Don't forget the reason for the season: pandering to pre-Christian beliefs, such as Mithraism.
Via, which breaks it all down quite nicely. Sigh, sometimes I think we atheists are just spitting in the wind, using all these silly "facts" and our "reason" to support our arguments.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Evidence Doesn't Destroy Free-Will
I was thinking a bit more about yesterday's post regarding sufficient evidence. Specifically, Coren's point about god providing just enough evidence to allow belief, but not so much that we would lack the freedom to disbelieve:
Like so much theist argument, this sounds nice and probably suffices to sway most believers (even the wavering believers) who don't examine this assertion too closely. The underlying premise is that an overwhelming body of evidence would make it impossible for humans to exercise the freedom to disbelieve. However, this is clearly false, as demonstrated by any number of other cases where availability of evidence has had no bearing on individual freedom to believe or disbelieve. For example:
If God were good, He would make Himself obvious. Not really. God makes
himself just sufficiently evident to allow us freedom.
Like so much theist argument, this sounds nice and probably suffices to sway most believers (even the wavering believers) who don't examine this assertion too closely. The underlying premise is that an overwhelming body of evidence would make it impossible for humans to exercise the freedom to disbelieve. However, this is clearly false, as demonstrated by any number of other cases where availability of evidence has had no bearing on individual freedom to believe or disbelieve. For example:
- There is overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution through natural selection, but the vast majority of Americans choose not to believe it, opting instead to hold creationist beliefs supported by only 0.14% of the scientific community.
- There is no evidence of a US government conspiracy to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11, yet many people choose to believe that this is precisely what transpired.
- There is clear and convincing evidence that NASA landed on the moon in 1969, yet some people demonstrate free-will by rejecting this evidence.
- Some people even choose to reject the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
This list could go on and on, indicating that the availability or absence of evidence has no bearing upon an individual's freedom to accept or reject a particular belief. Indeed, in the case of evolution, the availability of copious evidence has had no impact upon the majority's ability to hold a reject a well-supported belief. In the general case, however, the better the evidence, the more likely people are to accept a belief.
So, god could choose to present clear, unambiguous proof of his existence without fear of destroying free-will. Indeed, presenting such evidence would probably increase the likelihood of god-belief, thereby reducing the number of people destined for eternal damnation. Sounds like a reasonably course of action for a loving god! Instead, we have no falsifyable method for detecting the existence of god, and a world in which the method of reason--rather than the method of pure faith--consistently produces better decision-making results.
In keeping with religion's complete perfection (as a completely perfect scam), early author covered themselves against the contingency that many would try to use reason to find god:
The author should have completed this passage with its logical conclusion: "For he shall fail."Saturday, December 29, 2007
Sufficiently Evident?
It's amazing the drivel you find in apologetic writing. Take, for example, this recent piece by Michael Coren.
While simply dismissing recent atheist books by saying, "Nothing new here. Nothing clever or challenging, either," Coren does make some assertions (without much logical support) to address a few issues, like the hidden-ness of God.
Not true, however, even on the most cursory analysis. By applying the same time of reasoning we typically use to understand the universe--the scientific method of observation, theory, and testing--the existence of God fails time and time again to be proven. (Of course, it is a logical fallacy to rejoice in the fact that God's existence has not been dis-proven.) How, then, does this meet the criterion of "sufficiently evident"?
Is God's message, "In all other areas, apply reason, but regarding my existence, use the method of pure faith. Of course, this will allow all manner of charlatans, sociopaths, and psychopaths to claim that they are speaking on my behalf, and you have no method of falsifying those claims, but remember: I love you!"
"And, by the way, if your reason leads you to believe that the world's affairs would best be settled by humans, within a secular system that disallows anyone from invoking my name to support their arguments, I'm going to punish you for eternity. But don't forget the love!"
He sounds a lot more like a forlorn, desperate stalker, who will kill you if you don't "love" him. This whole line of "reasoning" merely highlights that religion is an utterly perfect scam. If you're espousing a system of belief that doesn't hold up to rational inquiry or scientific testing, how can you squelch disbelief? Easy: make disbelief the very worst sin, make belief the only requirement, and threaten infidels with eternal misery. Genius!
via
While simply dismissing recent atheist books by saying, "Nothing new here. Nothing clever or challenging, either," Coren does make some assertions (without much logical support) to address a few issues, like the hidden-ness of God.
If God were good, He would make Himself obvious. Not really. God makes himself
just sufficiently evident to allow us freedom.
Not true, however, even on the most cursory analysis. By applying the same time of reasoning we typically use to understand the universe--the scientific method of observation, theory, and testing--the existence of God fails time and time again to be proven. (Of course, it is a logical fallacy to rejoice in the fact that God's existence has not been dis-proven.) How, then, does this meet the criterion of "sufficiently evident"?
Is God's message, "In all other areas, apply reason, but regarding my existence, use the method of pure faith. Of course, this will allow all manner of charlatans, sociopaths, and psychopaths to claim that they are speaking on my behalf, and you have no method of falsifying those claims, but remember: I love you!"
"And, by the way, if your reason leads you to believe that the world's affairs would best be settled by humans, within a secular system that disallows anyone from invoking my name to support their arguments, I'm going to punish you for eternity. But don't forget the love!"
He's the great lover, not the satanic rapist. He desperately wants us to love
Him and return to Him, but we have to make that decision ourselves.
He sounds a lot more like a forlorn, desperate stalker, who will kill you if you don't "love" him. This whole line of "reasoning" merely highlights that religion is an utterly perfect scam. If you're espousing a system of belief that doesn't hold up to rational inquiry or scientific testing, how can you squelch disbelief? Easy: make disbelief the very worst sin, make belief the only requirement, and threaten infidels with eternal misery. Genius!
via
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Atheists Should Be Quiet
The next time one of the faithful tells you that atheists should quietly allow others to hold their own beliefs without challenging them, point him to this article: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10311317.
Centuries of prostelization, including forced conversion, continue to this day. Rather than pushing a version of god at sword-point, however, the modern version harnesses the power of mass marketing, pop psychology, and large-scale distribution. Regardless, the purpose is the same: to convince people to adopt a particular religious viewpoint.
In the face of this, it makes sense to trumpet the atheist message as loudly as possible. Indeed, if you believe (as I do) that religion is a harmful influence on our society, you have a duty to present an alternative worldview.
Centuries of prostelization, including forced conversion, continue to this day. Rather than pushing a version of god at sword-point, however, the modern version harnesses the power of mass marketing, pop psychology, and large-scale distribution. Regardless, the purpose is the same: to convince people to adopt a particular religious viewpoint.
In the face of this, it makes sense to trumpet the atheist message as loudly as possible. Indeed, if you believe (as I do) that religion is a harmful influence on our society, you have a duty to present an alternative worldview.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
God Damn America?
Not my sentiments, but apparently this position is endorsed by several of the Republican Presidential candidates, including Mike "Hunts-With-Angels" Huckabee, who can be seen in this video on TPM.
I can imagine the political calculus that convinced Guliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain to skip this event. "Inflammatory rhetoric likely, could make us look bad, etc."
However, with the mainstream media so profoundly asleep at the wheel, what's the downside to joining in the choir's condemnation of America? I mean--I'm not even making this up--here you have 7 candidates for President of the United States, standing behind a choir as it sings what could easily be titled "God Damn America," and there's zero coverage of it in the mainstream media.
Fortunately, I'm kept fully apprised of the situation with OJ.
I can imagine the political calculus that convinced Guliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain to skip this event. "Inflammatory rhetoric likely, could make us look bad, etc."
However, with the mainstream media so profoundly asleep at the wheel, what's the downside to joining in the choir's condemnation of America? I mean--I'm not even making this up--here you have 7 candidates for President of the United States, standing behind a choir as it sings what could easily be titled "God Damn America," and there's zero coverage of it in the mainstream media.
Fortunately, I'm kept fully apprised of the situation with OJ.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
I'm so glad we've brought religion directly into politics
It's really bringing out the best in people, or at least allowing them to be bigoted out-loud.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Shocked to Not Be as Shocked as I Thought I'd Be Shocked
I came across this interesting post on Brian Flemming's blog a couple of weeks ago, but I hadn't started my blog yet, so my comments were reserved for my dog (who seemed to consider them brilliant).
After reading the Rolling Stone article that Brian points to, and at the risk of inviting people to quote me out of context, I was surprised by how much of their message actually made sense. Granted, my expectations were quite low, having expected the entire proposition to be nonsense.
BattleCry's rhetoric combines divisive, self-righteous militancy with vacuous supernatural claims in a way that is wholly unsurprising. However, their revulsion at many of the staples of pop-culture, such as excessive consumerism and celebrity worship, are not without merit. They also acknowledge real-world social problems such as teenage pregnancy, suicide, and drug-abuse and attempt to address them.
I agree that these are problems, and I'm glad to find some common ground with a group of people who have a much different worldview. I also didn't see any overt attempt to legislate their version of morality, although I'm suspicious that this lurks somewhere beneath the surface, and I'd certainly oppose such a thing.
However, I disagree with their "solution" to these problems, which is, of course, unyielding faith in Jesus Christ, where faith means consistently accepting truth claims on insufficient evidence. I suppose, at the end of the day, I'm simply more optimistic than my theist counterparts. I believe that we can actually address problematic issues within our society without invoking a magical being (and without legislating away personal liberty).
After reading the Rolling Stone article that Brian points to, and at the risk of inviting people to quote me out of context, I was surprised by how much of their message actually made sense. Granted, my expectations were quite low, having expected the entire proposition to be nonsense.
BattleCry's rhetoric combines divisive, self-righteous militancy with vacuous supernatural claims in a way that is wholly unsurprising. However, their revulsion at many of the staples of pop-culture, such as excessive consumerism and celebrity worship, are not without merit. They also acknowledge real-world social problems such as teenage pregnancy, suicide, and drug-abuse and attempt to address them.
I agree that these are problems, and I'm glad to find some common ground with a group of people who have a much different worldview. I also didn't see any overt attempt to legislate their version of morality, although I'm suspicious that this lurks somewhere beneath the surface, and I'd certainly oppose such a thing.
However, I disagree with their "solution" to these problems, which is, of course, unyielding faith in Jesus Christ, where faith means consistently accepting truth claims on insufficient evidence. I suppose, at the end of the day, I'm simply more optimistic than my theist counterparts. I believe that we can actually address problematic issues within our society without invoking a magical being (and without legislating away personal liberty).
Ouch!
What a brutal hearing for Gonzales. As others have pointed out, this NYT editorial reads like a blog post in terms of being utterly scathing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/opinion/20fri1.html?ex=1334721600&en=5eb126f3ff380627&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/opinion/20fri1.html?ex=1334721600&en=5eb126f3ff380627&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
One possible explanation....
I'm not sure if this is link bait, or if Dinesh D'Souza is really this crassly opportunistic, but my money is on option B.
Could it be that atheists in general, and prominent atheists in particular (D'Souza mentions Richard Dawkins) have a sense of decency and compassion that restraints them from exploiting a time of great tragedy to attack competing belief systems? D'Souza's own belief system apparently doesn't encompass a sense of decency, as he grasps at straws with an incredibly silly argument in an attempt to malign his adversaries during this profoundly sad time.
No, you won't see atheists walking around Virginia Tech saying "told you so." However, it's not hard to envision fundamentalists doing precisely that on the streets of Dover, PA or downtown Orlando. That is, of course, if any of their predictions actually came true.
Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech
shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found.
Could it be that atheists in general, and prominent atheists in particular (D'Souza mentions Richard Dawkins) have a sense of decency and compassion that restraints them from exploiting a time of great tragedy to attack competing belief systems? D'Souza's own belief system apparently doesn't encompass a sense of decency, as he grasps at straws with an incredibly silly argument in an attempt to malign his adversaries during this profoundly sad time.
No, you won't see atheists walking around Virginia Tech saying "told you so." However, it's not hard to envision fundamentalists doing precisely that on the streets of Dover, PA or downtown Orlando. That is, of course, if any of their predictions actually came true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)