question that is essentially saying “If you can’t answer this then my point must be true” (false dichotomy). When you answer that question they never say “Oh, You’re right. My point didn’t make any sense.” Instead they “move the goalpost” to change what the “win” condition is by asking yet another stupid question.
We atheist can easily accept the existance of God if you would only show some proof. Our minds are open to the posibillity, but we’re not threatened by the idea that the supernatural doesn’t exist. We’re more secure than that. Can you say the same thing about your religious beliefs? Can you even begin to accept that there may be an argument that would make you realize that you’ve been deluding yourself all these years?
If you can’t imagine a scenario where you would give up your religious beliefs then you’ve fallen prey to that magical thinking I mentioned before. It means that you are completly incapable of rational thought when it comes to religion.
And that’s dangerous. Very dangerous indeed.
This story is from the
[/reason] department
permanent link
Sat, 18 Oct 2008
Black people should not be allowed to vote!
And no, I don’t really think we should keep black people from voting. Read on.
What is our greatest freedom as Americans?
Is it freedom of speech? Perhaps.
Is it the freedom to petition our own government for our grievances? The right to stand up to the power structure that governs us to tell them that they’re wrong?
Perhaps.
But I think our greatest freedom and our greatest strength comes from the concept that the same laws that apply to you and me apply to everyone from the president on down (Our current president doesn’t seem to understand that but that’s a topic for another blog post).
The idea that everyone in this country has the same rights and protections is possibly the greatest freedom that we have. It keeps anyone from using the power of the law to gain control over our lives.
The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore, it should be obvious to us that denying black people the same right to vote as whites is an unconstitutional position. Denying women the right to vote is equally unconstitutional. In fact, setting up a system where Anyone has rights that are given or protected by the state or federal government while a subset of people are denied those same rights is unconstitutional, bigoted, vile and wrong.
But the people who want you to vote yes on proposition 8 don’t see it that way. They want heterosexual couples to have the benefits and protection of the law, while denying those same protections to gay people.
Proposition 8 very simply proposes that: “Gay People Shouldn’t Have The Same Rights As Me”
That’s what Proposition 8 is about. Can the purpose of prop 8 be any clearer? Simply look at the title of the Proposition:
It’s called that because that’s exactly what it does. It eliminate the rights of a subset of American citizens.
This is no less bigoted and no less hateful than saying “Black People Should Not Be Allowed To Vote.”
Let’s look at the blatant lies that the “Yes on 8” proponents are spewing:
Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
That is a complete and utter lie. Nothing in the proposition requires any sort of value judgment to be taught regarding marriage. There’s nothing in the proposition that even requires children to be taught that gay marriage exist. But let’s look at the deeper lie in that sentence. Is same sex marriage not “just as good” as heterosexual marriage?
As I see it there are three aspects to marriage:
- The love and respect my wife and I have for each other.
- The rights and protections that the state gives my wife and I via our marriage license.
- A religious ceremony that proclaims your love to God, your family, and your church
Can gay people have the same love and respect for their partner that my wife and I feel for each other? Of course they can.
Should everyone who’s married be provided the same benefits and protections of the law? The 14th amendment says “yes”.
If I don’t have a marriage ceremony at a church and we don’t refer to God in any way, Would I not actually be married? Well, think of it this way: My wife and I got married at our home. We made sure that there was no mention of God or Jesus or any religious dogma at all. If my wife and I got divorced do you think the State of California would say “You two have no community property rights or alimony support rights because you didn’t say the word “God” during your wedding”? Of course not.
So the religious aspect of marriage is a personal choice (as it should be) and has nothing to do with what “marriage” really is. Of those 3 aspect of marriage we can eliminate #3, the religious aspect. That may be important to you, and you have every right to think so. But it’s not important to me. And more importantly, there are even other religions that don’t agree with you. So you have no right to use the law to force that religious point of view on somebody else.
Let’s look at some of the other lies that the “Yes on 8” people are telling you:
Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings
Bullshit! The first amendment provides a separation of church and state. One of the things that the “No on 8” people (and liberals in general) have done a really poor job of is letting the religious right know that the have every right not to perform a same sex marriage in their church.
Currently, can a Catholic church be “forced” to perform a Jewish marriage ceremony? Of course not. In fact, a Catholic church can even turn down other Catholics if they’re divorced and haven’t gone through the church’s annulment process. There is a long legal tradition of allowing churches to deny services when those traditions do not fit their belief system.
The first amendment guarantees that no church will ever be required by law to perform a same sex marriage.
Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father.
Well that’s just a side effect of having to follow the law. A religious adoption agency must follow the laws of the land. If the laws of the land say that you can’t discriminate then you can’t discriminate. The race analogy works here as well. If a religious adoption agency said that it was against their beliefs to place a child with a non-white couple would anyone be backing them up? Of course not.
Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples
OK, they’re really stretching on this one. Private religious schools can accept or deny enrollment to whoever they want. Apparently they want you to believe that a private religious school would accept a gay couple but not allow them to be roommates.
It saves marriage
Really? How, exactly, is my marriage to my wife harmed by allowing my gay friends who have been together for 25 years to have the same rights that I do? I’ve asked quite a few people this question and it’s like arguing with a 6 year old. The conversation usually goes like this:
How does allowing same sex marriage harm my marriage?
It just does.
But how?
It’s not traditional.
But allowing black people to marry didn’t use to be traditional. Allowing interracial marriage didn’t use to be traditional. Allowing women to vote didn’t use to be traditional. But we’ve grown to realize that rights should apply to everyone. We’ve grown up enough to realize that denying anyone their civil rights is an evil and hateful thing. So tell me again, how does it harm marriage?
It just does.
What’s the real reason behind proposition 8? What the real reason for all this hatred and bigotry? It all boils down to one word:
Religion
Here we have a perfect example of the kind of harm that religion does to society. In all other things we can be rational. In all other activities we would never think of denying one group of people the same civil rights as the rest of society.
No, to promote something this vile, this hateful, this bigoted requires religion.
It’s well documented that the Mormon church is a major spender in the “Yes on 8” campaign. Other churches, mainly Christian, are also promoting the “Yes on 8” campaign in their sermons. Proposition 8 won’t cause churches to lose their tax free status, but this blatant support of a political proposition certainly should.
The rational, constitutional, accepting, “equal rights for everyone” point of view requires a simple observation of the facts and the laws. But as I’ve shown here, the “Yes on 8” point of view requires lies, hate, and a denial of the very constitution that makes our country great.
Vote NO on proposition 8 because a NO vote is the only true moral position.
A NO vote is a vote that says NO to bigotry and NO to hate.
This story is from the
[/reason] department
permanent link
Wed, 30 Jan 2008
My nephew Chris works for Roland/Boss and also plays guitar for the band Hollowshell. While I was browsing around YouTube I found this video of them playing.
Chris is the one on the far side of the stage (Guitar, long pants, backup vocals)
Is this a good time to bring up memories of him at 2 years old sitting in my lap watching Fraggle Rock on TV together? Should I mention that at 2 years old his favorite MTV video was David Lee Roth’s version of “California Girls” which Chris use to call “I wish thay all could be California”?
Maybe not.
Rock On Chris!
This story is from the
[/ramblings] department
permanent link
It seems that every year I’m surprised and excited when it snows up here. This year is no exception.
Unlike my wife, I didn’t grow up in the snow so it’s always a special time when the white stuff covers the earth. I just love it.
A couple of nights ago we had a major wind storm that blew down some trees and knocked out the power for a couple of hours. We just tossed a couple more logs on the fire and went to bed. I just bought another cord of wood and have a bunch of it stacked up on the porch so we’re pretty well set for the winter.
Thunder is not bothered in the least. He’s a snow dog.
The snowy woods on our property are just his personal playground.
It’s pure, white, and cold. I love it
This story is from the
[/ramblings] department
permanent link
Sat, 26 Jan 2008
I was just listening to some older episodes of Point of Inquiry today and I discovered this episode where they’re discussing exactly what I was talking about.One of the interesting points they made was that human beings seem to move through 3 stages of morality:
- Infantile model. The morals of an infant. We want what we want with no sense of others than “me”.
- Authoritarian, Obedience model : The blind following of authoritarian code. This is religious morality.
- Empathic model: You’re moral code is defined by what’s best for other humans. You’re acting via empathy to others.
This story is from the
[/reason] department
permanent link
