An Atheistic debater

Another 'moral' Christian..

2011-11-21T14:33:00.004-05:00

The following is a response to a Christian who claimed that I, as an atheist, had no grounds on which to claim that an objective morality exists. He also went on to attempt to justify the slavery, genocide, and rape that god commands in the Bible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morality is a pretty easy word to throw around. It should be obvious that in order to discuss morality, we must define it. After all, a statement like "If there is NO God, there is no BASIS for morality. PERIOD!!" is meaningless if we have two different ideas of what 'morality' means.

So I'll start by critiquing some common definitions.
We could take a naive approach, and say that morality is doing what god says to do. This, of course, creates the Euthyphro dilemma, of which I'm sure you are aware. Are god's orders good because god says so? If so, might makes right. Or are his orders good because they are part of a class of actions that promote well-being? If so, god is irrelevant in morality. Please don't feel like you need to respond to this dilemma. I haven't yet read any argument that fully resolves the issue, so I don't expect you'd be the first to do so. But even beyond that, I don't think any moral action taken due to a command on high is worthy of the label "moral".

We could view morality as a selective task between doing actions that are wrong and doing actions that are right. This requires that one is able to distinguish between a right and wrong action. To this end, several religions have created lists of actions that are right, and lists of actions that are wrong. These lists, which they claim come from god, form the basis of their claim to objective morality. This claim of objective morality remains especially popular among apologists, such as yourself. But what a useless and dangerous idea this is! I'd strongly oppose the formation of any such list. Consider the currently most popular of such lists: the ten commandments. Some of these rules are generally good ideas. But not always!
The 8th commandment prohibits theft. But what if the thief has stolen an antidote from a dictator bent on introducing poison into the water supply of a slum? Was stealing wrong?
The 5th commandment says to honor one's father and mother. But what if one's father is a child molester? Or what if one's mother is addicted to heroin and sells the body of her 12 year old daughter in order to buy drugs? Should they be honored?
The 6th commandment says thou shall not kill. My work here is already done by the conservative Christians who have already mentally manipulated "thou shall not kill" and "turn the other cheek" to allow them to support the execution of criminals.
Clearly, lists are worthless. The moral action is situational. Knowing the moral action requires reflection on the circumstances and possible outcomes; not a handy-dandy list of do's and don'ts.

So if morality isn't just whatever god says, and isn't a list of right and wrong actions, what is it? Morality is a set of conditions which allows for the maximum well-being for the maximum number of living beings. Remember, I believe that an objective morality exists. You were quick to spot I used the word "acknowledged". I choose my words more carefully than you give me credit for!

I said that an objective morality exists. I never said we had access to it.
Consider this analogy:
Imagine that the goal of humankind was to construct the tallest building possible in the shortest time possible. Such an endeavor would probably drain Earth of all its natural resources. This would be a massive task, requiring several levels of detailed strategy. There has to be one architectural design which could produce the tallest height. There must be one single way for people and resources to move the most effective and efficiently. There must be one location on Earth best suited as ground zero for this project. Sure, there are probably going to be several suggestions that seem equally reasonable. But we're talking about the strategy that actually works best, not out ability to recognize or conceive of that strategy. That strategy is objective; it exists without coming from any one or anything and without being recognized by any one or anything. Our task, then, is the endeavor to subjectively discover what that objective best strategy is, to the best of our ability.
The same is true of morality. There is most definitely one set of conditions here on Earth that could produce the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people. Those conditions are objective; they exist without coming from anyone or anything and without being recognized by any one or anything. Our human moral task is to create subjective moralities which we believe correspond most closely to that single objective moral reality.
It's the same with knowledge, and moral knowledge is a just another form of knowledge.

So far, I've only defined morality and shown how an objectively true morality can exist without a god. I haven't actually said anything about how one goes about constructing their personal morality, or about what actions I believe to be moral.
There's no clear method of determining right and wrong which is guaranteed to always yield results which are actually objectively morally correct. Evolutionary instinct, the ability to reason abstractly about justice and fairness, and empathy are among the best tools at our disposal. Humans, unfortunately, have used some of the worst methods of making such determinations; namely, trial-and error. Slavery is a good example because humanity so clearly and radically changed it view on it relatively recently.
On a related side note, if you're going to be dishonest about what the Bible says, be aware that I can read as well as you (I just do so through a less distorted lens). God orders the Jews to commit genocide, sparing no man or child, and slicing open the stomachs of pregnant women, but allowing his soldiers to keep the virgin women for themselves. Not only does god condone slavery, he gives commands on who one can enslave, how long you can enslave them for, how to mark them as your property, and how often and severely you can beat them. It's absurd, dishonest, and childish to claim the bible doesn't say what I can plainly read, or that it must be interpreted differently. The bible was the rallying-cry for Southern slave-owners who invoked their god-given right to own other people as property. The fact that you can find and list some sentences that seem to contradict the clear biblical commands on slavery is not a license to claim those other verses weren't serious. It's simply an obvious indication of the history of the bible as a collection of books from different authors, in different times, with different values. Of course they're going to contradict! Your attempt to spin the bible in light of your modern moral view reminds of George Bernard Shaw: "No man ever thinks the bible means what it says; he is always convinced it says what he means."

It seems all that's left is the issue of what, specifically, I find to be moral. But, what is the point in that? I, unlike many religious folk, am not going to tell you what's right and expect that you obey it. Your moral quest is one of discovery and is necessarily personal. To that end, I feel it is much more helpful to me to share what breaks my heart about you.
You're clearly a smart person who's invested much time in being able to provide reasons for your beliefs. It greatly depresses me, then, to see such intellect and work going to justify something so obviously and universally evil. I think an alien from another galaxy would be able to easily tell that genocide is evil; that the killing of children and babies is evil; that the raping of captured women and the ripping open of pregnant stomachs is evil.

And yet you defend it, because your god said to do it.

Don't you see that you've sacrificed your humanity, your ability to empathize and love and feel and care and respect other people and their right to life, when you seek to justify genocide? Your defenses are depressingly weak. "They blasphemed; they disobeyed; they were violent". Wow. So what? God created people with the free will to disobey him, but if they exercise that free will, gee, he just might have to kill pregnant women and children?
This is a morally disgusting, detestable, unspeakable form of evil. And to see a smart, hard-working, modern person say that 'no, it's actually ok' breaks my heart. I'm literally choking back tears. I don't care if it's an animal, human, or god taking the action:
Killing a child is wrong.
Killing an infant is wrong.
Cutting open the belly of a pregnant women and throwing out the fetus is wrong.
Keeping virgins for the soldiers is wrong.

You know these things to be true. I know that you know they're true.

You're telling me that the ONLY way the all-powerful, all-knowing, and supposedly benevolent creator of the universe could deal with sin was to order the mass extermination of men, women, and children?
You're smarter than that.

If god appeared to me, told me that every bit of the bible was true, and asked me to worship him, I'd give him the finger for the evils he had done and commanded.
That's the moral action.
Don't be a slave. Don't be a coward. Don't sacrifice your morality.

My take on the moral argument

2011-03-31T21:19:00.002-04:00

"The final argument I’ll give you is, I feel, the most important. It’s the moral argument.

1. Unless there is an objective moral authority there cannot be objective moral absolutes.
2. There are objective moral absolutes.
3. Therefore an objective universal moral authority exists.

The atheist, on this point, is wrong to justify being kind rather than cruel, or to be nice rather than mean, or to be helpful rather than selfish.

If there is no God then there are no moral absolutes. Thus you get ethical subjectivism or ethical relativism.

Ethical relativism is the view that right and wrong are established be the time and culture in which people live. For example, if a culture thinks it’s right to rape woman then we can’t say they are wrong in doing so. All we can say is it’s right for them and wrong for us. That’s absurd. The problems with ethical relativism are as follows.

1. The relativist wants to say that there are no absolute truths about morals. (This is self refuting as it is a moral statement)
2. It’s usually difficult to determine what a culture is.
3. If there are two cultures which one is the normative one, which one is the authoritative one?
4. How many people in a culture have to think something is wrong before it’s wrong?
5. If the majority says it’s right, what if the majority says Relativism is wrong?

Ethical subjectivism is the belief that right and wrong are simply the matter of ones own feeling, tastes, preferences, etc. So the atheist can’t say that any one behavior or act is preferable over another."

I'll make my position clear right from the get-go:

I'm an atheist, and moral absolutes exist.

(To be honest, I don't like that phrasing. I simply have an avoidance of the word "absolute", because to me it signifies a kind of arrogance. I'm much more comfortable saying that I believe right and wrong answers to moral questions exist, which means essentially the same thing.)

It should be obvious, then, that my disagreement lies with premise one. I would not ever describe myself as a moral or ethical relativist. I do believe that moral absolutes can and do exist with no need for a moral authority. How can this be so? Well, let's begin with definitions:

It is clear that not everyone believes that morality consists of the same actions. A suicide bomber thinks death for Allah is a moral action. I do not. We both claim that our version of morality is more true. This scenario can be found in the comparison of almost any two human beings. People simply have different ideas about which actions are moral, and which actions are immoral. So in that subjective sense, moral relativism is an obvious truth. The actions or thoughts labeled as moral and immoral change relative to the person in question. It is these views that are subject to factors in culture, upbringing, trauma, religion, etc. I will use a lowercase m when discussing this personal, subjective morality.
But I don't believe that all moralities are equally right, or even worthy of equal respect. Certain moralities are more or less right, because right answers to moral questions exist. Now it becomes necessary for me to define this "right-or-wrong" style morality I'm speaking of, and it is on this definition that my argument hinges. It is clear that actions taken by humans have affects on other conscious beings. Some of these effects lower the overall happiness and quality of life for other beings, and some raise the overall happiness and quality of life for other beings. I define (absolute) morality as those actions which result in the best possible scenario of life, that is, the maximum happiness and maximum quality of life, for the greatest number of conscious beings. So clearly, actions can be split into two categories: those which lower the maximum good for the maximum beings, and those which raise the maximum good for the maximum beings. From now on, I'll use an uppercase M when referring this Morality.

I understand the objections to this view:
"How can we know which actions will result in the maximum good for the maximum people?"
-This is good point. Sam Harris, for example, hopes that since the maximum good is a condition created by certain types of behavior across society, science will one day be able to discover and list these conditions. I'm skeptical of his enthusiasm and don't know how science can develop methodology to study this ethically, but he is right, at least in theory. It is possible to observe which actions result in the greatest good for the greatest number of beings. Humans have been doing it for a long time, and we've learned some pretty useful things about Morality. We're discovering Morality all the time, albeit to different degrees between cultures and individuals. It is now almost uniformly agreed that the owning of another human being as property is immoral. But go back 200 or 300 years, and very few people indeed would find this immoral. Does this mean Morals are relative? No! (though morals are). Slavery is Morally wrong today, it was Morally wrong 200 years ago, and it was Morally wrong when Yahweh commanded it. (And don't say he didn't...it's in the bible, after all.) It is clear why slavery is Morally wrong: it robs people of happiness and a good quality of life, it does not create the maximum good for the maximum number of people.
So although we lack a streamlined process to discover Moral truth, we are able to do so in our own slow, trial-and-error way.

"Morality requires an authority"
-I've tried to explain that Morality does not need an authority, and hopefully I've done so in a clear manner. If we take this criticism as truth, however, we run in to more problems. I'm sure anyone who's ever studied philosophy knows Euthyphro's Dilemma. Does the divine command Moral actions because they are Moral? If so, the divine merely support that which is already Morally true. Or are Moral actions simply whatever the divine commands? If so, Morality is no more than the arbitrary dictates of the divine. I've never read a sufficient theistic response to this dilemma. But at any rate, it doesn't apply in my discussion of Morality.

"If we can't always know which actions are Moral, how can one ever construct a Moral code?"
-I'm reminded of the quotation from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies: "They're more like guidelines.."
I'm very skeptical that the formation of an absolute Moral code is a worthwhile or even good endeavor. I'm more keen to liken my view of Moral truth to my epistemological view of truth in general. We may never know absolute Morality or absolute Truth, but we can use evidence and reason in order to construct the best approximation possible for both of these. We are able to say what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, based on a scale of probabilities, rather than unjustified certainties. So yes, unfortunately, we can never accumulate all the relevant data to understand and codify an absolute Morality. That is why morality exists; it is an individual's (theoretically) best attempt at understanding Morality. If we were to construct a code, such as the Ten Commandments, it would only, at best, serve as the best approximation of Morality currently available. It certainly would not be Morality itself. Sticking only with the Ten Commandments, we can find several exceptions to these rules:

For example, "Thou shall not kill/murder."
Imagine you are stationed at the switch of a railway intersection. The approaching train is on track to turn left. However, to the left are three people tied to the track. If you throw the switch, the train will go right, and unfortunately, right off a cliff. The conductor is the only person on the train. What is the Moral action? To throw the switch is to inevitably cause the death of the conductor. To not throw the switch is to passively allow the death of three people. Even though you will be killing the conductor, the Moral action is to throw the switch. This contradicts an absolute command to never kill, however, highlighting the foolishness of a single code.

Or another example, "Thou shall not steal"
What if an evil dictator has released poison into the water supply of an impoverished neighborhood, and he alone is housing the antidote in his government headquarters? As you family and neighborhood gets sick, the Moral option is to break in and steal the antidote.

Even these seemingly obvious moral standards have exceptions, and a code is not a good idea. What should we use to guide our moral actions then? Reason. Unfortunately for some unfamiliar with tough thought who'd prefer a code, discovering Morality is a sometimes tricky and thought-provoking business. Our only way to discern right from wrong is to use our experience and our reason, and not to rely on authority, codes, or commandments. Morality is to be discovered, not commanded. If one only follows rules blindly because they believe such rules have been commanded from a reputable source, I'd argue that their actions are not based on true Morality but only on obedience. Coming to know Morality requires critical and independent thought, not unthinking deference.

So I, as an atheist, AM able to justify being kind rather than cruel, nice rather than mean, and helpful rather than selfish, and I'm able to say why these types of actions are preferable. These are the types of actions that evidence and reason tell us result in an increase in well-being, of goodness, and happiness for conscious beings. So long as I care about my fellow man and woman, as well as my own well-being, that is all the justification I or anyone needs.
And, since I know the objection, I do realize that not everyone does care for their fellow human beings. Those are frankly immoral people. And genuine care for others cannot be commanded by an authority, or forced by threats. Care for others based on those reasons, (the reasons religion offers) only create obedience. Genuine care must be fostered and nurtured through the interactions of humans everywhere. How to go about that...is a topic for another day.

Ontological Argument, refuted.

2011-03-23T23:06:00.010-04:00

My first post in over a year...shocking I know! But I'm currently engaged in an email conversation with an intelligent theist I (so far) respect. Thus I'm taking enough care with my responses that I feel I should put them up on the internet for all to see. This person presented with my four arguments for the existence of a god: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. I'll be responding to each in turn over the next week or so. Here is my first response, concerning the ontological argument. Enjoy!

"The ontological argument, which might be the hardest to comprehend, is as follows:

1. If God exists then god would be the greatest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. God exists at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if God exists only subjectively, then he is not the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality (Objectively) as well as in the mind (Subjectively)"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can certainly see the appeal of this argument to one who already believes that a god exists; it's elegant and surprisingly charming. But despite the cuteness of the logic, there exist several flaws that leave the argument underwhelming. I'll discuss a few of the flaws I find most important.

Thanks to the phrasing of the first premise, it escapes the common flaw of treating existence as an attribute of a thing, rather than the condition that allows for attributes to apply. I don't have a problem with the first premise (for now).

The second premise contains some problems concerning the definition of "greatness". It is simply asserted that objective existence is greater than subjective existence, but this is not explained or justified. How is greatness defined, in this context? How is greatness measured here? What data are we using under this definition of greatness to compare relative 'greatnesses' that allow for this conclusion? This premise also plays into a fallacy of equivocation, but this is more clearly seen in step 4, so I'll skip to there.

Step four is where things break down, even if the validity of the three premises is granted. When we speak of an objective god, which the argument tries to prove, we're speaking about something that exists in reality outside of the mind. We're talking about a being. When we speak of a "subjective god", we're no longer speaking about a god external of the mind, and we're not talking about a being. We're talking about the concept of a god. You're already aware of this distinction, as indicated by the use of the phrase "idea in the mind" in step 3. The argument tries to compare existences of two different things: concepts and beings. Concepts don't exist in the way beings do, and beings do not exist in the way concepts do. There are not concepts outside of the mind, and there are not beings inside of the mind. So comparing the existences of these two is a categorical error.

In light of the criticisms so far, I'll restate the argument as I see it:

1. If god exists as a being, god would be the greatest being. --OK.
2. Beings are greater than concepts. --Why?
3. A concept of god exists. --OK.
4. If god is only a concept, he is not a being. --True.
5. God exists as a being, because he exists as a concept. --No.

Whichever way it is phrased, either your way or my simplified way, step 4 is obviously true: a concept is not a being. The argument then uses the yet unjustified assertion that beings are greater than concepts to conclude that god exists as a being simply because he exists as a concept. It completely ignores that concepts and beings are different in nature and in their type of existence. It's a fallacy. Noting that the concept of the greatest possible being exists does not allow one to conclude that any real beings exist that match the definition of that concept.

The argument tries to prove god by virtue of a definition. It seeks to define him into existence. The same logical steps can be applied to "prove" the objective existence of anything (if we allow for the implicit fallacies). For example:

1. If unicorns exist, they have the greatest horns of any animal.
2. To exist objectively is greater than to exist merely subjectively.
3. Unicorns and their great horns exist at least subjectively as an idea in the mind.
4. But, if unicorns exist only subjectively, their horns are not the greatest of any animal.
5. Therefore, unicorns must exist in reality as well as in the mind.

Or:

1. If "Gouda" exists, then he would be the smelliest possible being.
2. To exist objectively is to smell worse than to exist as a concept of smelliness in the mind.
3. We can conceive of the idea of the smelliest possible being.
4. But if Gouda's smelliness exists only in the mind, he is not the smelliest possible being.
5. Therefore, Gouda and his foul stench must exist objectively as well as in the mind.

In either case, I've only "proven" the existence of the subject by its own definition. Like I said, the existence of the concept does not allow one to conclude that a real being exists to match that concept. One cannot establish the objective existence of anything by examining its subjective definition as a concept.

That's about all I have to say on the argument, save one final point which I am completely confident will be met with criticism. Even if the argument were valid and successfully proved the existence of a god, it would at the same time disprove the existence of the Christian god. This is because the Christian god is not at all close to the greatest being one can conceive of. The greatest being I can conceive of would not carry out, command, and endorse genocide, infanticide, and slavery. I'm not too keen on beginning biblical criticism this early in the discussion, so hopefully the contents of the bible is a topic we can agree to save for a later date. But, it's up to you, since I opened my big mouth about it!

The Problems of Perfection, part 3

2009-11-03T20:23:00.002-05:00

Ok, one final point (for now) about perfection. Luckily, this is a quick point:

If we assume that a god is perfect, it also means that he cannot change. This seems obvious enough: what could a perfect being change into? If perfection is the state at which no flaws exist, and no "non-flaws" can be added, then anything perfect can only ever change into something less than what it already is. In simple terms, a perfect being can only change into something imperfect. This would invalidate such a being's initial perfection, so from that contradiction we can understand that a perfect being can never change.

What implications does this have for some of the popular definitions of god? If one equates god with nature, as pantheists do, it has to be concluded that such a god is imperfect. We know that nature changes constantly. The state of the universe when you began to read this sentence is somehow different by the time you reach the period. Such changes and transformations could not happen with an unchanging being.

All definitions of god and theologies must take this principle of perfection vs. change into account.

This also has implications for the god which is defined as omnipotent. Definitions of omnipotence vary. One definition states that the deity can do anything that is in accord with its nature. This definition doesn't conflict with the idea of perfection. A stronger definition does, however. If omnipotence is defined as being able to do absolutely anything, this establishes a paradox in the being also defined as perfect.
I've given examples of some things a perfect being cannot do: a perfect being cannot make a bad choice; a perfect being cannot change, etc. Each one of these "cannots" makes a strong definition of omnipotence impossible. A being can be either perfect, or able to do anything, but not both at the same time.

The Problems of Perfection, part 2

2009-10-28T15:56:00.002-04:00

Sorry for the delay, all. I finally have a working laptop again.

Picking up where I left off, we had established that a perfect being cannot freely make any choice of importance. In light of this, I'd like to reexamine the claim of a perfect god being benevolent.

If we accept the dictionary ideal of benevolence as "doing good for others", then there is no logical reason why a perfect being cannot be also benevolent. A perfect being certainly can do good things, so that isn't what I find problematic. My contention is that benevolence of this sort, however, isn't deserving of admiration.

To clarify and explain, I will paraphrase a parable from the New Testament. Everyone should be familiar with the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32. To breifly summarize, a man has two sons. The younger demands his inheritance, leaves his father, and wastes his money. The older stays obedient to his father. The younger returns, begging for mercy, and is welcomed by his father with great celebration. This irritates the older, hard-working son, since his faithfulness was never praised in such a manner. The father explains that they must celebrate, for his brother was lost and has been found, was dead and is now alive again.

The reason this parable is important is because it highlights an important point: a moral action is more deserving of praise if the action was highly unlikely to be performed. The unjust son was much more unlikely to obey his father, so when he finally returned, his obedience was commended more highly than the just son's. A person who donates $100 annually to a charity receives less commendation than a homeless man who donates $100. Ebeneezer Scrooge's new-found Christmas spirit was more uplifting than the unwavering spirit of his nephew.

Behind each of these stories of conversion (turning around), the mechanism which allows the change is choice. The prodigal son was rewarded because he chose to return. What does this mean, then, for a being which cannot make such a choice? If all choices of consequence have been predetermined by god's perfection, then god can have no conversion. He cannot make the choice to act benevolently, it's already been made! In this sense, a perfect and benevolent god is like the older son, who never betrayed his father, but never receives real praise. Likewise, if god is already bound to only ever act benevolently, why should he be praised?

Praise is due when a person could make a bad choice, yet does not; or could remain apathetic, but chooses to do good for others. A being which has no choices to make, therefore, isn't due any praise. If a god existed, I would desire a god that was imperfect; a god who could mess up, but overcomes this weakness out of love. A perfect god has no weakness to overcome, no choices to make, and therefore no love needed. The fact that such a god is prone to act benevolently wouldn't be the product of love or compassion; but simply part of it's programming, like a machine.

I don't want a robot god, even if it is benevolent.

The Problems of Perfection, part 1

2009-10-16T16:21:00.007-04:00

Ah, to be perfect. Isn't that the state which humans strive towards?
Well, perfection is not something I'd wish to obtain, and here's why:

Recently I debated a theist in a chatroom who defined his god with the following qualities:
"All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, merciful, and perfect", etc.
I usually condense these qualties into what I call "the omni's" (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent)

At some point I asked to know how this theist made the jump from a deistic creator to a theistic god. His reply was along the lines of "an impersonal god cannot make a choice. God chose to create the universe out of his free will, and therefore he must be personal."

Let's ignore the unjustified assertion that impersonal beings can't make a choice. I want to focus on two words only: God chose.

Can god choose, based on the qualities provided by this theist? And does he have free will? I intend to show that this god cannot make any choice of importance, and possesses little to no free will at all.

The problem lies in the quality of perfection. In every choice that we can make, there is a option which will lead to a better consequence than all the others. For simplicity's sake, let's work in the context of a choice that has two options: a beneficial option, and a less beneficial or bad option. Being all-knowing, this god would have the capability to see which option of any choice will lead to the best results.
Now, since he is a perfect being, this god cannot ever choose the option which is not the best option. If he were to choose this bad option, it would negate his perfection by engaging in an activity which could be improved upon. (If there is room for improvement, you're not perfect.) So in a choice with one good option and one bad option, the perfect being is incapable of choosing the bad option.

This theist defended his definition by claiming: "God could choose the bad option, but he simply doesn't."

Well, no he can't! If we hold the definition of perfection strictly, it prevents this god from ever choosing the poor option. A perfect being cannot, by definition, act in an imperfect manner. So he is bound by his own perfection to only ever choose the best option. This contradicts the idea of free will. Something has to go: either this god is imperfect, or he does not possess free will. One cannot have both.

"Ok, but what about choices in which the options arrive at equal consequences? God can still make those choices."

First of all, we must realize that an all-knowing being would be able to discern even the slightest superiority among options, and thus this list of equal options must be extremely small. But can you honestly think of a choice that you have made that didn't possess one option that was slightly better than all others??
Even if we grant the premise that absolutely equal options exist, this is all that god is capable of choosing? The extent of his "free will" is only the ability to make choices that have no consequence. If all options are equal, then we don't need a god to make choices. All we need is a coin.
Is this god nothing more than a heads/tails in the sky??

And thus, I don't want to be perfect. I rather enjoy making the occasional poor choice. After all, it is the ability to make a bad choice which makes picking the better option worthwhile and commendable. This will be my topic in the second part of this series.

Reply to a Christian

2009-09-20T21:59:00.004-04:00

Well, I've been terribly busy with research recently, but I had a comment on my "500 Eyewitnesses?" that I could not pass up criticizing. If you haven't already read that post, I suggest you do, although its not necessary for the purposes of analyzing this Christian's comment.
He or she said:
I am truly amazed with the knowledge atheist have acquired through reading the word of God. Employing the word of God for the atheist "belief" of there being no God is ridiculous, it discredits their own view of there being no God, because they are using the word of God. -All- atheist need to do some serious introspection.

Let's start at the first sentence:
-Don't be so amazed. Typically, atheists are more familiar with the bible than most Christians.
-The phrase "word of God" is unjustified and extremely improbable. At best, the bible is a book written by men about the god in which they believe.

Second (run-on) sentence:
-I'm glad you put belief in quotes, since atheism is not a belief in and of itself. But what you've tacked on to it renders the quotes unnecessary. Atheism is not the positive claim that no god exists; far from it. All that is required for the label of atheist to be correct is an admission that there is not sufficient evidence to make the belief in a deity justified. That's all. Being an atheist doesn't also require that you assert no god exists, although some do.
-By discrediting the use of the phrase "word of god" and correcting your error in defining atheism, I've rendered the rest of this sentence almost meaningless. But I'll rephrase it to address "why do atheists use the bible in arguments at all?" Well, mainly to point out three things: 1) How a specific claim is actually unjustified, as was the case with the 500 eyewitnesses. 2) To show how your "good book" contains and advocates absolutely immoral actions, committed and commanded both by Yahweh and his followers. 3) To point out discrepancies between biblical accounts or highlight contradictions between what the bible says and what is known about the natural world.
So the use of the bible is in no way an admission that your god exists nor is it a contradiction to our arguments.

Last sentence:
-The very fact that someone uses the atheist label indicates that, probably, they are very familiar with introspection and critical thought. Most atheists were raised in religious households, and did not arrive at atheism without several years of introspection, gradual questioning, and intense research. Yet all it takes to be a Christian, or any theist, is to give into belief. There is no research, questioning, or critical thought required.
-So I return the rebuke back to you, my commenter.

"Belief is easy!"

2009-08-22T22:25:00.003-04:00

No, it's not.
Not in the way my mind works, anyway.
Today I had a very long debate with a Christian. He didn't present anything unique, but when all out of "evidence" for god, he revealed an attitude which I have come to detest.
He said:
"Why not just believe? Isn't it easier just to have faith than to try to find evidence for everything?"
I had hoped he had misspoken, but these sorts of statements were repeated by him several more times. I tried to explain to him what I will try to explain here, but I'm not sure it truly sunk in for him.

I will never, and probably cannot, abandon my search for truth by evidence in favor of faith. I can only think of this as selling out. In order to give into faith, I'd have to sell out all my wisdom, knowledge of the natural world, and knowledge of the proper paths to truth. I would have to become everything that I am not...and this is supposed to be easy?

Even if it were easy for me to buy into faith, what a hideous proposition! It's almost comical.
Who needs that fancy-schmancy ev-a-dance when you can just have faith?
Well that's just dandy. But why, I wonder, should I limit my faith to just one god? If I'm going to disregard evidence in favor of faith, I'd much rather have faith that the world was created by the thrashing riffs of gods of rock, and that they have defined morality as headbanging and moshing and being an all around rock-star. Now that would be cool. And why should you disagree? Afterall, it's just faith, and it's easy!

But my favorite quote from this theist by far was:
"Why waste time in search of truth and evidence? You can just have faith and then spend more time on more important things like your relationship with your wife, and with your dogs"

Definitely. Shouldn't we all give up the quest for knowledge by evidence, and buy into whatever faith we concoct, so that we can have a bit more personal time with Fido?

What can be said? Once again I find evidence for my conclusion that many theists hate knowledge. They are enchanted by faith, while we Rationalists are keen to avoid it whenever possible. We can see the idiocy of such faith-heads in statements such as these. I think some people are so cognitively lazy that they prefer the easy answers.
Just don't make me think, and I'll believe whatever.

Before the conversation ended, I told him the definition of a theist. (He didn't know he was one.)
Trying to be clever, he replied:
"Ok. I'll believe you. It's easier that way :)"

I yelled at him.

Skinner and god

2009-07-25T16:24:00.010-04:00

Today I had a discussion with a Christian which was surprisingly civil and respectful. It's always a pleasure to know your words do not fall on closed ears. The debate did, however, spark a novel idea for me. Rather than retell the debate itself, I'll expand upon my realization.

As a psychologist, I'm well-versed in the works and theories of B.F. Skinner, and understand conditioning and learning. Skinner and the behaviorists are opposed to the attribution of "essences, spirits, souls, and internal ambiguous intentions"to objects. It was not long ago that essences and desires were attributed to both animate and inanimate objects, silly as that may seem. Skinner expanded the discoveries of Pavlov and others from "lower" animals to the human animal. The same reinforcement and punishment schedules that shape a dog's behavior shape a human's behavior.

So what's the point I need to make? Well, we can no longer say that someone is trustworthy, or loyal, or hardworking, or loving, honest, friendly, or kind. That phrasing makes it seem that those qualities are some sort of internal, ambiguous force residing in a person. The proper phrasing, in light of behaviorism, is to acknowledge that reinforcement and punishment contingencies have been such arranged to produce behavior which can be labeled "loving" by another human brain. We may incorrectly label the person as being "loving"; we mean, in fact, that their behavior is "loving". Our qualities are the result of behavior being labeled, not unseen forces within us. How else do you know if a "person" is honest? How else do you know if a "person" is friendly? We draw the best conclusions by observations of behavior. (Science!)

So right off the bat we can conclude that labels attached to a god do not describe the god himself or herself, but describe his or her purported behavior. Keep this in mind when theists describe god.

Now, the theist in question was discussing the qualities of god's character. Christians typically claim god is "holy, kind, just, loving, honest, etc.". Understanding that qualities are simply labeled behaviors, what are the behaviors that have been observed in order to come to these labels? Well, it's a complicated question, isn't it? I'm a pretty observant fellow, but I've never witnessed the behavior of an undeniable god. Where are these labels coming from?

The theist said the behaviors are found in the bible. Well, that's not exactly phrased right. The reports of the behaviors are found in the bible. In other words, the behavior isn't directly observed itself, but through the bible one can take the author's word for it. Of course, if there is evidence of the behavior outside of the author's account, it lends credibility for the application of a label. Unfortunately, there is not any physical evidence that supports the biblical intervention of a god at any point in history, including the Jesus story. So all that's left is the author's word for it, and that leads to a high possibility of an incorrect labeling, since no behavior has been observed. Sure we can label the character of the biblical god like we can label a novel figure, but this doesn't equate with a god in reality. Besides, if the author's word for it is all that's needed, you'd require blinders to overlook the evil god of the Old Testament, and still arrive at labels like "loving and peaceful."

This theist also said that the beauty of the Earth is evidence that god is creative and loving. Well, let's just overlook the plethora of ways in which the Earth tries to kill us everyday, and focus on the beauty itself. Is Earth beautiful? It goes back to behaviorism: objects do not have intrinsic essences and qualities, outside of what labels we attach. Beauty is completely subjective. The Earth is only beautiful if we say it is. I've known people who find the Earth beautiful and others who find it ugly. Sometimes, one person can have both opinions in different points of one lifetime. Can a subjective opinion really serve as sufficient evidence to attach a label to an unobserved behavior? Of course not. Besides, there is no evidence of the Earth being "created" in a way any differently than the natural formations of the other billion billion planets.

Of course, there is the behavior of a god which has only anecdotal evidence. "God made my sister better", "God saved me", "God sent Hurricane Katrina because of gay people", etc. I won't spend much time on these anecdotes, because every atheist, rationalist, and psychologist knows that anecdotal evidence is meaningless and often false unless supported by objective evidence. So what if you claim to have a personal account of god's behavior; can you demonstrate objectively by evidence that this was a god's doing, and could not be explained by any other means?? Of course they can't.

So what are these labels based upon, exactly? Do they actually describe the deity's behavior, or do they describe what people expect the deity's behavior to be like? I think the lack of any physical evidence of such a deity's behavior forces the second option to be true. A theist cannot say that god behaves "lovingly, kindly, or holy". The theist can only say that they expect, believe, or hope that god's actions are loving, kind, and holy.

This is where my thought ends at the current moment, but I hope that this line of thinking will come in handy when evaluating claims of god's character in future discourse. I think Skinner has a lot to offer to human knowledge, both in and outside of Psychology, and even in the debate about god.

Do not forget the evil of theism

2009-07-13T00:22:00.001-04:00

Sometimes I forget the power theism holds over certain individuals. I focus on the claims so closely I forget to see the monster making them. With theism, there is always the possibility for absolute evil (in addition to the normal immorality of unjustified belief). This recent debate reminded me of that ugly fact, and repulsed me immensely.

The debate, which took place on youtube via private messages, will be copied and pasted below.

Christian:
I hope you get right with God. It's funny how evil you are to me, yet how much I sincerely want your soul to be saved!

Me:
Evil, to me, is telling children they are guilty, filthy creatures and deserve eternal torture.
Evil, to me, is the mutilation of a child's genitals.
Evil, to me, is the deprivation of a child's education, in favor of bronze-age mythology.
Evil, to me, is god-commanded genocide.
Evil, to me, is religion-fueled bombings.
Evil, to me, is unquestionable dogma.
Evil, to me, is the pushing of legislation to ban homosexuality based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is the opposition of science that can save lives because of mythology.
Evil, to me, is the oppression of women based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is willful ignorance.
Evil, to me, is lying to a child.
Evil, to me, is lying to anyone in order to obtain money or gifts.
Evil, to me, is using fear to gain control of a person and a person's assets.
Evil, to me, is all these things which religion causes.
Therefore, evil, to me...is you.

Goodness, ergo, is opposing evil.

Christian:
Evil to you... evil to you... so what if that's not evil to someone else? What if to a cannibal eating a child for lunch (much less lying to him) is permissible?

Moral relativism is from your father the devil. Only God is good enough to decide what is right and what is wrong

Me:
There's another:
Evil, to me, is telling a person their father is the devil.

I'm only looking at the world, and the path of burnt corpses, bombed buildings, indoctrinated children, murdered doctors, and destroyed lives that religion leaves behind it. If you can't see the evil in that, I pity you.

Besides, I'm more moral than the god of the bible, and I bet you are too.
I would never tell someone: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3
I would never condone the killing of infants, but apparently its just dandy for your "god".

Christian:
No, evil is not telling a person their father is the devil (spiritually) when he is.

That is evil. I know with 100% certainty that you are a true child of Satan, your father. You show disdain and even hatred for God. Until you turn from your old life and to God, you will be a child of the devil.

It would be INFINITELY more evil not to tell you the truth about this when in fact, I hold the key in this debate. But I cannot judge you as I was probably worse than you and very egotistical like you before I got saved.

God did what was good and perfect. He sees the whole picture. What satan uses for evil, God can turn into good. One of God's very names is the Lord of Hosts (armies). Our God is a mighty warrior. By Him, everyone knew the American Revolution was won.

Me: (now disgusted by this point)
Yet another:
Evil, to me, is telling someone that what is only mere faith is truth.
Evil, to me, is justify the killing of infants and women.
Evil, to me, is allowing your "god" to command men to rape virgins and take a knife to suckling babies; while still claiming to be "moral" when opposing abortion.
Evil, to me, is hypocrisy similar to the above.
Evil, to me, is falsely claiming the your god had anything to do with American history.

You are, perhaps, the most morally-deprived person I've talked to. It's too bad that there is no hell for you to go to.

Christian:
Evil, is to you what it might not be to another.

Moral relativism is evil and from Satan, from whom you are taking lessons.

God is why there is American history; otherwise it would be European history still. God is why there is history. God is why we are even alive.

Me:
Evil, to me, is telling a person who strives for truth, donates to the poor, comforts the sick, protects the innocent, helps the downtrodden through crisis, and supports equality that their actions are from "Satan".
Do you really think the above actions are evil?

Funny..in every war that has ever been fought, god was claimed to be on both sides.

Christian:
In themselves, they are not evil. It doesn't stop the truth from being the truth, however. In fact, Satan parades as an angel of light. He is the father of lies.

Maybe mankind claimed God to be on both sides. But the truth is that God of Israel (the true God) was only on one side. So that doesn't matter.

Me:
Well tell you what: I'll keep helping the poor, destitute, sick, lonely, stressed, afraid, innocent, and vulnerable; and you keep making excuses of why it is ok for god to command the death of infants and the rape of women.

If god commanded you to kill a woman and her infant child, as he commanded Saul, would you do it?

Christian:
God also smote the firstborn of Egypt. God does what is right and perfect at all times. Who are we to question our Creator. It is fortunate any of us are breathing.

Oh, but let's not look at the big picture- that would be too hard.

Me:
You did not answer my question.
If god told you to take the life of a woman, and of her newborn child, as he told Saul, would you do it?
Yes or no?

(Prepare yourselves)

Christian:
If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God.

Me: (enraged and repulsed)
Then you admit to being a mindless slave, willing to murder an infant. You are too weak to think for yourself and your mindlessness would lead you to commit horrible crimes that violate everything good about humanity. Your willingness to take the life of a newborn repulses me; makes me want to vomit. I'm embarrassed to share this planet with you, and much more embarrassed to be conversing with you. Your fanatic devotion is no better than that of Osama Bin Laden and the suicide bombers. Your mind is diseased, sick, and twisted. Your faith does not deserve tolerance; it deserves jail time and therapy. You claim I am evil; yet you are the one ready to jab the knife into the stomach of a woman.
For this, I will not corrupt my morals any further by talking to you. Just as you think you cast aside "Satan", I shall cast you aside. If there lay any evil between the two of us, it lay with the one ready to murder. I cannot overlook that, and cannot consort with murderers.
...later..
Now that I think about it...
You said:
"If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God."

Even if everything you believed was actually true; I would STILL never murder a fellow man, especially a baby. But look at your reason! You would kill a child in order to avoid punishment for yourself! Could you possibly be more evil?! How selfish is that?!
You'd kill a child, to save your own skin...
I'd spend eternity in hell before I dare lay a malevolent hand on a child; and if god asked me to, I'd tell him to fuck off.
You evil, sick, selfish, child-killing, slave...how dare you claim to know morality.

Perhaps you think my words were harsh, and perhaps you do not. Frankly, I do not think there are words harsh enough for those willing to murder an infant an a woman just to get a reward. This disgusting pervert does not deserve the respect he demands; he deserves to be locked away.

Never forget, my fellow atheists, that theism is never innocent. Even when we let it slip from our sight, there is always the potential monster behind the beliefs. The only way to rid society of pathological nitwits such as this man is to recognize that the faith of any theist is not benign. It does not make society better, and it does not even "break even". It corrupts society, turns otherwise smart people into slaves, and allows for abominations against human decency.

If anyone desires to give this particular theist a piece of their mind, I will give you his youtube username. Just email me at crgordon@gmail.com.

Reality show to convert atheists

2009-07-06T23:03:00.003-04:00

A Turkish TV station is airing a "reality" show in which various religious leaders attempt to convert atheists.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/weird/Ill-Take-Eternal-Salvation-for-600.html#nSYL7Jaojdux0qOli6eaOKmGmUxChwsgHH8r0ndfMUdFEE9dsmlNSNu0mI_eZ8iV9AEx7L3RLj9EiSOoB

The show features a Muslim imam, a Catholic priest, A Buddhist monk, and a rabbi confronting 10 atheists.
And, if they convert, tell them what they win, Johnny!
-"That's right, for selling out your rationality to religious dogma, you win a once-in-a-lifetime PILGRIMAGE to the epicenter of your selected doctrine! Enjoy Judaism by banging your head on an old wall! Praise Jesus in scenic capitalist Vatican city! Kill infidels with Mohamed and friends at Mecca! Or just sit and do nothing all day in Tibet! All this and more fairy tales iiiiffff the price is right!"

Seriously, what the fuck Turkey?! This show has obviously sparked outrage from the theistic world. The Muslims have their panties in a bunch and want the show pulled. (What else is new?) But as an atheist, even I don't think this show is a good idea. Why?
Because it degrades the serious thought and consideration that goes into theistic and atheist discourse. These decisions are not commodities to be pitched. Can you imagine the late Billy Mays selling Judaism? We all know that nothing on TV is real; even reality shows have scripts. Doubtlessly, a few lazy atheists will be coaxed to convert and take the free trip. This will give the false illusion that theism of any sort is in some cases a more reasonable alternative to atheism. I predict the show will play to emotions rather than logic. I doubt it will carefully examine the logical fallacies of each religion. I doubt it will be fair and balanced. All in all, I think this show will paint atheists as fools who can be bought over. Maybe I'll be wrong; but I doubt it.

In any case, I'll always be doing my part here in America to show that we will not sell out our logic and rationality.

Atheist Blogroll

2009-06-30T16:27:00.000-04:00

My blog has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Gay Exorcism

2009-06-28T22:27:00.005-04:00

It seems that in my own state, there still exists religious cruelty in the form of homophobic child abuse. This video of an apparent exorcism to remove demons causing homosexuality is taking the internet by storm. It shows a 16 year old boy writhing while surrounded by people shouting babble about jesus. The boy vomited in the course of the exorcism, and was driven to a near-seizure state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhedHERfcXk

The people responsible are Kevin and Patricia McKinney. The latter, and probably the former, is a recovered CRACK ADDICT. Why am I not surprised? Below is a letter I sent to their "church" of 25 people.

Dear Kelvin and Patricia McKinney,

As you well know, I’m sure; your videotaped exorcism of a homosexual boy has spread over the internet like wildfire. I recently read of this exorcism in a local newspaper, and was compelled to research more about your “ministry” and the abuses you have commit against this child. It is not sufficient to say that I am appalled; I am thoroughly embarrassed and disgusted that such events would unfold in this state and in this day in age.

As a student researcher in Psychology, I feel insulted that the honest and empathetic studies being done in my field cohabitates with the harsh cruelties of your dogmatic minds. Research conducted by admirable, inquisitive scientists has uncovered evidence linking homosexuality to biological and environmental conditions. And, the evidence of homosexuality’s naturalistic origin is constantly being increased. And you, in blind faith, would contend that “gay demons” are the only explanation! Contrasting the non-judgmental scientific approach with the actions you have taken against this child is like comparing the modern era to the dark ages.

If you are content to ignore the etiology of homosexuality, and instead blame it on causes unsupported by evidence, you have the right to do so. Our constitution guarantees that you have the right to glorify ignorance through your speech and religion. You do not, however, possess the right to inflict suffering and psychological damage on a minor, even with consent. Responsible adults should see the risk inherent with telling a child his sexual orientation is caused by “demons”, but apparently you do not. Based on what I have seen, I can only conclude that you are not responsible adults. Because you preyed on this child’s still-developing mind, with incessant shouting and inhumane treatment, I opine that your actions were not only irresponsible, but positively immoral. This primitive behavior has no place in modern society. Therefore, it is my hope that appropriate legal action will be taken against you for this publicized child abuse.

The church is under investigation for child abuse. May they be brought to justice...

500 Eyewitnesses?

2009-06-22T21:36:00.004-04:00

Some arguments for Jesus' divinity are so stupid, I'm taken aback whenever they are used.
This is one such argument:

"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once" 1 Corinthians 15:6
Some seriously deluded Christians will throw this verse around as if it carried some special proof.

Seriously?...hold on...you're using part of a story..to prove the story?

Let's not even get into the fact that the author here never even met Jesus, and all of this was supposedly "revealed" to him..

But you want to use part of a story...to prove the same story??

Ok, Christians, here's another irrefutable, totally logical and sound proof of another story:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall...

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall..

All the king's horses,; And all the king's men,
: Couldn't put Humpty together again.

See, the story says that Humpty Dumpty was seen by not even some or most, but ALL of the king's men! He'd be a paltry king to only have 500 men and horses at his service, so we have way more eyewitnesses for my story. It doesn't matter than none of those eyewitnesses ever wrote anything, because the eyewitnesses for your Jesus story never wrote anything, either. So there you have it, Humpty Dumpty obviously existed because the story says he was seen by so many men!

What's the problem?!

Does "god" really care?

2009-06-19T16:16:00.004-04:00

Today I received this statement from a theist while in debate.

"whenever JEHOVAH does something or answer a prayer,he does it at just the right time"

I was repulsed by this statement and I find it disturbing how people make excuses for their god. Below is my reply:

But you said something interesting...and disturbing...
You said: "whenever JEHOVAH does something or answer a prayer,he does it at just the right time"

Let's look at that for a moment.
--When god answers a prayer, it's at the right time--
--And I'd assume you think god to be omnibenevolent--

Do you think that those in German death camps prayed for a godly intervention?
I'd be willing to bet that they prayed as their heads were shaved..
..and prayed again when their shoes were taken..
..and prayed again when they were forced in the gas chamber...
..and prayed again while choking to death on gas..
--YET, "whenever JEHOVAH does something or answer a prayer,he does it at just the right time"--
-I guess god didn't feel that was a good enough time.

Do you think those people trapped in the World Trade Center prayed?
I bet that those people, who were mainly christian, prayed when they heard the impact..
...and prayed again as they raced down the stairs..
...and prayed again as they jumped out the windows...
...and prayed again as they were burned alive..
...and prayed again as their bodies were crushed underneath the tower..
--YET, "whenever JEHOVAH does something or answer a prayer,he does it at just the right time"
-I guess god didn't think this was a good enough time to intervene, either.

How about the people killed in earthquakes, mudslides, hurricanes and tsunamis? You know, those wonderful aspects of the planet he supposedly created for us.
I'm willing to bet those people prayed as well..
..as the earth shook their house to pieces..
..as the mud washed away their relatives..
..as the wind ripped the infant from their arms...
...as the water drowned their whole village..
--YET, "whenever JEHOVAH does something or answer a prayer,he does it at just the right time"
-I guess god was too busy, again...

How is god spending all his free time, anyway? Revealing himself to you? talking to Pat Robertson? inspiring people to kill doctors?

I guess those are "good enough" times, but for disasters, it seems that god is just too busy.

A rant and a thanks

2009-06-01T16:00:00.003-04:00

First and foremost, I'd like to thank everyone who has shared their support and criticisms with me. I'm finding your feedback very helpful for shaping my views. I definitely do not claim to have enough knowledge to be a forerunner in the atheist movement, and this blog is allowing me to challenge myself and learn from others.

Well then, let me move on. Recently, I saw the movie version of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. As I watched it, and for the days after, I was reminded of something I had not felt in a while:
I love Catholicism!

But don't mistake me, I'm firmly opposed to all religion.

I love Catholicism in the same way I love the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, the Matrix, and other stories of deep mystery.
I love Catholicism in the same way I love Rome.
I love Catholicism because I adore ancient cities, works of art, necropoleis, and secret histories.
I love Catholicism like I love secret societies, and all things with rich, veiled, and complex history.
I love Catholicism because I enjoy witnessing the spectacles of formality and the organization of rank, as can be found in papal election and ceremony.

It's fascinating to me! I'd hypothesize that my reasons for being intrigued by Catholicism is shared by many Catholics. I think there is something innate to humans to respect and marvel at brilliant displays of formality. Sure, the pope looks ridiculous by any fashion standards, but it is exactly that ridiculousness which gains so much attention and, possibly, devotion.

The Catholic leaders know what they are doing. No one would attend to the pope and his bishops if they wore khakis and Polo shirts! The elaborate costumes, the ornate basilicas, and the authority of the papacy are all designed to create awe, wonder, and praise. The sheer spectacle, coupled with the amazingly murky history...ah! sign me up! Wait, what? I owe my life to jesus? I have to accept your doctrine? Oh, no, no. I'll observe your spectacles from the outside-in, Catholics.

Argument from Design

2009-05-27T18:36:00.005-04:00

Today I had an interesting debate with a person named "christian girl". In the first part of this debate, she attempted to use one of the most useless and easily refutable arguments for god: the argument from design, or teleological argument. This argument is so ridiculously fallacious it's laughable. I'm paraphrasing, but the conversation went a little something like this:

Christian Girl: The complexity of the human brain is more more than a computer. If the computer is designed, how can the brain not be designed?
(Not wanting to delve into evolution)
Me: If you continue this line of questioning, we'll arrive at the same place again: who designed the designer?
Christian Girl: No one designed God. He was always there.
Me: If it's ok to assume that god was always there, and needed no designer, it's ok to assume that the universe was always there and needed no designer.
Christian Girl: ...how?
Me: Ok well let me ask a few questions. Would you say that in order to create the universe, god must have been equally or more complex?
Chrisitan Girl: More.
Me: Which would look more designed to you: a lump of clay, or a perfect ball of clay?
Christian Girl: A ball.
Me: Then, comparatively, it is harder to make the assumption that god (the perfect ball) did not have a designer since he is more complex. It is easier to assume that the universe (the lump) did not have a designer since it is less complex. This is your own logic.
Christian Girl: i dunno...maybe this wasnt the best argument

At least her last statement was true.

P.S. I've since debated this person again. She now insists that the above was a good argument. She wanted me to inform my readers that she thinks it is it is sound. *Sigh* Some people never learn.

Are atheists arrogant?

2009-05-16T18:53:00.007-04:00

We atheists are often accused of being overly arrogant. I don't know how this assumption arose. Perhaps it is because we, for the most part, use proper grammar and have a grasp of the rules of the English language. Surely that may seem off-putting to many theists, whom, in my experience, type at the level of an elementary student.* Or perhaps people make the ridiculous assumption that we assert ourselves as gods. Whatever the reason may be, the conclusion could not be farther from the truth in my case.

I'm an atheist at least partly because I was not arrogant enough, in the necessary ways, to be a theist.

I never questioned religion until I realized the plethora of gods and religions that had divided the people of this planet. I realized that those in different religions were just as faithful and convinced as I was of my religion. I found that my belief was neither more unique, stronger, or more convincing than the belief of someone who completely disagreed. I was not arrogant enough to say that my religion was more truthful than the religions of the other billions of humans on Earth. To be a theist is to embrace this arrogance wholeheartedly.

Growing up, I knew the biblical stories well. I knew how the Earth was said to have been created in 6 days, a few thousand years ago. But I also learned scientific fact. I was taught, by people worth respect, the truth of Earth's origin and the truth of how we came to exist. I saw, firsthand, the data and evidence that supports these conclusions. I had to acknowledge that science was undeniably valid. I was not arrogant enough to dismiss valid science in favor of ancient ideals. Nor was I arrogant enough to change the bible via metaphor and plays-on-words in order to suit the scientific data. To embrace theism is either to arrogantly reject what science demonstrates a factual, or to manipulatively change biblical text in order to fit modern knowledge.

Theists occasionally claim that only their version of god is capable of making judgments. Then they hypocritically and remorselessly judge the behavior of others. We see this everyday. Christian and Muslim activists are positively perverted on matters of sexual behavior. This is not a new characteristic. The religious have always been arrogant enough to pass laws prohibiting when and what kind of sexual behavior is appropriate, and failure to comply with these rules results in severe punishment, such as eternal suffering. (What sadistic, perverted god creates a world in which certain sexual acts are worth brutish punishment forever?) We well know that extreme preoccupation with and repression of sexual behavior is correlated with perversion. (Isn't that right, catholic priests?) The constant repression of certain sexual acts, such as masturbation and consensual homosexual sex, is arrogant to the highest degree. Why should theists care if individuals engage in acts they find immoral? They are not being forced to commit the deed as well. As long as no one is hurt, most especially children, people should be free to explore sexuality as they deem appropriate for themselves.
I was not arrogant enough to apply my version of appropriate sexual behavior upon the whole human race. I was not arrogant enough to say that those who violate my rules (be they inspired by a holy book or not) are deserving of punishment.

Finally, regarding the origins of the universe. No one knows how it all began. Anyone who claims to know is lying unless they provide extraordinary evidence. The fact that one book written by primitive goat-herders contains a creation myth is not evidence. That claim would have to be demonstrated to be true. And yet, theists claim to know. They claim to know exactly how it happened, what happened when, and why it happened. And do they have any evidence for this? No. I am not arrogant enough to claim to have absolute knowledge of things which I have no evidence for.

*As an editorial note, I want to make it clear that this cheap shot is directed towards the online theistic community. I know, as a fact, that theists can be scholars. But to witness the validity of what I say, one only needs to compare the grammar of average theistic youtubers to average atheistic youtubers.
Anyways, this post regards the theistic beliefs that necessitate arrogance; not levels of intelligence.

YECs and Anti-Scientists

2009-05-14T00:03:00.010-04:00

There is no doubt that scientific discoveries of our natural world conflict greatly with bronze-age doctrine. This has always caused big trouble for the theists, from the time of Newton to Darwin and beyond. (and just wait until they pass over Darwin and read Skinner!) There seem to be two reliable ways that the fundamentally religious interact with science. The "anti-science" theists disregard science completely. And the young earth creationists (YEC) accept some scientific principles, but not others.

First, I'll address the "anti-science" folk. If you actually enjoy talking to walls, trees, or inanimate objects, you'll love these people. If you have a thing for banging your head against the wall you may want to marry one! On these people, the amazing discoveries of Hawking, Watson and Crick, Skinner, etc. are simply lost. Science falls on deaf ears and resentful minds. But not just evolution! ALL science. I've had theists tell me "Never trust fallen sinner scientists" and another refused to type "scientist". He only called them "lyingtists". (Groan)
Do they not realize what they are advocating by damning all of science?! Science discovers and prevents pandemic. Science finds cures for the worst diseases. Science allows us to predict volcanic activity and to save lives. Science gives us heated homes, luxury products, and computers, for crying out loud! Sure, these people are content to damn science with their words...but their words rely on science entirely.
I would never take away the benefits that science has given humanity from any individual. But I wish these "anti-science" people could see what a world without science would be like. Can we send them to an "ancient-times" retreat for a month or so? How much will they curse at science after living for a month with no heating, or cooling, or plumbing, or toothpaste, or medicine, or deodorant, or TV, or comfortable surroundings? They damn us to a an eternity of torture, and fire, and agony if we don't accept their doctrine. I think it's only fair we encourage them to live a month without science if they don't want to accept the scientific method.

Next are the YEC's. Say it with me, "yec!!" That's exactly how I feel when debating such a person. What they do is accept certain scientific principles, such as thermodynamics, and then use it to argue against evolution. Their arguments are predictably flawed on two levels:
1) They don't understand the science they accept
2) They don't understand the science they don't accept.
Kent Hovind, the convicted fraudster now in prison, is a case-in-point of these flaws. But his arguments are already refuted by some of my heroes on youtube, such as Thunderf00t. Amazingly, this felon still has followers.
YEC's always try to find some contradiction between scientific principles and evolution. They are always easily refuted, based on their lack of understanding. But imagine the audacity of these people! Do they hate science so much that they think the most genius men and women in the world wouldn't notice contradictions? Do they think that the most brilliant minds who ever lived failed to notice something elementarily wrong? And yet, somehow, they, who have done no research, hold no degrees, and based their existence on a single book, have found a contradiction! Really? Are they really that arrogant? They must be..
I've had YEC's fabricate all sorts of contradictions. I commonly hear that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. If they understood thermodynamics, they would know it says no such thing. We do not live in a closed energy system. We receive constant energy from the sun. The energy, and therefore the order, of this planet is increasing. Evolution works with the second law of thermodynamics, not against it.
Another YEC told me that he accepts micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. First of all, these terms mean much more to creationists than to scientists. They only difference between the two is time. YEC's would like to think they are separate processes, but in fact they describe the same exact thing. Imagine that I own a black car, and that I get in accidents quite often. My first accident forces me to replace my black door with a red door. But it is still my car. My second forces me to replace my black hood with a red hood. This pattern continues until all of my black car is replaced with red parts. Is it still my original car? No. Each small replacement would be a micro-evolution. The end result, whereby I have a new car, is a macro-evolution. As I said, the difference is time. And, yes, there is evidence for macro-evolution.
You can find amazing information about evolution and creationist's claims on talkorigins.org.

Of the two, I'd prefer to debate "anti-scientists". At least they are not hypocritical with their scientific understanding. At least they aren't so arrogant to assume they know more about science then the geniuses of our world. If either group took the time to do research and learn about science objectively, they would understand this world so much better. Unfortunately, if they look to science at all, it is through blinders; taking what they want, and leaving what they don't. They fail to realize that the same methods that discovered what they accept also discovered what they don't accept.

We atheists still have the upper-hand in such debates, however. We can dismiss evolution and science completely, pretending it is wrong. The burden of proof then falls upon the theist to prove creationism. This sometimes surprises theists. They've been duped into thinking evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, but they are not. Even if we didn't evolve, it doesn't mean we were created. Creationism, unfortunately for them, is something they need evidence to assert.

Biblical Morals: the theist's nightmare

2009-05-13T21:35:00.005-04:00

No, this argument will not be as silly as Ray Comfort's legendary banana. It is based upon a debate I had today, with a science-hating christian. This man, seemingly foaming at the mouth, was desperate to argue against evolution, but I was not in the mood to lower scientific fact to the level he perceived it to be. The conversation was as follows:

FIRE01: you should know that if evolutonist are right and cretionist are wrong, then nobody lost anything. but because creationist are right, evolutons are in big trouble and will burn forever
ME: And what about the christians who accept evolution to be true?
FIRE01: nobody does that
ME: Yes, people do. My father does. The last pope did.
FIRE01: i dont care about yoru father or the pope. no real cristians accept evoltuion because its against what the bible says
ME: That was a very bad attempt at Pascal's wager, by the way.
FIRE01: whos what?
...(After refuting his misstated Pascal's wager)...
FIRE01: well look, real christians accept all of the bible to be true. not just bits a pieces but all or nothing.
ME: I'd agree. And for me, I'm forced to accept nothing because I cannot endorse the immorality commanded by the bible.
FIRE01: what imorality?
ME: There are plenty of examples. For instance, consider my friend who is forced to work on the sabbath for monetary reasons. I know, according to Exodus 31:14-15 that he must be stoned, but do I have to do it myself?
FIRE01: That's in the old testament. we are not bound by those laws anymore (**)
ME: Ah, the new testament then. How about this? My mother sings in church. Could you suggest a polite way to inform her that she is forbidden to speak while in church, as commanded by 1 Corinthians 14:34?
(he leaves the chat immediately)

**I could have refuted his argument right here, but I found it easier to provide an additional example rather than call his fallacy. He stated that all of the bible must be accepted, or none. When confronted with a rule he did not like, he justified his disobedience by saying the rules don't apply anymore. Even if that were so, he would therefore not be accepting all of the bible, violating his own logic.

As you can see, biblical "morality" is incompatible with the morality of decent humans beings in the 21st century. Its a wicked proposition that morality should be fixed and remain unchanging since the bronze age! Most theists are good and moral people, but for some reason they cling to a book that emphasizes ideals the humane find abhorrent. I think the explanation is likely that most biblical readers encounter confirmation bias. They learn about the few and far between moral statements of the bible at church, and never read or ponder the absolute horrors that fill the rest of the pages. They fail to search for evidence that negates their hypothesis, and therefore conclude the bible is moral. If that's the case, I'm more than happy than to provide that much needed, dis-confirming evidence.

The theist's hatred of knowledge

2009-05-13T20:31:00.006-04:00

Let me propose a scenario:
You are going in for brain surgery. The surgery itself places your frontal lobes, the very part of our brain that makes us human, at risk of being damaged. You are given a choice between two surgeons.
-Surgeon A has done numerous surgeries in the past, spent countless hours studying neurophysiology and neuroanatomy, and has concrete knowledge of the procedure to be done.

-Surgeon B has performed no surgeries. He has not studied. He has no concrete knowledge, BUT...he has extraordinary faith that he knows what to do.
Whom do you choose?

This is a scenario I have presented to several individuals who hold belief in incredibly high regard. When I was a Catholic, I remember being told the greatest gifts given to man by god were faith, hope, and love. Most readings, songs, homilies, and prayers glorify faith as the most virtuous and pure of human experiences.

To be blunt, what a load of bull!

It is positively immoral to tell someone to have faith and be content, to not question, to not demand justification, to not care if those beliefs are true. It is even more absurd when this faith leads to acts of violence and self-loathing, but that's another topic for another day. Should we have told Sir Issac Newton to rely on faith? To not question if planets moved by some natural, not supernatural force? Should we have preached blind faith in the supernatural to the scientists who discovered the vaccine for smallpox? Is it really better to assume that afflictions and disease are the wrath of an angered god? This battle still rages today! Should we conclude the 9/11 attacks were god's response to homosexuality and abortion, as the late "Reverend" Jerry Falwell concluded? Yes, yes, why bother to understand the behavioral principles involved in international diplomacy when we could just say "god-dun-it"?

This is part of the stain religion has left on humanity. It has, since inception, advocated belief without question; loyalty without justification; and time spent in servitude instead of spent discovering our natural world. How many lives could have been saved; how much further could we have progressed, if those who had dared to question and examine had not been burned, butchered, or banished by the religious?

The only individuals who have benefit humankind are those who possessed the courage to go against the glorified beliefs of their times, in search of justified knowledge.

Atheism: What and why?

2009-05-13T20:06:00.005-04:00

I'm often asked by theists: "Why are you an atheist?"
I'm more than happy to answer this question, and find it a fitting starting point for any theist/atheist discussions. Let me begin by providing my definition of atheism, formed by my experiences and its utility.

Simply stated, atheism is the lack of theism, or belief in a deity. There seems to be a common perception among the religious that atheist believe there is no god. They use this false definition to claim that atheism requires as much faith as theism.

Let me make it perfectly clear that atheism does not require the belief that deities do not exist. There may be certain atheists who do believe that a god does not exist. But only a foolish atheist would claim to know that a god does not exist. Such a person would be equally as foolish as a person claiming to know god does exist.

I hope by this point the distinction between belief and knowledge is clear. If not, I'll provide a drastic summary of the distinctions that have proven useful for me. Belief is the notion that something "is" in the way that one represents it mentally, without a truly good reason. Knowledge is a belief held to an extremely high degree of certainty, supported with evidence that neither contradicts nor outrages logic. The difference is evidence! When someone says "my belief is very strong", they really are saying, "my evidence is very lacking".

Given the distinction between belief and knowledge, it's important to note that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism and theism deals with belief in deities. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge. Therefore, a gnostic theist (as most claim to be) would say, "I believe god exists, and I know god exists". A gnostic atheist (fool) would say, "I do not believe in god, and I know god does not exist". I myself am an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are. I do not know if a god exists, but I certainly have seen no justifiable evidence to assume that one does exist. To make such an assumption would contradict everything I know of logic and reason.

P.S. Please do not assume that my atheism is a result of ignorance of the experience of faith. I spent the majority of my life as a devout Catholic. I was first intent on becoming a priest, then switched to aspirations of a being a biblical scholar. My father is a deacon. My mother is a cantor. I was a head altar server for 7 years and basically grew up in a church. My bedtime stories were straight from the bible, and I have studied it many times since. And, no, my atheism is not the result of a traumatic experience. My lack of faith is based solely on informed reason and logic.

This blog's purpose

2009-05-13T19:42:00.006-04:00

This blog represents my first stepping stone out of the dark shadows of secrecy, and into the eye of the public as a proud atheist. Unbeknown to my devout parents, I for many years have sat in church contemplating silent disagreement with theistic doctrine. I have fairly recently, and with fervor, begun debating online theists, believers, creationists and the like. With these debates I seek to engage people who may never had otherwise conversed with an atheist. I do my best to explain atheism, as I see it, and offer believers a chance to defend their positions.
It would not be an understatement to say that all arguments for belief have failed somewhat miserably. This goes without saying, as I am still an atheist, aren't I? If a successful argument could be made for the existence of god, I would without hesitation become a follower. This has not been the case so far, however.
I seek to share my experiences debating believers with the general public, for the purpose of mutual communication and learning. Also, I hope that my experiences may serve as the catalyst that drives silent nonbelievers to speak out and engage the religious in discussion. I'd be overly pleased if my blogs served as a resource for fellow atheists to draw knowledge from and fall back upon when debating. And, in my grandest fantasies, I hope that this blog inspires the religious and credulous to question their own beliefs and, perhaps, arrive at a more logical conclusion.

Please, feel free to comment or email me. Let me know what you like or do not like, or what you would like to me to discuss. I can be contacted at crgordon@gmail.com