Reasonable Disbelief

"You Hate God!!!"

2010-03-30T11:58:00.000-07:00

I'm no longer surprised when "god" debates degenerate into a theist telling me that I'm an atheist only because I hate his/her particular god or because I want to "live in sin." Most recently, I have been engaged in an exchange with another (surprise!) angry Yahoo! Answers user named Gorillawits, who has accused me of everything from lying, to hating [his] god, to being "evil" and not caring about anyone else.

Sigh.

Sadly, these sentiments are not uncommon, yet it remains suspiciously unclear how one is supposed to hate something that he does not even believe exists. The prospect of hating a god is not unlike the prospect of hating orcs or Smurfs. I suppose one can hate the idea of something or hate how that idea is portrayed (as in a story), but it is quite impossible to actually hate something that one doesn't even know to exist.

Further, an atheist who also rejects religious dogma in general is unlikely to find meaning in the concept of sin, so accusing an atheist of wanting to "live in sin" is just as nonsensical as telling an atheist that she hates a god.

The underlying assumption to "you hate god" assertions is that atheists actually believe in some god, usually the local god, and it is from this assumption that theists launch their accusations. Of course, this is tantamount to making an ad hominen attack on the basis of a straw-man. Dual-fallacy claims are always fun.

Maybe I can't prove to anyone that I really don't believe in gods aside from stating so and arguing my case, any more than I can prove that I like chocolate aside from stating so and voraciously consuming it. Of course, this is a two-way street; theists can't prove that they believe in a god aside from stating it and arguing their case. Where does this line of thought take us? Absolutely nowhere. If a simple stating of positions in an insufficient basis from which to analyze or debate, then perhaps some of the parties involved are being less than reasonable (or have motives that do not involve genuine analysis or debate at all).

Evidence and Logic

2010-01-28T07:55:00.000-08:00

A user named Michael posted a question on Yahoo! yesterday, but I didn't receive the notification e-mail until after the thread was closed. It's interesting, so I'm addressing it here.

A question about evidence, logical fallacy and belief in God?

A lot of the interaction in R&S seems to center around evidence and logic as they relate to belief in God. Which is all entertaining and fun. After all, what feels better than skewering your opponent by pointing out the defects in their reasoning? But there's a problem with all of this. Both the atheist who demands evidence and the theist who provides it are engaging in a logical fallacy. Hume seems to have proven conclusively that no inductive (based on inference) argument can ever be logically valid. In other words, anyone who claims to know anything based on evidence commits a logical fallacy. If that's true, almost all of the arguments on this site are pointless. We are chasing something, evidence based belief supported by logic, that does not exist.

So my question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?

As always, thank you for your thoughtful replies.

The problem with the above is that it assumes, without apparent justification, that someone claiming or asking for evidence of a god seeks to "know" whether said god exists or not on the basis of that evidence. In effect, this demands an umbrella of absolutism that I don't believe most people have in mind when they provide or request evidence. At the very least, science certainly doesn't work that way.

On a related note, asking for evidence is a wholly separate issue from asking for a logical argument. Theists routinely fail to deliver on both counts, but I'm unsure why the poster has concluded that the two things are necessarily so related.

>> "In other words, anyone who claims to know anything based on evidence commits a logical fallacy." <<

This is a strange summation of Hume's position. Keep in mind that David Hume was an empiricist, meaning he thought that knowledge could be obtained through experience. Depending on what a piece of evidence is and what a person is claiming to know from it, the conclusion might be entirely justified.

I personally don't subscribe to a strict dividing line between knowledge and everything else. Rather, I regard knowledge as resting on a spectrum of certainty.

There is an entire category of logical fallacies relating to induction. It is unclear exactly which one the poster thinks these many atheists and theists engage in by bantering about evidence. Needless to say, Hume is generally regarded as one of the great philosophers, and rightfully so, but induction itself is not a fallacy. Humans beings base most of their lives around inductive thinking, and it is hard to imagine how we might operate in any other manner.

Regarding science, see methodological naturalism, particularly the positions held by Steven Schafersman and Robert Pennock.

>> "If that's true, almost all of the arguments on this site are pointless. We are chasing something, evidence based belief supported by logic, that does not exist."

Again, this assumes absolutism, and it again portrays a bizarre relationship between asking for evidence and asking for logical argumentation. Further, the poster declares that we are fallaciously chasing "evidence based belief," when the entire point of his post up to this point is knowledge and how one is justified in claiming it. Why the sudden change?

Lastly:

>> "So my question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?" <<

As I have said many times, things like value and purpose are subjective. Specifically regarding Yahoo! Answers users, I speculate that a significant percentage, like myself, simply enjoy arguing. In a greater sense, truth probably factors into the mix somewhere, and a significant portion of non-believers I've encountered (myself included) are concerned about religion in government and the suppression of science. Moreover, it's worth noting that the question, "...what are we trying to accomplish here?" follows some dubious reasoning, as I think I've shown, albeit briefly, in the preceding text.

Meaning and Purpose

2010-01-18T23:22:00.000-08:00

It's nauseatingly common in discussions about god(s) for believers to either ask whether non-believers have meaningful or purposeful lives, or to smugly declare that meaning and purpose are impossible outside of god-belief. These encounters might range from a simple inquiry like, "What do you live for?" to the disturbingly popular, "Why do you even get out of bed in the morning?" and "Why don't you just kill yourself?"

Certain apologists like CARM's Matt Slick have tried to wax philosophical about atheism and purpose, formulating convoluted arguments like the one presented in "Atheism, evolution and purpose" on the CARM website. In essence, Slick argues that a naturalistic view of the universe can only account for "an illusion of purpose." Since he himself has actual purpose, unlimited by natural laws, a god must exist. Never mind that Slick makes no effort to objectively differentiate between purpose and "an illusion of purpose." In fact, even granting the main idea of his article, he gives me no reason to think his own purpose is anything but illusory, or that the concept "illusion of purpose" is even coherent.

Curiously enough, the "atheistic point of view" attacked by Slick appears only on the CARM site. I can find not one instance of an actual atheist advocating what Slick apparently attributes to all atheists. Since he addresses nonsense like, "If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural laws, but that his mind and will have 'risen above' these laws and he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose..." -- well, it's no surprise to discover that Slick has likely invented that which he attacks.

Seriously, I wonder where Matt Slick found a single naturalist willing to claim that his or her mind has "risen above" natural laws. Pure silliness. Even if humanity discovered something in the universe greater than the sum of its parts, like free will, such is not incompatible with a philosophy of mind position like property dualism. Slick can dispute this only by committing a composition fallacy.

He claims that an atheist positing free will "is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws, and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws," and that this constitutes "an argument from silence." The problem here is that Slick is again making things up. Saying, "I do not have a full understanding of the natural laws," is not equivalent to saying, "I am free to not be bound by the natural laws," nor does the latter follow from the former. As usual, Slick neither makes any effort to link the two, nor does he bother to list a single atheist who actually made such a statement.

Further, the discovery of something like libertarian free will would not contradict or invalidate natural laws, but would simply indicate that our understanding of natural laws is incomplete. Moreover, appealing to such unknowns is not necessary in order to demonstrate the folly of Mr. Slick's position, as I will illustrate below using only a dictionary.

Ahem. Anyway....

Despite the introduction, my intention here is not to painstakingly deconstruct all of Matt Slick's errors in the CARM article linked above. It's just that CARM tends to be an umbrella of Christian thought, and Slick presents such an easy target. Generally, I'm interested here in the notion often furthered by god-believers (specifically monotheists) that non-believers necessarily lack meaning or purpose. Part of the problem in such discussions is coming to some sort of agreement on what exactly "meaning" and "purpose" mean. For a Christian, purpose might entail obeying the Bible and getting into some sort of Utopian afterlife. This is useless for non-believers, since it presupposes Christianity. For a non-believer, purpose is likely to be more immediate: e.g. finish medical school, start a particular career, start a family, publish a book, be a decent person, etc.

For now, I'll settle on definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary (2009):

[purpose]
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal....

[meaning]
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance...
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end....

Given the above definitions, how can an atheist not have purpose or meaning? Even if her purpose and meaning are dictated solely by chemical reactions in her brain, prompted by environmental stimuli, this still qualifies as purpose and meaning. There is no qualifier in either definition that requires one or the other to transcend natural laws, as Matt Slick claims.

By simply reading the "Conclusion" section of Slick's article, it becomes obvious that he constructed the "atheistic" positions on existence and purpose for the sole purpose of pitting them against one another. I reiterate that he has failed to connect those positions to anyone other than himself. Note also the weakness of his final point:

Since I determine I have a purpose, and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by natural laws, it is reasonable to assume I believe in God and that there is a God.
Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli. I believe man is more than that.

Emphasis mine. How are "bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli" necessarily devoid of purpose? Well, the answer is offered a few lines earlier, where Slick backpedals after getting bogged down in his own nonsense:

3. If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then...

A. He has no self-determined purpose.
B. He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him.
C. He serves nothing more than natural laws.

4. Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self-intended purpose for existence.

So Slick attaches qualifiers beyond that offered in general definitions of the term "purpose," then bases his entire argument on those spurious qualifiers, all while straw-manning atheists from start to finish with made-up positions. His position is so flimsy, in fact, that he has to cover his own tracks by referring to "self-determined purpose" and "self-intended purpose for existence," neither of which were part of the equation earlier in the article when he asked, "From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?" Hilariously, his own brand of purpose -- that handed down by a god -- doesn't meet the criteria of "self-determined" or "self-intended," either.

All things considered, he answered his own question in the article: purpose is determined through a given biochemical makeup reacting to stimuli. It's so incredibly simple and anticlimactic, that Slick apparently felt a need to move the goalposts in hopes of lending support to an exceptionally dubious argument.

Now that it is clear atheists can and do have purpose and meaning, what about theists? Specifically regarding Christians, what is their purpose? Where does that purpose come from? From my perspective, the Christian purpose is slavery, to serve an invisible god under threat of punishment, hopefully gaining access to a magical realm after death so that one can continue his or her servitude in an eternal Utopia rather than suffer in an eternal hell [1].

In my opinion, if any of that were true, it would render human life less than meaningless. A naturalist might consider his purpose to derive from chemicals in his brain reacting to stimuli, but a Christian must embrace a nefarious being that deliberately enslaves its creation, bestowing a slave's purpose. Which is worse: no purpose at all or one derived from chemical reactions, or a purpose handed down by an invisible tyrant and embraced through fear?

**

1. Christian denominations vary in how they envision the fate of the so-called "unsaved," but suffering of some sort in an eternal hell generally covers most of them.

Blaming Science and Hurtling Toward a Stroke

2009-12-11T18:33:00.000-08:00

Yahoo! Answers user Vegeta asked the following question:

"Theists, Atheists, Religious, Non-Religious!? What are you trying to prove?"

The general consensus, as is usually the case with such mindless questions, was that no one had anything to prove. We participate in the forum simply to amuse ourselves at the expense of hapless fools like Vegeta. In short, the questioner was humiliated and eventually made the question private, so people not in his handpicked contact list can no longer view the post, even if they left an answer previously (as I did).

But Vegeta's cowardice doesn't stop there. No, he/she decided to e-mail the following to me (unedited):

From: Vegeta

Subject: Well hello there
Message: You're the idiot. Of course I believe in gravity, but your beloved science has not proven anything, more or less helped soceity. Yes, science has saved millions with improvements in medication, but it has killed many more with advancements in weaponry for example.

btw, I just asked a simple, nice question. You're a jackass. However, you do amuse me, you little ******* retard. You humor me with your plight. You think you're so superior, so intelligent to others, but you're just a simple dumbass, and a prick. I hate ppl like you my friend. It is a terrible thing to say, but I'm typing it so I don't feel so bad. Isn't that how you feel when you insult people on Y/A? If you insulted me to my face, Id kick your ***. But you feel so safe on your computer typing **** to others. Go ahead, continue with your pathetic life, and materbate to some porn too why don't ya.

over 10,000 points on here. Wow, quite a life you have. You're pathetic and a waste of space on this overpopulated planet. Have a gr8 day, you piece of ****.

Wow, looks like I hit a nerve! So much so that Vegeta disabled e-mail contact after sending the above diatribe, so I have no means of replying aside from posting this bullshit in public.

>> "...your beloved science has not proven anything, more or less helped soceity."

I've never understood how people can make claims on the Internet, using their computers, that science hasn't proved or accomplished anything.

>> "...science has saved millions with improvements in medication,"

Actually, that would be billions, and it's not just medicine. Agricultural advances and climate control also come to mind, along with many, many other technologies. In fact, I would say that most fields of science have improved human lives in some regard.

>> "...but it has killed many more with advancements in weaponry for example."

Science is no more responsible for the weaponry men create than are the mathematics and languages used in the same process. Consider how silly it would be to blame the German language for enabling Hitler to spread his propaganda. Same thing with blaming science for weapons and weapon-related deaths. Moreover, weapons can be a good thing when used for defense.

The second paragraph of Vegeta's message is worth a chuckle, but not worth responding to.

As for the "10,000 points" things, I'll point out that I have used Yahoo! Answers since June 2006 (42 months as of 12/2009), whereas Vegeta's account was opened in March 2009 (9 months as of 12/2009). I have posted 3,235 answers, whereas Vegeta has posted 351. By those numbers, I have posted 70 answers per month on average, and Vegeta has posted 40. Vegeta has also asked 45 questions, bumping his/her total to 396 and his/her average to 44. So on a monthly basis I post roughly 26 more messages than Vegeta. Considering that it usually takes 1o to 30 seconds to answer a question, this is not a significant time investment over a span of four weeks, especially considering that those are down seconds I would have otherwise spent playing Chess Titans or Solitaire. Even if Vegeta considers it a waste of time (curious, since he/she isn't far behind me), it isn't his/her time to waste.

In any case, thanks for the laugh, Vegeta. You might want to see a doctor before your blood pressure gets out of control.

John MacArthur's Deity

2009-10-28T16:04:00.000-07:00

The website of evangelist John MacArthur contains an article/outline titled "God: Is He? Who Is He?" Predictably, the content is a mish-mash of bad arguments for the existence of the Christian deity and a few outright falsehoods. I found this nonsense through a post on Yahoo! Answers, from someone who apparently cannot distinguish reason from claptrap. Let's examine MacArthur's claims (and here I am assuming MacArthur wrote or at least approved the content, as it is on his website as a "resource").

Introduction

The introductory section of the outline contains three points: A) "God Is the Eternal Creator," B) "God Is a Merciful Refuge," and C) "God Is a Just Judge." Of course, all three points presuppose the Christian deity and the truth of the Bible, and they have no attachment to anything in reality that I can ascertain. If this is an attempt to halfheartedly provide some manner of ontology for the Christian deity, that's fine, but I don't know how to connect tautological labels like "creator" and "refuge" and "judge" to what is supposedly a disembodied consciousness. Later, MacArthur even refers to this "God" entity as a "person." I don't know about John MacArthur's mystical experiences, but not only is there no evidence of consciousness existing without a physical body, but there's no evidence for the personhood of anything without a physical body. Anyway, let's assume that the intent here is to make it known that MacArthur is referring to the Christian God and leave it at that.

God - Is He?

The Debate on God's Existence

In this section, MacArthur recounts Freud's position on human god-belief (that men have invented gods for assorted reasons), then he asserts:

Freud's view of religion is rather simplistic. A careful examination of human religions reveals that the gods are rarely of the delivering kind, but usually of an oppressive nature that needs continual appeasement. I disagree with Freud; I don't believe that man has invented God. If man had his way he would rather that God did not exist.

First of all, this counter does nothing to differentiate the Christian deity from other "oppressive" gods, so it isn't an argument against Freud. In fact, the Christian deity purportedly demands capitulation on pain of eternal death (and eternal torture, depending on the denomination). Moreover, gods vary greatly from religion to religion, but all are seen as harboring some power, which is why they are worshiped in the first place.

Secondly, MacArthur attempts to defend his claim that mankind "would rather that God did not exist" by appealing to --- you guessed it --- the Bible, in the very next paragraph. He couldn't be bothered to cite a peer-reviewed study opposing Freud. No, he just states his disagreement and then cites scripture allegedly inspired by the very deity in question.

MacArthur then claims of these oppressive other gods:

Such gods are actually a representation of real demonic activity.

Of course, this claim is put forth in a vacuum, with no attempt to attach it to reality or defend it.

The Defense of God's Existence

Here we have the standard apologetic rigmarole. MacArthur lists six arguments: teleological, ontological, aesthetical, volitional, moral, and cosmological. To be fair, he is describing these arguments in summary, not putting forward a comprehensive case.

Teleological
MacArthur actually says, "Design implies a designer." He also invokes the long-debunked Watchmaker Argument and a new one (an elephant running into a tree and a piano forming in the resultant mess). Never mind that we have no objective evidence of design (only claims by creationists), these analogies are fallacious at face value by attempting to compare the observed totality of existence, which has evolved over billions of years, with known man-made objects.
Ontological
MacArthur says of the Ontological Argument, "This argument reasons that since the mind of man can conceive of an absolutely perfect Being, that implies the reality and existence of that Being." More appropriately, the Ontological Argument should be renamed the Imagination Argument. Imagining something doesn't make it real. Four-year-olds understand this.
Aesthetical
MacArthur claims, "Because there is beauty and truth in the world, it is logical to assume that somewhere in the universe is a standard on which beauty and truth are based." Of course, beauty is entirely subjective. That notwithstanding, just because John MacArthur says there must be a cosmic standard of beauty, doesn't mean there is one. At best, everyone sets his own standard. As for truth, the standard is cogency with reality, and one should always keep in mind the distinction between reality and the propositions by which we describe it.
Volitional
According to MacArthur, "...man faces a myriad of choices and exercises volition, [therefore] it is logical to assume that there must be an infinite will somewhere." Why is this logical? He never bothers to tell us, but he does add, "The world exists as an expression of that will." How does he know this? Again, he doesn't say.
Moral
"That we know there is right and wrong suggests the necessity of an absolute standard." Unfortunately for MacArthur, "we" don't know any such thing. "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking make it so," is an equally valid maxim, and this implies we all determine rightness and wrongness by making subjective value judgments and deferring to our respective environments and experiences. Even if we accept the assertion that "we know there is right and wrong," the "necessity of a absolute standard" does not follow in any meaningful sense.
Cosmological
This is where MacArthur completely discredits himself, if he hasn't already done so. He begins by stating:

"Cosmology is the argument of cause and effect. The world and universe exist, and we conclude that someone made it."

That is asinine, as cosmology is the study of the universe and the nature thereof, and should not be confused with the cosmological argument, which is what MacArthur is actually invoking here. He then tell us:

That makes more sense than believing that everything came out of nothing--that no one time nothing equals all things--which is essentially what the theory of evolution says.

It's no surprise that he yet again fails to cite one scientific source for a prevailing "everything came out of nothing" theory, since there isn't one. The theory of evolution most certainly says nothing of the sort, as its only purpose is explaining biological diversity. Merriam-Webster defines evolution as "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory." It has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. That MacArthur doesn't understand this and proudly struts his ignorance before the world, is telling.

Building upon his poor definition of "cosmology," MacArthur then provides us with a list of "effects" and their purported causes:

(a) The cause of limitless space must be infinite.
He never bothers to demonstrate that space is limitless or that it must be caused.

(b) The cause of endless time must be eternal.
MacArthur provides no reason to believe that endless time must have a cause. Moreover, time as we understand it began at the origin of this universe, at the expansion event.

(c) The cause of perpetual motion must be powerful.
Why MacArthur believes that something which does not exist must be caused by something "powerful," is anyone's guess.

(d) The cause of complexity must be omniscient.
Again, what leads him to this conclusion is anyone's guess.

(e) The cause of consciousness must be personal.
Yet another assertion in a vacuum. What does MacArthur even mean by a "personal" cause? He doesn't say. Sigh.

(f) The cause of feeling must be emotional.
What about chemical?

(g) The cause of will must be volitional.
Will = volition. Merriam-Webster defines volition as, "1 : an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made, 2 : the power of choosing or determining : will." So the cause of will must be willful. I'm not sure that makes any sense, Mr. MacArthur. In fact, I'm fairly sure it doesn't, and you're flirting with a fallacy of composition if you think a network of neurons cannot possibly create consciousness and volition.

(h) The cause of ethical values must be moral.
No, unless there's a case to be made that environments and preferences are "moral" per se. If there is, MacArthur doesn't make it here.

(i) The cause of religious values must be spiritual.
I'm not sure what "religious values" even are. Are they different from "ethical values?" For that matter, I can't attach the term "spiritual" to anything in reality, so at this time I conclude that MacArthur's claim is at least a non sequitur but is more likely incoherent.

(j) The cause of beauty must be aesthetic.
Again, beauty is subjective, so claims centered here are dubious under the best of circumstances. Why can't a perception of beauty be neurological, relative to past experiences and other facts the subject might have no control over? MacArthur doesn't bother to delve into this. He just pukes a claim onto the wall and hopes it sticks.

(k) The cause of righteousness must be holy.
What is righteousness? Is that synonymous with "ethical" or "religious?" Why must it stem from something "holy?" Surprise, MacArthur doesn't elaborate.

(l) The cause of justice must be just.
This is just silly. Let's say someone kidnaps a child and is absconding out of town to murder the little tyke and hide the body. Lo and behold, while stopped at an intersection the would-be murderer's car is broadsided by a drunk driver. The would-be murderer dies, while the child in his trunk escapes relatively unharmed. Is this a case of justice being caused by something just?

(m) The cause of love must be loving.
How about chemical?

(n) The cause of life must be living.
While it is true that spontaneous generation was discredited by Louis Pasteur, this does not preclude hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. For starters, the conditions under which life appeared ~3.5 billion years ago were drastically different than conditions today, and it is unlikely that early life would have been comparable to what we see in nature today. Additionally, results of the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment were reanalyzed in 2008, and scientists now know that all 20 amino acids required for life can assemble spontaneously under certain conditions.

MacArthur then claims that, "Our world gives evidence that there must be a God who is the cause of all those qualities...." Even if we accept every one of his claims, it doesn't directly follow that the cause is a god, and it doesn't follow at all that the cause is the Christian God. The explanation for these "qualities" more likely centers on MacArthur's imagination and his desire to shoe-horn reality into his religious presuppositions. As such, he is prone to spew inanity like "The cause of justice must be just," and "The cause of consciousness must be personal." After reading his outline, I'm left wondering if even he has any clue as to what he's talking about.

The Despair of Life Without God

This section laments the emptiness of existing as though there is no god (no Christian God, of course). MacArthur commits intellectual suicide (again) by asserting, "People who deny the existence of God often lead lives of great despair," which is complete and utter bunk. I speak from experience, but let's not concern ourselves with that. The title of this section is "The Defense of God's Existence." Of course, people despairing because there is ostensibly no god, even if they claim to need a god, is not an argument for the existence of any god.

MacArthur also says:

The evidence shows that God exists. How sad it is for people to forsake the evidence and come to such a bleak outlook.

The author has been content so far to simply claim evidence exists and to make assertions in place of evidence, so it's no surprise to see that trend continue here. Nonetheless, what I would call a truly "bleak outlook" in terms of human existence is not disbelief in gods and eternal life, but servitude to an invisible, disembodied consciousness, with the penalty for refusal being eternal death and/or eternal torture. MacArthur tries to dodge this by quoting some rosy verses from Psalms, but he isn't fooling anyone but himself. His god is fundamentally identical to all the other unnamed gods he labeled as "oppressive" earlier in the outline, and he knows it.

The remainder of the article entails desperate rationalizing from the faulty conclusions concerning the Christian deity's existence with scripture, so it's relatively pointless to continue. One would be better served considering the characteristics of orcs, elves and dragons from her favorite fantasy novel, as at least there might be some entertainment value there.

The Primate-Worship of Christians

2009-10-01T17:49:00.000-07:00

A Yahoo! Answers user named "Scythe supports DISTURBED" recently asked:

Evolutionists/Darwinists, why do you worship monkeys?
Monkeys won't bring you salvation, only Jesus will. You should be reading the Bible and educating yourself on the word of God. Only Jesus saves! If you don't fix your ways now, you will burn in hell forever!

This was a cheap source of amusement for me. Consider that Jesus of Nazareth was "fully human," according to prevailing Christian theology, and that humans (homo sapiens) are classified as apes as a matter of taxonomy. So, at best, Christians worship an ape -- a dead ape, for that matter.

The Continuing Confusion of Tnyrb444b

2009-08-27T14:49:00.000-07:00

YouTube philosopher tnyrb444b (aka tnyrb444), the user who prompted my previous blog entry, sent me a long, barely-coherent private message attempting to rebut the points therein. He failed, and I replied in detailed fashion, hoping to correct the grievous misunderstandings and confusion that unfortunately seem to permeate his thoughts on a routine basis.

Tnyrb444b's response? Sneakily shift his position, of course! Suddenly, he agrees with me but for some unknown reason finds it necessary to pretend that he doesn't. His main points of contention are the definition of atheism and differentiating belief from knowledge. For a summary of this, please see my previous entry.

Following are the message he sent after viewing my "Knowledge and Belief" article and my response to that message. All quotations are unedited, and I apologize for the length of this. Consider it venting.

From: tnyrb444b
Subject: dialogue

Does your Linguistic community at Wikipedia also consider you a Married Bachelor and a Sagacious Moron?

In YOUR MIND, Regardless of the True definition of bachelor, Bachelor might ,only, REALLY mean uncommitted to marriage. Therefore, there can be such a thing as a Married Bachelor, and the term, Married Bachelor still would not overturn the law of non-contradiction. Can anyone ever really HAVE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE as to whether theyre REALLY committed to marriage, or just BELIEVE youre committed to marriage? So everyone is really Strong or Weak in reference to bachelorhood. Theyre each mutually exclusive.

Strong Bachelor, Weak Bachelor, Weak Married Bachelor (reductio ad absurdum)
The distinction of a weak(Neg) Atheist is analogous to a weak married bachelor. You want to use Non-Theist instead, be my guest, but the rest of the world with certain knowledge agrees on the definition of Atheism.

Do you intentionally believe in things you think are True?
OR
Do you intentionally believe in things you think are UNtrue?
( No, because if you knew it was untrue, you wouldnt believe it)

Do you intentionally disbelieve things you think are UNtrue?
OR
Do you intentionally disbelieve things you think are True?
( No, because if you knew it was True, you would believe it)
Ones Beliefs are a reflection of ones state of knowledge.

Back to my original argument
If you claim you're an ATHEIST- (by definition) You've made a positive claim that God doesn't exist. (evenYour authority says the definition is as such- LOL- not withstanding your cherry picking)

Can you be an Atheist and BELIEVE in the existence of GOD at the same time? (obviously not, but according to you I can-I can beleive in Yahweh, and be an atheist with regard to other Creator Gods)
If so, please clarify "your own, personal, relativistic" definition of atheism
OR
for that matter, expand Atheism to mean non-religious/a-religious as some Modern Atheist (ie Hitchens) would do. (a ploy to expand the numerical ranks of atheists.)

You were correct, and I was wrong. I Should Not have said Just OR- I should have said AND/OR
Your Truthful answer should have been your relativistic definition of atheism is anyone who doesnt believe in GOD(s) AND You expand Atheism to mean and include non-religious/a-religious. If anyone is EQUIVOCATING concerning the term Atheist its you, the non-rational logician!

Theism-I believe in God and He exists
Atheism-I dont believe in God and He doesnt exist
Agnostic-I dont know if God exists or Not, therefore I have no beliefs or disbeliefs about God
Youre the one quibbling ????.eg. a christian is an atheist concerning other gods???
SO everyones an atheist in one way or anotherare we expanding the numerical ranks Yet?
No, youre just punking the concept. And worse, You falsely think youre unmaking an ambiguity by making a distinction.

As to your..
humble request for theists to at least make some effort to ask what their opposition's position is and invest some effort in understanding it before making confused mental leaps like those undertaken by tnyrb444.

Thanks for the Argumentum ad ignominiam but isnt stereotyping theists a type of dicto simpliciter? By the way, I used to be an Non-theist/Atheist, So maybe I understand MORE of each side than maybe yourself you sagacious moron.
Please dont take any these terms as an ad hominem attack because you have no CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE what these terms( or their family resemblances) mean in My linguistic community. LOL

If you make words useless and ambiguous, you make concepts and terms ambiguous and subsequently make logic impossible.
If you have no certain knowledge, you cannot make an argument, and you certainly cannot make a logical argument. Youre just rifling your opinion. Why would I want your opinion when you already acknowledge you have no certain knowledge concerning the matter?

Logic is not just for argumentation and persuasion its correct thinking used for penetrating Truth.
The really sad matter is that youre unusually gifted in the subject-please use the gift wisely.

My response (with in-line quotes):

>>"Does your Linguistic community at Wikipedia also consider you a Married Bachelor and a Sagacious Moron?"

I'm unaware of any "linguistic community" at Wikipedia that serves as my basis of knowledge. The distinction between belief and knowledge is as old as philosophy itself. C'mon, this isn't hard.

>>"The distinction of a weak(Neg) Atheist is analogous to a weak married bachelor."<<

Since bachelor does not mean "disbelief in marriage," but rather means "an unmarried male," your analogy fails on a fundamental level and continues to highlight your inability to distinguish belief from knowledge. Not a valid reductio on your part, just a confusion.

>>"You want to use Non-Theist instead, be my guest, but the rest of the world with certain knowledge agrees on the definition of Atheism."<<

I do not believe in any gods, which, by definition, makes me an atheist. This is consistent with both the dictionary definition you posted and the SEP definition you cited while hilariously taking it out of context.

>>"Do you intentionally believe in things you think are True?"<<

To answer would be quite the tautology, now wouldn't it? In any case, I don't know that anyone "intentionally" believes anything. Beliefs simply develop from an accumulation of experience and/or evidence, true or false.

>>"Ones Beliefs are a reflection of ones state of knowledge."<<

Even if we accept your statement here for argument's sake, having a body of knowledge which leads one to believe or disbelieve in gods (or anything) does not necessarily make the belief statement one of knowledge itself. I know X, therefore I believe/disbelieve in Y. There's no problem here.

>>"Back to my original argument"<<

Lots of arguing, not much argumentation.

>>"If you claim you're an ATHEIST- (by definition) You've made a positive claim that God doesn't exist. (evenYour authority says the definition is as such- LOL- not withstanding your cherry picking)"<<

No, I have already explained this. An atheist is one who disbelieves in gods. I'll even accept "denial of gods," since denial can mean disbelief. As you are either unable or unwilling to distinguish belief from knowledge, I see no point in elaborating further. This isn't complicated. In any case, what you call "cherry picking," I call context, which is something you're obviously fond of dropping. Remember that second line? I know you do.

>>"Can you be an Atheist and BELIEVE in the existence of GOD at the same time? (obviously not, but according to you I can-I can beleive in Yahweh, and be an atheist with regard to other Creator Gods)"<<

One can be atheistic in regard to all gods, save one or two or however many (i.e. one disbelieves in X gods). Calling oneself an atheist, however, would be confusing without the "in regard to" qualifier. It's not ontologically meaningful, but it serves to illustrate what "disbelief" means. In fact, my blog entry addresses this, though you conveniently ignore it:

--
"In common usage, of course, "atheist" generally refers to one who disbelieves in all gods (as tnyrb444's quoted definition reflects, even though he doesn't seem to realize it). The table simply illustrates the difference between claiming to believe or disbelieve something, and claiming to know something."
--

>>"If so, please clarify "your own, personal, relativistic" definition of atheism"<<

We've already been here, and I don't know what you're talking about. My definition of atheism -- "disbelief in gods" -- has been consistent with both your own favored dictionary definition and the SEP article you so spectacularly misunderstood.

>>"Your Truthful answer should have been your relativistic definition of atheism is anyone who doesnt believe in GOD(s) AND You expand Atheism to mean and include non-religious/a-religious. If anyone is EQUIVOCATING concerning the term Atheist its you, the non-rational logician! "<<

No, my answer is "disbelief in gods," because that's what atheism is. Are you perchance sweating and/or foaming at the mouth? You seem angry.

>>"Theism-I believe in God and He exists Atheism-I dont believe in God and He doesnt exist Agnostic-I dont know if God exists or Not, therefore I have no beliefs or disbeliefs about God"<<

Incorrect. Theism - I believe a god exists. Atheism - I do not believe a god exists. Agnostic - I do not know if a god exists. Gnostic - I know a god exists or does not exist. You can refer again to my space alien example, which you've ignored thus far. Still, we're dabbling in the distinction between belief and knowledge, which you refuse to even acknowledge, so I don't expect anything I say to dispel the fantasy world you've constructed in your mind.

>>"a christian is an atheist concerning other gods???"<<

Atheistic, illustrating the concept of disbelief to your beleaguered mind. Wherever I printed "atheist" in the blog or a comment in this regard, maybe I should not have since it confused you to no end. Even still, it was merely an attempt to simply the concept for you, and your confusion doesn't invalidate the example. It just means you're confused. Oh ... and what is that? Yes, it seems I addressed this specifically in the blog entry, so you have no real excuse for this confusion. Let's look again:

--
"Note that the above positions are not all mutually exclusive. For example, Christians might be weak or strong "atheists" regarding all gods except Yahweh. An atheist might be strong in regard to Yahweh but weak in regard to some nebulous creator god. In common usage, of course, "atheist" generally refers to one who disbelieves in all gods (as tnyrb444's quoted definition reflects, even though he doesn't seem to realize it). The table simply illustrates the difference between claiming to believe or disbelieve something, and claiming to know something."
--

>>"SO everyones an atheist in one way or anotherare we expanding the numerical ranks"<<

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I have no interest in the "numerical ranks" of atheists. Someone being an atheist or not doesn't mean much to me. See "Atheists are stupid" by XOmniverse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSV7vAsfn5A). My position pretty much mirrors what he has to say on the subject. I consider atheism a conclusion, not a social club. If I cared so much about "numerical ranks," I can think of much more efficient positions to adopt than atheism. Anyway, this was clarified in the blog entry, as I've now mentioned three times.

>>"No, youre just punking the concept."<<

No, you're just having a very difficult time with a very simple concept.

>>"You falsely think youre unmaking an ambiguity by making a distinction."<<

Actually, I think things are incredibly clear. If you could tell the difference between belief and knowledge, maybe things would be clear for you, too. As it is, you left a casual comment on my video that you could not defend, and it has since snowballed into this convoluted rant from you, probably brought on by a desperate need to save face.

>>"Thanks for the Argumentum ad ignominiam but isnt stereotyping theists a type of dicto simpliciter?"<<

Ha ha ha. N/A, but cute.

>>"By the way, I used to be an Non-theist/Atheist, So maybe I understand MORE of each side than maybe yourself you sagacious moron."<<

As long as we're swapping personal histories, I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, then later became a deist. What does this demonstrate? Not a damn thing, really.

>>"Please dont take any these terms as an ad hominem attack because you have no CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE what these terms( or their family resemblances) mean in My linguistic community. LOL"<<

I'm not sure what your "linguistic community" dictates. I generally just use the dictionary, sometimes several dictionaries. One can get pretty close that way, so I don't need any particular "community" to make up definitions. Also, it's not really ad hominem in the fallacious sense if not attached to an argument. You're just trying to insult me, which is fine. You're neither the first nor will you be the last.

>>"If you make words useless and ambiguous, you make concepts and terms ambiguous and subsequently make logic impossible."<<

You should take note of this.

>>"If you have no certain knowledge, you cannot make an argument, and you certainly cannot make a logical argument."<<

What part of "disbelief in gods" do you disagree with? I've made plenty of logical arguments, and your response has been to deny the distinction between belief and knowledge. This is very much like arguing with a creationist who doesn't believe there are any transitional fossils, even when presented with a comprehensive list. A reasonable mind can only reach out so far. At some point, you have reach back. Otherwise, impasse.

>>" Youre just rifling your opinion."

No, I'm proceeding with "disbelief in gods" as the definition of atheism, as you have unwittingly verified from two different sources while trying to contend the opposite. If I'm "just rifling [my] opinion" by agreeing with the dictionary, you're doing no less by attaching "God doesn't exist" to the equation. And this is to say nothing of the composition fallacy inherent to attributing the explicit atheist position to all atheists. M'kay?

>>"Why would I want your opinion when you already acknowledge you have no certain knowledge concerning the matter?"<<

I've acknowledged no such thing. We call that a straw-man, padawan.

>>"Logic is not just for argumentation and persuasion its correct thinking used for penetrating Truth."<<

Wrong. For example: Winged creatures can fly. Ostriches have wings. Therefore, ostriches can fly. This is a logically valid syllogism, but it is unsound due to the falsity of premise 1. Humans discern truth through both reason and experience. Any claim of access to capital-T "Truth" through any means is a claim that both requires definition and incurs a substantial burden of proof.

>>"The really sad matter is that youre unusually gifted in the subject-please use the gift wisely."<<

I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusions that I am "unusually gifted" in anything, since everything discussed heretofore has been remarkably basic. Much of this is probably covered in most introductory philosophy courses.

Riddle me this: Is it your position that believing or disbelieving something is equivalent to knowing it? For starters, a simple yes or no will suffice. If yes, what is your standard of belief (assuming belief are knowledge are the same) and how do I differentiate it from your imagination? If no, what is your point? Regards.

Following this exchange, tnyrb444b refused to reply to my message but rather continued posting comments on the YouTube video that started all of this:

>>>Riddle me this: Is it your position that believing or disbelieving something is equivalent to knowing it? For starters, a simple yes or no will suffice.

The direct answer is NO- as Ive stated clearly, your beliefs are a REFLECTION of your state of Knowledge-NOT Equivalent. Nor have I denied the distinction between belief and knowledge. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

Obviously not-(but you cant have Certain Knowledge that he doesnt exist because no one has searched everywhere in the universe to prove, with certainty, Santa Claus doesnt exist.) Does your disbelief in Santa Claus have ANYTHING to do with your state of knowledge concerning the possible existence of Santa Claus? You have been saying NO Youve said that your DISBELIEF of Santa Claus and your KNOWLEDGE of his existence are separate, different and irreconcilably dissassociated.

Note that he has not addressed anything I said in response to his rant, but he continues to attack a straw-man while changing his own position on belief/knowledge such that he is essentially in agreement with me. However, admitting that he agrees necessitates that he admit having been wrong earlier, and apparently he can't do that. Notice also that the position he ascribes to me in the comment above (and in one to another user) is precisely the opposite of what I actually said.

Tnyrb444b's straw-man version of my position:

"Youve said that your DISBELIEF of Santa Claus and your KNOWLEDGE of his existence are separate, different and irreconcilably dissassociated."

"But LNG would have you 'BELIEVE' that belief and knowledge are only mutually exclusive...."

My actual position:

"In any case, I don't know that anyone 'intentionally' believes anything. Beliefs simply develop from an accumulation of experience and/or evidence, true or false."

"...having a body of knowledge which leads one to believe or disbelieve in gods (or anything) does not necessarily make the belief statement one of knowledge itself. I know X, therefore I believe/disbelieve in Y. There's no problem here."

Tnyrb444b also asserts (in video comments) that I consider all agnostics to be atheists:

"So, According to LNG, the theist asks the agnostic, 'Do you believe in God?'
The Agnostic says,No, I don't believe in God.'
All Agnostics do not believe in God.
All who don't believe in Gods are atheists.
All Agnostics is an Atheists.

And this is clarifying ambiguity with distinction?"

Nothing could be more wrong. The chart I posted in my last entry alone refutes this notion, never mind that I explicitly stated otherwise in the same piece:

"A weak, implicit, negative or agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in deities but does not claim to know that the deities in question don't exist.

A strong, explicit, positive or gnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in deities and claims to know that said deities do not exist.

See the Wikipedia article, "Weak and Strong Atheism." [Apparently my citing of a Wikipedia article has led tnyrb444b to think I hold it as the end-all-be-all of knowledge. :\ ]

Theism is much the same, except the belief and knowledge statements are of course centered on the existence of a god or gods, not the nonexistence thereof."

So the big question in this 5 or 6-week old discussion has more or less become: Does tnyrb444b truly have this much difficulty understanding my position, or does he have another agenda that is somehow incompatible with that understanding?

We might never know, but I'm beginning to feel like this every time I read a post by our friendly YouTube philosopher:

Knowledge and Belief

2009-07-27T18:49:00.000-07:00

Many theists I've encountered are prone to set up straw-man arguments regarding my position on gods. Often this is a simple matter of ignorance and misunderstanding, and on rare occasions I've concluded that it is due to outright malice.

On 06/16/2009, I posted a YouTube video titled "Re: My Problem with Atheism" in response to a user called NightVisionPhantom (a science-denying young-earth creationist formerly known as BigJerre). I won't rehash the content here. After the video was online for about two weeks, a random user named tnyrb444 (aka tnyrb444b), whom I had never encountered previously as far as I know, appeared in the comment section and posted the following:

LibertyIsNotGiven-
The statement is...

Athiesm does not exist!

Its just a disbelief I have, and its a negative statement, so I need not prove it because you can't prove a negative.

I don't believe atheism exists, just as I don't believe in leprechans, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies.

So, Please prove my original statement is false!

I responded:

If something is asserted as fact, it is a positive claim regardless of whether you take the position that a thing exists or does not exist. If you're attempting to draw some sort of parallel, I'm curious as to when you think I made the claim, "God does not exist."

Tnyrb444 then proceeded to post confusion after confusion, including such claims as:

"God does not exist." Even with any form of the principle of charity, your argument has that implied premise.

...and:

If you claim you're an ATHEIST- You've made made a positive claim that God doesn't exist---Its the law of noncontradiction.

...and:

You cannot be not-A and A at the same time-UNLESS you have "your own, personal, relativistic" definition of atheism.

After being informed as to the nature of his confusion, namely a conflating of explicit atheim and implicit atheism and a failure to differentiate knowledge from belief, tnyrb444 later provides some definitions in hopes of defending his mistakes:

I'm not confused at all.
Why dont we get the help of Merriam-Webster
ATHEISM
Etymology:from Greek atheos godless,
1. archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnosticism
Etymology: Greek- agnōstos unknown, unknowable,
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

The whole conversation can be viewed in the comments on the video linked above.

While I'm not sure that tnyrb444, based on our exchanges, is willing or able to understand the problem here, I encounter this brand of confusion often enough that I decided to post this blog entry as something to direct people to in future encounters, if nothing else.

It's actually quite simple to iron this issue out. First of all, the law of non-contradiction does not apply here, because a statement of belief or disbelief is not a statement of knowledge. In other words, saying, "I do not believe in gods," is not equivalent to saying, "Gods do not exist." The same goes for theists. Saying, "I believe in God," is not equivalent to saying, "God exists," (though, in practice, many theists appeal solely to personal experience as an affirmation of knowledge, a defense I often call indistinguishable from imagination).

I explained this clearly in the aforementioned video using space aliens as an example. Somehow, tnyrb444 seems to have missed it. Anyway....

What this amounts to is a need to understand the difference between belief statements and knowledge statements.

A weak, implicit, negative or agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in deities but does not claim to know that the deities in question don't exist.

A strong, explicit, positive or gnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in deities and claims to know that said deities do not exist.

See the Wikipedia article, "Weak and Strong Atheism."

Theism is much the same, except the belief and knowledge statements are of course centered on the existence of a god or gods, not the nonexistence thereof.

(Click image for full-size view.)

Note that the above positions are not all mutually exclusive. For example, Christians might be weak or strong "atheists" regarding all gods except Yahweh. An atheist might be strong in regard to Yahweh but weak in regard to some nebulous creator god. In common usage, of course, "atheist" generally refers to one who disbelieves in all gods (as tnyrb444's quoted definition reflects, even though he doesn't seem to realize it). The table simply illustrates the difference between claiming to believe or disbelieve something, and claiming to know something.

Another position which still does not preclude disbelief (atheism) is theological noncognitivism, wherein terms like "God" are regarded as meaningless for a variety of reasons, including lack of verification and coherent definition. It is for this reason that I often ask theists to define "God" at the very beginning of exchanges and to attach claims regarding the so-called "spiritual" to reality in some way. In more than two years of posting videos on YouTube and over half a decade debating on Yahoo!, not to mention my life outside the Web, I've achieved precious little in terms of obtaining such definitions or coherency.

In any case, consider this a humble request for theists to at least make some effort to ask what their opposition's position is and invest some effort in understanding it before making confused mental leaps like those undertaken by tnyrb444.

Christian Warrior!

2009-04-07T14:27:00.000-07:00

Christian Warrior! #2 claims to be 13-year-old kid. It's not hard to believe. He/she made a post on Yahoo! Answers, wanting to know if anyone had any questions about the Bible. Apparently this person fancies himself/herself some kind of child-sage of scripture. Anyway, I asked why portions of the Bible imply that the earth is flat and included a link to this video.

Almost immediately, CW deleted the question and sent me a message, I guess under the impression that simply asserting that you disagree with something is just as good as arguing against it. Our exchange follows (my text in black, his/hers in red, and quotes in italics).

***

From: Christian Warrior! #2

Subject: The Bible says the Earth is flat?

Message: In no passage, does the Bible say that the Earth is flat.

If your talking about a verse in Revelation, and another book, how it says to the corners of the Earth? That passage was talking about, North, West, East, and South.

And not to mention that David from the Old Testament has actually called the Earth round. Look it up, or if you want I could find the scripture for you.

-----

From: Zombie

No, I am not referring to Revelation. Did you even look at the video I linked? It's a series, up to a handful of vids now. Take a look.

Also, try this:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

So yes, the Bible implies that the earth is a flat disc.

**"And not to mention that David from the Old Testament has actually called the Earth round."**

A circle is not a sphere, nor does "round" mean spherical. And to be technical, the earth is not a perfect sphere, but a spherical ovoid. Was is too much to ask that an omniscient, omnipotent god correctly relay this information to the authors of his holy book? Apparently, yes.

-----

From: Christian Warrior! #2

I didn't just refer to Revelations. Check my email again, and you didn't give me a video you linked.

By the way, that website can't prove anything. I looked at it, and wasn't convinced.

Oh, and encase you didn't notice I'm only 13 years old, so I have no clue what the following words mean:
Ovoid, omniscient (I sort of know that word but I sort of don't), omnipotent.

P.S. I have no mean to argue, only discuss. God bless.

-----

From: Zombie

**"I didn't just refer to Revelations. Check my email again, and you didn't give me a video you linked."**

I'm perfectly aware of what you said. You mentioned Revelation and David, and I directly told you that a circle is not a sphere. Even if David said the earth is a sphere, other verses contradict him.

If you're referring to something else, you're going to have to be specific instead of just telling me, "Well, somewhere in the great big Bible, so-and-so said such-and-such........."

And yes, I linked to a video in my answer, but it seems you've removed your question.

Here's the link again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6xKLry-qNs

It's part one of four, with more planned by the author.

**"By the way, that website can't prove anything. I looked at it, and wasn't convinced."**

Denial. Typical reaction when your entire world-view is wrapped up in something fantastical being true. The evidence on the page is extremely compelling, and that in the video is even more so because it deals with the Hebrew language.

**"I have no clue what the following words mean:
Ovoid, omniscient, ...omnipotent. "**

An ovoid is an egg-shaped object, so a spherical ovoid (like earth) is a sphere that is slightly egg-shaped. Why doesn't the Bible acknowledge this reality and, in fact, appears to say something quite different (i.e. earth is flat)? Even if it doesn't say earth is flat, why the ambiguity?

Omniscient = all-knowing.

Omnipotent = all-powerful.

Regards.

-----

From: Christian Warrior! #2

I watched the video, and still wasn't convinced. What are you talking about?

>>"Denial. Typical reaction when your entire world-view is wrapped up in something fantastical being true. The evidence on the page is extremely compelling, and that in the video is even more so because it deals with the Hebrew language."<<

That is so wrong.

Oh, and I do have some evidence of the Bible. But you Atheists would just deny it. Just like I am denying your so called 'evidence'. So I won't even bother ( and yes, when I said I won't even bother I know your thinking I'm lying. But that's your problem, not mine).

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6

God bless.

-----

From: Zombie

**"I watched the video, and still wasn't convinced."**

Is just claiming you're not convinced a defense mechanism when reality gets in your way? It's no substitute for rational discussion. You might learn this as you get older. At least, I hope you do.

**"What are you talking about?"**

I think my previous message was very clear. You're going to have to be more specific if you found something confusing.

**"That is so wrong."**

That isn't a response. That's denial.

**"Oh, and I do have some evidence of the Bible."**

Evidence OF the Bible? I'm not sure what you mean. I believe the Bible exists and is revered as a holy text by Christians and Jews. Now, the divinity and truth of the Bible are another matter entirely.

**"But you Atheists would just deny it."**

That's no substitute for actually presenting and defending said evidence. That you have not suggests to me that you probably know your "evidence" will be smashed the second I see it. I don't deny. I refute.

**"Just like I am denying your so called 'evidence'."**

You won't even acknowledge anything I've presented. There's quite a difference between successfully making a point and closing your mind to anything you don't want to accept.

**"So I won't even bother"**

Imagine a world where everyone "knew" the "truth," but no one ever spoke it out of fear of rejection or rebuttal.

**"that's your problem"**

No, kid, it's yours.

-----

From: Christian Warrior! #2

I wasn't claiming, I was speaking the truth.

It was a phrase...

I didn't say it was a response.

I can't understand you sometimes, remember? I'm only 13 years old.

See what I mean? "Your "evidence" will be smashed the second I see it". I told you so.

That's something we have in common...
"You won't even acknowledge anything I've presented." You said my evidence will be smashed the second you see it, that would mean your not even acknowledging it.

Again, I don't understand you.

Actually, it is your problem. Your the one that started this argument in the first place.

God bless.

-----

From: Zombie

**"I wasn't claiming, I was speaking the truth."**

Maybe you aren't convinced, but my only conclusion at present is that you either do not understand what you have heard and read, or you haven't actually heard or read at all. This stems from your unwillingness to commit to any position beyond, "I am not convinced."

I can say, "I am not convinced by the theory of gravity," but I'd look pretty foolish. You aren't faring much better here.

**"I can't understand you sometimes, remember?"**

I could use a dictionary when I was 13. Since you're so eager to jump on Yahoo and "educate" people about the Bible, I at least assume you have the ABILITY to learn. Willingness? Another story....

**"See what I mean? ... I told you so."**

Wonderful quote-mine. Now if you examine what I actually said: "That you have not suggests to me that you probably know your 'evidence' will be smashed the second I see it. I don't deny. I refute."

I don't deny. I refute. Get it? But you aren't presenting any evidence of anything, so that's irrelevant at the moment.

**"your not even acknowledging it."**

Wrong. I will gladly acknowledge it, then I will refute it. Magic isn't real, so it tends to be a simple matter. But since you won't present evidence of anything or even reveal what you would be presenting evidence OF, well....

**"Your the one that started"**

No, you posted a question and then e-mailed me. Remember? Not my fault you deleted it.

-----

From: Christian Warrior! #2

I'm saying, that I'm not convinced because I'm not convinced.

"I can say, "I am not convinced by the theory of gravity," but I'd look pretty foolish. You aren't faring much better here."
The theory of gravity, is different to Christianity.

I do use a dictionary. But it isn't the words that are confusing me. It's the way you put them in. I have trouble understanding some sentences sometimes.

"Wonderful quote-mine. Now if you examine what I actually said -- "That you have not suggests to me that you probably know your 'evidence' will be smashed the second I see it. I don't deny. I refute," -- things change a little."

Not really.

"Wrong. I will gladly acknowledge it, then I will refute it. Magic isn't real, so it tends to be a simple matter."

You changed what you said. In your previous email you didn't say you would gladly acknowledge it.

"**"Your the one that started"**

No, you posted a question and then e-mailed me. Remember? Not my fault you deleted it. "

I posted the question, but your the one that started it. I was asking a simple friendly question, but then you started it.

God bless.

-----

From: Zombie

**"I'm saying, that I'm not convinced because I'm not convinced."**

I don't care. What is at issue is WHY. By all appearances, it's simply because you don't want to be convinced, either due to misunderstanding or ignoring what was presented. Incidentally, you've presented nothing of your own and a heap of excuses for your failure to do so.

**"The theory of gravity, is different to Christianity."**

Christianity has no position on the theory of gravity. What I'm asking is what you disagree with and why. You seem to have nothing against arguing, but you're afraid to actually present any evidence. Strange.

**"Not really."**

Yes, really.

**"In your previous email you didn't say you would gladly acknowledge it."**

No, and neither did I say I wouldn't. YOU said that, remember? I asked you for evidence, and YOU said you weren't going to bother. The only thing I said to you was that I would refute your evidence:

Me: "I don't deny. I refute."

If you know what "refute" means, surely you realize this can't happen unless I acknowledge and comprehend whatever you say. In logic, what you've done here is called a straw-man.

**"I was asking a simple friendly question"**

This is Yahoo. There are no "friendly questions." There are just questions. You asked, then you got an answer you couldn't handle and deleted the question. Then you e-mailed me to save face and are now in way over your head. It's obvious. Good thing for you this exchange isn't public, eh?

-----

From: Christian Warrior! #2

What is wrong with you!?
You keep acting like all your evidence is undeniable

" it's simply because you don't want to be convinced, either due to misunderstanding or ignoring what was presented". You know, you are very mean,

"Incidentally, you've presented nothing of your own and a heap of excuses for your failure to do so."
I'm not giving you the evidence because Christianity is based on faith alone, not evidence. So just because I don't believe that your 'evidence' is true you think I misunderstood it, or that I ignored it. That's pretty lame you know.

"Christianity has no position on the theory of gravity. What I'm asking is what you disagree with and why. You seem to have nothing against arguing, but you're afraid to actually present any evidence. Strange.".

That's what I just said... I know I just said this, but I'll say it again. I'm not giving you any evidence because Christianity is based on faith alone, not evidence.

"Yes, really."
Your wrong.

Again, I don't understand.

"If you know what "refute" means, surely you realize this can't happen unless I acknowledge and comprehend whatever you say. In logic, what you've done here is called a straw-man."

No, again it's nothing to do with the understanding of words, it is the way they are used in. My mind can be confused with questions sometimes with lots of words I don't use allot.

Oh, so now you think the question I posted was mean. And actually you have it all wrong, very wrong. But this email is out of space.

-----

From: Christian Warrior! #2

Subject: God Bless

I will pray for you. I don't care what you think of me, but the Lord will guide me.

God bless.

"Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one can come to the Father but through me (Jesus).".

You sure like picking on kids don't you? That makes you a bully.

May the Lord guide you to the truth, that satan has blinded you from.

-----

BLOCKED!

At this point, I could send no further messages to our little warrior. The last message I tried to send is below. I'm posting a link to this on his/her blog, so I suppose it's of little consequence.

-----

From: Zombie

**"You keep acting like all your evidence is undeniable"

The evidence IS undeniable. It's right in front of you. Just like dropping a pencil to the floor is evidence of what we call gravity. Now whether you can refute the evidence is another matter entirely, and you've made no effort to do so. Perhaps because you can't?

**"You know, you are very mean"

I'm cold, direct and have little tolerance for willful ignornace. If that's "mean," then I'm guilty as charged. You'll encounter lots of "mean" people out there in the world as you grow up. Sorry. Maybe you should think about these things before trying to educate others about things you don't understand and aren't equipped to deal with --- at age (supposedly) 13, no less.

**"I'm not giving you the evidence because Christianity is based on faith alone, not evidence."

So you must have been lying earlier when you said this: "Oh, and I do have some evidence of the Bible. But you Atheists would just deny it."

In any case, "Christianity is based on faith" is a poor excuse for withholding evidence, because I'm not a Christian and have no faith. I make decisions on evidence. So what this implies is that you simply have no evidence to offer.

**"That's pretty lame you know."**

What's lame is dismissing something so vehemently then refusing to explain why.

**"I'm not giving you any evidence because Christianity is based on faith alone, not evidence."

So you lied. Plain and simple.

**"Your wrong."**

You're green. See how easy it is to just assert things without evidence? Of course, as Christopher Hitchens noted, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

**"you think the question I posted was mean."

Why do you keep attributing positions to me that I have not expressed? I said there are no friendly questions, only questions. I can't ascertain your motives, intentions or state of mind. All I can do is read your question and respond, or not. You seem to think this is personal, yet all I did was answer your question --- this is Yahoo! ANSWERS, after all. Apparently, you didn't like that, so one is left to ask why you posted in the first place, why you e-mailed me, and why you continue saying the same thing over and over again if you have nothing to offer.

**"you have it all wrong, very wrong"**

Yet you can't even begin to explain why. How very, very strange.

-----

The next generation of fundamentalists appears to be progressing very well. Hovind and Ham are all weepy with joy, I'm sure.

Proof vs. Evidence

2009-02-13T21:27:00.000-08:00

A YouTube conspiracy theorist named AntiShocker has decided that the acceptance of science is no different than belief in religion (comments can be found here). Hostile toward anything he does not understand (or does not want to understand), he has gone as far as comparing the discovery of speciated Italian wall lizards to the "discovery" of a resurrected Jesus Christ in the form of an empty tomb. I quote:

"Shown to have evolved" requires as much faith as "shown to have been created by god".

I may be using laymans terminology and hope you do not misunderstand my question. When I say observed, I imply monitored, witnessed, and before your very eyes. Looking at one of your favorites from your article, "Stephanomeira malheurensis", there is nothing evolving before your eyes. And the second sentence starts, "He found...".

Believe me, they documented what happened with the resurrection too.

And so on.

The discussion began with AntiShocker demanding "proof" of one species turning into another, an event scientists call speciation. When informed that science does not deal on the basis of proof, but on the basis of evidence, AntiShocker responded with this:

You sound like NIST trying to find a way to explain their predetermined outcome of free falling towers brought down by fire.

This:

I don't have to be a rocket scientist to witness a soaring rocket. I don't have to be a meteorologist to witness the weather change. Apparently much faith is needed to witness evolution.

And this:

I've heard many people of faith use those very words to defend the Bible. Interesting parallel?

In short, he demonstrates no interest in what science is or what science does, only an interest in validating what he has already concluded, which is quite ironic in light of his "predetermined outcome" claim.

So let's examine what proof is, what evidence is, and why science hinges on the latter rather than the former.

Some definitions of the term "proof" (American Heritage Dictionary, 2006):

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

Law: The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

Now some definitions of the term "evidence" (American Heritage Dictionary, 2006):

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment[.]

Something indicative; an outward sign[.]

Law: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law[.]

Colloquially, "proof" and "evidence" are practically synonyms. So what's the problem?

Well, the problem in science is that conclusions are based upon experiments, often in the direct sense but also in the form of models being created to make predictions, which can then be tested in turn (as is the case with evolutionary biology, cosmology and many other disciplines wherein a time machine would be handy but simply isn't available). When it comes to observation and induction (which is what experimentation boils down to), we are not dealing with absolutes but with "what best explains what we're looking at."

Yes, science can achieve "proof" in the sense of the first definition, but experiments seldom turn out nice and neat like a logical syllogism or mathematical proof. In short, "proof" can change. New data is discovered. New experiments and observational techniques are developed. Sometimes scientists, through falsification, realize their "proof" was being misinterpreted all along.

It is for this reason that scientists work with evidence, not proof. A certain level of evidence can be sufficient to prove a particular proposition (e.g. gravity) in the colloquial sense, but there is a drastic difference between this manner of proof and a syllogistic or mathematical proof. Since science is a formal discipline, it is perfectly reasonable to respond to requests for scientific "proof" by explaining that proof is reserved for logic and mathematics.

So back to AntiShocker, our hostile, anti-science YouTube conspiracy theorist. He did make a valiant attempt to save face, implying that the colloquial variety of proof was all he sought. Of course, when given such evidence (in the form of multiple references to known speciation events), he was less than accepting. Specifically in reference to the wall lizards, he complained that the isolated lizards were left unmonitored for a period of 36 years before the speciation was discovered. However, though the original lizards were introduced in 1971, today scientists have the ability to compare the DNA of the original lizards to that of the new ones. In fact, the very article that AntiShocker himself brought up to attack notes this very early on:

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

It's clear then that AntiShocker is completely uninterested in truth. With his denial of this extremely compelling evidence, I'm not certain a syllogistic or mathematical proof would convince him, either, if such were even possible. For that matter, surviving for a million years and watching evolution happen seems like it would be insufficient as well, as his mind is already set on a conclusion, and he seems inclined to defend it even at the cost of his own honesty and credibility.

What's curious about all this is that a quick look at AntiShocker's YouTube page will reveal his subscription list, which includes Alex Jones, David Icke, Guerilla News Network, Crux Flux Deluxe and 9-11 Investigator --- all bastions of conspiracy theory propaganda.

AntiShocker seems to openly embrace the claims of these individuals and organizations, whose arguments tend to revolve around speculation, paranoia and emotion, on the basis of evidence that is exponentially inferior to anything one will find in any scientific theory. In fact, I find it difficult to tell the difference between the "evidence" of conspiracy theorists and what they are simply imagining. So while AntiShocker might feel that evolution is indistinguishable from religion, it's humorous to consider that his world-view revolves around ideas and beliefs that are categorically indistinguishable from gods, psychic powers, fairies, dragons, orcs and Bulimic leprechauns.

TAG Tagged Out

2009-01-26T16:22:00.000-08:00

One of the most popular apologetic arguments around today is the transcendental argument for the existence of a god (TAG). I say "a god" because, like most philosophical musing with regard to magical deities, TAG cannot prove the existence of any specific god, even though it is overwhelmingly employed by Christians in the supposed service of Jehovah (and many supporters would not agree that the argument fails to specifically prove the Christian deity, even though it does).

Cornelius Van Til can probably be considered the contemporary originator, though sources for the argument go back as far as Immanuel Kant and even the Apostle Paul. Until his tragically early death in 1995, apologist Greg Bahnsen was probably the most "famous" proponent of TAG, making it a staple of presuppositionalism. The argument is now offered regularly by CARM's Matt Slick (who presents a fervent and, at times, desperate and surprisingly angry defense of TAG in YouTube comments) and is almost sure to grace any atheist versus theist forum that focuses on philosophy.

So what exactly is this wondrous TAG?

It takes many forms but can be summarized as follows (taken from the CARM website, which I will be referring to frequently):

Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.

They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God.

In the CARM video linked to above, Matt Slick elaborates and claims that a nonbeliever cannot "account" for her use of reason, thereby requiring her to borrow from the Christian worldview and effectively presuppose God's existence in order to deny it.

Let's start with the concept of "Logical Absolutes" in regard to TAG. This is central to the CARM vartiation, though other apologists might substitute induction, science, mathematics or knowledge in general. In this sense, it is difficult to even pinpoint a generally agreed-upon structure, though most incarnations can essentially reduce to this:

1. [Some fact of reality] is absolute, independent of human minds, matter and energy.

2. Human minds are contradictory and cannot create [some absolute fact of reality].

3. Some absolute, transcendent mind must create [some absolute, transcendent fact of reality].

4. This mind is God.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Unfortunately, it is seldom explained what is meant by a given "absolute fact of reality." CARM's "Logical Absolutes" are quasi-explained in that they are asserted to be "not dependent on space ... time ... [or] people," namely Aristotle's Three Laws. It is further asserted, "If we traveled a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true." Even if we assume this is correct (and it IS an assumption, since I'm fairly certain no one on CARM's staff has "traveled a million light years" to test this claim), it remains unclear why the self-validating proposition "A is A" requires a god.

If God exists, A is A.

If God does not exist, A might not be A.

I'm not sure that makes sense, especially in light of the fact that the God of Christianity is described in the Bible as routinely violating all manner of natural laws. Do TAG-wielders simply have hope that their deity will not one day take a notion to trick them? It seems so. Nonetheless, if we're going to deal in these terms, then hope and optimism in regard to God's consistency are no more justified than hope and optimism that the observed universe will continue to behave consistently. In fact, the universe has an advantage, in that it can be observed, whereas God cannot.

So, in effect, there are two possibilities here. Either God can violate Logical Absolutes or God is subject to Logical Absolutes. In the case of the former, Logical Absolutes are not absolute at all but are simply observations according to the deity's current whim. In the case of the latter, logic is either external to the deity, or the deity has subjected itself to logic, which creates the same problem noted previously (that logic is merely a divine whim). In either case, the theist who offers the transcendental argument can no more account for Logical Absolutes in his worldview than the non-Christians he attacks can account for the same in theirs.

This alone invalidates TAG, but there are some interesting responses to objections on CARM's TAG page that I believe are worth taking a look at.

Objection:
Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence[.]

Apologist's Response:
In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?

It's not clear what is meant by "natural existence," but the implication here is that consciousness arises from something other than matter and energy as we know it. The apologist is surely aware that the precise mechanisms of consciousness are not yet known to science, but how this gives him leave to implicitly attribute concepts to magical forces is anyone's guess.

Objection:
Logical Absolutes simply exist.

Apologist's Response:
This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.

It is strange that the apologist chooses to respond in this manner, since I have never heard an explanation for God that amounts to any more than "He simply exists." In the Bible, God himself says, "I Am." The apologist obviously makes no attempt to offer any explanation of or accounting for his divine logic factory here.

Objection:
Logical Absolutes are uncaused[.]

Apologist's Response:
Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused, [is] if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.

I'm not sure the objection is correct, but the response is nonsensical. Yet again, the apologist implies that anything conceptual lies in a ghostly netherealm and does so without bothering to defend the claim. Further, he paints himself into a corner by alluding to "an uncaused and absolute mind," but I'll let that slide since I've already shown that such a mind doesn't explain anything and is actually counterproductive in establishing "Logical Absolutes."

Objection:
"Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc. Suggested by the fact that logic - like language - is learned, not inbuilt.

Apologist's Response:
How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so, doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates your assertion is incorrect.

The irony of this response is hilariously nauseating, since CARM (Matt Slick in particular) habitually displays an overwhelming devotion to the idea that saying (or thinking) something can, indeed, make it so. In fact, the entire Christian worldview is metaphysically rooted in the primacy of consciousness, which entails existence conforming to thoughts. God wishes the universe into being. Apologists cannot conceive of [some absolute fact of reality] without a god, therefore God exists. Yet, at the same time, CARM criticizes this very thing.

Also, it should be noted that the apologist yet again invokes his own incredulity but offers no justification for his appeal to the ghostly netherealm of concepts. He simultaneously wades deeper into the mud pit he has created by asserting that "human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory," and "This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute." Of course, he never explains why a mind is necessary in order for existence to exist, nor does he account for this mind. Why does God exist? Why is God logical? How does the apologist know that God is logical, as opposed to acting out a divine whim? How is this any different from presupposing that the universe simply is the way it is according to our best observational abilities, even if we don't know why? As noted previously, Christianity provides no answers.

The objections roll on, and the CARM apologist continues offering the same responses and asserting that no one has explained the existence of "Logical Absolutes." However, I believe it is clear at this point that he cannot explain them, either.

Icecream: Brain Freeze?

2009-01-11T13:42:00.000-08:00

Yet another exchange with a creationist, this one from Yahoo! Answers. I am Zombie; Icecream is the creationist.

-----

Icecream said:

To those who don't believe in God, what do you think of this analogy to help you believe ?
I'm not in any way disrespecting anyone who doesn't believe in God, I know that it is a personal thing we come to on our own, but what would you say to this analogy I used to answer someone else's question asking people to help him believe again. I'm curious what you think of it.
Here it goes:

"Regardless of faith, we all accept how perfect creation is - the planets orbiting the sun, chemistry, math, physics, thermodynamics, all the way down to the structure of an atom (if even a single one was off there would be a huge nuclear explosion), insects, life. There is so much 'thought' behind the structure of everything and how it all ends up working together like one big huge science project on the scale of the universe. If anything in it was off, none of it would work and it would fall apart.

So, if all of the raw ingredients were handed to anyone, even to a group of experts from each field, woudl they be able to replicate it or invent it from scratch? What about leaving it to chance like non believers think it 'naturally' happened by itself. That would be like opening your fridge, randomly mixing variously ingredients together tossing it in the oven and randomly removing it from the oven yet expecting it to come out a perfectly baked cake with all the right ingredients, even frosting on top and candles with your exact age on your birthday. Oh, and on top of it, letting it all happen on its own without a 'knowing' creator behind it, just randomly happened. If even a cake could never randomly be created, but requires intelligence, how much moreso for.....the entire universe and everything in it??? It doesn't make sense to me to think it all happened out of a 'bang'. If I bank on my fridge will a cake pop out all baked?"

So if the big bang (which science is now admitting is a faulty theory) were to have magicallly spewed out all of the ingredients of the universe, they would instinctively without intelligence happen to come together to get what we have today, when even blasting ingredients to make a cake won't produce a cake unless somebody is behind the scenes to do it in precise measurements and ingredients

3 hours ago
The constellation of the planets, seasons, construction of the human body and brain - that is all chaos? A big bang magically created that on its own?

-----

Zombie said:

Planets orbit the sun due to gravity.

Chemistry describes the properties of matter and how matter interacts. Like all sciences, it describes reality and would have no meaning without minds to process it.

Math, physics, thermodynamics --- ditto. Do you even know what thermodynamics is? Probably not, but I'm just basing that guess on the average of creationists I've dealt with.

You call all of this "perfect," but relative to what? The universe is a violent place, almost entirely inhospitable to life. Only a small percentage of our own planet is capable of sustaining life. There are universal constants, some of which might have produced a drastically different universe if altered. But that doesn't demonstrate anything except that our present universe exists as it should given the values of those constants. Can you say no sapient life would have emerged in a different universe? Of course you can't.

**"So if the big bang (which science is now admitting is a faulty theory)"**

Speaking of alternate universes, you must be living in one.

Also, the Big Bang is not "magic." Appeals to a magical ex nihilo creation event are the domain of god-believers.

-----

Icecream said:

3 hours ago
Like I said very few scientists still believe in the big bang theory and 13.6 billion years is comparable to a fraction of a second to God. He could've created the earth a trillion times for all we know over trillion gazillion years (I don't know the names of large numbers lol)

-----

Zombie said:

**Like I said very few scientists still believe in the big bang theory"**

Completely untrue, but I'll be polite and ask for your peer-reviewed source supporting this claim. I'll also direct you to Wikipedia's layman-friendly article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

**"and 13.6 billion years is comparable to a fraction of a second to God."**

I don't believe in gods, so I'm not sure what significance you think that has.

**"He could've created the earth a trillion times for all we know over trillion gazillion years (I don't know the names of large numbers lol)"**

Yes, we can all create imaginary characters in our minds and attribute powers and phenomena to them, but the explanatory power of such endeavors is nil.

-----

Icecream said:

2 hours ago
ZOMBIE - I am by no means a scientist even though I have taken some science courses at a highly regarded science university you've all heard of, but I got my info about the big bang theory no longer widely accepted in the science community from a documentary on it was either the HIstory or Discovery Chanel and it wasn't just a fluff piece, it had guys like the one in the wheelchair forgot his name and other big guys and they demonstrated how it no longer makes sense which I don't know enough science to repeat here and it gave the impression that those who are not on the cutting edge in science still hold to it mostly because they are not yet exposed to all the theories which now disprove it. They even had a mocking name for it which I can't remember. But I personally don't know enough science to know if it is true or not.

-----

Zombie said:

You said:

>>"...the big bang (which science is now admitting is a faulty theory)"<<
>>"...magicallly spewed out all of the ingredients of the universe"<<

Then you said:

>>"...I don't know enough science to repeat here"<<
>>"...I personally don't know enough science to know if it is true or not."<<

Yet you apparently understood well enough to draw a conclusion, at least with sufficient clarity to offer it as an argument in support of your fallacious "analogy." Strange that you know of no peer-reviewed sources which might corroborate the usurpation of modern cosmology's backbone, and even stranger still that this earth-shaking information has been so effectively suppressed and ignored. You can't even recall the title of the show? Very strange indeed. Maybe the alleged scientists weren't saying what you think they said?

The "one in the wheelchair" is probably Stephen Hawking. If you think he is anti-Big Bang, then you grossly misinterpreted something. Read his 2005 book "A Briefer History of Time" for an introduction to cosmology and theoretical physics.

And I repeat: Even if the Big Bang theory, evolutionary theory and every other staple of modern science collapses tomorrow, gods and magic do not explain anything, and the existence or nonexistence of said gods is unrelated to any given theory's veracity.

NaturalBornPredator: On the Prowl for Jesus

2008-11-27T11:17:00.000-08:00

There's no shortage of proselytizing and soul-saving attempts within the wild world of YouTube. I regularly receive messages from religious fundamentalists who think evolution is satanic or believe, for some strange reason, that the Bible is scientifically accurate and undeniable. Most are merely spammers on a mission, but occasionally I'll encounter one willing to hurl himself or herself headlong into the futile task of defending creationism.

NaturalBornPredator is one such theist. During our exchanges, he (I assume "he") made numerous claims but offered precious little in the way of evidence, logic or source material. All of his assertions were soundly refuted over a period of days, so imagine my surprise when he didn't respond to my last message but, instead, posted the following angry comment on my NephilimFree video:

NaturalBornPredator (13 hours ago)
Haha, i am so sorry for you libertyisnot. You deny all facts that Creationist explain and prove to you by simply stating that they are false when you know good and well we are speaking the truth.
I have explained all the topics you questioned me on but you still cant swallow your pride and admit your wrong.
And Liberty Is Given too.
You did not take or earn YOUR Liberty from no one. It was given to you!

Since NBP seems determined to dwell in Delusion Land, I feel compelled to document his failures here. Our correspondence was too lengthy to repost in whole, but I will list his major claims, quote him as necessary, and include the necessary refutations. He boasted, "I have 100's of proven scientific facts that prove the Bible," but it will soon be evident that this is not the case.

* * *

Moses and the Exodus

NBP contends that Moses correctly predicted the order of evolution in Genesis and that the odds of doing so are "one in TRILLIONS." My response is that Moses is a character of legend whose existence is, at best, unsupported, and scholarly consensus is that he almost certainly did not write the Book of Genesis. As for the predictive value of Genesis, this claim has been made before and soundly refuted. I provided NBP with the following links:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Genesis_1_got_the_order_of_events_right
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html

...and he refused to address them beyond simply restating his position.

NBP also claimed that there is evidence for the enslavement of Hebrews by the Egyptians, as depicted in the Book of Exodus. He also claimed there are "cave drawings" that correspond with the Exodus story. In support of this, he offered the following link:

The Exodus out of Egypt: Archaeology Confirms Biblical History

With such a bold title, I expected the article to provide something of substance. Rather, it merely speculates that an immigrant portion of the Hyksos population might have included the unfortunate Hebrews of Exodus. The problem I have with this account is one of simple numbers. Exodus claims 600,000 men, plus women and children, fled Egypt. This pushes the total population to 2 million or more, which would not only approach logistical impossibility but is too great a multitude for the desert environment to sustain. Such a loss to the population base would have been catastrophic for Egypt, but the historical record simply does not reflect this. Coupled with the sheer lack of evidence for the Red Sea parting and the ~400 B.C.E. date of compilation from three different sources agreed upon for Exodus (centuries after the alleged events would have occurred), there is no compelling reason to believe the Moses account even if the ancient Hyksos included the Hebrew slaves of the Bible.

These objections were relayed to NaturalBornPredator, and he chose not to respond to them.

Flath Earth

NBP contends that the Bible describes a round earth, and he considers this miraculous because:

They told [Christopher Columbus] the earth was flat because scientist [sic] actually believed that the earth was flat! It is stated in the Bible, thousands and thousands of years before the time of Columbus[,] "He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, the people are like small grasshoppers, and He stretches out the canopy of the Heavens[,]" Isiah [sic] (40:22)[.]

My response is that a circle is not a sphere.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Also, the earth was understood to be spherical perhaps as early as 3rd-6th Century B.C.E. in Greece, well before the time of Columbus. The common story that his critics feared he would sail off the edge of the world is a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

In short, the Bible apparently describes a flat earth. However, even if it doesn't, there's nothing special about it. NBP acknowledged being in error about Columbus but failed to respond regarding the Bible's flat earth implications.

Biblical Flood / The Grand Canyon

NaturalBornPredator asserts that there is undeniable proof for the biblical flood and that the flood is responsible for carving the Grand Canyon and numerous other geologic features. He also employs the common theistic tactic of appealing to the prevalence of flood myths across many cultures. Despite being asked for sources, he has provided none, but I offered the following simple refutations of creationist flood claims:

Grand Canyon
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html

Flood Myths
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html

Misc. Flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

Prophecy

NBP asserts that the prophetic dream in Daniel 8 is a metaphor for the September 11, 2001 terrorism incident in the United States. My response is that the dream is actually interpreted later in the same chapter, and most Christian apologists hold that it refers to a military encounter between Alexander the Great and Darius III. Even that is ad hoc rationalization, but at least it relates to what the passage says.

I also asked NBP what he thinks of all the other prophecies that have been "fulfilled" ad hoc (e.g. those of Nostradamus and the Qu'ran), but he just ignored the topic and repeatedly insisted that I do not understand the Bible.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH110.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Defining "God"

NBP asserts that God created science, God is love, God is the creator, etc. When I asked NBP to provide a positive ontology for the being he calls "God," he was unable to do so. In fact, he refused to even acknowledge the request.

Refusal to Believe

NaturalBornPredator repeatedly claims that I lack faith, am blind, am in denial about the obvious proofs he provided me with. The refutations of his "proofs" notwithstanding, I asked if he would be able to wake the following morning and force himself to believe in anything. Zeus was my example, and I wondered if NBP could make himself believe in Zeus under threat of eternal torture. I have yet to receive a response.

Personal Experience

Some of NBP's more insistant and incoherent moments occur when he tries to explain how the undefined being called "God" saved him from drugs, whores and suicide. Without a definition, I'm not sure what we're even talking about, but I'm left to wonder about all the atheists and other non-Christians who have pulled themselves out of dire straits without any deity. Likewise, anyone with access to news is surely aware of all the strong Christians who have plummetted into despair and debachery, in spite of their alleged personal relationships with an undefined being.

Beyond all of that, NBP's personal experience is of no use to me, which is why we skeptics tend to request that claims be supported by evidence and logic. Of course, creationist claims (and theistic claims in general) tend to lack in both categories, which is why such subjective appeals are the norm in the first place.

Cosmological Straw-Man

For no reason, NBP attacks the ex nihilo universe as though it is a position I hold.

You say the big bang or whatever you think caused all of this diversity, happened by chance?!? Chance is not a real choice at all, because chance cant cause anything real. Chance is not even a legit scientifc factor. you should know that.
Latin term- Ex nihilo nihil fit- translation- something does'nt come from nothing.

The problem here is that I never mentioned the Big Bang, and I certainly never asserted that something came from nothing. So it is unclear from whence NBP got the idea that "[I] say" anything of the sort.

Astronomical Ignorance

NBP asks the following questions:

How can there be exactly 24 hours in a day?

How can the stars tell of the seasons year after year?

My responses are as follows:

1) There are not exactly 24 hours in a day, but 24.0000006 hours relative to the sun (solar day) and about 23.93 hours relative to the celestial sphere (stellar day). The day is longer now than it was just a few centuries ago due to tidal acceleration. Evidence in varves suggests that a day 620 million years ago was only about 21.9 hours.

2) Stars do not "tell of the seasons year after year" -- and such an apprehension of the subject is grade-school level at best. The earth's movement can be measured relative to the stars, and this movement results in the tilt of the earth altering the directness at which the earth receives sunlight, resulting in seasons. Furthermore, as time passes, the celestial arrangement does change slightly. For example, Polaris was not always the "North Star," and will cease to be at some point in the future.

Evolution of the Eye

NBP asserts that the eye could not have evolved. My response: the eye can evolve and did. This claim has been spread throughout creationist circles for years, and it is simply ignorant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Five Questions

At one point in our back-and-forth, NBP made the following offer:

"Always feel free to ask me questions."

So I compiled a list of five items and asked at least four times that he respond to them.

1. What part of existence do you think requires a deity, and are you familiar with the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

2. The traits of omniscience and omnipotence are often assigned simultaneously to the Christian God, but this creates a self-contradiction. Rene Descartes believed this wasn't a problem, because God is able to violate logic and reason and reality itself (i.e. he can make square circles, create rocks he can't lift, then lift them, and do other logically impossible things). Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, maintained that God must operate within the framework of logic and reason. If you subscribe to the Descartes notion of God, why do you argue for something that can't be defended rationally? If you subscribe to the Aquinian notion of God, then you concede that God is limited by logic and therefore NOT omnipotent. As such, why call him God when there is something greater (logic)?

3. As a theist, you must hold the metaphysical view that a consciousness (which you vaguely term "God") wished the entire universe into existence. Have you ever seen any testable demonstration of a consciousness existing without a body and/or creating/destroying matter or energy through the power of thought? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice for this item.

4. If consciousness ("God") preceded [material] existence, how was it conscious? What was it conscious of without an object?

5. How do you explain all of the incorrect prophecies, lies and other failures in the Bible?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Alas, my five questions remain unanswered and unacknowledged.

Now that the status of NaturalBornPredator's "argumentation" has been made public, it raises the vexing prospect of what motivated him to post the comment mentioned at the beginning of this article. All of NBP's claims have been shown false, yet he still claims that I can't "swallow [my] pride and admit [that I am] wrong." There is something inherently dishonest and misleading about such a remark, which clearly is not in line with the tenets of faith common betwen most sects of Christianity.

Also, it goes without saying that there is likely a textbook instance of psychological projection at work here, wherein NBP knows he is wrong and has entered an arena he is not equipped to compete in, yet he is more comfortable attributing those traits to me. In reality, if he could truly show that I am wrong on any of the issues discussed above, he would have done so. That he has not, and has largely ignored everything I have patiently communicated to him, suggests that he is aware of this but can't overcome the very pride his Bible warns about.

"I have not stated the first incorrect fact, please tell me clearly what you are confused about." -NaturalBornPredator

As the saying goes, LOL!

Atomic Theory in the Bible?

2008-11-23T13:32:00.000-08:00

On several occasions these last couple of years, I've encountered theists who subscribe to the notion that Hebrews 11:3 describes atoms. Since atomic theory was not formulated until the 19th Century, only God could have inspired the author of Hebrews with such wondrous knowledge.

This is a wishful proposition at best. It's so dubious, in fact, that the verse is often only partially quoted and almost never rendered within its full context. (Oh, what irony in theists taking the Bible out of context to rescue their faith in it.)

Here is Hebrews 11:3 as often rendered by Christians with a penchant for apologetics (multiple versions provided, courtesy of BibleGateway.com):

"...the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (KJV)

"...the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (NIV)

"...the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (ESV)

ZOMG! Atomic theory! In the Bible! Nearly two millennia ahead of time!

Well, let's not jump to conclusions. Or -- more accurately -- let's not fall into the tried and untrue theistic tactic of forming a conclusion then trying to make evidence fit with it.

Young's Literal Translation of the same snippet isn't quite so encouraging:

"...we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing...." (YLT)

Now what happens when we examine this verse in context? For brevity, I'll deal only with the common NIV.

(1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (2) This is what the ancients were commended for.
(3) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (4) By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
(5) By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. (6) And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
(7) By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
(8) By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. (9) By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. (10) For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

So from a larger sample of the passage, it becomes clear that the author is dealing with faith. Verse 1, in particular, is a problem for the apologetic position that the author predicted atomic theory. "[What] we do not see" is a reference to the supernatural origin of existence (God) as accepted per the author's religious predisposition. Verse 3 quite obviously continues along this train of thought, claiming that what we see ("creation," if you will) was spawned by the invisible object of faith mentioned in verse 1. It most certainly does not refer to atoms or any other sub-visual phenomenon, and asserting otherwise is to completely drop the rather blatant context of the passage.

But let's forget about that.

For a moment, let's assume that Hebrews 11:3 does refer to atoms. What does this mean?

Not much, actually. Greek philosophers first adopted the natural philosophy of atomism perhaps as early as the 5th Century B.C.E. Though it was later criticized by Aristotle and lay virtually untouched from the 2nd Century C.E. (Galen of Pergamon) until Gassendi and Descartes revived the concept some 1,400 years later, it seems likely that this philosophy on matter would have been well known at the time, particularly in Greek-speaking circles (which is consistent with the biblical New Testament).

So even if one is to completely ignore the context of Hebrews 11 and cherry-pick an unintended meaning from verse 3, the apologist is still left with no reasonable grounds on which to claim atomic theory was divinely predicted by an unknown biblical author. The notion of "invisible" particles was a product of philosophy centuries prior to the writing of Hebrews and remained easily accessible knowledge until well after that time.

'The Game of God' - A Brief Critique

2008-10-31T22:48:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recently loaned me The Game of God: Recovering Your True Identity, by Arthur Hancock and Kathleen Brugger. It was published in 1992, and the Amazon.com product description includes the following:

The Game of God makes the radical proposal that the universe is literally the game of God; that God created the universe in order to experience duality and limitation. The purpose of the universe is for God to enjoy the vast array of experiences that God, as an unlimited being, cannot experience: life and death, joy and pain, beginning and end, fear and hate, happiness and sorrow. In order to have a realistic experience of limitation, God must forget that She-He-It is God.

My summation is a bit more concise:

A deity ("God"), which is infinite and all-powerful, allegedly exploded itself into amnesia-afflicted parts in the interest of self-amusement, and all of existence is explained by this deity recovering itself.

I will make some references to Objectivist ideas in this critique. Even though I am not an Objectivist (as anyone familiar with my previous political encounters with certain Objectivists should be well aware), I do consider Ayn Rand's contributions to epistemology and metaphysics significant.

Needless to say, the propositions in the book at issue are deeply flawed, and these flaws manifest early and often. The initial display of epic failure in The Game of God occurs via an illustration in the opening pages, which features a contrasting of the "Logical Scientific View" ("The entire universe suddenly spewed out of absolutely nothing, and many billions of years later, rocks turned to meat and started thinking") and the "Illogical Metaphysical View" ("The universe was created deliberately by something we do not yet understand, for purposes we are only beginning to fathom"). The scientific view being portrayed as "absolutely nothing" exploding into "absolutely everything" is a common straw-man version of the Big Bang. The actual theory says nothing about "nothing," but merely explains why the universe is expanding. To date, it is the most successful model of the universe and has multiple scientific predictions to its credit. The drawing is intended to be humorous, I realize, but it is indicative of the insurmountable problems to come.

The authors' chief failure is the granting of metaphysical primacy to consciousness (hereafter primacy of consciousness or PoC). Given the book's thesis -- "God" is the universe in the process of recovering his/her/its identity -- PoC is a necessary component and predictably brings down the entire proposal built upon it. As Leonard Piekoff wrote in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

The primacy of existence [PoE] is not an independent principle. It is an elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms. Existence precedes consciousness because, consciousness is consciousness of an object. Nor can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something and acts accordingly. Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects.

P0C is the inverse of PoE. To claim that consciousness precedes existence is to claim that consciousness controls existence, i.e. some mind has the ability to mold (or manufacture) matter and energy to its liking simply by wishing. Of course, this denies what it means to be conscious (i.e. aware of something, existence being the precondition), and it raises the confounding questions of what exactly such a disembodied consciousness is conscious of and how (or from what source) it gained the requisite knowledge to act.

A common response is to assert that a deity could be conscious of his/her/its own thoughts. However, aside from being a self-referential disaster, such a notion does little other than create another layer of ambiguity. In short, what are these thoughts of? Thinking requires that something is thought about, but the PoC proponent would have us believe either that thinking precedes what is thought about (subject hierarchically placed prior to object) or that thinking about thinking (whatever that means!) is sufficient to establish the P0C, and from that point it is rational to conclude that such thoughts may create ex nihilo, modify and destroy reality.

But the latter case provides no basis for rationality at all. Indeed, it is silly to even argue from such a position, because the very fabric of existence can change at the whim of a disembodied consciousness. Ironically, it is often argued by theists, some deists and many mystic-leaning agnostics that an atheistic view of reality reduces to absurdity, when it is actually the PoC-based gods that result in nothing short of metaphysical and epistemological chaos and senselessness.

While The Game of God does not argue from a presuppositionalist or even a necessarily Christian perspective, the following essays are nonetheless applicable to the PoC/PoE issue and address it better than I could ever hope to:

The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy (Thorn)
TAG and the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept (Thorn)
Dodging the Subject-Object Relationship (Bethrik)
The Axioms and the Primacy of Existence (Bethrik)
Theism and its Piggyback Starting Point (Bethrik)
The Cartoon Universe of Theism (Bethrik)
Bahnsen on 'Knowing the Supernatural' (Bethrik)
The Presuppositionalist View of Man's Consciousness (Bethrik)
Only Two Worldviews? (Bethrik)
Reveling in Reversals (Bethrik)
The Primacy of Existence: A Validation (Bethrik)
Argument from the Fact of Existence (Tremblay)
Why Presuppositionalism is Wrong (Tremblay)
Reality is Absolute (Landauer and Rowlands)
Primacy of Consciousness (Landauer and Rowlands)

In essence, the PoC metaphysic is left dangling in an intellectual void as an indefensible appeal to ignorance. As has been the case with so many other aspects of reality throughout history -- from the god-status assigned to the sun and moon, lightning explained by the throwing of Thor's warhammer, etc. -- PoC is dependent upon gaps in knowledge as to the precise nature of consciousness. Beyond the PoE "existence exists" axiom, we have plenty of evidentiary reasons for dismissing PoC:

1) all known instances of consciousness require a brain,
2) no consciousness has ever been shown to possess mastery over existence,
3) gods remain elusive entities devoid of logical and empirical support, et al.

Still, a comprehensive scientific account of what consciousness is and how it works has yet to emerge, and it is this gap which allows PoC-rooted philosophies to thrive. Perhaps in a hundred years, humans will be able to look back at the early 21st Century as the last refuge of magical thinking, and the primacy of consciousness metaphysic can be decisively cast into the scrap heap with all the other mysticism of yesteryear.

It seems superfluous to continue since the foundational principle of The Game of God is hopelessly in error, but there are a couple of minor additional points I would like to note.

Firstly, the authors poke fun at the Big Bang and then posit their own musings as a "theory," which in the context of the book is perhaps an equivocation fallacy. A scientific theory is the best known explanation for a set of facts -- e.g. evolution happens, the theory of evolution explains how; gravity happens, the theories of gravitation and general relativity explain how, etc. This is not the same manner in which the term "theory" is used colloquially, but this seems lost on the writers as they gleefully throw the word around with abandon, perhaps hoping to lend some credence to their invalid ideas. Or maybe it was an honest oversight. In any case, the propositions of Hancock and Brugger do not constitute a scientific theory, nor are scientific theories equivalent to the guesses and conjectures implied by colloquial usage, no matter who makes light of them.

Secondly, the latter stages of The Game of God give way to a nauseating rant against the human ego (an outright and unjustified denial of individualism, actually, stemming from the failed PoC premise) and a declaration of undeniability. That is, the authors declare that, if one tries to tap into the God-identify and fails, then it is simply due to that person still being corrupted by the selfish ego. Some gems from the late-game and my thoughts follow:

"The truth hurts, it is said, and what it hurts is the lie. Humans were evolved to discover that in spite of all their efforts and all their accomplishments, they are, in fact, dying ignoramuses." (pg. 255)

The God-Game philosophy seems inordinately preoccupied with disparaging humankind. Indeed, there is scarcely a positive word in the entire book, save for the proverbial "afterlife" which is euphemistically called the "Awakening." This is a common thread between many religious movements, especially those which might be labeled theistic.

"We are just as helplessly enslaved by our egos as alcoholics are by alcohol." (pg. 267)

How insulting! Living in reality is not enslavement. Living in a fantasy is, however.

Following this claim is a restructuring of the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-Step Program (which I will not rehash), but it has been tailored for ego addiction. And yes, it is every bit as patronizing and ridiculous as it sounds.

"Ego can never 'fix itself' to the point of being able to produce love/sanity, because love does not come from the ego. Love must come from a source other than the body, mind or personality." (pg. 269)

Love is a biochemical reaction. Of course, the authors neglect this and offer no defense for their claim to the contrary.

"'Understanding' blocks experience." (pg. 271)

I look at the night sky and understand why the heavens are not static. I'm staring at this text editor right now and understand the code and hardware that allow it to function. Understanding emphatically does not block experience but enhances it, because it allows us to investigate further and sometimes even improve upon said experiences. Claiming otherwise is just a painfully transparent way of discouraging critical thought.

"We must feel that our pride is broken." (pg. 277)

No, the authors simply recognize the Old Faithful of religious propaganda: disparage the man in order to elevate the god (or the god's representatives).

And last but not least:

"If, after taking this step, we do not have the undeniable experience of the presence of God (the experience of liberation from ego-identity), it simply means we did not really take the step (we did not take it with true humility, which means we did not relinquish our egos ... we need to go back and tell more truth)." (pg. 279)

Theists of all stripes, especially Christians, level similar charges against ex-members of their faith on a regular basis. Usually, the criticism entails accusations of having never been a real Christian (after all, no true Scotsman would ever leave the fold). It is a fallacy and should be dismissed out of hand, but that doesn't stop the faithful from employing it.

In The Game of God, this shifting of blame and arrogant poo-pooing of dissent serves as a telling indicator of the authors' miserable failure to present any sort of coherent argumentation. If their magic doesn't work for you or even make sense, it's your fault. How convenient.

After completing the book, I half-jokingly told the friend who loaned it to me that the reading experience was like having the authors try to convince me that their outlandish LSD-induced hallucinations actually happened. By no means am I accusing Hancock and Brugger of bending a faith around acid trips, but the entire text does maintain a sort of airy, disjointed timbre and creative use of spacing and line-breaks that are bound to at least introduce the suggestion of substance utilization. The bizarre cartoons on every other page don't help the image.

From someone who is used to reading Nozick, Rothbard, Rand, Konkin, Carson, Spooner, Proudhon, Stirner and Mises, I suppose a lighter approach to philosophy might have a place in the world, but The Game of God takes material that is already of dubious merit and turns it into a surreal expression of strangeness that I'm not sure whether to describe as merely wrong or completely disturbing.

After careful consideration, I will continue requesting actual evidence for the existence of gods. I'm simply not convinced by philosophical meanderings and fanciful hypotheses, especially when they reek of fallacies from the very start.

Proud, Loud and Clueless

2008-10-24T17:54:00.000-07:00

In a previous post that included my refutation of a censor-happy YouTube creationist named NephilimFree, I listed a couple of ignorant comments by a user named ProudToBLoud. Those comments precipitated the imminent showdown with Nephi.

Lo and behold, a week or two ago, ProudToBLoud decided to show up on the YouTube video I posted announcing the blog entry in question. Did he attempt to counter my arguments against NephilimFree? No, of course not. Here's the unedited conversation in its entirety so far. I'll update this post if necessary.

-----

ProudToBLoud
don exodus bans people that disagree with him , he did with me and then he took a cheap shot against me on vestigial organs, knowing i could not reply back, dr montague bans and abuses people that disagree, calling one girl a hoe pig for no good reason, fsa calls people liars even when the ppeople have proved something as true, he dosent retract his smear, these things are par for the course with evolutionists on youtube.

LibertyIsNotGiven
Except DonExodus, I have no idea who those people are, why you think your obviously bitter opinions about them mean anything to me, or what an "evolutionist" is. That term went out of scientific vogue decades ago and is now generally employed only by creationists who deny reality. Seriously, your comment makes no sense.

ProudToBeLoud
you said-why you think your obviously bitter opinions about them mean anything to me,

its nothing to do with being bitter, its pointing out that when people moan that creationists block people, then i am just pointing out evolutionists do it too, i can say that your bitter about nephilimfree then eh

as for "evolutionist" being out of vogue, well its not a problem for the online bible for people such as yourself "talk Origins" they said an "evolutionist" created the terms definiton of cont:

micro and macro evolution, so according to you talk origins must be creationists for using that term then eh!

as for not making any sense , i wouldnt expect to make sense to someone who uncritically swallows the frogs into princes fairytale, people like you make little sense to me.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"then i am just pointing out evolutionists do it too"**

It seems quite clear that you're bitter because DonExodus blocked you. It doesn't take a formal statistical analysis to see the amount of discussion that occurs on prominent science videos vs. the amount of discussion that occurs on prominent creationist videos.

Your entire last paragraph is a run-on sentence, and I can't tell where one thought stops and the next one begins.

**"micro and macro evolution"

Yes, like "evolutionist," those terms were in use prior to the mechanisms being fully understood. Now we understand that macroevolution is merely microevolution on large time scales. Likewise, we no longer have gravitationists, germists, Copernicans, Newtonians, or evolutionists in science. We simply have scientists.

**"uncritically swallows the frogs into princes fairytale"

If that's your understanding of evolution, I pity you.

ProudToBeLoud
huh, your post does not make sense, if me pointing out that an evolutionist blocks people makes me bitter, then anyone saying that creationists block evolutionists then we can say they are just bitter too.

you said-It doesn't take a formal statistical analysis to see the amount of discussion that occurs on prominent science videos

pseudo science but not science, get it right

well if you think that the terms are redundant then talk origins disagree with you because not only do they say that they were created by an evolutionist, they point out that they were revived by steven jay gould in modern times, it would help to get your facts straight about modern usuage of these terms

as for understanding of evolution, as you are somebody who cannot even get your basic facts right, i will take any pity with a pinch of salt from you.

LibertyIsNotGiven
You [type] as one with a sizable shoulder chip, as the saying goes. I'm sorry you were blocked by DonExodus, but this harbored anger of yours is unlikely to be productive. If you're unwilling to see the difference between, say, thunderf00t, KingHeathen or potholer54 and creationists like VFX and NephilimFree, that's unfortunate and sad. Even if DonExodus blocked you for no good reason, he still allows debate on his channel, which is far more than can be said for your mystical friends.

**"created by an evolutionist"

I did not assert otherwise, only that they are deprecated in a scientific context.

**"talk origins disagree with you"

The pertinent content on TalkOrigins is consistent with what I've already said to you.

**"you are somebody who cannot even get your basic facts right"

Actually, you merely seem an angry person who has a difficult time understanding the most simple concepts. If DonExodus blocked you, I now see why. You're proud and loud, and that's about it.

ProudToBeLoud
the person that has a chip on your shoulder is you, thats why you made this video about nephilimfree, you lack self awareness aswell as getting your facts mixed up, secondly as for mystical friends, baylor university showed that athiests are more likely to believe in pseudosciences and mysticism, but dont worry you dont have any self awareness while hanging out with your mystical friends.

the pertinent information on talk origins is inconsistent with you, but thats evolutionists for you, if something goes against their position then it supports their position too:)

as for the proud and loud, how can you be a loud typer, its just a sign in name, but it must be you have been hanging with your mystical friends too long, you have lost the ability to think.

LibertyIsNotGiven
Hardly, dear friend. I made this video about NephilimFree because he is a liar and I, among many other truth-seeking individuals, owned him. If you care to actually debunk my arguments instead of insulting me, they're all in the blog entry.

**"you lack self awareness"

Is that supposed to mean something, or is it just the best thing left on your shrinking list of cheap shots?

**"pseudosciences and mysticism"

Hate to break it to ya, but creation myths qualify as "pseudosciences and mysticism."

Well, we can sit here and assert contrary positions ad infinitum. I see nothing on TalkOrigins aside from the colloquial references one might expect when differentiating the scientific position from the religious. Nothing says the term isn't deprecated, and numerous TO Usenet posts suggest otherwise. If you'd ever sat down with a real scientist or studied real science, maybe you'd know this.

I see the idea of metaphor is lost on you. Sorry, didn't mean to [type] over your head.

ProudToBeLoud
cheap shots, now we are having hypocrisy from you too

i just pointed out some evolutionists that ban people and all you could do in response was talk about chip on the shoulder , that was a cheap shot, so the point of self awarness is pertinent , you made a few little cheap digs in your remarks, but you are making the video about neph so according to your standards, you have a chip on your shoulder.

cont:

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"all you could do in response was talk about chip on the shoulder"

Well, if you closely examine pretty much every post you've made on this video, it isn't surprising one would draw that conclusion. You come across as very angry.

My video about Nephi deals with his lies and his bad "science." If you'd like to take up my arguments, they're in the blog entry, but I have a sinking suspicion that isn't on your agenda.

ProudToBeLoud
you said-Hardly, dear friend. I made this video about NephilimFree because he is a liar and I, among many other truth-seeking individuals, owned him

wow calling for yourself and using a term like i owned him, don't you think you are a bit too old to be using such immature terminology, calling for yourself is a sure sign of insecurity on your position.

LibertyIsNotGiven
Actually, PTBL, he was owned. That's why he blocked me and deleted some of my posts. Just read the blog entry, bucko. What you call immature, I call cyberspeak. If you prefer, I'll retract the statement and amend it to "intellectually dominated."

"Owned" is much easier to type, however.

ProudToBeLoud
as for creation myth, whether creation is a myth or not we dont know, until the evidence for micro to macro evolution comes in then we can say it is a myth too

but even if we say creationism is a myth, evolution speaks nothing to whether there is a god or not

those that dont believe in god are more likely to believe pseudo sciences and be superstitious, thats what baylor university studies and other studies show.

cont:

The universe had a beggining according to the sciences, therefore it came into existence on its own or something created it. now we know something cannot come from nothing, for you to believe that is a myth, if you are saying that there is no creator then it is upto you to show that the universe was self caused, now nothing cannot create anything, that is a myth, but seeing as studies show that athiests tend to be irrational then i am not suprised you have such faith.

LibertyIsNotGiven
Most creationist myths have been debunked, including the Abrahamic YEC myth. If you're going to keep it vague like "God willed [insert scientific reality here]", then no, that's definitely unfalsifiable. Incidentally, that is also why it isn't science, and it doesn't actually explain anything, either.

Creation myths are still "mysticism and pseudosciences." The dichotomy you're trying to create is hilarious: "Uh...I believe in magic, yeah, but not THAT magic. I'm rational!" It's quite silly.

The beginning of the universe is explained by the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory does not purport to explain what existed prior to the event, nor does any prevailing theory at this time make ex nihilo creation claims. That's religion's job. I don't know where the universe came from, but I consider the notion of infinite matter and energy and quantum vacuum fluctuations vastly more plausible than an infinite god, for reasons that should be obvious. No, I don't have to prove your straw-men.

ProudToBeLoud
you believe god creating the universe is magic, well as we know that the universe had a beggining, for you to believe that the universe popped into existence out of nothing, that certainly is magic and it is not quite silly, it is extremely stupid.

you talk about straw men but as i am not a christian then you certainly again are not aware of your own behaviour

i agree with the chritisans that the universe had a creator but you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing, you believe in a self caused universe, you have no evidence for it but all you have is faith, but you are entitled to your faith eh!

LibertyIsNotGiven
I don't believe in an ex nihilo universe. In fact, I told you point-blank that I don't know where the universe came from. The beginning of the universe is called the Big Bang. What existed prior to that is a matter of much conjecture, but I also told you that infinite matter, energy and quantum vacuum fluctuations strike me as vastly more plausible than a magical creator, until which time evidence suggests otherwise. You're simply straw-manning me at this point to further your bad argument.

**"i am not a christian"

I believe I have labeled you a theist but not a Christian. If I did, my mistake.

**"you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing"

No, I don't, as I've now explained three times.

**"a self caused universe"

That might be slightly more accurate, sort of.

**"you have no evidence"

Quantum vacuum fluctuations.

**"all you have is faith"

No, quantum vacuum fluctuations have actually been observed, as have matter and energy.

ProudToBeLoud
"In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely."

LibertyIsNotGiven
I don't consider beliefs in the paranormal to be any more rational than Christian beliefs and vise versa. You think this helps you? You believe in a different kind of magic, so it's cool? Again, hilarious.

Also, "irreligious" != "atheistic," so you were grossly mistaken earlier if this is the study you alluded to. Also #2, that study is quite old.

ProudToBLoud
irreligous=athiestic, no athiesm is certainly a religion to many people, especially you, your behaviour shows that it is more than a lack of belief, you treat athiesm if it was your own religion, but again you are not aware of your own behaviour.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"irreligous=athiestic"

No, it doesn't. Look up the definitions. Religiosity per se has nothing to do with belief in gods per se.

**"you treat athiesm if it was your own religion"

No, I just don't believe in gods. The fact that I discuss atheism on YouTube doesn't exactly mean I spend my every waking moment devoted to atheism. If you have any convincing [reasons] as to why I SHOULD believe in gods, fairies or imps, please point me in that direction and I'll gladly consider the points in question.

ProudToBLoud
The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition."

But your magic is the rational path, the TRUE magic. I'm now chuckling every time you attempt to present this "case."

ProudToBLoud
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology."

Off course, bucko, because it's AGAINST THEIR RELIGION. Of course they're less likely to embrace something that they think will make them burn [in] hell forever. And once again, this doesn't make Christian magic a rational belief; it simply means Christians don't have a monopoly on irrationality, and I never claimed anything to the contrary.

ProudToBLoud
The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

but dont worry liberty, you can hang out with your friends at the psychic fair show and get your palms read, if thats the way your disposition leads to, then it is your free choice eh!

LibertyIsNotGiven
What percentage of people who attend a house of worship believe in talking snakes, flying chariots, angels, demons, resurrections, miracles, divine plagues, prophecy, global floods and magic boats? Damn, makes the occult and paranormal sound tame by comparison.

**"you can hang out with your friends at the psychic fair show and get your palms read"**

I don't believe in psychics or palm-reading, nor do I have any friends who do. Oh, wait -- that was just another insult, wasn't it? Angry, bitter people who can't argue inevitably gravitate thereto.

That said, I'm still curious as to why someone consulting a psychic is any less rational than someone consulting a priest.

ProudToBLoud
oh by the way your definition of vestigal organs is unfalsifiable, unless you can time travel back to the past and bring people back whos organs had a different function and then show how humans have lost that function in comparison, it is not observable and it is unfalsifiable, therefore it is not science but pseudo science that you believe in.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"your definition of vestigal organs"

No, I didn't come up with it. Unlike Nephi, I don't redefine terms in non-standard ways and then attack them.

**"travel back to the past"

No, we have a fossil record and DNA for that. If you care to demonstrate the applicability of [baraminology] to extant life over the current scientific model, I'll leave it to you to make that case.

**"it is not science but pseudo science that you believe in."

No, it's simply reality that you're hellbent on denying.

-----

10 Assertions Creationists Should Stop Making

2008-09-28T16:34:00.001-07:00

Assertion #1: "Evolutionists believe humans came from apes/monkeys."

Ignoring the fact that the term "evolutionist" no longer means anything in science, the theory of evolution does not posit that humans descended from apes or monkeys. It posits that modern humans descended from an ape-like ancestor, which we have in common with modern apes. Also, even if the assertion were true, it would not damage the theory of evolution since new evolutionary branches do not require the extinction of species on previous branches.

Assertion #2: "Nothing can only create nothing, but the Big Bang says nothing created everything."

The Big Bang theory says no such thing. Just as the theory of evolution explains what happens to extant life, the Big Bang theory explains what happened to extant matter and energy. How that matter and energy came to be, or whether it came to be at all, is beyond the theory's scope.

Assertion #3: "Believing in [insert theory here] takes more faith than believing in God," and "[Insert theory here] is just another religion," and "[Insert theory here] has never been observed."

On the contrary, scientific principles are routinely subjected to some of the most rigorous examinations ever devised by humankind. Creationists all too often mistake conclusions and predictions based on evidence (many of which have proven true regarding evolution and the Big Bang, by the way) for mere belief as they understand it. Further, if scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang are "religions," then creationists must concede the same about computer science, medicine, automotive engineering and every other branch of science. If direct observation of, say, the Big Bang is necessary to validate the overwhelming evidence of its occurrence, then one is left to wonder why creationists exempt the creation of the universe by a deity from this requirement.

Assertion #4: "That's just a theory."

In science, a theory is a testable model that explains a set of observed facts. It represents the highest form of scientific proof available and changes only when the evidence changes. Theory is not synonymous with "guess" or "speculation" or "assumption." It's the polar opposite of those things, actually.

Assertion #5: "[Insert famous person here] believed in God and/or creation."

Who believes or does not believe in something has no bearing on that thing's truth value.

Assertion #6: "Evolutionists won't even give creationism a chance," and "Teach the controversy!"

There is nothing to give a chance to. Creationism makes no predictions, cannot be falsified and makes no attempt to explain anything without positing something else to explain, thereby breaking many of the tenets on which proponents rest their arguments in the first place. Also, which creation myth should be taught? There are thousands. It is the fault of creationists that creationism falls far short of any scientific merit. As Christopher Hitchens wrote: "...what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Assertion #7: "The universe is too complex to be the result of random chance, so there must be a God!"

This claim is fallacious twice over. First of all, while natural mechanisms do contain some random elements, this in no way implies that the totality of existence is random or should be treated as such. For example, natural selection is decidedly not random. In this sense, the claim is rendered a straw-man. Secondly, anyone who is familiar with basic logic should recognize the invalidity of appealing to incredulity.

Assertion #8: "On his deathbed, Darwin reneged on his own theory."

I see this claim all the time, despite the fact that it is unsubstantiated (i.e. it has achieved urban legend status). Also, as explained in #5, even if Darwin had recanted his position, it would have no effect on the process or theory of evolution and everything scientists have discovered since his time.

Assertion #9: "There are no transitional fossils."

Bull hockey. There are many, many, many transitional fossils and probably many, many, many yet to be discovered.

Assertion #10: "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it," and "I believe in the Big Bang: God spoke and --BANG -- it happened," etc.

Comments such as these explain nothing and project no desire on the part of the issuer to add anything of substance to a given discussion. If dogmatic claims without evidence are sufficient to convince someone of creationism, that's fine, but it is laughable to pretend that such claims are beneficial to creationist causes in regard to scientific or logical merit.

NephilimFree & Friends Fail Biology 101

2008-09-23T14:16:00.000-07:00

This exchange occurred in the comments section of a YouTube video titled "Charles Darwin Memorial Hospital" by NephilimFree.

Fools and their re-quotes in green, myself and my re-quotes in black, other users and their re-quotes in blue.

-----

ProudToBLoud
the definition of vestigial in the dictionary and word meaning publications , is such as an organ that has lost function, it is not that it lost original function, it is an organ that has lost all function, another definition is a degenerate organ, so evolutionists lie and contort the meaning to say that vestigial organs can mean with a new use, thats because science found out that so called vestigial organs were not vestigial after all, evolutionists lie and make a new definition of the word.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"it is not that it lost original function, it is an organ that has lost all function"**

False, and most biologists will tell you the same.

**"science found out that so called vestigial organs were not vestigial after all,"

False, because vestigial does not mean "useless," and no portion of evolutionary theory suggests biological "footprints" cannot evolve alternative uses. The focus is on the homologous nature of a given structure in other species, not its current use per se.

ProudToBLoud
irstly, vestigial organs provide no positive evidence for evolution. They are presented as negative evidence against a designer. And even if the vestigial organ argument were true, it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss. This is the opposite of what evolution requires to explain the origin of the complexity and diversity of life.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss."

False, as there are existing vestiges which have uses, not to mention the advantageous nature of certain species losing certain features.

Comments are on approval here, so I won't bother with anything else you've posted. That covers the gist.

NephilimFree
"most biologists will tell you the same"

2: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms

"False, because vestigial does not mean useless"

2: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms

"False, as there are existing vestiges which have uses

2: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms

LibertyIsNotGiven
I do not see "useless" in any portion of that definition.

NephilimFree
"In no way does the point that removing vestigial organs damages the organism disprove evolution or prove any other hypothesis."

FALSE. There is no such thing as a vestigail feature. Example: Removal of the appendix during childhools causes that individual to be sick more often and sicker than had they not lost their appendix. It has exceedingly important immune system function.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"Removal of the appendix during childhools causes that individual to be sick more often and sicker than had they not lost their appendix."**

That has nothing to do with the digestion of plant cellulose by the appendix being vestigial. That's the only qualifier, whether there is an existing function or not, and this is what you simply fail to understand.

NephilimFree
"Locating these vestigial features is what proves evolution."

FALSE. There is no such thing as a vestigial feature. Proof iof anything in science requires it passes the Scientific method's requirement of observation and repeatability in a controlled setting with consistent results verified by seperate testing.

Nothing evolutionary has ever been observed, and can never be demonstrated.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"There is no such thing as a vestigial feature."**

We have identified numerous homologous structures that are classified as vestigial for all the reasons provided to you thus far.

**"Nothing evolutionary has ever been observed"**

The theory of evolution is the unifying theory of modern biology, and it is no less supported than gravity or electricity. It is observed and applied daily. Speciation is a fact. You need only study the subject.

NephilimFree
"I do not see "useless" in any portion of that definition."

small and degenerate means it is dissapearing. Follow this process and you have no feature anymore. The opposite would be something arising, in which case it will eventually become prominant. Therefore vestigial, is something on the way out, dissapreaing, leaving.

You're wrong Sporty! Learn from the creationists. Did you watch the video I dared you to?

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"small and degenerate means it is dissapearing."

And in the appendix example, we have a lost ability to digest cellulose, regardless of any functions it might currently retain.

**"You're wrong Sporty! Learn from the creationists. Did you watch the video I dared you to?"**

I recall seeing no "dare" from you or anyone else.

NephilimFree
Answer this question of get blocked: Did you watch the video I dared you to?

"That has nothing to do with the digestion of plant cellulose by the appendix being vestigial"

The appendix is not part of the digestive system. It's part of the immune system. It's function is to capture bacteria from the upper intestines and culture them to create an immunity.

Neither is it vestigial.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"Answer this question of get blocked:"

Typical creationist.

**"Did you watch the video I dared you to?"

Again, sporty, I saw no such "dare."

**"The appendix is not part of the digestive system."

Its digestive function is vestigial.

NephilimFree
"The theory of evolution is the unifying theory of modern biology"

Evo theory is useless in any field of science. It is unnecessary to hear this indoctrrination trash in biology classes to understand how anything functions. it lends NO KNOWLEDGE of how things operate.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"it lends NO KNOWLEDGE of how things operate."

The purpose of evolutionary theory is explaining the diversity of life via the mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, mutation and allelic drift.

NephilimFree
"and it is no less supported than gravity or electricity"

False. No evolutionary change has ever been observed. I insist you tell us what evolutionary change has been observed to support this lie, or you get blocked for spouting speudoscience.

"It is observed and applied daily."

See the above requirement for you to continue posting here.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"I insist you tell us what evolutionary change has been observed to support this lie, or you get blocked for spouting speudoscience."

Yay, another blocking threat.

Peppered moth - natural selection.

Culex pipiens - speciated when part of its population was isolated.

Canadian stickleback - speciated into shallow and deep water species in under 10,000 years.

Plant examples are even more numerous. See:

talkorigins org/faqs/faq-speciation html
talkorigins org/faqs/faq-misconceptions html

NephilimFree
Answer this question of get blocked: Did you watch the video I dared you to? One more chance is what you have to answer me.

"Speciation is a fact."

Speciation is not evolutionary xhange. It does not effect morphology and therefore has no power to move toward new kinds (families?) of life.

"You need only study the subject"

YES. And if you dared to, you will not fins evidence of evolutionary change. I dare you to.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"Did you watch the video I dared you to?"

I'm not certain [how] much more clearly I can tell you that I have seen no such dare from you. Are you confusing me with someone else?

**"It does not effect morphology"

Changes in morphology are a result over large spans of time but not a required aspect of evolution. Natural selection, gene flow, mutation, allelic drift = evolution.

**"you will not fins evidence of evolutionary change"

You mean like all the evidence you've been given already?

-----

From this point on, I was censored. NephilimFree continued responding to some of my earlier points, but he refused to approve any more of my replies and blocked me to prevent further comments from being made. It's no surprise that in a creationism vs. science debate that occurs where the creationist has administrative rights, censorship soon follows. As such, the following responses are unique to this blog entry, as they never appeared on NephilimFree's forum.

-----

NephilimFree
"Again, sporty, I saw no such "dare.""

Now I'm going to give you a valuable lesson. You need to learn how honest and trustworthy the speudoscience liars you have been brainwashed by actually are. You have swallowed lies put forth in every field of science. Evolutionism is LIES.

I DARE YOU to watch this video. It's brief. When you have, come back here with your tail between your legs, and tell me why you believe in evolution if not by faith

[www.youtube.com]/watch?v=QGzuvlfnxoY

This was the first time he posted the link to me, despite having been told repeatedly that I had received no such link earlier. After perusing some older comments, I did find that NephilimFree had posted the link to another user long before I arrived. It seems he was confused. Naturally, this was my fault.

NephilimFree
"Its digestive function is vestigial."

Listen to yourself, the absurdity of your falicious claim. It's laughable. You conjure an imaginary prior function, then claim it has dissapeared, all the while claiming vestigial features have not lost function.

0o You're not very good at debate Sporty. You'll never be a match for someone who has debated scientists.

The function is not imaginary. It just no longer exists in humans.

Oddly enough, it seems NephilimFree considers me so "poor" at debate that he fearfully blocked me and refused to allow any of my later comments to appear on his channel. Strange, that.

NephilimFree
I require also that you provide this obsereved instance of evolutionary change to continue posting. I do not allow speudoscience on my pages. Show me what permanent morphological change has arisen in any species that moves it toward producing a new kind, or family, of creature.

NephilimFree has been provided with such evidence by numerous users during his tumultuous time on YouTube, as a simple search of his user name will show, but he doesn't care. Also, he falsely insists that "morphological change" is required in order to validate evolutionary theory, and he makes this even worse by demanding that evolution conform to his biblical "kinds," which are recognized by no branch of science.

NephilimFree
"And in the appendix example, we have a lost ability to digest cellulose"

We never had it. Imaginary functions are not scientific nor evidence of anything in science!

Again, this function is not imaginary. NephilimFree only imagines that it is.

NephilimFree
"The purpose of evolutionary theory is explaining the diversity of life via the mechanisms of natural selection, gene flow, mutation and allelic drift."

And this does not lend to understanding of function, only origin.

Knowing the evolution fantasy does not tell us anything about HOW a cell functions, only how someone imagines it came into being.

Think really hard on it. 0o

This is like expecting to learn how to play the guitar by studying architecture, and condemning the field of architecture for not producing the desired results. I concisely explained that evolution does X, Y and Z, and NephilimFree's only response was, "Yeah, but it doesn't do N."

Further, it is beyond stupid to suggest that understanding genetics is not intimately linked with evolution and evolutionary theory.

NephilimFree
"Peppered moth - natural selection."

There are no morphological differences between a spotted or solid colored moth. They are anatomically identical. No evoluition. Furthermore, NS has no poewer to create change, only to spread it once it took place. You failed. I'll give you another shot though.

And again, morphological differences accumulate over time but are not a prerequisite for evolution to occur. It must be convenient for NephilimFree to make up his own definitions and demand compliance with his own conditions, since he can't argue against actual science.

NephilimFree
"Culex pipiens - speciated when part of its population was isolated."

Speciation is not evolutionary change. Color, size, and pattern are not morphological freatures. Same as above, failure.

"Canadian stickleback - speciated into shallow and deep water species in under 10,000 years"

Same as above.

Hello? Whatislife.com offers a fair definition:

"Speciation is the process of forming two new species from a common ancestor species. Speciation is the central process of macroevolution, the evolution of novel forms."

So ... yeah. Same as above.

NephilimFree
"Plant examples are even more numerous"

Same as above. Furthermore, discovering 2 family or genus or organisms which have similarities is not evidence of morphological transition. All you know is the two organisms have ceretain similarity. Pointing to 2 creatures with different homologies is an expression of imagination, not scientific evidence of transition! Similarity is not evidence of evolution.

Ah, here we get to the crux of our creationist's ignorance. "Similarity is not evidence of evolution." Perhaps not unto itself, but we have genetics and a fascinating fossil record that tell us when we are dealing with homologous structures or mere similarity. Unfortunately for NephilimFree and many other creationists, the biblical "kinds" promoted in the pseudoscience of baraminology are genetically useless. A geneticist can't perform genetics research using the Bible. Sorry.

NephilimFree
One must produce 2 identical organisms with the difference of 1 MORPHOLOGICAL feature which is clearly arising. Then you'd have physical evidence of evolutionary change. No such evidne3ce exists or ever will.

Who says that one must do any such thing? The fossil record notwithstanding, I'm afraid the bar for evidence within the scientific community is not dependent upon NephilimFree's whims.

NephilimFree
"I'm not certain much more clearly I can tell you that I have seen no such dare from you."

I'm not posting this again. Now I'm going to give you a valuable lesson. You need to learn how honest and trustworthy the speudoscience liars you have been brainwashed by actually are. You have swallowed lies put forth in every field of science. Evolutionism is LIES.

I DARE YOU to watch this video. It's brief. When you have, and tell us why evolutionism is trustworthy.

www.youtube.com]/watch?v=QGzuvlfnxoY

By this time, I had viewed NephilimFree's linked video and posted a one-paragraph refutation of it. Of course, that comment was censored along with the rest of my later postings. Basically, the video consists of a room full of creationists laughing at a clip of Nova, wherein a portion of the damaged Lucy skeleton was being reconstructed. The creationists never bother to offer any reasons for disapproving of the skeletal reconstruction, but they sure do find it funny.

Apparently, NephilimFree thinks that creationists laughing at something is the same thing as criticizing it. At any rate, I also mentioned that, even if Lucy is a completely invalid specimen, that does nothing to adversely affect evolution or the theory of evolution.

Creationist "Lucy" claims debunked: Click Here

NephilimFree
"Changes in morphology are a result over large spans of time but not a required aspect of evolution"

The changes you propose are imaginary. We haven't seen such changes. The simplest cell is stupefyingly complex - more complex than NYC shrunken to the size of a cell. Also, had evolution been true, cell evolution would have been a fact, and is certainly required of evolution theory. Yes, abiogensis is evolutionism - taking macroevolution backewards would result in rock poop.

Again, we see the disconnect between NephilimFree's broken concept of "kinds" and the reality of biological classification. Also, argument from incredulity is fallacious.

Abiogensis is simply life from non-life (like a deity creating humans from dirt). Its mechanisms are irrelevant to the current theory of evolution. Evolution deals with existing life.

NephilimFree
If you have not watched the video i dared you to before you post again, you get blocked. This is MY classroom, and you are the student. You can 'teach' on your own space.

"Also, evolution is not, as you foolishly claim, only morphological change."

False! Evolution theory contends all phylum, orderm family, genus, species are the result of morphological change over time.

What's hilarious is that, at this point, I had already watched his video, commented on it and gotten blocked for my trouble. Yet here our creationist friend continues to post as if I'm ignoring his request.

Again, morphological change does not define evolution, and neither does NephilimFree.

NephilimFree
Ooops. You didn't do the homeowrk you were assigned. You failed the class.

Here he tried to crow about finally blocking me after his multiple threats to do so. Then he realized it looked bad and deleted his own comment, but not before I saw it.

Countering King Nothing's Censorship

2008-09-23T00:35:00.001-07:00

King Crusader has decided that truth has no place in his forum, so he proceeded to delete two of three messages I posted regarding evolution and abiogenesis. Unfortunately for him, I expected that he might censor actual science (as creationists so often do), so I saved the messages after posting them. Here they are, beyond the reach of KC's deletion capabilities.

-----

What is the Origin of Life

Posted by: King Crusader

For we Christians its easy

what is the origin of life - God

Now your turn Atheists

No copy and paste

No Links

Just answer

where did life begin where did it start, where di it come from

NO THEORIES

Just FACT

-----

Re: What is the Origins of Life

Posted by: shamblinghorror

No theories, just facts --- yet you posit GOD as the origin of life, which doesn't even qualify as a coherent hypothesis.

Also, a theory in science is the highest possible form of proof. Theories DESCRIBE facts. Examples:

Gravity --> Theory of Gravitation / Theory of Relativity

Electricity --> Theory of Electromagnetism

Germs --> Germ Theory

Geologic Plates --> Theory of Plate Tectonics

Evolution --> Theory of Evolution

And so on. Understand?

So when you say, "No theories, just fact," you're actually reducing the level of proof being asked for. As such, I need only provide you with instances of evolution occurring to answer your question, yes? You have no interest in the mechanisms? Okay, fair enough. See the short list below:

Archaeopteryx - primitive bird, transitional form between more modern birds and their Cretaceous ancestors.

Peppered moth - observable example of natural selection over the last two hundred years. Light colored months died off due to trees darkening under industrialization, whereas the darker colored moths within the species thrived.

Culex pipiens - a species of mosquito which underwent speciation when part of its population was isolated in London's Underground.

Canadian stickleback - fish which speciated into shallow and deep water varieties over a mere 10,000 years or so, following the last ice age.

Fruit flies - have emerged into over 3,000 different species, documented in laboratories for generations.

So there is the answer to your question: a handful of species that have evolved, thus proving evolution by the standard you yourself provided.

As for abiogenesis, we don't yet have a unifying theory for that, but many hypotheses have shown promise. As I answered on your Yahoo! question, thirteen of the twenty amino acids required for modern life have been produced in naturalistic laboratory simulations, and scientists have an ever-growing understanding of how various chemicals can interact and produce RNA (which is self-replicating and a precursor to proteins and DNA).

Even if one is to simply accept "God" as an answer to your question, that does nothing to explain the mechanism by which this deity might have accomplished its feat. In that sense, "God" isn't an answer at all, but an excuse to not even look for answers.

I hope this post is helpful.

Regards.

Young-Earth Rapidfire with AngelikDarling

2008-09-22T19:38:00.000-07:00

YouTube user AngelikDarling recently posted a series of a comments on a video by semi-prominent young-earth creationist jezuzfreek777. It was almost as if she had Answers in Genesis open in a second window and was simply using it to paraphrase all the anti-science information she could fit into the 500-character text box. To her credit, she was extremely civil and seemed at least somewhat interested in information that contradicted her world-view, but she was nonetheless wrong about so many things.

Let's have a look at some of the highlights. I responded to most of her claims in real-time, but here I'll be a bit more organized.

-----

AngelikDarling
the kind of evolution that does happen is MICRO, for example only the beaks on Darwin's finches evolved. micro evolution taking place has never been refuted. now macro evolution is complete non sense, unless MANKIND crossbred 2 animals then they would say it is true. but there would be no more "evolving" species and it would be another setback, just like those finches. there are many more proof's for God's creation.

"Macroevolution" and "microevolution" entail the same processes on different time scales, which is why most scientists these days just say "evolution." Speciation (a result of "macroevolution") is an observed fact.

AngelikDarling
we believe George Washington was president, right? why? Because there are no documents going against these claims. the same goes for Jesus. after he rose from the dead the pharisees could have easily falsified documents. even they in all there "knowledge" knew that he had fulfilled prophecy, and they were wrong. b-4 Jesus died his disciples were cowards, after they knew he was the Messiah they all died a martyrs death. would you die for something that you KNOW is a false truth? i won't! Mt 5:10

Assuming the disciples even existed as described in the NT, a handful of primitive mystics believing something and dying for it in no way suggests what they died for was true. Muslims blow themselves up with great regularity. Using your logic, I suppose this lends credence to the veracity of their religion.

AngelikDarling
how about science? 1st law of thermodynamics; we (mankind)can not create something out of nothing, but Jesus working outside of our finite minds has created everything out of nothing.
2nd law; easy example if you have a coffee cup and ice water in the same room eventually they will both stabilize to room temp. how come after 65 million years the sun and moon are still different temps? answer the earth is only 6,000 years old. it seems that science and logic are in Christ's favor.

Why do you have such a hard time accepting that a universe "outside of our finite minds" has simply always existed, when we can observe the existence of that universe, yet you rush into magical explanations that really explain nothing without a hint of skepticism? The "something out of nothing" line is generally a straw-man constructed by creationists, but I do encourage you to investigate virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, the sun is a ball of fluid plasma undergoing nuclear fusion, whereas the moon is a chunk of rock. I don't know where your "65 million years" figure comes from, but that isn't remotely enough time for the dubious phenomenon you are describing. In fact, the sun will likely boil away all the liquid water on earth within a billion years and become a red giant and swallow the earth's orbital zone within 5 billion years. As such, even if your understanding of thermodynamics was not critically flawed, stellar evolution will eliminate the moon well before your described event can come to pass.

If a God or Christ figure exists, I'm sure science is on his or her side, but nothing you have posted is science.

AngelikDarling
what about the recession of the moon? if evolution were true the moon would have been touching the earth 1.4 billion yrs ago. what about "the winding up dilemma"? the inner stars rotate faster then the outer, after only a few hundred million years of rotation at the observed speed this galaxy would be a featureless disc. how can we get to billions when science proves we can't get past millions? why do comets disintegrate so fast? they SHOULD be as old as our solar system. typical age 10,000 yrs

The moon recedes from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year and currently sits at a distance of 3.85 x 10^10 cm. This suggests an earth-moon system that has existed for billions of years. Also, this earth-moon relationship has nothing to do with biological evolution beyond evolution occurring on earth.

Galaxies behave in a manner that is consistent with gravity and computer models. I'm not sure what you mean by science proving "we can't get past millions." Millions of years? There is no such proof. Quite the opposite, actually. The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

Comets evaporate when they pull within a certain distance of the sun. There is no reason why they "should" be as old as the solar system.

AngelikDarling
if history is the past tense, how do you evolutionist have words like "prehistoric"? how do you get b-4 history, i know you create it;JESUS. lets say evolution were true, i'll give you 6,000 years is not that long. but something that was evolving for how many ever millions of years before should have made that transition in the past 6,000 years(biblical time line). if it has not happened yet based on the supposed 65 million years (theory), it will never happen (fact)! listen to "amazing grace"

The term "prehistoric" generally describes the period before humans began documenting history.

I don't understand what you mean about something meeting this vague "transition" goal. Evolution, while not random, is not a conscious entity with purpose.

AngelikDarling
our galaxy has 1 supernova every 25 years or so. there is only about 240 to 280 remnants meaning we have enough remnants for 6,000 to 7,000 years.
simple math 6,000/25=240 7,000/25=280

Even one supernova is evidence of billions of years having passed, and some of them take millions of years to be visible from earth. Also, scientists have by no means charted the entire cosmos. This doesn't bode well for young-earthers. There is no schedule followed by supernovas, so your math is completely arbitrary.

AngelikDarling
if evolution is not random how is it decided or whatever? by "transition" i mean an ape turning into a human, or human life coming out of the ocean. these major claims happened and there's no continuation. how could it have just stopped if there is not a controlling entity?

The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow.

Apes did not "turn into" humans. Humans and modern apes have a common ancestor.

I'm not sure who told you evolution has stopped. It hasn't.

-----

And that covers the main points of my exchange with AngelikDarling to date. So much creationist propaganda crammed into just a few comments. One can only hope she'll upgrade her thinking.

The Ignorance of King Crusader

2008-09-17T10:30:00.000-07:00

This post will serve as a refutation of the "What About Atheists" section at holyarmyofgod.com.

I first encountered "King Crusader" (hereafter KC) on Yahoo! Answers when he (assuming KC is a young male --- I could be wrong) posted a demand for atheists to explain the origin of life, clearly under the assumption that no such explanation can be given, therefore Goddunnit. Subsequently, I visited his website and found much of his material from Yahoo! presented in a slightly more orderly format, including a page dedicated specifically to attacking atheism.

Keeping with KC's organization, this blog entry will be broken into sections mirroring those on the page being addressed.

Atheists (Introduction)

The article starts off dreadfully with a quotation of Psalms 14:1, which reads: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." Underneath the scripture, KC makes known his impassioned support of those biblical sentiments (note: all quotations are unedited):

This is one of the truest verses in the Bible, Atheists are indeed fools. What more is there to say about a people who pride themselves on coming from Monkeys, and who reject God for a Magical Big Bang

Those are some fairly harsh words. Unfortunately, they stem from a profound ignorance because no one who accepts evolution, atheist or not, will propose that humans came from monkeys, nor does any aspect of the Big Bang require a magical explanation, unlike gods. More on this later.

Atheists are Hypocrites

KC then launches into an explanation of why he believes atheists are hypocrites, apparently believing that a list of unsubstantiated assertions qualifies as convincing evidence. Let's have a look at his points.

They will tell you not to judge others,
-----But they will judge you, from the moment you say your a Christian

This is quite possibly true in the case of some atheists ... and Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Rastafarians, plumbers, mechanics, medical doctors, cab drivers and vacuum cleaner sales-persons. Lots of people judge based on stereotypes, which is unfortunate but unavoidable. KC himself has stereotyped atheists and issued a series of scalding judgments while simultaneously complaining about being stereotyped and judged.

They say they need proof to believe in God
-----Yet there is no proof for the Big Bang, So They choose to put Their FAITH In the Magic of a self creating Big Bang

There is proof for the Big Bang, the same proof we have for gravity, germs and electricity. In science, a theory is the highest standard of proof possible. A theory is an explanation for observed facts. How or why the Big Bang happened might be unknown as of yet, but we know that it did happen. Also, whether one accepts the Big Bang is a completely separate issue from whether one believes in a deity.

They say the Bible is man made, so it is unreliable
-----Yet every Theory they quote is man made, and they and they not only want you to believe its reliable. But they try their best to present their Theories as facts. When they are not a Theory is NOT a fact

I'm not certain from which source KC pulled the simplistic claim that "the Bible is [man-made], so it is unreliable," but I'm quite positive that even most Christians acknowledge that the Bible was written by humans. Where Christians and atheists part ways is the injection of divine inspiration and the derivation of "infallibility" from this, especially considering the abundance of primitive ideas (e.g. flat earth), outrageous myths (e.g. a global flood, talking animals, flying chariots, etc.) and contradictions present in the Bible. So it's not just that men wrote the Bible, but that the Bible is purported to be inerrant when we know it is not.

And again, KC demonstrates a poor understanding of what a scientific theory is.

They get offended if you share your beliefs
----- Yet they Love to Preach why they don't believe in God

It is true that I often argue against gods and magic in online settings, much like I will argue against all forms of mysticism, though I don't believe this constitutes any meaningful definition of "preach[ing]." I don't even consider theists such as William Lane Craig (whose ReasonableFaith.org site inspired the name of this blog) to be "preaching" when they engage in philosophical debate about the existence of a deity, so it seems rather petty to claim that atheists are.

Nonetheless, this statement by KC is yet another quagmire of generalization, as he throws a blanket over atheists ("they") and assumes this large group defaults to the characteristic he lays out, when there is no reason at all to accept his word. As an atheist, I'm not offended by "preaching" at all, only by harassment on my doorstep and the promotion of mystical propaganda as science in classrooms.

They Love to insult Christianity
-----But if you point out the flaw of another religion your a close minded Bigot

KC apparently had a negative experience with a particular atheist or atheists, and has derived from that experience a very caustic view of atheists in general. Consistent with the previous items, here he makes a sweeping claim without anything that even resembles evidence.

Atheists Have Attacked Christians

In the next section, KC employs the laughably common tactic of trying to show the rampant persecution of Christians by "atheists," while ignoring all of the groups Christians have persecuted over the years. He also fails to consider that much of the slaughtering was done at the hands of communist dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes, ideologies which have nothing to do with atheism. For example, an anti-communist atheist in Soviet Russia was every bit as likely to be murdered as an anti-communist Christian, with similar norms in 20th Century China, but these considerations do little to deter the persecution fantasies of the religious.

Einstein was not an Atheist

No, he probably wasn't, and whether Einstein was an atheist has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of any gods.

Benjamin Franklin was not an Atheist

No, he probably wasn't, and whether Franklin was an atheist has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of any gods.

Evolution

In the brief attention KC gives the science of evolution, he proclaims that it is not necessary to examine the ancestry of humans, because he believes the theory fails before such study need begin. He wonders:

If God didn't create Life Then what Did? What is the Origin of Life? They don't know? That's why Evolution is a Theory

Unfortunately for KC, the theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life. It merely explains the diversity of life we have today. In effect, KC is attacking evolution by mistaking it for abiogenesis, which is a related but separate field. Evolutionary theory remains valid whether life emerged from primordial chemical reactions or was wished into existence by a disembodied supernatural consciousness.

(Although I will grant that science in this vein does contradict biblical literalism. That, however, is a problem with biblical literalism, not with science.)

Big Bang

Here I will give KC credit for at least not lumping the Big Bang and evolution into the same category, as the two are independent theories and not mutually inclusive. Still, he is quite wrong. Rather than just quote a line or two, I'll let KC give you his full, two-barreled assault of the Big Bang theory:

"Many people who say there is no God, believe the Big Bang created the Universe

One problem is I've yet to Meet

ONE PERSON

Who can tell me what created the Big Bang

If you say Energy - Then what created the Energy

If you say Radiation - Then what created the Radiation

Etc. Etc. Etc.

As you can see, if your a supporter of the Magic "Self Creating" Big Bang.

Your a Fool"

The problems with KC's analysis should be obvious. First of all, he loads the whole question by using the term "create," apparently unwilling to simply accept what is. We don't look at clouds and say that they "create" rain in the same way we look at a painting and say it was "created" by a painter, yet creationists often approach reality in precisely this manner. Nothing new from KC here.

Next, KC cuts off his own head by setting up an infinite regress. He wonders what created the Big Bang, then lists energy and radiation, then wonders what created energy and radiation, and so on. Despite it being painfully obvious, he apparently doesn't realize that his deity can easily be inserted into that list. God, eh? Well, what good reason is there for exempting a deity from this infinite regress of creation?

The truth is, as I mentioned earlier, we don't know why the Big Bang happened. Scientists have ideas, of course, with a gravitational singularity being most likely per general relativity. Laboratory experiments have shown that quantum vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle all point toward brief violations of energy conservation being quite possible, opening the way for the godless ex nihilo universe that theists love to hate.

All that said, it remains no less plausible to postulate an eternal singularity that expanded into today's universe than to postulate a god who wished it all into existence, thereby removing all need to investigate or even think about the problem. In fact, we at least have a viable basis for the singularity and know the Big Bang happened, which is far more evidence than we have for the existence of any deity.

And even if the beginning of the universe necessitates a god (which it doesn't), KC and all other Christians are left with the monumental task of proving that creator is their particular deity in a sea of thousands. Also, much like belief or disbelief in a god has nothing to do with evolution, it has nothing to do with the Big Bang, either.

Atheist Logic

KC concludes his attempted demolition of atheism with a bit of creative imagery:

In light of the lashing KC has received up to this point, do I even need to respond to this misplaced humor? Probably not, so I'll just leave it be.

King Crusader's site: http://www.holyarmyofgod.com

Purpose

2008-09-17T09:42:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Reasonable Disbelief blog, where I will examine creationist arguments that I encounter on YouTube, Yahoo! and other forums. From time to time, I might also address more philosophical questions about the existence of gods and such, but that remains up in the air. The primary focus will be science, the pseudo-science of creationism and creationism's euphemistic cousin, "intelligent design."

I am not a biologist or astrophysicist, but neither are most of the people I intend to refute, so I feel perfectly qualified to cite reputable sources while addressing scientific issues here. Consider me an informed layman. And, as always, think for yourself.

For more politically-oriented commentary, see the anarchist group blog "Polycentric Order" or my website. Thanks for reading.