tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16556290049997253912023-11-16T04:51:45.981+11:00Secular MeThe ramblings of an Atheist, Rational skeptic.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-72881993189624687482017-07-03T19:32:00.000+10:002017-07-03T19:32:03.926+10:00Rise of Green and Gold Atheism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bmvWrYhTLUc/WVmmtdfd41I/AAAAAAAAcIE/tFINxYzYVG0bsyjK0qOZsnTnIKREOFDlwCLcBGAs/s1600/AU-Ath1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="774" data-original-width="1588" height="155" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bmvWrYhTLUc/WVmmtdfd41I/AAAAAAAAcIE/tFINxYzYVG0bsyjK0qOZsnTnIKREOFDlwCLcBGAs/s320/AU-Ath1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
I created the above graph sometime in 2012 after the 2011 Australian Census data was released. I didn't show my work in my excel document, so I don't know how I came to the adjustments after 2011, I assume I did some averaging and used that as the line is pretty flat after the known data.<br />I wasn't that close, I actually shared that image above on a forum and got told, no way would Australia be at almost 25% no-religion at the 2016 Census... yeah I was way under... glad I was.<br />
<br />
Well I've done the graph again, saving my work this time. I averaged out the change over the last 10 census' (including the one where Christianity went up, and the one were no-religion went down and got the below... so this is pretty rough. Taking this as fact, Christianity will disappear between the 2111 and 2115 census. Of course it will be irrelevant to public policy long before then. It will be irrelevant as some economists put any idea at a rising tipping point or around 30%. 30% is when the idea (in this case non-religion) becomes popular enough to spend time addressing. 30% is when the rest of populace, politicians included need to start taking heed. Good luck, of course appealing to a bunch of non-religious, people who probably think at length on things that concern them, and likely have all different conclusions based on the data they have received.<br />Christianity will become a minority after 2041, this is pretty exciting as it is within my lifetime, hopefully no other magical or poor thinking takes its place of course.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lxj2_f2jsZ8/WVmrkPSGSGI/AAAAAAAAcIQ/POIxdFe8AFgShnjNSob1eM9TmxDrnf06ACLcBGAs/s1600/AU-Ath1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="774" data-original-width="1589" height="155" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lxj2_f2jsZ8/WVmrkPSGSGI/AAAAAAAAcIQ/POIxdFe8AFgShnjNSob1eM9TmxDrnf06ACLcBGAs/s320/AU-Ath1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I have lots of friends who have a much better grasp on statistics than I ever want to hold, so I am sorry that this has likely hurt your brain with its poor assumptions...<br />It is a fact that came out of this census, that us the non-religious outnumber the Catholics.<br />
<br /><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-16214196691216098472016-09-09T20:54:00.000+10:002016-09-09T20:54:00.167+10:00Marriage equality - Paul FletcherSo like most Australians I think we need to pass marriage equality and move on to more important issues. <a href="http://makeitlaw.com.au/">Makeitlaw.com.au</a> ran a campaign where they automatically emailed your state reps, I thought it was a good idea so I did it, using their canned email myslef;<br />
<br />
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "tahoma" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><b>To:</b> Fletcher, Paul (MP); Cameron, Doug (Senator); Dastyari, Sam (Senator);
<a href="mailto:Concetta.Fierravanti-Wells@dfat.gov.au" target="_blank">Concetta.Fierravanti-Wells@<wbr></wbr>dfat.gov.au</a>; Leyonhjelm, David (Senator);
<a href="mailto:senator.mcallister@aph.gov.au" target="_blank">senator.mcallister@aph.gov.au</a>;
Nash, Fiona (Senator); O'Neill, Deborah (Senator); Payne, Marise
(Senator); Rhiannon, Lee (Senator); Sinodinos, Arthur (Senator);
Williams, John (Senator); Burston,
Brian (Senator)<br />
<b>Subject:</b> Morgan Storey wants you to vote against a plebiscite on marriage equality</span><br /> </i><br />
<i>Dear Federal Representatives,<br /><br />I urge you to vote against a plebiscite on marriage equality.<br /><br />A plebiscite will be costly, divisive and damaging to the LGBTIQ community.<br /><br />It is also wasteful and unnecessary given that marriage equality will ultimately have to be resolved in parliament anyway.<br /><br />I urge you to support a cross-party free vote in parliament as soon as possible so marriage equality can be resolved quickly and Australia can move on.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Morgan Storey,</i><br />
<br />
<i>*************************************** </i><br />
<i><br /></i>Little did I know that this would get a response. I thought it would be pretty ineffectual, but hey I may as well try.<br />
Well it got a very canned response from Paul Feltcher... err I mean Fletcher (slip of the tongue);<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Fletcher, Paul (MP) <<a href="mailto:Paul.Fletcher.MP@aph.gov.au" target="_blank">Paul.Fletcher.MP@aph.gov.au</a>> wrote:</i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Dear Mr Storey</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Thank
you for your email concerning a same sex marriage plebiscite. It is
very important that I am
aware of the feelings of my constituents in Bradfield and so I
appreciate the time you have taken to inform me of your views on this
issue.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">I
am very pleased that in recent years Australia’s laws have been changed
to remove discrimination
against homosexuals and same-sex couples. These include changes to
laws in the areas of superannuation, taxation, social security, aged
care and immigration.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The
Howard Government reformed the law in several areas in this respect,
and it was the Howard Government
that began the process that led to the 2008 legislation of the Rudd
Government that substantively removed discrimination for same sex
couples.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">These were all appropriate and necessary reforms. They have taken Australia in a very positive direction,
and (thankfully) a very long way from the time when homosexual acts were criminalised.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">The
institution of marriage has a cultural and religious significance
developed over many centuries.
Traditionally, the institution is based on the “the union of man and a
woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for
life”. That is the definition set out in Australian law. This in no way
seeks to diminish the committed and loving relationships
– both heterosexual and same-sex – that exist outside of the
institution of marriage.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">I support the Liberal Party’s policy to have a plebiscite, so that this matter can be decided by
a vote of the Australian people. Allow me to explain the process by which the Coalition came to this decision.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">At the 2013 election, the Coalition’s stated position in relation to same sex marriage was that if
the matter came up in the next term of Parliament, it would be considered by the Coalition Party Room in the usual way.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Subsequently Liberal MP Warren Entsch advised the Party Room that he proposed to introduce a Private
Member’s Bill which would change the law regarding marriage so as to permit same sex marriage.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Accordingly,
consistent with the position the Coalition took to the 2013 election,
the matter was
considered by the Coalition Party Room on 11 August 2015. There was a
long discussion, extending for some six hours, on the Government’s
policy in this area. More than 90 Members and Senators spoke. The
discussion revealed a strong majority in favour of maintaining
the Coalition’s existing policy position. </span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Nevertheless,
because of the unique and deeply personal nature of this issue, Prime
Minister Abbott
indicated that a decision on same-sex marriage would be made by all
Australians via a plebiscite after the election. This would allow this
deeply personal issue, on which people of goodwill can hold strongly
divergent views, to be resolved by a vote of the
people – rather than being left in the hands of politicians. </span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Following
the change of leadership, Prime Minister Turnbull indicated that the
Liberal Party would
maintain this position, and took this to the 2016 Federal election. The
Government is now working to determine the earliest practical time to
hold the plebiscite, probably in the first half of 2017. When the matter
subsequently came to the Parliament, I would
vote in accordance with the judgement of the Australian people in the
plebiscite.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Thank you for taking the time to write.
</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;">Regards</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Paul Fletcher MP<br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Federal Member for Bradfield</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Minister for Urban Infrastructure
</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Level 2, 280 Pacific Highway</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Lindfield NSW 2070</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Suite M151 Parliament House</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Canberra ACT 2600</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
</i></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; font-size: 10.0pt;">(</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">02 9465 3950 |</span><span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span><span style="font-family: "wingdings 2"; font-size: 10.0pt;">7</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> 02 9465 3999 |SYDNEY</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i>
<span style="font-family: "wingdings"; font-size: 10.0pt;">(</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">02 6277 7790 |</span><span style="color: #1f497d;">
</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">CANBERRA</span></i></span><br />
<br />
************************************************ <br />
<br />
Me, being me I couldn't not respond;<br />
<br />
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>Hi,</i></span></div>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>
</i></span></div>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>
</i></span><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>Lets break down your canned response below, to show how wrong you truly are.</i></span></div>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>
</i></span><div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><b>"The institution of marriage has a cultural and religious significance developed over many centuries."</b></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br />
Yes marriage is an institution that has existed for millennia, long
before the religions of today existed. There is evidence that same-sex
marriage existed in cultures long before Christianity, and Judaism
existed. Stepping in now to say we can't change it
due to tradition is the same as saying tradition allowed for the owning
of people, so we shouldn't have changed that, tradition denied women
the ownership or property or a public voice, can't change that either.
Tradition is a reason to question an act, not
a defense of the act. No plebiscite was required to outlaw slavery, or
change the marriage act the last time, why is it now?</i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><b>References;</b><br />
Evidence of same-sex marriages in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Rome, and China; <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://books.google.com.au/books?id%3DGIiFAAAAIAAJ%26q%3Disbn:9780471120803%26dq%3Disbn:9780471120803%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26ved%3D0ahUKEwj1hZaInPfOAhXDqJQKHTIKDbgQ6AEIHTAA&source=gmail&ust=1473469972848000&usg=AFQjCNHSmvu1GZQwJcG0lc7g1bQoTEBnww" href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GIiFAAAAIAAJ&q=isbn:9780471120803&dq=isbn:9780471120803&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1hZaInPfOAhXDqJQKHTIKDbgQ6AEIHTAA" target="_blank">
https://books.google.com.au/<wbr></wbr>books?id=GIiFAAAAIAAJ&q=isbn:<wbr></wbr>9780471120803&dq=isbn:<wbr></wbr>9780471120803&hl=en&sa=X&ved=<wbr></wbr>0ahUKEwj1hZaInPfOAhXDqJQKHTIKD<wbr></wbr>bgQ6AEIHTAA</a><br />
Emperor Nero married two males; <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html%2328.3&source=gmail&ust=1473469972848000&usg=AFQjCNHnYzd6ZVQeu1LLqynibtzRSFeu9A" href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html#28.3" target="_blank">
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/<wbr></wbr>Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_<wbr></wbr>Dio/62*.html#28.3</a> see section 28.3<br />
In fact even Priests and popes had same-sex concubines, it wasn't finally outlawed till 342AD by emperor Constantinus II:
<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://muxigoad.jimdo.com/2012/07/19/theodosian-code-marriage/&source=gmail&ust=1473469972848000&usg=AFQjCNE43vD7SCmC84DucNylMR8gDaDfHA" href="http://muxigoad.jimdo.com/2012/07/19/theodosian-code-marriage/" target="_blank">http://muxigoad.jimdo.com/<wbr></wbr>2012/07/19/theodosian-code-<wbr></wbr>marriage/</a></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><b>"I support the Liberal Party’s policy to have a plebiscite, so
that this matter can be decided by a vote of the Australian people."</b></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br />
The plebiscite will lead to public persecution of same-sex peoples by
right-wing christian groups. There have been warnings around this issues
by the Australian psychological association, ignoring this warning
shows that your policy is not evidence based, it
is mere pandering to the right.<br />
Ignoring this warning will mean people like me will hold you personally
responsible for the suicides that are caused in vulnerable LGBTI youth
by the likely horrible religious-rights advertising, think about that
for a moment.</i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><b>References;</b></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://croakey.org/the-mental-health-implications-of-a-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality/&source=gmail&ust=1473469972849000&usg=AFQjCNGNeCnvJWNPkp1fvAgvlYyk2P7-6g" href="https://croakey.org/the-mental-health-implications-of-a-plebiscite-on-marriage-equality/" target="_blank">https://croakey.org/the-<wbr></wbr>mental-health-implications-of-<wbr></wbr>a-plebiscite-on-marriage-<wbr></wbr>equality/</a></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-a-plebiscite-on-samesex-marriage-is-dangerous-and-divisive-20160414-go63vs.html&source=gmail&ust=1473469972849000&usg=AFQjCNH6YaGO_9V5CXIufgCuUuQWsorGBg" href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-a-plebiscite-on-samesex-marriage-is-dangerous-and-divisive-20160414-go63vs.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/comment/<wbr></wbr>why-a-plebiscite-on-samesex-<wbr></wbr>marriage-is-dangerous-and-<wbr></wbr>divisive-20160414-go63vs.html</a></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><b>"Prime Minister Abbott indicated that a decision on same-sex
marriage would be made by all Australians via a plebiscite after the
election."<br />
</b><br />
Yet the Liberal party ousted Abbott, and did away with policies of his
they didn't agree with (knights and Dames anyone). Why not do the same
with this poor policy around a non-binding, psychologically damaging and
costly plebiscite. Is it because the Liberal
party are cowards, or ignorant short-sighted buffoons?</i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><b>References;</b></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-scraps-tony-abbotts-knights-and-dames-20151101-gkodek.html&source=gmail&ust=1473469972849000&usg=AFQjCNH8pNEip5QTYPMhjuAWQ9DtdkfhFA" href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-scraps-tony-abbotts-knights-and-dames-20151101-gkodek.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/federal-<wbr></wbr>politics/political-news/<wbr></wbr>malcolm-turnbull-scraps-tony-<wbr></wbr>abbotts-knights-and-dames-<wbr></wbr>20151101-gkodek.html</a></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2016/cost-plebiscite-mar16.html&source=gmail&ust=1473469972849000&usg=AFQjCNHktvWxQRHTgK_t7H9ZoLKXmAL8cw" href="http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2016/cost-plebiscite-mar16.html" target="_blank">http://www.pwc.com.au/press-<wbr></wbr>room/2016/cost-plebiscite-<wbr></wbr>mar16.html</a></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://youngausskeptics.com/2010/09/%25E2%2580%259Cmarriage-according-to-law-in-australia-is-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others-voluntarily-entered-into-for-life%25E2%2580%259D/&source=gmail&ust=1473469972849000&usg=AFQjCNFQ-VzNP58R5pr637RG34XdmyRgAQ" href="http://youngausskeptics.com/2010/09/%E2%80%9Cmarriage-according-to-law-in-australia-is-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-woman-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others-voluntarily-entered-into-for-life%E2%80%9D/" target="_blank">http://youngausskeptics.com/<wbr></wbr>2010/09/%E2%80%9Cmarriage-<wbr></wbr>according-to-law-in-australia-<wbr></wbr>is-the-union-of-a-man-and-a-<wbr></wbr>woman-to-the-exclusion-of-all-<wbr></wbr>others-voluntarily-entered-<wbr></wbr>into-for-life%E2%80%9D/</a></i></span>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br />
You currently hold a tenuous minority government, this plebiscite (among
other gross missteps) will ensure that the liberal party holds no
government come next election, and probably not for a long time after
that. You bring this on your own party, you look
backward and rather than challenging beliefs you hold on to them to
your own detriment, you waste money on a plebiscite that will possibly
result in the loss of life in the form of vulnerable LGBTI youth. So
lets not waste
<u>half a billion dollars </u>on this, and hold it to a parliamentary vote and be done with it.</i></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>
</i></span></div>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>
</i></span><div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i><br clear="all" /></i></span>
</div>
<span style="color: #c27ba0;"><i>
--<br />
Regards<br />
Morgan Storey</i></span><br />
************************************************* <br />
<br />
I doubt I really changed any minds there, but hey lets make the full discourse public and see if I can change any onlookers. I have yet to find a rational argument against marriage equality. But hey, politicians aren't exactly rational are they.<br /><br />Oh and I got a response to the last email too, that was interesting in its brevity;<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">Thank you for your further comments.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: #9fc5e8;"><i><span class="im">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Paul Fletcher MP<br />
</span></b><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Federal Member for Bradfield</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Minister for Urban Infrastructure
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Level 2, 280 Pacific Highway</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Lindfield NSW 2070</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Suite M151 Parliament House</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;">Canberra ACT 2600</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">(</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">02 9465 3950 |</span>
<span style="font-family: "Wingdings 2"; font-size: 10pt;">7</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> 02 9465 3999 |SYDNEY</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">(</span><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">02 6277 7790 |</span>
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">CANBERRA</span></div>
</span></i></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-59591095415027324552015-08-13T20:44:00.000+10:002015-08-13T20:44:00.398+10:00Blocksville, population me<a href="https://www.facebook.com/themarriagealliance">https://www.facebook.com/themarriagealliance</a> blocked me, moments after I commented on their <a href="https://www.facebook.com/themarriagealliance/photos/a.802621896517606.1073741828.801533023293160/807175989395530/?type=1">post.</a><br />
So below is my comment, I think I was inviting discussion, asking for comment and actual argument against same-sex marriage. Lets not confront dissent, lets silence it, really shows how strong your position is... <br />
<br />
Children have a right to a mother and father where possible. <br />BS, Children have the right to be cared for and looked after, better to be raised by two loving parents of the same sex than rot in the adoption system.<br />Biblical sexuality, were are my 1000 wives and concubines (1 kings:11)<br /><br />Children have rights; this seems to be her go to argument. The rights are actually spelled out in the human rights charter, around freedom from abuse, neglect, access to education, food, play, shelter.<br />Differing-sex couples can (and do) just as easily neglect, abuse, and damage their children. We remove children from these situations already regardless of the sex or number (single parents) of parents. Again better to have two parents that love each other and the child than no parents, regardless of the sex of the parents.<br />I have some very close family friends who are adopted, they found their birth parents and are eternally thankful that they were not raised by them, I know this is annecdote, but so is Katy's and annecdotes do not equal evidence. Studies that are repeatable do; <a href="http://deadstate.org/worlds-largest-study-of-same-sex-families-shows-children-are-thriving/">http://deadstate.org/worlds-largest-study-of-same-sex-families-shows-children-are-thriving/</a><br /><br />Children fitting into an adults lifestyle, so when a family moves for work, should they lose their child that has to fit into their lifestyle.<br /><br />Why does she and it would seem no one, have a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage. They all boil down to my book says you can't do it, so you can't. Or I don't like it, so you can't. Trust me, I hate avocado, but I don't start facebook groups to get rid of it, petition politicians to ban its growth and import or go around picketing subway to get rid of it.<br /><br />Oh yes, and Katy Faust (if that is her real name) is a bit of a sham; http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02/04/3618907/four-kids-gay-parent-oppose-equality/<br /><br />Peace out all, even crazy bigots who use the bible to justify that bigotry.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-66950812521090747242015-04-25T19:30:00.002+10:002015-04-25T19:30:46.118+10:0010 Questions For Every AtheistAh todaychristian, and all the other sibling sites that try and defend the Christian belief system. If it weren't for you, I'd have more of my fiction book and blogs done... oh well<br />
<br />
Today I am answering the seemingly honest questions below;<br />
<a href="http://todaychristian.net/10-questions-every-atheist/">http://todaychristian.net/10-questions-every-atheist/</a><br />
<br />
<b>1. How Did You Become an Atheist?</b><br />Rational honest personal inquiry into what I believed and why, I am writing a book and a passage to another book on this, so expect it fleshed out in future. But that is the short of it.<br /><br /><b>2. What happens when we die?</b><br />What happened before you where born? Curtain close, the end basically.<br /><br /><b>3. What if you’re wrong? And there is a Heaven? And there is a HELL!</b><br />This is pascals wager, I have answered it in this blog several times. Basically it boils down to if I am wrong I am wrong and will accept my error. If God is truly good then he/she will see the good life I led with the evidence I had and not be annoyed by the lack of belief I had due to available evidence. <br /><br /><b>4. Without God, where do you get your morality from?</b><br />Answered this one <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html">before </a>too, but really WITH God, where do religious people get it from, it would seem there God's morality is very flawed. I am not just good without religion, but in-spite of it.<br /><b><br />5. If there is no God, can we do what we want? Are we free to murder and rape? While good deeds are unrewarded?</b><br />No we can't do what we want. Society has rules, you break those rules and you are removed from society. Good deeds are there own reward was what I was always taught as a child, if you are asking for a reward you are ultimately doing it for very selfish reasons, is that what you want me to describe heaven as, then so-be-it.<br /><br /><b>6. If there is no god, how does your life have any meaning?</b><br />Yes, so much. Love, my children, my job, my friends, my writing, my reading. I see meaning in so many things, sometimes it is overwhelming, I don't need an external artificial source for this meaning. <br /><br /><b>7. Where did the universe come from?</b>Everything so far points to natural causes. We may never know; I'd rather have unanswerable questions than unquestionable answers.<br /><br /><b>8. What about miracles? What all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?</b><br />What about them, what about all the people who claim to have a connection with Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Woden, what about those who claim to have seen Shiva or Vishnu?<br /><br /><b>9. What’s your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris?</b><br />Very good writers, experts in their fields, but ultimately humans, with human failings. I'd rather take the advice of one of them though, one that is willing to revise there position on anything given sufficient evidence, over someone who wouldn't.<br /><br /><b>10. If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion?</b><br />This is demonstrably false, the word atheist is of Greek origin, with atheistic writings dating back before the supposed time of Jesus, and tribes and societal groups with no god concept. Even if I grant this as true, so what, almost every society that ever existed has engaged in War, does that make it right? Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-89220794513425494602015-04-22T20:27:00.000+10:002015-04-22T21:40:47.885+10:00Questions for atheists 2I was watching an awkwardly titled <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22OPjAePerQ">debate </a>during lunch, and the theist, the very effable Matt Slick referenced some questions on his site. I did a search and found two candidates for what he was talking about.<br />
Well I decided to answer one of them here, original <a href="https://carm.org/questions-for-atheists2">here</a>. If these were taken as honest questions I'd be impressed, but Matt is playing the old game of "I got ya", basically trying to score points not actually actively inquire, hopefully someone else on the fence about Matt's piece finds this as Matt seems very closed to others ideas from all the debates I have seen him in.<br />I think in this vain, once I have done his part 1, I'll do some ters for theists. <br />
<br />
I am in no way speaking for all atheists, I doubt I am even speaking for one other atheist. The only thing that connects atheists is there lack of belief in a God or gods, just like I am sure Matt isn't talking for all Christians, as some would call him and his Calvinists the <a href="http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm">"devil with the forked tongue"</a>.<br />
<br />
<ol class="boldoff">
<li><b>What makes something moral?</b><br />Something is moral when it strives to do the least harm to all involved ensuring that consent is upheld where it can be, conversely when it strives to do the most objective good as defined by all those involved.<br /> </li>
<li><b>Do you have any objective moral standard, or are all your morals subjective?</b><br />Not really, I believe that morals are subjective to the situation and those involved, cultural and species dependent.<br /> </li>
<li><b>Do any actions automatically have moral value, such as rape being wrong, or is the moral value assigned by people?</b><br />Again, subjective to the situation and parties involved. Rape is wrong in a modern human society as it is an issue of consent and harm minimisation. <br />Yet some for some species rape is a way of life (it could be argued here that we are all likely the result of a rape somewhere in our lineage so even your own existence is dependent on it), all female Angler fish are essentially raped, a male without the females interest or consent burrows into much larger female to his own death, but ensuring all her eggs from then are fertilised by his genes.<br /> </li>
<li><b>Why ought a person not steal?</b><br />Again this is an issue of harm, when someone steals they are harming another, and tacking away there right to consent to that loss. But there is a possible greater good, eg stealing a loaf of bread from a wealthy person to feed a family of four.<br /> </li>
<li><b>Was the atheist Joseph Stalin wrong for killing over 42 million people in the 1900s? If so, why? If not, why not?</b><br />Poisoning the well here a bit Matt, why was the Christian Adolf Hitler wrong for killing 6 million Jews?<br />Stalin was wrong as these people likely didn't consent to death, and he was harming them ultimately in this act.<br /> </li>
<li><b>From the perspective of an atheist, is the action of rape wrong even if it furthers the species?</b><br />Seem a bit obsessed with Rape here, is it because you are trying for the tough subjects? Or it it becuase the bible seems a bit lax on murder, with full on genocide happening regularly? What does the bible have to say on rape... Deuteronomy 22:24 talks about how even the victim should be stoned in a Rape case, and 22:28 talks about how if the man wants to, he can simply pay off his victims father and then marry the woman, and he can never leave her...<br /><br />Again, it is an issue of greater good. Rape is not objectively wrong in all situations, I am sorry that the world is not as black and white as you would like and some things require thought, but they do. Rape is abhorrent, and I think it could be seen as worse than murder, but murder and rape in the right circumstances could be justifiable, eg continuing the species.<br />Let's play hypothetical, all bar a handful of human males are wiped out, the ones that aren't, are in coma's and can't consent. I think you would have a tough time arguing that harvesting their semen to continue our species would be immoral.<br /> </li>
<li><b>In atheism, if you say rape is wrong because it harms someone, why is harm the standard of morality?</b>Atheism has no overarching doctrine, creed or book which we all read from. We think about moral issues. Minimising harm and ensuring consent is a standard that works, it has had the trial by fire in courts and communities for millenia, if a new standard were discovered that is better then we would use that.<b><br /> </b></li>
<li><b>If you believe something is morally wrong (like rape), "ought" you do something about it and impose your value on others?</b><br />If society as a whole decides something is morally wrong, eg rape then they do something about it, they make laws. Perhaps there is something we have laws against now that is morally wrong, perhaps there is the opposite, we will learn through trial and error over time, bettering society as we go (see slavery, suffrage, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage). I notice nowhere in the ten commandments does it say not to rape, nor does it decry slavery, a testament to our societies betterment of itself.<br /> </li>
<li><b>If you "ought" to impose your moral value on others (like stop<u>p</u>ing a rape), what gives you the moral right to do that?</b><br />(Double P in stopping Matt :P )<br />I didn't say an individual should, individuals can be easily mistaken due to our inbuilt fallibility. Many individuals can be harder to fool, so building up laws works better. The moral right and weight comes from the group to minimise harm and assist in group cohesion, even then the group isn't always right and there needs to be rational discussion and fair trials. </li>
<li><b>Do you believe that the subjective opinions of a society offer proper basis for morality?</b><br />They can, as long as the opinions are not heavily influence by one flawed mind. As long as the subjective opinions are thoroughly thought about and all parties (especially those at a disadvantage) are asked there opinion.</li>
<li><b>How do you know if a society is improving morally?</b><a href="http://www.happyplanetindex.org/">Happy planet index</a> is a good scale. <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/how-to-get-rid-of-religion/">People </a>have interestingly drawn correlations with non-believing countries and happiness. I would look at crime statistics though, and longevity. It is tough to quantify precisely, but I would say most countries are improving morally, based simply on less likelihood of violent death etc.</li>
</ol>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-58389873808909325332015-03-04T20:30:00.000+11:002015-03-04T23:56:24.478+11:00Evolution Bomb<div class="post-header">
</div>
The "Evolution Bomb" is a compiled list of links to help education about
evolution, provide evidence for evolution and help refute creationist
claims. Originally it was just a list of links leading to
<a href="http://talkorigins.org/">talkorigins.org</a> but has since been greatly expanded upon and organized.
This post will be kept updated with the latest version of this list.
<br />
This was mirrored with permission from the original here; <a href="http://mindofmage.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/evolution-bomb.html">http://mindofmage.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/evolution-bomb.html</a><br />
<br />
----Table of Context----<br />
<a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB1">EB1</a>: The Basics<br />
<a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB2">EB2</a>: Evidence & Observed Examples<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB2a">EB2a</a>: Fossils/Transitional Forms<br />
<a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3">EB3</a>: The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3a">EB3a</a>: Mutation & Information<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3b">EB3b</a>: Chance & Probability<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3c">EB3c</a>: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3d">EB3d</a>: Animals<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3e">EB3e</a>: Hominids<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3f">EB3f</a>: Dinosaurs<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB3g">EB3g</a>: Paluxy<br />
<a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB4">EB4</a>: Creationist Credibility<br />
<a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB5">EB5</a>: Further Information<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB5a">EB5a</a>: Debates<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB5b">EB5b</a>: Transcripts & Publications<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB5c">EB5c</a>: Responses<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB5d">EB5d</a>: Reviews<br />
<a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6">EB6</a>: Videos<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6a">EB6a</a>: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6b">EB6b</a>: By cdk007 (Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution of, How Evolution Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6c">EB6c</a>: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6d">EB6d</a>: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6e">EB6e</a>: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)<br />
- <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/03/evolution-bomb.html#EB6f">EB6f</a>:
By Stated Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural Selection?, Can
Science Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of Evolution Really
Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB1"></a>EB1: <b>The Basics</b><br />
<a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02">Evolution 101</a><br />
<a href="http://www.evolutionfaq.com/">Evolution FAQ</a><br />
<a href="http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_1.htm">MODERN THEORIES OF EVOLUTION: Overview</a><br />
<a href="http://www.dorak.info/evolution/life.html">A Brief History of Life</a><br />
<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html">Evolution: Fact and Theory</a><br />
<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html">Natural Selection: How Evolution Works</a><br />
<a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14">Mechanisms: the processes of Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01">Evolution at different scales</a><br />
<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1">THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB2"></a>EB2: <b>Evidence & Observed Examples</b><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html">Evidence for Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/">Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics</a><br />
<a href="http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=20">Examples of Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/">29+ Cases for Macroevolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html">Observed Instances of Speciation</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm">Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home</a><br />
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/">Rapid
large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance
associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource</a><br />
<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs">Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live David Birth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm">Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug</a><br />
<a href="http://news.ubc.ca/2014/05/08/lethal-parasite-evolved-from-pond-scum/">Lethal parasite evolved from pond scum</a><br />
<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html">Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation</a><br />
<a href="http://jacques.janin.free.fr/forum/Goodman%20et%20al%201999%20Pol%20Phyl%20Evol.pdf">Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence</a><br />
<br />
EB2a: Fossils/Transitional Forms<br />
<a href="http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html">Evolution and the Fossil Record</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html">Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ</a><br />
<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html">Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html">Arachaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html">All About Archaeopteryx</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/">The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence</a><br />
<a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/3d-collection/fossil">Fossil | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program | 3D Collection</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/">Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html">Fossil Hominids: Lucy</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sinanth.html">Peking Man and Homo erectus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/evidence_and_the_cambrian_explosion.html">Evidence and the Cambrian Explosion</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/ovrdino.html">An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html">Dinosaur Footprints in Coal</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB3"></a>EB3: <b>The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)</b><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html">Index to Creationist Claims</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html">Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html">Darwin's Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html">Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html">Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html">Entropy, Disorder and Life</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html">The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html">Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered</a><br />
<br />
EB3a: Mutation & Information<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html">Are Mutations Harmful?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/">The Evolution of Improved Fitness</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html">Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information</a><br />
<br />
EB3b: Chance & Probability<br />
<a href="http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page02.xhtml">Examples of Random Probability</a><br />
<a href="http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03.xhtml">A Series Unlikely Events</a><br />
<a href="http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page04.xhtml">Non-Random Probability</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html">Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html">Digit Numbering and Limb Development</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB3c"></a> <br />
EB3c: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html">The 1st Falsehood of creationism: "evolution = atheism"</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/2ndFFoC.html">The 2nd foundational falsehood of creationism: scriptures are the "Word of God"</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/3rdFFoC.html">The 3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: human interpretation = absolute truth</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/4thFFoC.html">The 4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: belief = knowledge</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/5thFFoC.html">The 5th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution-ism" (part I) "Evolution = the religion of atheism"</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/6thFFoC.html">The 6th
falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution-ism" (Part II) "Evolution must
explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything."</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/7thFFoC.html">The 7th foundational falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is random."</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/8thFFoC.html">The 8th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Mutations are rare, harmful decreases in genetic information."</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/9thFFoC.html">The 9th falsehood of Creationism: "No transitional species have ever been found."</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/10thFFoC.html">The 10th
falsehood of creationism: "The evolutionary ‘tree of life’ is nowhere
implied either in the fossil record, nor in any aspect of biology."</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/11thFFoC.html">The 11th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Macroevolution has never been observed."</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/12thFFoC.html">The 12th falsehood of Creationism: "Creation science"</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/13thFFoC.html">The 13th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution is a fraud!"</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoC.html">The 14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part 1</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoCPt2.html">The 14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part II</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XHbRGiQccM">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt1.html">The 15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been proved. It’s still just a theory, not a fact." Part 1</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0">Video</a>)<br />
<a href="http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt2.html">The 15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been proved. It’s still just a theory, not a fact." Part II</a> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc">Video</a>)<br />
<br />
EB3d: Animals<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html">Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design</a><br />
<a href="http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded">The Bombardier Beetle Myth Exploded</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html">Creationism and the Platypus</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html">The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html">Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax</a><br />
<br />
EB3e: Hominids<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html">Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html">Creationist Arguments: Java Man</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html">Creationist Arguments: Peking Man</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html">Creationist Arguments: Neandertals</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brace.html">Creationists and Pithecanthropines</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html">Lucy's Knee Joint</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html">Images of Neandertals</a><br />
<br />
EB3f: Dinosaurs<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html">Dino Blood Redux</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html">Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html">On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html">Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html">Sea-Monster or Shark?</a><br />
<br />
EB3g: Paluxy<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/dvsp.html">Dinosaur Valley State Park</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/arizon.html">Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html">The 'Burdick Print'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/georef.html">Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html">On the Heels of Dinosaurs</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tooth.html">A Tale of Two Teeth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html">The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html">The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB4"></a>EB4: <b>Creationist Credibility</b><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html">Creationist Whoppers</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html">How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html">A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html">Suspicious Creationist Credentials</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html">A Creationist Exposed: Gish</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html">The Creation Research Society's Creed</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html">IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB5"></a>EB5: <b>Further Information</b><br />
<a href="http://www.bork.embl.de/tree_of_life/">A Phylogeny of Complete Genomes: Data Repository</a><br />
<a href="http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html">The Tree of Life Web Project</a><br />
<a href="http://www.rfs.org.uk/learning/tree-evolution">Tree evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.unm.edu/%7EPIBBS/CourseMaterials/SiBBs2008/Week11/Marshall2006.pdf">Explaining the Cambrian "Explosion" of Animals</a><br />
<a href="http://www.dorak.info/genetics/popgen.html">BASIC POPULATION GENETICS</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html">Jury-Rigged Design</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html">Scientific Creationism and Error</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mungonhm.html">Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html">A Visit to the IRC Museum</a><br />
<br />
EB5a: Debates<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html">An Account of a Debate with a Creationist</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html">Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard</a><br />
<br />
EB5b: Transcripts & Publications<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/creation-conference.html">An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html">Kansas Evolution Hearings</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html">Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution</a><br />
<br />
EB5c: Responses<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html">A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html">Response to Casey Luskin</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html">A Response to Wayne Jackson</a><br />
<br />
EB5d: Reviews<br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html">Review: Bones of Contention</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html">A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/nbc.html">A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html">Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis</a><br />
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/imageofgod.html">Review: The Image of God</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="EB6"></a>EB6: <b>Videos</b><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8">6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4">7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8">Ring species -- the abridged version</a><br />
<a href="http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html">Lectures on Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY">Richard Dawkins tackles the Bombardier Beetle</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZizVHCaVs">Coelacanth: The Strawman Creationist Argument</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw">How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPXURdaPMZY">The truth about the Discovery Institute</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbGDJknak9c">Quest for Truth: Transitional Species</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKPrBV_PCKs">Beating Astronomical Odds</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE">Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atqjX5O-LQA">Evolutionary Predictions</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LybFLM1E8mY">AP Biology 1.D: Abiogenesis</a><br />
<br />
EB6a: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c">Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0">Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM">Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw">Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY">How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY">How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ17JKIBSS4">How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFvK77Fsz8">How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0tmb3Evhc">How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg">How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE">How Evolution Works 7: Speciation</a><br />
<br />
EB6b: By cdk007
(Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution of, How Evolution
Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ">Evidence for Evolution, Part I</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY">Evidence for Evolution, Part II</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI">Evidence for Evolution, Part III</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0">Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w">The Evolution of the Flagellum</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE">Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg">How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4">How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg">The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies">What Every Creationist Must DENY</a><br />
<br />
EB6c: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCP0SimA-vA">Rebutting Harrub: Evolution is just a Theory</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFHmqZ9SkJI">Rebutting Harrub: Argument from Historical Scientists</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-EqTOD5r4">Rebutting Harrub: Finches never produce rhinos or ferns</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s32JxSasThk">Rebutting Brad Harrub: Kettlewell's Peppered Moths</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHyvryycc6o">Rebutting Brad Harrub: Darwin was a racist</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiPcZRqWms">Rebutting Brad Harrub: Haeckel's Embryo Fraud</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJHBX7qUyo">Rebutting Brad Harrub: Mutations produce nothing new</a><br />
<br />
EB6d: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYlzUfMAPw">Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 1 - Abiogenesis and the origins of DNA)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo2fgRL4dfs">Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 2 - On Intelligent Design)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S_aDHGRSyk">Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 3 - Multicellularity, Sex and Fossils)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rT5K1yFmy4">Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 4 - Science, Application and Education)</a><br />
<br />
EB6e: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1R8w_QEvEU">Does The Evidence Support Evolution?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk">Vitamin C And Common Ancestry</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIsWZCSMSSs">Human Evolution: Are We Descended From Viruses?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVoXZPOCGk">Does The Fossil Record Support Evolution?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ">Evolution: Where Are The Transitional Forms?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UGpcea8Zg">Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mtr3Cum74A">Facts Of Evolution: Good Design, Bad Design</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5kumHLiK4A">Facts Of Evolution: Speciation And Extinction</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgeSi1EGkU">Facts Of Evolution: How Fast Is Evolution?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZmLYWEPGk">Facts Of Evolution: What Can Embryos Tell Us About Evolution?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvJFI3ChOUU">Facts Of Evolution: The Molecules Of Life</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA7BE3mEb64">Molecular Evolution: Genes And Proteins</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvTmgCk1Lo">Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mPCqYxB4d4">Mechanisms Of Evolution: How Does Variety Arise?</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvWnsiQycc">Mechanisms Of Evolution: How Does Variety Give Rise To New Species?</a><br />
<br />
EB6f: By Stated
Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural Selection?, Can Science
Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of Evolution Really
Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8">What is Evolution?</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU">What is Natural Selection?</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQLyqWaCbA">Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqepQGOYKZ0">Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?</a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg">What is the Evidence for Evolution?</a><br />
<br />
Here's a bbcode friendly version you can copy and paste for use in forums in you own arguments.<br />
<br />
----Table of Context----<br />
EB1: The Basics<br />
EB2: Evidence & Observed Examples<br />
- EB2a: Fossils/Transitional Forms<br />
EB3: The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)<br />
- EB3a: Mutation & Information<br />
- EB3b: Chance & Probability<br />
- EB3c: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism<br />
- EB3d: Animals<br />
- EB3e: Hominids<br />
- EB3f: Dinosaurs<br />
- EB3g: Paluxy<br />
EB4: Creationist Credibility<br />
EB5: Further Information<br />
- EB5a: Debates<br />
- EB5b: Transcripts & Publications<br />
- EB5c: Responses<br />
- EB5d: Reviews<br />
EB6: Videos<br />
- EB6a: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)<br />
-
EB6b: By cdk007 (Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution
of, How Evolution Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)<br />
- EB6c: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)<br />
- EB6d: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)<br />
- EB6e: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)<br />
-
EB6f: By Stated Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural
Selection?, Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of
Evolution Really Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
EB1: [b]The Basics[/b]<br />
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02]Evolution 101[/url]<br />
[url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_1.htm]MODERN THEORIES OF EVOLUTION: Overview[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.dorak.info/evolution/life.html]A Brief History of Life[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html]Evolution: Fact and Theory[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html]Natural Selection: How Evolution Works[/url]<br />
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14]Mechanisms: the processes of Evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01]Evolution at different scales[/url]<br />
[url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1]THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES[/url]<br />
<br />
EB2: [b]Evidence & Observed Examples[/b]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html]Evidence for Evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/]Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics[/url]<br />
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=20]Examples of Evolution.[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]29+ Cases for Macroevolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm]Lizards
Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/]Rapid
large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance
associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug[/url]<br />
[url=http://news.ubc.ca/2014/05/08/lethal-parasite-evolved-from-pond-scum/]Lethal parasite evolved from pond scum[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html]Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation[/url]<br />
[url=http://jacques.janin.free.fr/forum/Goodman
et al 1999 Pol Phyl Evol.pdf]Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of
Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence[/url]<br />
EB2a: Fossils/Transitional Forms<br />
[url=http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html]Evolution and the Fossil Record[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html]Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html]Arachaeopteryx:
Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html]All About Archaeopteryx[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/]The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence[/url]<br />
[url=http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/3d-collection/fossil]Fossil
| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program | 3D
Collection[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/]Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html]Fossil Hominids: Lucy[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sinanth.html]Peking Man and Homo erectus[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/evidence_and_the_cambrian_explosion.html]Evidence
and the Cambrian Explosion[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/ovrdino.html]An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html]Dinosaur Footprints in Coal[/url]<br />
<br />
EB3: [b]The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)[/b]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html]Index to Creationist Claims[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html]Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html]Darwin's
Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html]Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html]Entropy, Disorder and Life[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html]The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html]Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered[/url]<br />
EB3a: Mutation & Information<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html]Are Mutations Harmful?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/]The Evolution of Improved Fitness[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html]Information
Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information[/url]<br />
EB3b: Chance & Probability<br />
[url=http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page02.xhtml]Examples of Random Probability[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03.xhtml]A Series Unlikely Events[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page04.xhtml]Non-Random Probability[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html]Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html]Digit Numbering and Limb Development[/url]<br />
EB3c: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html]The
1st Falsehood of creationism: "evolution = atheism"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/2ndFFoC.html]The
2nd foundational falsehood of creationism: scriptures are the "Word of
God"[/url] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/3rdFFoC.html]The
3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: human interpretation =
absolute truth[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/4thFFoC.html]The
4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: belief = knowledge[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/5thFFoC.html]The
5th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution-ism" (part I)
"Evolution = the religion of atheism"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/6thFFoC.html]The
6th falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution-ism" (Part II) "Evolution must
explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/7thFFoC.html]The
7th foundational falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is random."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/8thFFoC.html]The
8th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Mutations are rare, harmful
decreases in genetic information."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/9thFFoC.html]The
9th falsehood of Creationism: "No transitional species have ever been
found."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/10thFFoC.html]The
10th falsehood of creationism: "The evolutionary ‘tree of life’ is
nowhere implied either in the fossil record, nor in any aspect of
biology."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/11thFFoC.html]The
11th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Macroevolution has never
been observed."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/12thFFoC.html]The
12th falsehood of Creationism: "Creation science"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/13thFFoC.html]The
13th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution is a
fraud!"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoC.html]The
14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part
1[/url] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoCPt2.html]The
14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part
II[/url] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XHbRGiQccM]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt1.html]The
15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been
proved. It’s still just a theory, not a fact." Part 1[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0]Video[/url])<br />
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt2.html]The
15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been
proved. It’s still just a theory, not a fact." Part II[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc]Video[/url])<br />
EB3d: Animals<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html]Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design[/url]<br />
[url=http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded]The Bombardier Beetle Myth Exploded[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html]Creationism and the Platypus[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html]The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html]Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax[/url]<br />
EB3e: Hominids<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html]Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html]Creationist Arguments: Java Man[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html]Creationist Arguments: Peking Man[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html]Creationist Arguments: Neandertals[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brace.html]Creationists and Pithecanthropines[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html]Lucy's Knee Joint[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html]Images of Neandertals[/url]<br />
EB3f: Dinosaurs<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html]Dino Blood Redux[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html]Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html]On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html]Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html]Sea-Monster or Shark?[/url]<br />
EB3g: Paluxy<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/dvsp.html]Dinosaur Valley State Park[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/arizon.html]Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html]The 'Burdick Print'[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/georef.html]Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html]On the Heels of Dinosaurs[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tooth.html]A Tale of Two Teeth[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html]The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html]The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy[/url]<br />
<br />
EB4: [b]Creationist Credibility[/b]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html]Creationist Whoppers[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html]How
Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List
of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html]A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html]Suspicious Creationist Credentials[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html]A Creationist Exposed: Gish[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html]The Creation Research Society's Creed[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html]IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications[/url]<br />
<br />
EB5: [b]Further Information[/b]<br />
[url=http://www.bork.embl.de/tree_of_life/]A Phylogeny of Complete Genomes: Data Repository[/url]<br />
[url=http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html]The Tree of Life Web Project[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.rfs.org.uk/learning/tree-evolution]Tree evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.unm.edu/~PIBBS/CourseMaterials/SiBBs2008/Week11/Marshall2006.pdf]Explaining
the Cambrian "Explosion" of Animals[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.dorak.info/genetics/popgen.html]BASIC POPULATION GENETICS[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html]Jury-Rigged Design[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html]Scientific Creationism and Error[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mungonhm.html]Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html]A Visit to the IRC Museum[/url]<br />
EB5a: Debates<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html]An Account of a Debate with a Creationist[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html]Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard[/url]<br />
EB5b: Transcripts & Publications<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/creation-conference.html]An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html]Kansas Evolution Hearings[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html]Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution[/url]<br />
EB5c: Responses<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html]A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html]Response to Casey Luskin[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html]A Response to Wayne Jackson[/url]<br />
EB5d: Reviews<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html]Review: Bones of Contention[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html]A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/nbc.html]A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html]Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/imageofgod.html]Review: The Image of God[/url]<br />
<br />
EB6: [b]Videos[/b]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8]6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4]7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8]Ring species -- the abridged version[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html]Lectures on Evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY]Richard Dawkins tackles the Bombardier Beetle[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZizVHCaVs]Coelacanth: The Strawman Creationist Argument[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw]How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPXURdaPMZY]The truth about the Discovery Institute[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbGDJknak9c]Quest for Truth: Transitional Species[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKPrBV_PCKs]Beating Astronomical Odds[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE]Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atqjX5O-LQA]Evolutionary Predictions[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LybFLM1E8mY]AP Biology 1.D: Abiogenesis[/url]<br />
EB6a: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c]Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0]Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM]Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw]Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY]How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY]How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ17JKIBSS4]How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFvK77Fsz8]How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0tmb3Evhc]How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg]How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE]How Evolution Works 7: Speciation[/url]<br />
EB6b:
By cdk007 (Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution of, How
Evolution Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ]Evidence for Evolution, Part I[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY]Evidence for Evolution, Part II[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI]Evidence for Evolution, Part III[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0]Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w]The Evolution of the Flagellum[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE]Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg]How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4]How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg]The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies]What Every Creationist Must DENY[/url]<br />
EB6c: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCP0SimA-vA]Rebutting Harrub: Evolution is just a Theory[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFHmqZ9SkJI]Rebutting Harrub: Argument from Historical Scientists[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-EqTOD5r4]Rebutting Harrub: Finches never produce rhinos or ferns[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s32JxSasThk]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Kettlewell's Peppered Moths[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHyvryycc6o]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Darwin was a racist[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiPcZRqWms]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Haeckel's Embryo Fraud[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJHBX7qUyo]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Mutations produce nothing new[/url]<br />
EB6d: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYlzUfMAPw]Answering
the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 1 - Abiogenesis and the origins of
DNA)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo2fgRL4dfs]Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 2 - On Intelligent Design)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S_aDHGRSyk]Answering
the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 3 - Multicellularity, Sex and
Fossils)[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rT5K1yFmy4]Answering
the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 4 - Science, Application and
Education)[/url]<br />
EB6e: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1R8w_QEvEU]Does The Evidence Support Evolution?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk]Vitamin C And Common Ancestry[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIsWZCSMSSs]Human Evolution: Are We Descended From Viruses?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVoXZPOCGk]Does The Fossil Record Support Evolution?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ]Evolution: Where Are The Transitional Forms?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UGpcea8Zg]Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mtr3Cum74A]Facts Of Evolution: Good Design, Bad Design[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5kumHLiK4A]Facts Of Evolution: Speciation And Extinction[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgeSi1EGkU]Facts Of Evolution: How Fast Is Evolution?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZmLYWEPGk]Facts Of Evolution: What Can Embryos Tell Us About Evolution?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvJFI3ChOUU]Facts Of Evolution: The Molecules Of Life[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA7BE3mEb64]Molecular Evolution: Genes And Proteins[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvTmgCk1Lo]Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mPCqYxB4d4]Mechanisms Of Evolution: How Does Variety Arise?[/url]<br />
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvWnsiQycc]Mechanisms Of Evolution: How Does Variety Give Rise To New Species?[/url]<br />
EB6f:
By Stated Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural Selection?, Can
Science Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of Evolution Really
Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8]What is Evolution?[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU]What is Natural Selection?[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQLyqWaCbA]Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqepQGOYKZ0]Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?[/url]<br />
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg]What is the Evidence for Evolution?[/url]
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-50287153560661688332015-02-20T19:08:00.000+11:002015-02-20T19:08:00.144+11:00NOTHINGWas reading these <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2tu7ow/is_a_quark_onedimensional/">threads</a> on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2wflpy/its_my_understanding_that_when_we_try_to_touch/">reddit</a> askscience and had an interesting thought, see below.<br />
<br />
Now to challenge some philosophical arguments.<br />
<br />
<b>Solid... doesn't exist</b><br />
Atoms are mostly empty space, sub-atomic particles seem to act like both waves and particles, in that they diffract, and can cancel the other out in a wave like pattern. <br />
We look at a cup, a table, a wall, and perceive it as solid. This is simply a mistake of our senses, it is made up of atoms all jiggling around depending on their temperature, interacting with each other via short and long wave forces mediated by tiny sub-atomic particles, but never touching.<br />
Yes nothing is truly solid, if lights wavelength were small enough you could see it shining through anything, if you could selectively nullify the electromagnetic force you could likely walk through that wall, or fall through the floor without an atom of yours touching another.<br />
<br />
<b>Touch... doesn't exist</b><br />
When I touch these keys on the keyboard, my atoms are not actually coming into contact with the atoms of the keys, the electromagnetic force keep a space between them. Where my electrons to interfere (not even touching) with the electrons of a keyboard atom the atoms would join to form a compound, where my protons to interact with the keyboard atoms protons I wouldn't finish this sentence due to release of energy via a fusion reaction.<br />
This is all science, well known and understood. Atoms do not touch in the sense that we think of touch, a field similar in idea to a bar magnets field lines reachs out from our hand and interacts with a field on the mouse we are touching, the chair, everything, even one cell in your body to another cell, even one water molecule in that cell and another, they never touch.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Nothing... doesn't exist.</b><br />
You may have worked out where I was going with this, nothing doesn't exist the same as touch and solid don't. Nothing is a word we use to describe the absence of everything. Problem is modern research has found that nothing doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. Nothing as Lawrence Krauss describes in his book "A universe from nothing", actually gives way to a lot of something. Virtual particles that pop into existence for a brief moment, then wink out as they interact with their opposite that also pops into existence.<br />
William Lane Craig likes to rail against this position that the nothing of Krauss is not the nothing of philosophy, and thus the true nothing in which his God would work.<b> </b>Just like solid and touch, this nothing doesn't exist. It is a left over from language used by creatures that were not knowledgable enough to know that this phenomenon didn't actually exist.<b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
So next time someone says Krauss was redefining nothing ask them to touch you, or show you a solid object and then explain to them the error of their thinking.<b><br /></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-55371599977751761532015-01-24T13:59:00.002+11:002015-04-30T10:51:49.030+10:00Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God - Rebuked.Fair warning, this took almost twelve months on and off to write, I
can't even remember who sent me the original article. I have now checked
it is 18,700 odd words and 50 pages, take this as fair warning (maybe
skip to a section of interest). <br />
<br />
I have a special place
in my heart for Catholics. Being raised one, at one stage doing a
nightly rosary and buying all their weak arguments until I was in my
early 20’s I feel the need to counter them where I see them. I am
currently writing a skeptics guide to the catechism, for giggles, it is
longer than this post so sorry in advance. But I saw the below and knew
it needed a rebuttal. Please bear in mind the original is around 30
pages, this one will probably be pretty close.<br />
<br />
There
are questions peppered throughout, I am sure they are of the style that
we usually see asked by one of the authors as what they see as a true
representation of the types of questions non-believers and skeptics ask…
they are at best self-serving at worst a dishonest representation; a
strawman, but I’ll persist. <br />
<br />
Sorry about the length,
Catholics tend to be a bit wordy, it comes from the old flourishing
Latin masses, heck that is where we get the phrase “to pontificate”. On
to the article if you feel the need to read it, here it is, like I said
though 30 odd pages, and I have read it so you don't have to.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm">http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm</a> Looks like catholiceducation.org have taken down the article. Wayback machine cached version here; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140723220652/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm">https://web.archive.org/web/20140723220652/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm</a><br />And the author has mirrored it here;<br />
<a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm">http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm </a><br />
<br />
If all else fails I have a PDF too.<br />
<br />
<br />
Index to make it easier, to find sections;<br />
<ol>
<li class="verdanabullets"> <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#1">The Argument from Change</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"> <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#2">The Argument from Efficient Causality</a></li>
<li class="verdanabullets"> <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#3">The Argument from Time and Contingency</a></li>
<li class="verdanabullets"> <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#4">The Argument from Degrees of Perfection</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#5">The Design Argument</a>
</li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#6">The Kalam Argument</a>
</li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#7">The Argument from Contingency</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#8">The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#9">The Argument from Miracles</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#10">The Argument from Consciousness</a></li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#11">The Argument from Truth</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#12">The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#13">The Ontological Argument</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#14">The Moral Argument</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#15">The Argument from Conscience</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#16">The Argument from Desire</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#17">The Argument from Aesthetic Experience</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#18">The Argument from Religious Experience</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#19">The Common Consent Argument</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#20">Pascal's Wager</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#Questions">Questions for Discussion</a> </li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#Closing">Closing</a> </li>
</ol>
<h3>
<span id="1"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="1"><b>1. The argument from Change.</b></span></h3>
This is
really a first cause argument. What caused the universe, rephrased to
say what causes the universe to change? As though outside influences
cause a body to move, and one of those outside influences is the bodies
will… uh no the bodies will comes from the mind. Yes ultimately the
first cause of that body is external, the parent. The continued causes
are also all external, the upbringing, genetics, energy input etc, this
doesn’t point to a God. Not all things have or need a first cause,
quantum mechanics deals with uncaused changes, and the universe didn’t
spring into existence in time for there to necessarily be a cause.<br />
<br />
The first cause argument can be refuted a number of ways; <br />
*
What causes a stream to flow, if you said natural laws such as gravity,
you are right. What causes a tablet to dissolve, if you said natural
laws of chemistry, you would be right. Can both of these events happen
by chance… yep. What links them… natural causes… what are you positing,
supernatural causes. Do you see the disconnect in your logic here?<br />
<br />
*
What caused the first cause? If you go on to say the first cause always
was then anthropomorphising this first cause by giving it a will,
intellect and unimaginable power and foresight and you only
over-complicate things. Why not simply save a whole heap of steps and
say the universe (or multiverse if that floats your boat) always
existed.<br />
<br />
The last paragraph of this section is crazy.
If there is nothing outside the universe, then there is nothing that can
cause the universe to change… uh really. So if you isolate a solution
in a container the contents can and do change, as long as they have the
energy to do so. The universe is currently full of energy, it won’t
always be though. This is really just restating the first of the laws of
thermodynamics, that entropy will <br />
<h3>
<span id="2"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="2"><b>2. The Argument from Efficient Causality.</b></span></h3>
This
argument is basically saying are things caused to exist by something
all the time. Does the moon always exist because there is a Werewolf
somewhere looking up at it? Music is there example, it ceases to exist
once a player stops playing…. Only it doesn’t. If you travel away from
that music faster than the speed of sound and then stop if the music is
sufficiently loud enough you will still hear it even though you can see
the musician packing away his ivories. It goes even further of course,
even after you can’t hear the music the energy that went into creating
it goes somewhere, remember energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
it just changes. So it changes from the kinetic vibrations in the air
to thermally increasing the temperature of the air itself, that then
gets dissipated through the atmosphere, some may even leak off into
space, but this energy will never be destroyed. It will just change into
another kind of energy or become so disparate that it can’t be
measured.<br />
<br />
This “Argument” then goes on to “suppose”…
bad territory for any serious argument. Now lets suppose that all things
are caused to exist, does that get you to a mind infinitely more
complex than any mind we have observed, the doesn’t even require
physical matter for the mind to operate with. Does it get you to an
infinitely powerful being, all-loving, all-knowing who sent his son to
earth… no. At best it gets you to the universe being the uncaused cause…
something science can agree with with the multiverse hypothesis’ or the
bounce hypothesis.<br />
<br />
It then goes on to say that
existence is a gift from cause to effect. But physics doesn’t say that
the singularity pre the big-bang required a
cause, the term cause and effect is in essence illogical at this point
as time (the thing cause and effect operate in) came into existence at
this point. As Stephen Hawking has said, physics doesn’t preclude effect
preceding cause in certain circumstances, perhaps the effect
(singularity) preceded the cause (something in the universe).<br />
<br />
Faulty
reasoning such as we exist, therefore God must exist, is the same as
saying the earth exists, therefore earth building pixies must exist,
there are many steps missing in the causal chain.<br />
<br />
To answer their <b>Question1</b>,
why do we need an un-caused cause… we don’t. There could be causes
infinitely back, this is in fact less complicated than an all-powerful
and eternal mind. I have used this quote many times: <b><i>“In many
cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of
nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue
the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if
we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that
the universe has always existed?”</i></b> - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 2</b>;
IF the Kalam argument is right in premise 1, then the universe could be
caused by a preceding universe and so on forever. But premise 1 is
false; we know of things in the quantum world that being to exist
without a cause. Virtual particles seemingly come into existence without
a cause, these have been used to predict and then explain phenomenon
like the Casimir effect, and light from a vacuum (virtual particles
reflecting off a near light speed velocity oscillating mirror). <br />
Yes
the Kalam argument works whether the past is finite, or infinite. But
the Kalam argument makes a lot of assumptions, assumptions with no basis
in reality, if it fails at the first premise which I mentioned in the
preceding paragraph then the whole argument can be discarded.<br />
Yes
as this section goes on to explain we are dependent on a lot of things,
but notice how every cause you see has a natural explanation, why when
you go back to the beginning do you think it will be different, a
supernatural cause. Point me to one supernatural cause that has been
verified, then we can talk about supernatural causes at the beginning.<br />
<h3>
<span id="3"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="3"><b>3. The Argument from Time and Contingency.</b></span></h3>
Wow, such big words in the title this one has to be smart.<br />
Uhh
this is just another way of saying the previous argument, they add in
the fallacious reasoning that if an eternity existed before the universe
existed then why does the universe exist now, it can’t if it took an
eternity to get here… this is like saying if you have an infinite amount
of time and trillions of dice you can never roll all 6’s… of course you
can. You could the every time, chance doesn’t work like that.<br />
<br />
Our
animal minds evolved to deal with a finite amount of time to imagining
an infinite amount of time is near impossible. But we can talk about and
realise how little we know. Hilberts paradox of the infinite hotel,
shows how little we know. Say you have a hotel, with an infinite number
of rooms, all of them occupied, and you have a guest show up. You can
say, hmm all our rooms are full, but hang on a minute, you call room 1
and tell them to move to room 2, telling them to tell room 2 to do the
same thus moving everyone up a room number, making room 1 free for the
new guests.<br />
This is odd, but it gets better. An infinitely sized
coach can turn up with an infinite number of new guests inside it… now
you can simply call room 1 and tell them to move to room 2, telling them
to tell room 2 to move to 4 and room 4 to move 8 and so on. Then call
each odd numbered room and tell them to move to their room number x2.
Thus an infinite number of these odd numbered rooms will become
available, for your new guests to move into.<br />
It gets stranger
still as an infinite number of these infinitely sized coaches can arrive
and you can still make space for them in similar fashion.<br />
See more here; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel</a><br />
<br />
We
can’t think in infinities being that we are finite beings, but with an
infinite amount of time all things that are possible are not only likely
to happen but will.<br />
<br />
Maybe I am a little tired but the question and answer in this section seem nonsensical.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 1</b>: <i>Even
though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was
possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still
happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of
existence? </i><br />
<br />
I think they are trying to say why does
the universe exist if it was possible for it not to exist. This is a
good question, with an infinite amount of time all things are possible,
so perhaps the universe won’t exist forever, perhaps it hasn’t existed
for a very long time and it is existing again. We don’t know.<br />
<br />
Saying
that something cannot cease to exist unless that feature is built in,
is a little erroneous. As I said before energy cannot be created or
destroyed, so it would seem energy doesn’t have this built-in function,
thus energy could have existed forever. Conversely though, God being
all-powerful does I assume have the ability to cease to exist, which
given an infinite amount of time she must have tried non-existence once,
so why is she in existence now?<br />
<h3>
<span id="4"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="4"><b>4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection.</b></span></h3>
This
is basically trying to state there must be an objective standard to
hold everything else against. This is simply not the case, we hold
things up against our experience and biases.<br />
<br />
Existence
is better than non-existence, but then again we exist. Love is better
than no-love… then again most of us are empathetic loving beings. I have
met those who are aromantic, they don’t experience sexual love, why is
there existence any less valid than our loving one. Why do we consider
ourselves so special, could that be because we are the ones writing
about ourselves. I am sure Dolphins if they possessed the opposable
thumb for writing would have different things to say about us. I am sure
that if there exists an alien race even nearly as intelligent as us,
they will be just as self-obsessed thinking there way of thinking, and
relating is best.<br />
<br />
This is just like the argument for objective morals, which I have answered here; <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html">http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html</a><br />
<br />
Like
objective morality and objective standards, they aren’t objective they
are subjective regardless of what you would like to believe. Different
cultures have different standards, and different species have different
moralities that serve their needs. Of course subjectively we can look at
rape as wrong, but for the angler fish it is the only way its species
can continue with the diminutive male forcing himself upon the much
larger female. We see this as wrong, and from our context it is, from
the angler fishes it is a way of life.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 1:</b> <i>The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective?</i> <br />
Yes
they are, and asking the question doesn’t prove that standards aren’t
arbitrary and subjective. It just shows that the asker thought it better
to ask this question, it is subjective to the asker. You can speak
subjectivism, and you can live it, our legal system is the perfect
example, the same crime doesn’t always get the same punishment, there
are subjective reasons that are taken into account. The legal system
evolves over time, taking into account societies changing attitudes to
things like inter-racial marriage, slavery, child abuse and same-sex
relations. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZYAhyWQKziU/VLtZo0ojnRI/AAAAAAAAM-E/ItLkOmGhiH4/s1600/atheistschoose.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZYAhyWQKziU/VLtZo0ojnRI/AAAAAAAAM-E/ItLkOmGhiH4/s1600/atheistschoose.png" height="154" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
<span id="5"><b>5. The Design Argument.</b></span></h3>
Amazing that
this is coming up from a Catholic apologist site, when Catholics accept
and teach evolution and big-bang cosmology at schools. But I suppose you
can accept something without understanding it, like the trinity :)<br />
<br />
Let’s look at the crux of their argument;<br />
<i>1.
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both
within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to
others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and
coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can
fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature
for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable
end -- for example, the organs in the body work for our life and
health. (See also argument 8.) </i><br />
You mean like the fact that
our appendix is mostly unneeded and could burst killing us at any time?
Or that 99% of nature (as in the rest of the universe not on this little
mote of dust) is hostile and would cause our demise, the vacuum of
space, the radiation of most star and the inhabitable zone around
blackholes and neutron stars?<br />
<br />
<i>2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.</i><br />
Evolution
is not chance, it is blind and cannot see the future, mutation is
chance, but evolution is more than mutation. Evolution is driven by
natural selection, survival of the fittest. If say a mutation causes a
small but beneficial change in a species then it is passed on, and on
and may lead to more changes of that ilk leading to the apparent design
in a species. I assure you that the “design” of the laryngeal nerve was
not very well designed in mammals getting from brain to voice box via
the heart is a route not even the worst city planner would design.<br />
<br />
<i>3. Not chance. </i><br />
Blanket
asserting your position in an argument with no evidence is not a point,
it is an opinion. How about I put her no God, see no supporting
evidence. It makes your case look weak. Besides we already covered that
evolution is not chance, the only thing that is chance is the way the
rest of the universe looks, and that is the way it is.<br />
<br />
<i>4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design. </i><br />
Where is the case, you made blanket statements, and misunderstandings in your previous points.<br />
<br />
<i>5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.</i><br />
Who
says the universe is designed, only those that posit a designer. There
are an infinite number of other possibilities, we can only take those
that have evidence to back them, so far the evidence points to natural
means<br />
.<br />
<i>6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.</i><br />
<br />
Another therefore in the same line of reason where there was no evidence or decent argument<br />
presented. Therefore this argument is null. <br />
<br />
The rest of this argument and the questions is just a restatement of the previous 6 points, so I will spare you.<br />
<br />
Only to end this point with this;<br />
<b><i>"Imagine
a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting
world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me
rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must
have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as
the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the
puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to
the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was
meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he
disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something
we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in
the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point,
considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing,
the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about
that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say." -
Douglas Adams</i></b><br />
<h3>
<span id="6"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="6"><b>6. The Kalam Argument.</b></span></h3>
I have kind of
already covered this fallacious argument. As have many others, it is
called the Kalam as it is an argument that has come down from Muslim
scholars, and in the hundreds of years it has been presented it has
never been convincing.<br />
<br />
But let's take it on just to be complete.<br />
<br />
<i>1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. </i><br />
Hahah, no, see virtual particles.<br />
<br />
<i>2. The universe began to exist. </i><br />
Debatable,
and some evidence is pointing to an eternal multiverse or that this
universe eternally cycles… like the Hindus believe, it doesn’t make them
right about Vishnu or Krishna as if the universe is found to have a
defined beginning doesn’t make Christianity right. We could be a massive
quantum fluctuation similar to virtual particles.<br />
<br />
<i>3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.</i><br />
See
answer to point 1. Again even if it had a cause for its existence it is
a big jump from an unseen cause of the start of the universe to
all-powerful being who cares about one of the little specs out of
trillions upon trillions and its tiny fleshy inhabitants.<br />
<br />
**************<br />
<br />
I
like how they then go on to explain the Kalam, saying you would have to
be insane to not grant the first premise. Well I don’t and a lot of
modern cosmologists (some likely even theists) don’t. If you can’t
convince someone without insulting them, then your case is indeed a weak
one.<br />
They then go one to say premise 2 is supported by recent
developments in cosmology, such as the big bang theory… except that
theory came about in 1927… so about as recent as say human powered
flight. <br />
The big bounce is more recent, as is the multiverse
hypothesis, the holographic universe, and the simulation universe. All
of these hypothesis take into account the big bang, and have a universe
or multiverse preceding it, none of these require a God, and none will
get to the rank of theory till there is a plethora of evidence. Some is
starting to come in, none yet for your God or any for that matter.<br />
<br />
This
point then goes on to again misunderstand infinities and show how badly
our finite minds can comprehend it. Besides the big bang theory in
cosmology shows that time and space began at the initial expansion of
the universe, there was no time before this, none that could affect our
own universe to begin with. So saying it has taken infinite days to get
to here is as nonsensical a statement as you can get, showing a
misunderstanding of a “recent” nigh on hundred year old theory.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 1:</b><i>
Christians believe they are going to live forever with God. So they
believe the future will be endless. How come the past cannot also be
endless? </i><br />
I would add to this, why can God have existed
forever and lived an infinite number of days till 14billion years
ago/6000 years ago (depending on your brand of Christianity) when he
decided to make the universe? How did he reach that decision in an
infinite amount of time.<br />
<br />
There answer to this question
goes onto not understand infinity again. You can have an infinite number
of positive numbers and infinite number of negative, both are infinite.
So let’s say I believe in living for ever after death, then I will live
for an infinite amount of time, in the positive numbers after my birth,
it is still an infinity, no matter which way you try and spin it. This
extent is not finite, I wouldn’t be existing forever more, if it weren’t
infinite.<br />
Here is a head scratcher for you, there are an infinite
number of numbers between 1 and 2, 1.00000001, 1.0000000001 etc… This
is how little this author understands infinity, this is how little the
human mind can grasp it.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 2:</b> <i>How do we know that the cause of the universe still exists? Maybe it started the universe going and then ceased to be.</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
This
is the deist position, not one I agree with as I don’t see any evidence
for it. The responder tries to go on to say if the cause is outside the
universe then it has to be eternal. Why? What evidence do they present…
none. It could be the cause was a being from another universe not
unlike our own, that performed an experiment that split off another
universe, it could be our entire universe exists as a simulation in
another universe, these are all valid hypothesis that don’t require the
creator to be omnipotent. There is no evidence for the former, and only
slight for the later.<br />
<br />
This being existing in another
universe, separated from our own doesn’t have the issue of infinite
regression, they could have created our universe and there’s could have
sprung up from the multiverse or there’s could be an infinite cycle of
expansion and collapse, this universe could have since collapsed and
ours split off from theirs, time could run differently there, slower,
faster, backwards, these are all possibilities that the authors simply
don’t want to address as it weakens their case.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 3:</b> <i>But is this cause God -- a he and not a mere it? </i><br />
<br />
This
is a good question, how do they get from universe had a cause, to the
cause is a being whom identifies as male, is omnipotent and loving, that
is an astronomical leap? It goes on to say if the universe where cause
of natural phenomenon, then it would have happened long ago… who says it
didn’t, and that that universe didn’t run its course and re-collapse
into ours, or into a state of extensive hibernation, or something else.
Remember time came into being at the big bang, so maybe this event has
happened an infinite amount of times, stretching back into the past
forever, just as your God stretches back into the past forever.<br />
If God didn’t exist forever, then what caused God?<br />
<h3>
<span id="7"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="7"><b>7. The Argument from Contingency.</b></span></h3>
Yikes, 13 more of these… sorry everyone.<br />
<br />
This
is an interesting one, basically saying a painting can’t exist without a
canvas, but what if the painting is the canvas then it is contingent
upon itself. Below is the breakdown.<br />
<br />
<i>1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.</i><br />
Plausible,
however it can go back further. If God exists there must exist
something that takes for God to exist, if you say god is
self-contingent, why not save a step and say the universe is
self-contingent. <br />
<br />
<i>2. The universe -- the collection of beings in space and time -- exists.</i><br />
No argument here<br />
<br />
<i>3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. </i><br />
I
think this is a good argument for the multiverse, not God. This can be
turned on its head, lets say God exists outside the universe in an
outerverse, this outerverse has to exist for God to exist, and something
has to exist for this outerverse to exist…Maybe, just maybe the
universe is all there is, self-contingent and at least we have evidence
for its existence.<br />
<br />
<i>4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. </i><br />
Don’t
agree here, of course the universe could exist of its own accord, it is
unbounded by space and time, it is finite but unbounded. Perhaps our
epoch of time came into being at the big bang as the last epoch ended.
Just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean you can stick God in there,
otherwise you stymie progression and do the opposite of science
supposing the answer and only looking for evidence to support that
answer.<br />
<br />
<i>5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.</i><br />
Again
with the therefore before you have made a decent case. We don’t know if
what it takes for the universe to exist transcends space and time, the
universe could be self-contingent. It could depend on the multiverse,
which could be self-contingent, it could depend on the Ginnungagap and
Niflheim, but without any evidence how do we weigh these claims. We can
weigh these claims quite easily, we go with what we have seen in the
past, in this case we have never seen evidence of the supernatural all
events have had natural explanations, thus it is more likely the
universe has a natural explanation.<br />
<br />
***************************** <br />
<br />
Again
they restate their premises here, as though saying them over and over
again will make it so, this is not a prayer and its repetition doesn’t
make it or prayer any more valid.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 1:</b> <i>But why should we call this cause "God"? Maybe there is something unknown that grounds the universe of change we live in. </i><br />
<br />
As
I said before there is, the universe could be causeless, you claim God
is, so why not save some steps, complexity and infinities (infinite
power, infinite knowledge, infinite love etc) and say the universe is
causeless.<br />
<br />
Maybe this unknown will turn out, through
evidence to be a multiverse of perhaps an infinite number of other
bubble universes, perhaps our universe will turn out to be cyclical,
big-banging and crunching away into the past eternally and into the
future in a similar fashion. We don’t know, so why do you guess in place
with knowledge from ancient texts, hearsay, rumour, myth, and personal
revelation that is no better than anecdote from a UFO abductee?<br />
<br />
The
issue with supposing this “Giver” is that you suppose a being that is
infinitely more complex than the universe itself. For it to know all, it
has to be able to say store all the information that can ever be, every
possible position of every possible particle in the universe, this
storage would need to be basically the universes number of atoms in the
universe to some enormous power, say to the power of itself. So there
are roughly 10^82 atoms in the universe, so 10^82^10^82, or 10^6724 if
you want easier notation. This is probably smaller than what would
actually be needed, but we will grant this being the benefit of the
doubt of a super powerful being. Now it needs somewhere to store all
these bits, you can say it is incorporeal, but everything we know of
stores its data somewhere. Lets say this being stores this 10^6724 in
its incorporeal cloud, it can’t possibly have enough space to have
all-knowledge of itself, so it is not omnipotent about its own inner
workings. This is obviously a trick as any theist will simply come in
and say God is magic… magic is not an answer, it just begs further
questioning as to how it all works. If your answer in science is magic,
then it is so far always been wrong, is that really the side you want to
align with.<br />
<h3>
<span id="8"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="8"><b>8. The Argument from the World as an interacting whole.</b></span></h3>
This
argument is basically saying that nothing could work if each system,
physics and the various constants, and chemistry and its various
workings, weren’t in place. It is an argument from ignorance. A simple
counter is we don’t have a system with different constants and different
chemistry to compare with our own, without this we don’t know if our
constants are the best.<br />
<br />
Victor Stenger has written a
rather nice book called the fallacy of fine tuning where he outlines how
these cosmological constants that give rise to our chemistry could have
been different and still allowed for life, in fact they may have been
better, they certainly could have been worse. But the anthropic
principal answers that to say if they had been so bad as to not allow
for life, then we wouldn’t be here to observe the constants.<br />
<br />
What
would be amazing is if we lived on a world not capable of supporting
life, if we popped into existence complete with environmental suit and
all. Or if the entire universe was capable of supporting our life, no
vacuum in space, no deadly radiation, all habitable… that would be some
decent evidence for a caring creator.<br />
<br />
This argument
also touches on the argument from design. The classic argument of
useless is a mousetrap if you remove a single part… of course Dr Kenneth
Miller blows this out of the water <br />
<br />
sure
it is no longer an effective mousetrap, but it makes a great tie clip
or some other tool. Life and its interlocking is the same, it would
still be life but not as we know it.<br />
<br />
They then from
these faulty premises make a jump to the conclusion. The issue is, even
if you accept the premises, it only gets you to a conclusion that there
was a creator at some point, not the next leap that the creator is named
Yahweh and gave his word to desert tribe on a small planet in the outer
arm of a small galaxy. <br />
<h3>
<span id="9"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="9"><b>9. The Argument from Miracles.</b></span></h3>
This one is going to be fun.<br />
<br />
<i>1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. </i><br />
<br />
I wouldn’t agree here, more likely a trick, a hallucination, or as Arthur C. Clarke put it;<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SSduqQYdTvI/VML3uKoLeFI/AAAAAAAANtk/7LMu8lfwNRc/s1600/Arthur-Clark2.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SSduqQYdTvI/VML3uKoLeFI/AAAAAAAANtk/7LMu8lfwNRc/s1600/Arthur-Clark2.gif" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
I
find it interesting that a lot of miracles either occurred in the past
when scientific literacy wasn't great, or they occur in poorer parts of
the world, where similarly scientific knowledge isn't widespread.
<br />
<br />
<i>2. There are numerous well-attested miracles. </i><br />
<br />
Hahah,
really. There are numerous sighting’s of aliens, Bigfoot, miracles
attested to Vishnu, Allah, and other deities. Anecdote doesn’t equal
evidence. We need a way to distinguish exaggeration, conflation,
mis-remembered, mis-told, and outright lies from the truth. The way you
do that is not through eye-witness testimony but repeatable and
verifiable evidence. Some evidence left behind that could actually be
tested, a video that could be tested for forgery etc. Nothing yet,
forgive me, but I am not going to hold my breath.<br />
But let’s take some of those Catholic “miracles”, you are more likely to die if you <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html">visit Lourdes</a> hoping for a miracle than if you stay at home.<br />
The Shroud of Turin, is likely a fake. <a href="http://skepdic.com/shroud.html">Here is the skeptics </a>view, and <a href="https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1092-the-shroud-of-turin">here is a Christian's own take down</a> (surely they have a bias for it being real), citing biblical mismatch.<br />
<br />
Mother
Theresa soon to be sainted, never heard God talk to her according to
the letters that Chistopher Hitchens outlines in his book "Missionary
position" (#I'll update this with Page number when I find it)<br />
Finally, God doesn’t heal amputees <a href="http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/">http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/</a><br />
<br />
<i>3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. </i><br />
<br />
As
I mentioned before, nope. It could be a magician performing a slight of
hand, a trick like "removing" a diseased organ without scalpel as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_surgery">South east Asian mystics do</a>, or it could be a hallucination, even mass hysteria, these are all described by modern science.<br />
Finally
it could be sufficiently advanced technology as I mentioned before,
something that the witness didn't realise was available, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/12/military-one-step-closer-to-battlefield-holograms/">something like this</a> (I know that is available, and would still likely be terrified if God appeared before me with a thunderous voice). <br />
<br />
<i>4. Therefore God exists. </i><br />
<br />
You know what Jesus supposedly said about building your house on bedrock… well this whole argument is built on church taffy.<br />
<br />
Let’s take some of their own examples, to paraphrase: <br />
<br />
<i>-numerous
stones drop from the sky, after a holy man tells people they are
sinners and God will punish them with stones from the sky.</i><br />
<br />
So
if this happened, even most religious people would look for the
catapult, the net that had been holding the stones above them, the plane
that had dropped them, or some rational explanation. The article goes
on to say well if you are a sinner then this may give you pause… but
then most religions say we are all sinners, we are all sick, and where
oh where can you find the cure, of course from the same place that told
you where sick, how convenient.<br />
I don’t think many people would
think they are worthy of punishment, even one so relatively minor as
being stoned from on high, let alone the eternal punishment of hell.<br />
<br />
Just
because an event correlates with an existing belief doesn’t give any
evidence for that existing belief. The event needs to be investigated in
isolation and with a skeptical mind before you decide on its worth.<br />
<br />
<i>-references to biblical miracles</i><br />
<br />
Surely
you don’t accept the miracles in the Koran, the flight from Mecca to
Palestine, or the miracles of the Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods
or ancient Persian gods? So why do you expect us to accept your holy
book as evidence for the Jewish gods miracles? What outside evidence is
there of these miracles, none, OK then the miracles can be ignored.<br />
<br />
They
go on, and on about context of the miracle here. Sorry but context
actually counts against them being miracles, have a look at wishful
thinking, have a look at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria">mass hysteria</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink">group think</a>.
I think that both of these preceding references point to issues with
trusting groups of people without some sort of corroborating evidence,
especially if the claim is fantastic.<br />
<h3>
<span id="10"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="10"><b>10. The Argument from Consciousness.</b></span></h3>
Wohoo
half-way. I hope someone, preferably a current Catholic got to here.
Roughly a page per argument so far, sorry again, it is a long slog and
no one said the road to Calvary was easy.<br />
<br />
Wow this is another non-sequitur, but I will persist.<br />
<br />
<i>1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence. </i><br />
<br />
No
argument here… well sort of. The universe is so complex that no one
human intelligence can grasp the whole thing, from the minuscule
complexity of quantum physics, to the enormity of scale and deep time of
the cosmos, and everything chemical, biological, psychological,
societal and cultural in between.<br />
But yes it is generally understandable.<br />
<br />
<i>2.
Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited
to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility
and intelligence are the products of blind chance.</i><br />
<br />
Really,
we aren’t that well suited to grasp it, that is why we have communities
of minds called research groups, no one person can really grasp it. I
am sure a dolphin has possibly better understandings of fluid dynamics
than even the best human, and I am sure a water strider in some extent
understands fluid tension better than most humans. But OK, the best of
us, can in their chosen field grasp the universe. I don’t think anyone
has said any intelligence from a dolphin or ape (of which homo-sapiens
is a member) is due to blind chance. This is a gross misunderstanding of
evolution as driven by natural selection. It isn’t blind chance, it is
survival of the fittest. <br />
<br />
<i>3. Not blind chance. </i><br />
<br />
You
are only making a case here for your misunderstanding of evolution. It
isn’t blind chance, it’s evolution baby. Sure it was kind of chance that
we got the laws that lead to a universe that allowed evolution to take
place, but then again we have the anthropic principle, if it hadn’t been
a universe where evolution could have taken place we wouldn’t be here
to contemplate it. I know that isn’t the best argument but it is what it
is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.</i><br />
<br />
Nope, no “therefore”, bad argument, no desert for you. <br />
Surely
it could be intelligible by us as we have evolved within it. Surely it
could be intelligible by us as we have developed frameworks (science and
reason) to tease out its intelligibility. Though really have a look at
quantum physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or virtual
particles both of which have been proven time and again and tell me it
is intelligible.<br />
Can you comprehend a city, surely you can. This
city is not the product of one intelligence, but the product of many,
your argument at best leads to this as a possible answer, so pantheism.<br />
<br />
*************** <br />
<br />
Saying
something is irrational that follows laws, but doesn’t necessarily
follow a rational mind is nonsense, since when has Yahweh shown his
rationality in the Old testamanet “thou shalt not kill” then a chapter
or so later he is ordering Moses to slaughter some now lost tribe.
Regardless, why does something need to be designed to be rational, a
stream flows downhill to the river, to the ocean, all very rational.
Sure you could say God gave us those laws of water flow and gravity, but
could he have done differently? Could he have done it irrationally? If
not, then he is not omnipotent, if he could then that defeats your own
purpose of needing a rational mind for rational laws.<br />
<br />
Now
they quote H. W. B. Joseph; an ethicist and who proceeded CS Lewis and
informed some of his ideas. Interesting that the atheist philosopher AC
Grayling has edited together Horace’s works, but I digress.<br />
<br />
<b><i>If
thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than
the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they
cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as nonsensical to
call a movement true as a flavour purple or a sound avaricious. But what
is obvious when thought is said to be a certain bodily movement seems
equally to follow from its being the effect of one. Thought called
knowledge and thought called error are both necessary results of states
of brain. These states are necessary results of other bodily states. All
the bodily states are equally real, and so are the different thoughts;
but by what right can I hold that my thought is knowledge of what is
real in bodies? For to hold so is but another thought, an effect of real
bodily movements like the rest. . . These arguments, however, of mine,
if the principles of scientific [naturalism]... are to stand
unchallenged, are themselves no more than happenings in a mind, results
of bodily movements; that you or I think them sound, or think them
unsound, is but another such happening; that we think them no more than
another such happening is itself but yet another such. And it may be
said of any ground on which we may attempt to stand as true, Labitur et
labetur in omne volubilis aevum ["It flows and will flow swirling on
forever" (Horace, Epistles, I, 2, 43)]. (Some Problems in Ethics, pp.
14-15)</i></b><br />
<br />
Horace is basically arguing if the human
mind is formed through nature then how is it we can speak what is true
and what is not, any more than the wind can. It is a rather grandly
worded question that basically people will read how they want. Are
humans up on a pedestal, yep OK well then of course we were made special
and speak the truth more than a gust of wind.<br />
<br />
Humans
are a natural phenomenon no different to that gust of wind… just alive
and conscious; yep we can be just as wrong as that gust of wind, we can
tell lies, and spout non-sense. Really the only difference between us
and a gust of wind, is we are alive and we have developed communication,
thus we can build up external sources to ourselves for our beliefs,
these external sources enable us to label our thoughts as true to a
certain level depending upon our level of trust in external sources and
our number of these sources.<br />
<br />
For example, prior to my
talking my parents where told “it’s a boy”, I have since been treated
like a boy, played with boys, seen other boys naked in change rooms and
thus further reinforced my belief that I too am a boy. This label is
based on evidence.<br />
<h3>
<span id="11"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="11"><b>11. The Argument from Truth.</b></span></h3>
This one is really begging the question; let’s see if you can spot the flaw in reasoning.<br />
<br />
<i>1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. </i><br />
<br />
<i>2. Truth properly resides in a mind. </i><br />
<br />
<i>3. But the human mind is not eternal. </i><br />
<br />
<i>4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. </i><br />
<br />
Yep
it is the gargantuan leap they make at point 4, and a logical error
they make at point 2: Truth only exists in a mind huh, so quick no one
look at the moon, does the truth of its existence cease to be? Do things
that humans not know about it have no truth, ahh but the theist will
say of course these truths we do not know about are in God’s mind…
Really, is there anything God doesn’t know about? Is he sure of his
omnipotence, how would he know if there were any of the famous unknown
unknowns? If as I said before he was massively complex (a requirement to
store a large amount of data about this universe) then he couldn't
possibly have enough storage space to store all the information about
himself. This still however begs the question, it is putting the
conclusion into the argument.<br />
<br />
Point 4 is obviously also
a failure, they haven’t proved their premise in point 2. Would a rock
still be a rock if God and no intelligent mind observed it, would a
square still have right angle corners, would 2 + 2 still equal 4, of
course. The interesting thing as Bertrand Russell points out in his book
“The Problems of Philosophy” is that even in the future we know that 2
things plus two things will equal 4, it is a knowledge that transcends
us.<br />
<h3>
<span id="12"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="12"><b>12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God.</b></span></h3>
Now
they are attempting to appeal to authority straight away in this one,
name dropping Descartes, and his third Meditation. Yes Descartes was a
Catholic, though he likely didn’t have much of a choice back in the
1500’s, he did also say to be a true seeker of truth you should doubt as
far as possible all things, like maybe doubt the existence of God or
the authority of a church, why not do that now.<br />
<br />
Below is their summary of Descartes argument.<br />
<br />
<i>1. We have ideas of many things. </i><br />
<br />
<i>2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. </i><br />
<br />
<i>3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God -- an infinite, all-perfect being. </i><br />
<br />
<i>4.
This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know
ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than
its cause. </i><br />
<br />
<i>5. Therefore, the idea must have
been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the
qualities contained in the idea of God. </i><br />
<br />
<i>6. But only God himself has those qualities. </i><br />
<br />
<i>7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. </i><br />
<br />
<i>8. Therefore God exists. </i><br />
<br />
This
argument can be used to prove all sorts of things exist. We have an
idea or unicorns as being perfect horses with magical powers, they are
greater than us, so we can’t have caused it (really I can imagine some
pretty cool stuff), therefore unicorns exist. This is wishful thinking
along the lines of; I am a billionaire and excesses of opulent food do
not cause obesity.<br />
<br />
Yes this defining something into
existence is absurd; I also would argue that as imperfect and finite
beings we can’t even imagine a perfect and infinite being.<br />
<br />
There
have been God ideas before Yahweh that where just as great, Ahura Mazda
the God of Zoroastrianism is both uncreated and omniscient, and likely
existed in ancient Persia 550BCE.Vishnu is both omnipotent, omniscient,
and omnipresent existing in some form from 1500BCE. This idea of a
perfect Ahura Mazda or Vishnu lends no credence to its existence.<br />
<br />
This
argument breaks down to a poor version of the ontological argument… oh
what’s that next, why it is the ontological argument.<br />
<h3>
<span id="13"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="13"><b>13. The Ontological Argument.</b></span></h3>
They
really seem obsessed with the ontological argument, presenting multiple
versions. Problem is even Anslem didn’t mean the argument to be a proof
of God’s existence, just a sort of affirmation that convinced him.<br />
<br />
As they say in their intro to this argument, this argument is easy to dismiss,<br />
<br />
<i>1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. </i><br />
<br />
<i>2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought." </i><br />
<br />
<i>3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.</i><br />
<br />
<i>4.
Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all
the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). </i><br />
<br />
<i>5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought." </i><br />
<br />
<i>6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality. </i><br />
<br />
I
agree with point 1, it really is greater to exist in real life than in a
mind alone. That doesn’t mean that because something exists in a mind
means it has to exist in real life, it doesn’t mean an even better more
perfect version of an imagined object or being needs to exist.<br />
<br />
Point
4 is a problem as most Christians will protest in response to the
problem of evil “You cannot know the mind of God”, so which is it, you
can have a concept of God in your head, one that is made greater by its
actual existence, or does God work in Mysterious ways?<br />
<br />
This
is defining something into existence, it is not an argument for a God,
just as it is not an argument for perfect faeries, unicorns or perfect
round triangles.<br />
<br />
There is an interesting counter to the
Ontological argument, one of a worse being. Think of the worst being
you can imagine, by the very definition it is worse to not exist,
actually it is worse to not even be able to be held in thought, thus the
worst being exists neither in reality or thought. This breaks down the
argument to its core nonsense.<br />
<br />
There is another counter
that Dawkins uses, that it is actually a greater achievement to have a
handicap and still be a creator, therefore non-existence is actually
greater than existence thus God doesn’t exist.<br />
<br />
To answer their absurd questions in this section;<br />
<i>Question 1: Suppose I deny that God exists in the mind?</i><br />
<br />
I
don’t deny that God exists in the mind, it does. Problem is everyone I
have met has their own version. Does this mean all of these God’s exist,
can we let them duke it out with their omnipotence and worship the
winner :)<br />
<br />
<i>Question 2: Is it really greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone?</i><br />
<br />
I
already answered this one, yep it is greater for something to exist. So
what? Something being greater requires greater evidence not finer
word-play.<br />
<br />
<i>Question 3: But is real being just
another "thought" or "concept"? Is "real being" just one more concept or
characteristic (like "omniscience" or "omnipotence") that could make a
difference to the kind of being God is?</i><br />
<br />
Who asks
this kind of nonsense question, of course being real is both a
thought/concept and an attribute. Being real tends to make a pretty big
difference, this isn’t to say God exists, but being real is <i><u>kind of </u></i>contingent on existing.<br />
<br />
They
then move the Modal version of the Ontological argument, really just
putting the argument another way. If you can’t dazzle them with
knowledge, baffle them with bullshit.<br />
<br />
<i>Question: Just because GCB must be thought of as existing, does that mean that GCB really exists?</i><br />
<br />
No,
of course not. You can think of things existing, you can think of a
world for example with pink swans, it wouldn’t change things much. But
then Pink swans are not a huge change from the existing white and black
swans, of course a pink wizzlewuzzle, is a bit odd as you don’t know
what a wizzlewuzzle is.<br />
You can also think of a world where black
swans never existed, you can picture this world again as not being much
different. In this world Western Australia wouldn’t have the same state
emblem, that is probably the only difference.<br />
<br />
The
answer to this question claims that someone cannot think of something as
existing and not existing. Nope, people can contain two contradictory
ideas in their head even at the same time.<br />
<br />
<b>Possible Worlds Version</b><br />
<br />
This
is another version of the Ontological that basically twists it around
to say that there is a possible world in which there exists a being of
maximal greatness, but to be maximally great this being has to exist in
all possible worlds. It adds some flair to this, but this is a good
enough summation.<br />
<br />
The issue should be apparent, even if
we put aside the lack of evidence for the many worlds hypothesis of
quantum physics, this argument still attempts to prove itself in its
premise. It also fails in defining “maximum greatness”. Maybe maximum
greatness is a 200IQ or the ability to run the 100m in under 10seconds…
In which case we are already there. Without evidence to back your
definition you are simply defining into existence what you define.<br />
<br />
There
is humorous corollary that I have heard on the ontological argument.
Imagine Eric the greatest “God eating penguin”, for it to be greater it
would have to exist, therefore it does, and it eats God by definition,
therefore there is no God as the great God-eating penguin has eaten it.<br />
<br />
Or this corollary from <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3066">SMBC;</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3066" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3066" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FV8UK4OIgg4/VL7spjCAAJI/AAAAAAAANoQ/5DxLUAySnj8/s1600/Anslem_BestGod.png" height="320" width="228" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
<span id="14"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="14"><b>14. The Moral Argument</b></span></h3>
<i>1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. </i><br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one. </i><br />
<br />
<i>3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation. </i><br />
<br />
<i>4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct. </i><br />
<br />
Let’s
start with point 1. I would contest point 1, and any ethicist is likely
to agree with me. There is no obligation to do good, just look at the
world of business, or war. Good is rarely done, and sometimes the
psychopaths among us don’t even feel remorse. This doesn't mean we
shouldn't try to minimise suffering, and it is greater good when it is
done and you realise there is no enforced obligation.<br />
<br />
Point
2 is wrong, it is not 50/50 chance. There are religions with different
moral guidelines, there are tens of thousands of religions and gods made
up so far by humans, and an infinite number of possible gods not yet
dreamt up, not to mention religions without gods and non-belief in its
various forms. The view of reality can be taken from say-so religious
attitudes or factual claims made by science. The “atheistic view” of
reality only usually adds to the scientific view by <u><b>lacking </b></u>belief in a god or gods.<br />
<br />
Point
three, yes the “atheistic view” is incompatible with their being a
moral obligation, I would argue so is the religious one. Famously with
the Euthyphro dilemma. The dilemma states is something good because
God/the gods command it, or does God/the gods command it because it is
good. In the first cause God could command anything to be good, morality
is arbitrary and on the whim of the God, a click of their fingers and
genocide and rape are OK. The second denies God/s omnipotence as
morality is outside God, if God is all good then therefore doing evil is
outside its power.<br />
<br />
Now there is a supposed answer to
this, put forward by William Lane Craig, that God is good, not that it
is good because God commands it, but that his actual essence is good.
This still denies God omnipotence as he cannot commit evil, as it is
outside his character. His character could also change, and we are back
to arbitrary nature of morality. Of course if you read the bible you
will see that God’s morality does seem very arbitrary, killing
Amelakites and Jebusites here, hardening Pharaohs heart there, and
telling David to take the virgins for himself thus condoning rape. <br />
<br />
They
then go on to construct a straw man of an atheist, who believes modern
morals have no grounding. I doubt you would find many non-believers with
this attitude, if so they likely haven’t thought about it.<br />
<br />
Simply
put morality as practiced by modern humans has been built up over time
as a community, and as a social animal. These have been enacted into
various laws, long before the ten commandments (of which only two are
actually crimes in most modern legal systems), these modern laws are
constantly tested and challenged inside the legal system and sometimes
discarded (criminalisation of same sex-relations), sometimes changed
(interracial marriage and the impending changes to same-sex marriage or
decriminalisation of marijuana), and sometimes reinforced with further
affirmative decisions.<br />
<br />
I actually take on objective morality and morality in general here; <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html">http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html</a><br />
<h3>
<span id="15"><b> </b></span></h3>
<h3>
<span id="15"><b>15. The Argument from Conscience</b></span></h3>
This
one as they admit is an argument from morality to some extent, claiming
that because everyone has a conscience that this is evidence for God.
This of course doesn’t account for the aforementioned Psychopath’s who
lack empathy and may have a misguided conscience because of the
combination of this and upbringing (at least in my opinion, though
corporate Psychopaths exist with less homicidal fervour). This doesn’t
account for those that go against their conscience or their own
betterment to help another due to social pressure or logical thought.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v4Du5jwKfwI/VMD2E0OPfnI/AAAAAAAANps/w_4nGMPCvEc/s1600/Duckling%2Bfeeding%2Bfish_d1051a_3798364.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
Of
course any argument here that even animals show levels of conscience
and ethical behaviour from this dog that rescued one of its own kind;<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PgWUeI3AHrs" width="480"> </iframe>
<br />
to animals that kindly feed other species for not advantage to themselves;<br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v4Du5jwKfwI/VMD2E0OPfnI/AAAAAAAANps/w_4nGMPCvEc/s1600/Duckling%2Bfeeding%2Bfish_d1051a_3798364.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v4Du5jwKfwI/VMD2E0OPfnI/AAAAAAAANps/w_4nGMPCvEc/s1600/Duckling%2Bfeeding%2Bfish_d1051a_3798364.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
to species that <a href="http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/hero-staffy-cross-molly-dies-saving-young-boys-from-venomous-brown-snake-at-kingsholme-north-of-the-gold-coast/story-fnj94idh-1227078571962">rescue other species at their own detriment</a>
(there are so many of these I struggled to find the original I saw
several years ago with a little Benji type dog that sacrificed its life
for its owners children).<br />
<br />
Evolutionary biology has an
answer for where we get our “innate” (in most of us) conscience. Simply
put we are a pack animal and to succeed in the pack we need to endure in
the pack, if we are outwardly evil and malicious we won’t survive long,
even psychopaths quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy with false
empathy, the smarter the psychopath the more empathetic they will
appear to be.<br />
<br />
They go on to hypothesise over where we may have got this conscience<br />
<br />
<i>1. From something less than me (nature)</i><br />
<br />
<i>2. From me (individual) </i><br />
<br />
<i>3. From others equal to me (society) </i><br />
<br />
<i>4. From something above me (God) </i><br />
<br />
So
let’s look at these four possibilities, firstly why does it have to be
just one, why can’t it be a combination? Let’s break them down, I am not
going to address point 2 as I have no issues with that, I think
morality does come from 1,2,3 and have no issue with what is said in
point 2.<br />
<br />
So point 1 and 3: Here they are claiming that
nature is less than me… wrong. We are all part of nature; by that very
definition it is immensely larger than an individual. Also claiming
society is equal to me, again wrong, the current body of knowledge
contained by society is so immense that no one head can store it, the
same I would argue goes for moral thought. There are moral situations I
have not thought of or been exposed too, there are likely some that I
never will think of or be exposed too. The people that are exposed to
these moral quandaries have more moral knowledge than I, even more so if
they learn from their success/failure in these situations and have to
repeat them.<br />
<br />
Point 4 of course is just plain wrong as
they need to first give some decent evidence for this something above
me. Besides even in their own literature we are claimed as children of
God, surely children are not always lesser than their parents, often
they will surpass them in knowledge, perhaps we have already surpassed
God in morality :)<br />
<br />
******************************<br />
<br />
They
then go on to consider their strawmen possibilities. We can be
obligated by something less than us, we can also be obligated by nature
something much more immense than us, they just refuse to see it as they
put themselves on an artificial pedestal. Example a child, less than an
adult in reasoning and intellect can come out with incredible truisms
that people should heed, “don’t fight, be nice” I once heard a boy of 6
say. Should this be ignored as he is currently my moral and intellectual
inferior? No, that is stupid, it is sound advice and should be
evaluated. Of course Nature is not smaller than a human or even
humanity, it is vastly more than us in time and complexity.<br />
<br />
Coming
to oneself, of course you can arbitrarily go back on a moral decision
you have made. Example, you deem that killing is wrong and morally you
will never deprive another human of their life. A human being then poses
you with a conundrum kill them or they will kill your loved one, you
have to have the moral flexibility to be able to rescind your early
moral decision and make a judgement if this situation calls for it to
end another’s life to save a loved ones.<br />
<br />
Coming to
society, no a million people don’t make a relative into an absolute, but
they do give you something to start with. There are no absolutes,
especially in morals. Society isn’t God, there is no God as far as all
the evidence points, this isn’t evidence it is special pleading and
wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
What is more likely innate moral
behaviour in beings that evolved, evolved into us as an advantageous
trait, or was handed down from on high by an infinitely
powerful/knowledgeable/complex God? This also unfortunately claims a
monopoly on morality, so a non-your-god believer can’t be moral, how
about the aforementioned supposedly soulless animals?<br />
<br />
Thus
the only adequate solution here is that morals aren’t obliged and have
developed along with our brains capacity to reason. Some people find it
hard to be moral (psychopaths) just as some find it hard to reason. This
makes neither of them less human.<br />
<br />
There addendum here
tries to address their previous allusion to belief having the monopoly
on morals. As I have stated before it is <b><u>more </u></b>moral to
come to a conclusion on your own with no hope for reward (heaven) or
fear of punishment (hell), than it the opposite. But let's address the
rest of their addendum.<br />
<br />
The Dostoyevsky quote; "If God
does not exist, everything is permissible". Yet if he does exist then
morals are likely subject to his will. I have stated this dilemma before
(The Euthyphro dilemma), but God has in the bible said it was OK to
kill your own child. I have to ask, when is it ever morally OK to kill
your own conscious child as Abraham was asked and Jephthah(<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+11%3A29-40&version=RSVCE">https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+11%3A29-40&version=RSVCE</a>)
delivered? I would wager that even if your child was a psychopath you
would instead get them help or monitor them closely rather than kill
them.<br />
<br />
The rest of this addendum seems to be a just so,
repeatedly stating something doesn’t make it fact. There is no evidence
that God is the first cause of the universe or of morals, even if we
were all created by God and instilled with morals that doesn’t explain
peoples that have no God concept but still have moral code, that doesn’t
explain the continued march of moral progress.<br />
<br />
Catholics
seem to be obsessed with the moral argument, when if you ask any
non-catholic to rate the level of morality inside the church you will
likely get a very negative moral landscape. It is a testament to God’s
power that his supposedly chosen institution is so corrupt.<br />
<br />
They
continue on in there addendum to go the William Lane Craig route that
morality is not apart from God, but a part of his nature. As I said
earlier this means that with his omnipotent power he can change his
nature, if God cannot do evil then he is not all powerful, if he can,
what is to stop him from changing the rules and thus marking morality
arbitrary on his whim.<br />
<br />
Wow, I had to include this
little gem on morality coming from the universe via natural selection;
“The principle of causality is violated here. How could the primordial
slime pools gurgle up the Sermon on the Mount”… this shows a gross
mis-understanding of evolution and evolutionary psychology. The pools
never gurgled anything, it took billions of years for this slime (if it
ever existed, way more on that in a later post),to even evolve to a
being that had movement, let alone vocal chords and the brain capable of
spoken language. Point here, Catholics from the pope down accept
evolution, they accept it but some don’t understand it. <br />
The sermon on the mount which has been picked apart rather well here; <a href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount#Counter-apologetics">http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount#Counter-apologetics</a><br />
<br />
I
will agree with the article here, morality doesn’t exist it would seem
at a molecular level, but it doesn’t require much in the way of brains,
fish can be moral, as can everything up from there through, see my gifs
and videos at the start of this section. <br />
<br />
They wander
into the argument from ignorance here, because we currently can’t
describe morality 100% with science, doesn’t mean it won’t be. If it is
will you then discard that power from God as the ancients had to discard
lightning from theirs when it was explained? Where will that leave your
God? Maybe you would be better discarding everything, then building up
your beliefs based on evidence and not preconceived notions, as anyone
who is intellectually honest would do.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span id="16"><b>16. The Argument from Desire</b></span></h3>
<i>1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. </i><br />
<br />
<i>2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. </i><br />
<br />
<i>3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. </i><br />
<br />
<i>4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
This
is basically presuppositional, it presupposes that we all know/desire
God exists. It is supposing that we all know God exists or we have a
desire for it. I am sure every westerner has had a moment or two in
their life where they have wanted for nothing, surrounded by their loved
ones, post an enormous family meal. But they will say there is still a
small niggling desire in you, they claim to know you better than
yourself, how arrogant.<br />
<br />
They then go on to claim you
can have a desire for innate and externally conditioned things. Innate
are things like hunger, sleep, thirst, sex etc. Externally conditioned
come from external, eg a house, car, money, to fly like a superhero, or
visit the Land of OZ. Externally conditioned desires don’t have to
necessarily exist they state, but supposedly no-one has found an innate
desire that doesn’t exist. I would argue here that our desire to find
agency (a mind) behind all events is proof that some supposed "innate"
desires don’t exist, I’d also argue what I imagine their next point will
be, how do you know that the desire to know God is innate and not
conditioned, after all there are people brought up without God and if
they don’t have the societal influence they are unlikely to desire God
at all such as certain deity-less tribes or even people raised as an
atheist, but let’s go on.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LsyIge0xnpI/VLs3mOemXGI/AAAAAAAAM9o/Ocb_Cj49myU/s1600/LynneKelly1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LsyIge0xnpI/VLs3mOemXGI/AAAAAAAAM9o/Ocb_Cj49myU/s1600/LynneKelly1.jpg" height="216" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Skip to 11:45 for the bit about "is that it"... but the whole clip is beautiful.<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r6w2M50_Xdk" width="480"> </iframe>
<br />
They
then go on to be just so about how they classify these innate desires
and artificial desires, basically classifying things as innate if they
deem them them to exist, thus bringing their argument to bear by their
own definition. It is the same as saying I am the best writer that has
ever existed... because I said so.<br />
<br />
Not everyone
believes in God, and even those that are raised in the culture can
question it from an early age, Children as young as 4 or 5 will question
the existence of Santa, the Easter Bunny (Bunny's don't lay eggs, hens
do, so maybe the Easter Rooster distributes as I said as a 4 year old), I
know some people who questioned the biblical accounts as young as 5,
this is more evidence against the belief in God being innate as they
offer that it is.<br />
<br />
They then go on an appeal to
consequences, even if you aren't fulfilled with life, even if you think
"Is that all there is" then bad luck, if that is the case all the
wishful thinking in the world can't change the facts. I hate that I have
to sleep 6+ hours a night to function, no amount of wishful thinking
will change that.<br />
<br />
They press on saying they are not
satisfied with the finite lives they have, surely that is greed, one of
the seven deadly sins. Also I think they speak for themselves, sometimes
as I sit in reflection I smile at how truly deeply satisfied I am with
my life, sure there are things I would like to fix, but overall I am
loved and I love deeply. My children are kind and work is enjoyable,
what more could I want. Any more that I want, I can work for and likely
get, like the outlet of writing I am doing now. Again, just because YOU
are unsatisfied, that is not an argument for anything. If this where the
case there would be no one in hospital and self-help gurus would abound
inside our medical institutions. Instead we have tried and tested
medicine and in extreme cases pain relief and coma inducing drugs.<br />
<br />
I
love when they quote the bible and it is a verse that the bible itself
contradicts, God is a concept that is so immense it transcends the
concept... "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart
conceived" (1 Cor. 2:9)... Countered by the fact that Adam saw God on
several occasions (Genesis 1-3), so did <span class="text Gen-32-30" id="en-NIV-959">Jacob
"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God
face to face, and yet my life was spared.”" Genesis 32:30, and so did
Moses (</span><span itemprop="articleBody">Exodus 33:11)... Sure they
will twist and turn out of this, but the words are plain, if they are so
open to interpretation maybe the whole original sin thing, admonishment
of homosexuality, the denouncement of women's rights and the entire God
concept should be opened to the same interpretation and discarded in
kind, start from scratch and build it up your beliefs based on evidence
and reason.</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">They quote here from C.S Lewis,</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /><i>Creatures
are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists.
A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A dolphin
wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual
desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire
which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable
explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity,
Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope")</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">Great
quote, but it comes back to the same issue I pointed out before; these
supposed desires for other worldly things, how do you prove them, how do
you prove it is from another world, till you can prove the other world
or prove some other thing(s) don't satisfy the desire. </span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody">How
do you know another's experience, I will admit there have been many
times in my life when I have wanted for nothing, does that mean I have
found God, or I have evaluated what I actually have and been honest with
my satisfaction? Maybe I don't have the desire for God as others do,
but this brings up another issue did God create me this way, if so he
created me damned, and I'll be damned (badumtsh) if I would worship a
being that would create people so broken that he has to torture them for
his own mistakes or for his own wrong doings.</span><br />
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">I like this quote from C.S Lewis, which strikes at the heart of some of his other religious arguments (quote mining is fun);</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YdDqbAjk70g/VL7tcDjEdjI/AAAAAAAANoY/5ndt27RZAnk/s1600/CsLewisX.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YdDqbAjk70g/VL7tcDjEdjI/AAAAAAAANoY/5ndt27RZAnk/s1600/CsLewisX.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<span itemprop="articleBody"><br /></span>
<span itemprop="articleBody">Lets cover their Q and A;</span><br />
<br />
<b>Question 1</b>: <i>How can you know the major premise --
that every natural desire has a real object -- is universally true,
without first knowing that this natural desire also has a real object?
But that is the conclusion. Thus you beg the question. You must know the
conclusion to be true before you can know the major premise. </i><br />
<br />
They
try answering this by saying we come to knowledge through universal
truths. Yes we can, we can weigh the possibilities to be
non-consequential, in their example "all humans are mortal" we can see
how that has bared out so far to be true and likely to remain true for a
long time to come.<i> </i>But this suffers the same issue as the all
swans are white universal truth that once existed, you have to be able
to give up these assumed truths once new data comes in.<br />
<br />
I
argue here that defining God as a natural desire is faulty, as we have
evidence for acts or objects that can fulfil all other natural desires,
but none for God. They are not begging the question with their
assertion that God is a natural desire and I think I have argued that he
isn't.<br />
<br />
<b>Question 2</b>: <i>Suppose I simply deny the minor premise
and say that I just don't observe any hidden desire for God, or
infinite joy, or some mysterious X that is more than earth can offer?</i><br />
<br />
They
suppose with their answer here that no one can be fulfilled, they
suppose to know their and everyone else's heart. How presumptuous.<i> </i>They
go on to argue that it is part of the human condition to not be
satisfied, I would agree. I suppose I have gotten to my moments of
satisfaction due to realising by comparison how luck I am, as a
westerner with shelter, food, and running water, people that love me and
employment that is fun and rewarding. However I will admit this
satisfaction is fleeting, we have evolved to look for more, continue to
strive, this is why generally we are rarely fully satisfied. There is no
need for a God when looked at from the point of view of simple
pop-psychology.<br />
<br />
Look at animals, especially house pets.
They have desires too, actually along similar lines to humans, food,
water, shelter, sex and affection. These desires sometimes cannot be
satiated, there are diets for dogs, animals that seek out many, many
mates despite being infertile. If these desires weren't put into this
kind of override then the animals they compete with who do have the
overdrive will likely succeed and pass on their DNA over the ones with
little desire... it's evolution baby.<br />
<br />
I like that they said this; <i>"</i><i>It is like the game of predicting the end of the world". </i>The
saviour they are arguing for did just this predicting the end of the
world; "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste
death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."<span class="p"> - Matthew 16:28... 2000 years of any day now.</span><br />
<br />
<b>Question 3</b>: <i>This argument is just another version of Anselm's ontological argument
(<a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/twenty-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god.html#13">13</a>), which is invalid. You argue to an objective God from a mere subjective
idea or desire in you. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>I am going to include their reply to this <strike>objection</strike>, er question here to pick it apart;<br />
<br />
<i><b>Reply: </b>No, we do not argue from the idea alone, as Anselm does. Rather, our
argument first derives a major premise from the real world of nature: that nature
makes no desire in vain. Then it discovers something real in human nature-namely,
human desire for something more than nature-which nature cannot explain, because
nature cannot satisfy it. Thus, the argument is based on observed facts in nature,
both outer and inner. It has data. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
No they don't argue from that idea alone, but their basis for the
argument here is one of definitions, defining into existence innate
desires and artificial desires, and then assigning God to the innate
desire category with no other evidence than it feels good and loads of
people feel the need to believe in a God... do they, or do they feel the
need for community, reflection, and ritual? If we simply grant God
entry to this innate desire category, then surely it could be argued
that other desires could be placed there<i> </i>too; such as the desire
to know Zeus, or the desire for Ragnarok (the Nordic gods end time
story), neither of these are based in reality but plenty of people
believed in them at one stage, so why not give them access.<br />
<br />
Which
is more likely here, that a supernatural being has placed on our
metaphorical hearts the desire to know his existence and worship him,
although I don't understand why he/she couldn't just appear to everyone
at once, even submit to testing but I digress. Why is a God who chooses
to hide leaving us just with a desire to seek him/her out more
plausible, than an over reacting drive to procreate, eat, drink and be
comfortable? Answer God is infinitely less plausible than this
explanation, sorry try again.<br />
<h3>
<span id="17"><b>17. The </b></span><span id="17"><b> Argument from Aesthetic Experience</b></span></h3>
Excellent
a short one... that argues from beauty basically, it may take a bit
longer than their one-liner to deconstruct, so let's go.<br />
<br />
Basically
they say that because there is the beautiful music of Bach that there
is a God. Art beauty and taste all point to God would be there
hypothesis. They aren't definitively saying that you can't appreciate
beauty without their God, that's good as the Muslim domes are gorgeous,
and Hindu temples can be beautiful. What they are saying is this beauty
originates from a God, again with no evidence.<br />
<br />
Which is
more likely we have evolved to find beauty and be attracted to things
that are beneficial to our survival, to be intrigued by things that are
both novel and attractive in the possibility that there is some reward,
even if that is not definitively linked to our survival, or that an all
powerful God made things beautiful to reward us, after punishing all of
humanity for one couples digression?<br />
<br />
Makes me think of this modified comic from abstruse goose;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o1ebmGuRabo/VL8FS0qbFhI/AAAAAAAANoo/Nhi0zeiqMTE/s1600/B0vk_gsIAAE9SOv.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o1ebmGuRabo/VL8FS0qbFhI/AAAAAAAANoo/Nhi0zeiqMTE/s1600/B0vk_gsIAAE9SOv.jpg" height="138" width="320" /></a></div>
Although
it is modified to imply that only atheists can see the science behind
nature, this is obviously false, in fact some of these formula where
discovered by believers, but it does point to the grandeur that can be
seen in nature once you begin to question and investigate. It also
dismisses the tired believer position that sometimes simply is because
"God wanted it that way" The unaltered original is <a href="http://www.abstrusegoose.com/275">here.</a><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span id="18"><b>18. The Argument from Religious Experience</b></span></h3>
Most
people that would read these twenty arguments for Gods existence have
had religious experiences, thus God exists... The problem here of course
is that this is an argument from personal revelation. There are loads
of people who have religious experiences from Vishnu, Baal, Woden (aka
Odin, father of Thor), Ahura Mazda, if one personal experience is valid,
then so are they all. This of course doesn't mention the non-religious
personal experiences of Aliens, Bigfoot and Elvis sightings, all should
be treated with the same validity.<br />
<br />
They then go on to
say that religious experience is such that only a divine reality can
explain it... you know not psychology which has explanations for the
other experiences they readily dismiss. Group think, suggestion, lucid
dreams, mass hypnosis, hysteria, suggestion, memory fallibility and
schizophrenia are all known about and valid explanations for religious
and non-religious experiences. Religious people will either dismiss out
of hand someone who claims to have seen Shiva at a well as deluded at
best, influenced by the devil at worst, yet protest when the Hindu
claims the Christians vision of Mary is a delusion or a trick of
Krishna's. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.<br />
<br />
They
twist this around to an argument from numbers (argument ad populum),
basically stating lots of people have religious experiences, thus they
are all valid. This is not evidence for, it is actually evidence
against. Lots of people are pre-tuned to have these experiences, by
their ritual and beliefs, then when they experience some mental distress
or witness something they can't explain they assign it to their
religion, they can't take "I don't know" even as an answer to themselves
(see people who still claim the <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stephenville_lights_what_actually_happened/">Stephensville lights</a> where Alien UFO's, and where more information from a <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21/">someone with experience looking at the sky can find the truth</a>).
Then their memory steps in and adds false memories conflating the event
to something much grander. What starts as a mere odd reflection in a
stream that they saw as a face (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia">pareidolia</a>) then quickly gets remembered as the Virgin Mary talking to them.<br />
<br />
See again this <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html">link on Lourdes</a> and its failure as a site of healing.<br />
<br />
There point by point goes like this;<br />
<br />
<i>1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."<br /><br />
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly
wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.<br /><br />
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of
different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced. </i><br />
<br />
How
cute. This goes back to what I was saying before, point 1 is an
argument ad populum (an appeal to numbers, eg billions of people are ,
there have been loads of different divine experiences that have nothing
to do with the god of Abraham aka the God of Christianity; Yahweh. It is
also arguing from antiquity, basically saying because people in the
past had these experiences they couldn't explain is some kind of
evidence. It isn't. A quote attributed to the famous Hippocrates (where
we get the name for Hippocratic oath that Doctors swear too);<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fZAfk0K-USs/VMBJyb2xwtI/AAAAAAAANo8/2vV69di588Q/s1600/HippocratesX.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fZAfk0K-USs/VMBJyb2xwtI/AAAAAAAANo8/2vV69di588Q/s1600/HippocratesX.png" height="58" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This
quote argues against both the argument to antiquity and argument ad
populum, we now know that epilepsy is not divine, that these experiences
where either a chemical imbalance or brain fault. These stories are
then passed down, embellished, misremembered and enhanced, they are not
proof of anything.<br />
<br />
So on to point 2, it is very
conceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about
their own experience, as likely all the UFO/Bigfoot/Elvis witnesses are
likely to be mistaken.<br />
<br />
Point 3, how many times have I
said, no therefore. If you have yet to prove your first points you can't
therefore. This actually brings about a good point though in their
conclusion; "<i>reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced". </i>This
part is really telling, interestingly as Carl Sagan points out in his
book demon haunted world, these experiences change with time and
culture. For example sleep paralysis was once claimed to be the cause of
demons, the word nightmare actually comes from the name of the demon
that supposedly sat on ones chest while they slept and made it
impossible to move, yet once aliens entered the public collective psyche
abductees described this same sleep paralysis and attributed it to
aliens instead, even the appearance of the aliens matched prior media
the supposed abductee would have likely consumed, eg in the 50's and
60's big steel type aliens, typical of the first alien movies in the
50's and 60's, and 70's through 90's the grey ones with big black eyes,
again typical of media from the time and before.<br />
<br />
I have
a good argument against this and demonic possession, don't you think if
demons could inhabit bodies and give superhuman strength that some
government body wouldn't have already capitalised on this phenomenon and
we see demonic super-soldiers in the field of battle... yeah I don't
think that has happened, battles are won by the countries with the most
soldiers that are best equipped, that is all.<br />
<br />
Realistically
you would think all these people that have had personal revelation
would come back with some amazing piece or information as yet unknown or
even simply definitively unknown to the experience, even something
simple like a lost language, an unsolved problem in math or science, or
as The <a href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_personal_experience">Iron chariots wiki says the meaning of the word Frontlets</a> that is actually in the bible and its definition lost.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span id="19"><b>19. The Common Consent Argument</b></span></h3>
Home stretch now.<br />
<br />
This argument goes like this;<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i> 1. Belief in God -- that Being to whom reverence and worship are
properly due -- is common to almost all people of every era.<br /><br /> 2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.<br /><br /> 3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.<br /><br /> 4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.</i> <br />
<br />
OK,
lets take it one at a time. Point 1, nope belief in a single God is not
common, for most of human history it has been an entire pantheon of
gods, most of the time not omnipotent, sometimes not even responsible
for the creation of the universe. Of course there have always been
people who have doubted the veracity of these god claims.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HSKkMtbw0iA/VMBbFi6d8dI/AAAAAAAANpM/ogYwSdHVTd0/s1600/MarkTwain%2B%283%29.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HSKkMtbw0iA/VMBbFi6d8dI/AAAAAAAANpM/ogYwSdHVTd0/s1600/MarkTwain%2B(3).jpg" height="162" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The
extension to Mark Twains quote above is a good one, atheism started
with the person standing there skeptical of the con man. But just
because atheism or religion has been around a long time, doesn't make it
correct, so was slavery, rape, murder, and genocide, I think we can
ditch all those, so we can ditch reverence and worship, except where
proven due.<br />
<br />
Point 2, what is more likely a group of
pre-bronze age peoples, who still thought the earth was the centre of
the universe got grander cosmological and philosophical concepts
correct, or they guessed because they didn't know the answer, and the
story grew over generations. Stories have been shown to do this, so why
not 2500 years ago, pre the first writings of the Torah?<br />
<br />
Point
3, no, it is most plausible to believe that humans are very fallible,
as they remain to be, that even the meaning of the written word can
change over time (hence the umpteen different bible interpretations), so
these <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/10/william-lane-craig-dishonest.html">extraordinary claims require and equivalent amount of evidence</a>.
There is not even enough evidence for Christian historians to agree on
the events at Jesus birth, or Jewish scholars to agree on the location
of the events in the Torah (old testament to non-Jews), so why should
the stories be believed by the non-scholarly people who are trying not
to be as biased as the aforementioned scholars?<br />
<br />
Point
4, DRINK... another therefore with a weak buildup. It is plausible at
this point, and every other point this pitiful article has tried to make
to WITHHOLD judgement on the God claim. WITHHOLDING judgement is the
agnostic atheist position, <u>congratulations</u>.<br />
<br />
They try to use this line; <i>"It
seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones
suffering from deprivation and delusion -- like the tone-deaf person who
denies the existence of music" </i>This is really grasping, trying to
reflect their weak argument on to the non-believer. I don't refuse to
believe, I find no reason too, no argument convincing enough. To turn
there analogy around, I doubt you would find someone tone deaf who would
deny the very existence of music, they would just deny they get
pleasure from it. Just as a blind person doesn't deny the existence of
light, dark and colour, they have just never perceived it. If as I said
before God has created atheists blind to his existence, then he has
created us to damn us and this is means he is worthy of no ones worship.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Question 1</b>: But the majority is not infallible.
Most people were wrong about the movements of the sun and earth. So why
not about the existence of God? </i><br />
<br />
They seem here to be trying to answer my question<i> </i>though
it more nuanced, I am saying you need to weigh the probabilities, which
is more likely the bronze age ignorant humans got deep cosmological and
philosophical questions right, or they made allegorical attempts and
straight out assumptions based on their experience to answer their
questions, eg Lightning must be the Gods anger.<br />
<br />
There line <i>"But if God does not exist, what is it that believers have been
experiencing? The level of illusion goes far beyond any other example of
collective error. It really amounts to collective psychosis." </i>is
problematic, as the same could be argued for the "relationship" people
have with their imaginary friends, other gods and the infamous John Frum
from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult">Cargo Cults</a>
in Melanesia. This relationship is reinforced with constant prayer,
recitation of affirmations and the peer influence of others who state
their relationship is strong with God/Jesus/Allah/Vishnu.<br />
<br />
They
then argue via wishful thinking, if the person didn't exist then their
was no one to receive you love... waaa. Sorry that really shouldn't
convince anyone.<br />
<br />
They then go on to miscategorise
atheists, most atheists now-a-days once had a "relationship" with
God/Jesus/Allah/Vishnu, they loved their chosen deity and felt sure of
their existence. Once they put their beliefs to the test they found them
groundless. There are a lot of explanations for religious experience,
from faith healers and speaking in tongues for example watch the
documentary Marjoe to see how a faith healer can induce this hysteria
with stage presence and parlour tricks. There are also studies done on
these tongues spoken, they follow no grammatical sense, they aren't a
language that is known about and they don't have a flow that could be
identified as a language in any way. There are lots of explanations as
there are lots of phenomenon that are used to impress this experience.<br />
<br />
Science
doesn't work from personal anecdote or personal experience, it works
from repeatable experiment and evidence. If you can't repeat the
experiment of observation then you have nothing.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Question 2</b>: But isn't there a very plausible
psychological account of religious belief? Many nonbelievers hold that
belief in God is the result of childhood fears; that God is in fact a
projection of our human fathers: someone "up there" who can protect us
from natural forces we consider hostile. </i><br />
<br />
Sure
upbringing plays a big part, most people born in the west will be raised
Christian, and Christian they will remain. Most people born in the
Muslim countries will be raised Muslim and remain that way, ancient
peoples born in Greece would have worshiped Zeus or Poseidon. This isn't
an argument against God, but it is suspicious and<i> </i>seems mean on his part if he exists, damning people just due to the unfortunate time and date of their birth.<br />
Really though religion, like a lot of human endeavours is very complex,<i><i> </i></i>it plays on fears (heaven/hell), it indoctrinates, creates/fosters <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201204/religion-and-reason">faulty reasoning</a> capabilities (accepting appeals to authority and numbers as valid arguments, as well as <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2011/10/supernatural-explanations-just-dont.html">supernatural thinking</a>),
gives us easy answers (the aforementioned goddunit, "that's the way God
wanted it"), gives us someone to ask for help in helpless situations,
someone to thank when chance goes our way (but oddly not necessarily
someone to blame, unless you blame Satan or some other evil deity), it
marks changes is nature and life (eg baptism, Lent season), and probably
many other reasons that reinforce a believers belief in God. An
interesting experiment to do, raise a child with no religion, never
introduce them to it, or talk to them about it, teach them to think
rationally and critically LIE to THEM and get them to question you and
then when they are say 20 try and get them to follow a particular belief
system, my guess unless you are holding something over them (food,
shelter etc), they are as likely to follow it as you are to switch from
your religion now to some other very different religion (eg if you are
Christian, switch Gods to Vishnu/Krishna).<br />
<br />
In one of the waffling replies to Question 2, they put the statement; <i>"several writers (e.g., Paul Vitz) have analyzed atheism as itself a
psychic pathology: an alienation from the human father that results in
rejection of God."</i> and yet earlier they claim that the question they posed that said God is just a fatherly project was <i>"psychological jargon"</i>...hmmm.
I would say the psychic pathology is woo, it is nonsensical speech,
psychics have never passed a test, no psychic has ever been used
successfully by a police force anywhere in the world, they have
catastrophically failed every test. But this goes back to my earlier
point, our rejection of God cuts us off from God, so if he exists he is
letting this happen, he is letting us be damned to be tormented for ever
and he can stop it, seems like a nice guy.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M5y7tIIzqwA/VLtXgRv0_8I/AAAAAAAAM94/wLu_aYXeyl4/s1600/578015_463913527011900_1678262156_n.jpg" height="200" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tracie Harris - The Atheist Experience TV show.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span id="20"><b> </b></span><br />
<h3>
<span id="20"><b>20. Pascal’s Wager</b></span></h3>
Eh, I took this down rather well (I am biased) here; <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2014/08/gods-not-dead.html#Pascals">http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2014/08/gods-not-dead.html#Pascals</a><br />
<br />
They
go on to say this wager shouldn't be used to coerce into belief, yep.
It should be tossed away as it is horribly broken, even the supposed
moronic character of Homer knows what is up;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Wm5a966nmU/VMDs86BAT1I/AAAAAAAANpc/gLhGVVb7dXc/s1600/HomerSimpson.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Wm5a966nmU/VMDs86BAT1I/AAAAAAAANpc/gLhGVVb7dXc/s1600/HomerSimpson.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
They
go on further to say that it should be used to get people to seek out
God, but I am pretty sure most people seek the truth, and atheists and
skeptics especially should change their beliefs if they are honest and
given enough evidence most I know would, the fact that most vocal
atheists now-a-days are ex-theists shows that they did seek and did not
find.<br />
<br />
Well that is it for their arguments, I am
converted... actually no I think it did the opposite, good job
Catholics. Actually I spoke too soon, there is a questions for
Discussion section below, answered where I can, ridiculed where they
have obviously performed no effort.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span id="Questions"><b>Questions for Discussion</b></span></h3>
<ol>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Why might someone think that the whole
question of this chapter, whether God's existence can <br />be proved, is
trivial, unimportant, distracting or wrongheaded? How might such a
person's argument(s) be answered? </i><br /><br />I don't think it is
trivial to determine God's existence (otherwise there would be no
atheists), I don't think there is any current evidence but I keep
reading poor arguments like the preceding in the hope of finding some
glimmer of evidence.<br /><i> </i></li>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Could there be an argument for
God's existence that does not fit into either of the two categories
here, cosmological (external) or psychological (internal)?
<br /><br /> </i>Sure, they did loads of argument ad populum, argument from
ignorance, and arguments to authority, but I saw no arguments to
absurdity :)<br />That usually goes something like <u>God exists, otherwise there would be no life in the universe to worship him... </u>You
should be able to see the error there by now, it is nonsensical, life
exists; it is absurd to attempt to prove something from a contradiction
to our senses. Hmm but then again I suppose the argument to absurdity
fits into their psychological category.<br /> </li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>How psychologically forceful
and how psychologically impotent is a valid argument for God's existence
to an atheist? What does the answer to that question depend on? (There
are many answers to this question; mention as many as you can. Which do
you think is the most important one?)</i><br /><br />They have yet to present a valid and non-flawed argument, so they are impotent<i> </i>(must resist joke)<i>. </i>If
I were to say the best argument for a particular God, I couldn't answer
it. If you want to get to Deism (a now absent creator God) or Pantheism
(The universe is God), then you could point to fine tuning of the
universes constants, the place of our galaxy in the universe, the solar
system in the galaxy, the Earth in the Solar system and the placement of
our planet. Problem with this argument is we have no other universe to
compare it to, to weigh-up these odds honestly. We also know we evolved
to suit the planet we find ourselves on, not the other way around. So
while the argument is not very convincing for a particular God, it is
interesting and does invite further investigation... which is why I
guess we have found thousands of planets inside our own galaxy, and why
we are using super-colliders to investigate big-bang conditions as that
may point us to the multiverse theory being true.<br /><i><br />
</i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>How can anything be "outside"
the universe if "the universe" = "everything in space and time and
matter?" What is meant by "outside" here? Can you give any analogy or
parallel situation where a term is used like this?
</i><br /><br />Language changes over time<i>,</i> at one stage nebula meant cloud<i>, </i>and
was used to describe any fuzzy object we saw through our primitive
telescopes, this included galaxies outside our own, back then, not so
long ago we thought ours was the only galaxy. Now we think ours is the
only universe, as more data comes in this assumption may very well
change. So far we have some math and some evidence (the energy level of
the Higgs) that could point to a multiverse, meaning multiple <u>contained</u> universes.<i> </i>Outside
is easiest imagined here as each universe being a bubble inside a
bigger multiverse, each of these bubbles from our current knowledge
appears contained in such a way that information cannot travel from one
to the other, the laws of physics could be different in each<i>, </i>even
time may flow differently in each. Outside of these bubbles something
(God or Gods) could exist, but we have no evidence for them and there is
no way with the present evidence that anything that happened in the
multiverse could affect this universe beyond the initial influx of
energy. So a God could exist, but it would be Deistic, creating the
initial universe but not having any ability to affect events inside it,
including but not limited to human affairs or design.<br /><i> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Why are there more than twenty arguments for and only one against God (the problem of evil)? (See chap. 6.)
</i><br /><br />HAHAH, there are a loads of arguments against God, I did a quick search and I am pretty sure I never used the problem of evil. <u><b>FAIL</b></u>.
I can't see this chapter 6, as I am not going to buy this book, but I
assume they just refute it in the usual way with "Free will". There is a
problem with this I touched on, a rapist is impacting the free will of
his victim, and this is OK in Gods eyes, yet he can't only minorly
impact the rapists free will and simply switch off his neurons.<br />There
are many logical arguments, there is a definitive lack of evidence, a
definitive lack of need for a God with the current discoveries.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>What commonsense meaning of
cause do these cosmological arguments use (especially 2)? What
alternative meanings of cause have some philosophers preferred? How do
they change or invalidate the cosmological argument(s)? How could these
alternatives be refuted? (Hume's is the most famous.)
<br /> </i><br />The cause of the beginning of the universe I assume is where they are going. I discussed this back in <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#2">Argument 2</a>, I'll quote myself so you don't have to go looking; But physics doesn’t say that the singularity pre the big-bang required a
cause, the term cause and effect is in essence illogical at this point
as time (the thing cause and effect operate in) came into existence at
this point. As Stephen Hawking has said, physics doesn’t preclude effect
preceding cause in certain circumstances, perhaps the effect
(singularity) preceded the cause (something in the universe).<br /> </li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Does the answer to question 2 after argument 2 prove that God is creating the world right now?</i><br /><br />What the hell is this nonsense? It sounds similar to the hypothesis put forward by Bertrand Russell:<br /><b><i>There
is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang
into existence five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically
necessary connection between events at different times; therefore
nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove
the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.... I am not here
suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a
serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically
tenable but uninteresting (The Analysis of Mind, 1921, p. 159-160)</i></b>Of
course the issue with this is it can't be disproved, and there is no
evidence to support it. It should be discarded due to both of these off
the bat<b><i>. </i></b>But if you wish to entertain it for longer, it
certainly could be true. So could me being God, me being the only
conscious being in the universe and the rest of you just creations by my
mere whimsy, and or <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot">a teapot in orbit around the sun</a>.
The burden of proof, even a logical proof lies in the person making the
claim, that would be the Christian that thinks the world is still being
created.<b><i><br /></i></b></li>
<br /><i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Would alternative theories of time change or invalidate any of the cosmological arguments?</i>What
alternate theories of time* do they mean, effect not needing cause, we
know at the quantum level this can happen, or do they mean time flowing
in a different direction. There is a lot of evidence that would have to
be allowed into this new <strike>theory</strike> hypothesis of time as
there is already substantial evidence to support Einsteins hypothesis
that time and space are intertwined.<br /><u>*Surely they mean hypothesis,
theory is the highest status an idea can get to in science, eg the Germ
theory, the General Theory of relativity, or the Theory of evolution by
natural selection.</u><br /><i>
</i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Does the simple answer to
question 1 after argument 4 refute subjectivism? If not, where is the
error in it? If so, why are there so many subjectivists?
</i><br /><br />Oh dear this is massive reaching, I showed that not only
can you live it, we do. I wouldn't have asked this strawman question as I
have already shown a subjective morality. But OK, let's answer the
premise that asking a question it implies objectivism, how? I don't
think any asker has actually thought it objectively better to ask the
question, I would gather from my own experience they have asked it as
they subjectively felt the question should be asked to discern an
answer, based on the situation.<br /><i><br /></i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Why is the design argument the most popular?
</i><br /><br />Because humans need answers, and when one is not apparent
some of us will throw in whatever fits. We also love seeing agency in
things, did that grass move because of the wind, or a lion, if we run
and it was the wind we have lost little, if we don't run and it was a
Lion we are dead and can't pass on our non-agency seeking genes. This
lead to Zeus and Thor throwing lightning, and then eventually an all
powerful God letting there be light.<br /> </li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>What is the relation between intelligibility and intelligence? Are intelligibility, design and order interchangeable concepts?
</i><br /><br />Something doesn't need to be designed by an intelligence
to be intelligible, simply analysed by an intelligence. Intelligibility,
design and order and not interchangeable, as Yahweh, Zeus and Ahuru
Mazda aren't.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Isn't there a tiny chance that
the universe just happened by chance? A quintillion monkeys typing for a
quintillion years will eventually produce Hamlet by chance. Couldn't
this book have been caused by an explosion in a print factory?
</i><br /><br />It doesn't work like that, and a statement like that shows
a GROSS misunderstanding of the science of cosmology and evolution. We
evolved to live in the universe, the chance is not easy to determine (we
have no other universe in which to compare the odds), and it is not a
simply all these X needed to be in play times by all these Y
possibilities, as they accumulate over time via natural selection.<br />So
to change the monkeys typing analogy, it is less like they are bashing
away randomly and more like selecting FOR the next word in the sentence
that is required for the manuscript of Hamlet. The monkey still type
randomly, and it may take some time, but if you automatically discarded
(death due to selection) the non-legitimate next words in the work you
would quickly get Hamlet typed out by these monkeys.<br />Also to correct
the big bang, is called that but it was not an explosion as such, more
of a rapid expansion. It took a long time for stars to form, then a long
time for the heavier elements, it didn't all pop into existence out of
nothing... that is what religious people believe.<br /><i> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Regarding argument 10, how do we know the universe is not conscious or aware?</i><u><b><br /><br />There is no evidence.</b></u><i> </i>Seriously,
you are making the claim, a claim that differs from Christianity into
pantheism, you need to provide some evidence. Counter, it has never
shown any sign of being aware or conscious, can we perform a Turing test
on it, can it recognise itself in a mirror, does it have anyway to
communicate across its form (not faster than light that is currently
very sure), has it attempted some kind of communication to us?<i><br /><br />
</i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Does the answer to question 3 of argument 6 prove God is a person?
</i><br /><br />Nope, it makes a lot of assumptions and "suppose"s. There
is no reason there can't be endless regressions, or even a single
regression with a start of time at the start of the big-bang, the
evidence at present points to a single event, the multiverse has some
evidence, but it is not enough, there is no evidence for a God.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Sartre wrote: "There can be no
eternal truth because there is no eternal Consciousness to think it."
What is the implied premise of his argument and of proof 11?
</i><br /><br />Firstly truth is that which complies with reality. In essence
proof is written into reality. It doesn't need to be written BY anyone,
reality seems to just be without the need for a mind to comprehend it.
See my refutation at <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#11">"proof 11"</a>.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Does argument 12 presuppose "innate ideas"? If not, how and when did the idea of God get into our minds?
</i><br /><br />Nope innate ideas aren't a thing, we simply have similarly
evolved minds and due the number of us, some of us share similar
experiences, which inspires us with similar ideas. In response to WHEN, I
references Twain before, but here it is again.<i><br /></i><br /><i><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HSKkMtbw0iA/VMBbFi6d8dI/AAAAAAAANpM/ogYwSdHVTd0/s1600/MarkTwain%2B%283%29.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HSKkMtbw0iA/VMBbFi6d8dI/AAAAAAAANpM/ogYwSdHVTd0/s1600/MarkTwain%2B(3).jpg" height="162" width="320" /></a><br /><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Why is it that you can tell a
lot about a philosopher's metaphysics by knowing whether or not he or
she accepts the ontological argument? What do Anselm, Descartes,
Spinoza. Leibniz and Hegel have in common? What doctrine of Thomistic
metaphysics enables Thomas to criticize Anselm's argument?</i><br /><br />Yep I
don't accept the ontological argument, if you do please direct me to
this super hot girlfriend from Canada or the Unicorn that I referenced
the Ontological argument proves exists back in <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2015/01/twenty-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html#13">argument 13</a>.<i><br /></i>Throwing
out some philosophers doesn't impress me, it is an argument to
Authority. Spinoza came up with the idea of Pantheism, he may not have
been one as a philosopher should be able to entertain an idea without
accepting it, like I do with religion :), but it seems likely he was a
pantheist, the others were either theists of their geographically native
religion in a time when other religions were being heavily persecuted,
or they were deistic. As far as I see it, and for myself at least,
Pantheism and deism were steps on the way to atheism, so please
encourage your readers to investigate these philosophers (except Anslem,
Hegel and Thomas, bleh) as with the extensions available now in their
philosophy the step to atheism is an easier one.<br />I didn't know Thomas
had criticised Anslem on his poor Ontological argument, but looking it
up, it all comes down to Anslems argument forcing a definition of God on
to people and stating that a perfect being can't be imagined by
imperfect beings, fair calls of course. <br />Also I find it interesting
that a Catholic MONK; Gaunilo of Marmoutier, came up with a similar
argument to oppose this terrible argument way back around the same time
that Anslem put it forward, and yet Catholics and other Christians still
use it, seriously update guys.<br />Reference: <a href="http://www.prometheus-journal.com/2009/02/a-critique-of-the-ontological-argument/">http://www.prometheus-journal.com/2009/02/a-critique-of-the-ontological-argument/</a><br /><i><br />
</i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Can you refute the modal and possible worlds versions of the ontological argument?</i><br /><br />Spinosa
talked about the greatest possible being across all possible worlds
being God, mere wordplay of course and it doesn't change the fact that
Eric will have eaten it.<br /><br /><i><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FPz_CONftzM/VMIWaN6t7KI/AAAAAAAANp8/rmOplrjscJU/s1600/God-Eating-Penguin.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FPz_CONftzM/VMIWaN6t7KI/AAAAAAAANp8/rmOplrjscJU/s1600/God-Eating-Penguin.png" height="320" width="267" /></a> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Can an atheist believe in real moral obligation (argument 14)? If so, how? Do most atheists believe in real moral obligation?
</i><br /><br />I think they could believe in conditioned moral obligations,
or in evolved moral compasses (some peoples are broken), but in actual
moral obligation there would need to be somewhere for it come from.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Is the argument from conscience any stronger if you admit objective moral laws?</i><br /><br />Nope, unless you have some proof of where these objective morals came from your argument is no stronger.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>How would you formulate the relationship between religion and morality? Between God and morality?</i><br /><br />I think Steven Wienberg formatted it rather well; <br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vtNgqz0cnQ0/VMIeHmigGvI/AAAAAAAANqI/WOEG5F68I1E/s1600/Steven-Weinberg1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vtNgqz0cnQ0/VMIeHmigGvI/AAAAAAAANqI/WOEG5F68I1E/s1600/Steven-Weinberg1.jpg" height="199" width="320" /></a><br />I also think I have <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html">here.</a><i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Does everyone have the desire mentioned in premise 2 of argument 16? If so, must atheists suppress and ignore it?<br /> </i>Obviously
not, as there are tribes that have no God concept. Of course premise
two doesn't explicitly state God, just that we have an unquenchable
desire somewhere inside us. I would state as I argued previously that
this could simply be an evolutionary advantage, a constant wish to
strive for more, more food, wealth, mates etc.<i> </i>Just as an
overactive sex drive would have one day assisted in a larger number of
progeny, so too an overactive unquenchable desire would assist in
ensuring survival on many fronts at once.<i><br /><br />
</i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Would nominalists be able to escape argument 16? (C.f., question 1.)</i> <br /><br />Pretty
complicated question really. So for people who don't know nominalists
basically deny the existence of non-existent thinks, and concepts. Eg
Strength doesn't literally exist, it is a concept, 7 doesn't exist, it
is always 7 somethings. Premise 3 in argument 16 is escapable by a
nominalist, as it makes the leap that these unfulfillable desires can
even be fulfilled.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Can you formulate argument 17 logically?</i><br /><br />I
am sure someone might try something like, beauty exists therefore God
Exists... This is about as logical as an argument from absurdity can be,
so not logical.<br /><br /><i> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Why is religious experience
any more of an argument for the real existence of God than any common
delusion, illusion, fantasy or dream for its object? Are we arguing here
from idea to reality, as in the ontological argument?</i><br /><br />I don't think it is. Anecdote does not equal evidence, and reality doesn't conform with the claims that are usually made here.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Why is the common consent argument hardly ever used today, whereas it was very popular in the past?</i> <br /><br />This
is hardly used today as I think the people who would use it have
realised it is an argument to numbers and an argument to antiquity, bot
logically flawed.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Is Pascal's Wager dishonest?
Why or why not? Read Pascal's version of it in the Pensees; what do you
find there that is significant that is not included here?
<br /><br /> </i>I am not reading the whole Pensées, seriously cite a page number. I'll use the one on Wikipedia.<br /><br />Not
really, it isn't dishonest, as I imagine most believers think there is
only two options their God exists or they concede a little to the
atheist that it doesn't.. It is wrong as there are not only the two
options<i>,</i> there are an infinite number of other possibilities,
with an infinite number it is best to reserve judgement till more
evidence becomes available, reserving judgment errs on withholding
belief (atheism) without being sure on the knowledge claim of whether
God exists (agnostic).<br /><i><br /></i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Do you know of, or can you imagine, any other argument for God's existence?
</i><br /><br />How about some proof, or even a logical consistent view of God?<i> </i>It
would be nice to be able to debate a being that had clear defined
attributes. The only argument I can see working is God presenting
himself, and using his omnipotence to provide enough evidence to convert
the atheists around the world. Would it mean we would all worship
him/her, I doubt it, but that is a different discussion.<br /><i> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>Which of these twenty arguments do you find the most powerful?
</i><br /><br />None, still an atheist.<i><br /> </i></li>
<i>
</i>
<li class="verdanabullets"><i>How would an atheist answer each one of these twenty arguments? (Remember, there are only three ways of answering any argument.)</i><br /><br />Just did and I think I used more than three ways to answer these arguments, but congrats you failed.<i><br /></i></li>
<i>
</i></ol>
<br />
<h3>
<span id="Closing"><b>Closing</b></span></h3>
I have been working on
this post for over 12 months (as well as doing a lot of other writing),
sorry for the length, but I am glad to be done with it. You can see
there was certainly some BS that needed to be challenged, nothing that
made me rethink my lack of belief however.<br />
So all these arguments are easily dismissed, I don’t want to see any religious person using them again… Hahaha, I kill me.<br />
<br />
Now that I have answered some poor Catholic questions, maybe they can answer some of the worlds questions about the <a href="http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/">systematic abuse</a> of Children in their care over a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ1_aQz6IuU">long period of time</a>, about the horrible anti-STD prevention practice of <a href="http://time.com/3674155/pope-francis-contraception-catholic-rabbits-comment/">decrying condoms</a>, and misogyny and homophobia that is rife in the church? Like this; <a href="http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/09/catholic-website-says-colleges-arent-for-women-learn-to-be-a-wife-and-mother/">http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/09/catholic-website-says-colleges-arent-for-women-learn-to-be-a-wife-and-mother/</a><br />
<br />
Yikes
that is good to be finished, I hope this can stand for a while as a
reference and inspire the community to oppose poor reasoning like this
when they spot it. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-36419069528365470832015-01-18T14:44:00.001+11:002015-01-20T15:03:00.141+11:00Mutations as a Loss of informationA common argument of creationists is that mutations only cause loss in information, not progression, not advancement of a species, not additions to the code.
Firstly genes are only information in the way we determine them as information, we apply the information. So we have to forgive how wrong this statement is. Genes are information the same way a stream is information, we assign the name to the stream, we put it on maps, we give it information. Genes are simply used in biological processes as a way to build proteins.
<br /><br />
Evolution is small mutations selected for or against by natural selection. A vast majority of these mutations are neutral providing no immediate benefit, though they may build through successive generations to provide a benefit at a later stage (see salmonella's digestion of citric acid). Some of these mutations will be on the negative scale (from bad to terrible) some so bad the fetus may miscarry (around 50% of human pregnancy ends in miscarriage), others may infer an advantage in specific environments, eg colour blindness can assist in spotting camouflaged predators. Then again some maybe even slightly advantageous, taller, faster, smarter etc.
Lets think about knowledge.<br />
<br />
Sometimes knowledge will come about due to incorrect information, this knowledge may persist for a time, it may never be tested and thus a group will hold it true even though it may not be, eg Iraq and it's supposed WMD's, thalidomide, everyone else's religious beliefs but your own. This incorrect knowledge could also use some assumption and be developed over time till it is discarded, eg the aether theory of space.
Sometimes correct knowledge will come about completely by chance, increasing the knowledge of humanity via a fluke, such as the supposed discovery of penicillin, tyre rubber etc.
Sometimes correct and thus valuable knowledge will develop over time based on many generations of work that has come before, Newton's famous word "I have seen so far as a I stood on a the shoulders of giants".
Regardless of how the knowledge is found or whether it is any good, it adds to the vast sum of human knowledge.
Obviously here I am comparing knowledge to DNA and life, it can take a long path of small iterative changes and flukes, but it can still add to the totality of diversity, it can to use the creationists phrase “add information” in that new knowledge is discovered by fluke or by iterative process. Saying knowledge can’t form this way as you don’t know where it came from is the same argument also used. But knowledge and evolution do exist even if we are not sure how they started, though we have some ideas, we may never know.
<br />
<br />
Like life, knowledge likely started in a very different form, with very different conditions than what we have today. It wasn’t humans that likely started knowledge, there is evidence that neanderthals had tool use (even modern chimps and Bonobos, even some birds show tool use), painted stories (there are elephants and birds that have shown this talent) and the use of fire (which lots of animals use to their benefit), there may have even been a rudimentary language that would have allowed the passage of ideas and thus a kind of natural selection on these ideas, with ideas that were important enough being iterated and reiterated through a young creatures upbringing.
<br />
<br />
Knowledge shows direct parallels with life, other people have noticed this before with the introduction of memetic theory and the very word meme. But I think this analogy goes the other way, and also points to the origin of knowledge as a parallel to the origin of life.
Some may claim that knowledge requires a mind, yes it does, even a rudimentary avian one. Life it would seem does not, life only requires a drive to replicate, something even the most simple single celled bacteria or proto-celled virus strives to do.
<br />
<br />
Some interesting things this brings up. Knowledge can develop similarly independently eg the idea itself of evolution driven by natural selection was developed a few times independently, akin to the eye and the many times it has evolved independently or the awesomeness that are slaters (Woodlice for the non-Australians), there is a case of very well defined convergent evolution, where two different animals evolved to look the same and live in the same environment, one the Woodlouse that is a crustacean, and one the pill millipede that is related to millipedes. <br />
<br class="kix-line-break" />
An idea can also develop once only, like gunpowder use (China), or the idea of having 0 or less (India), and then these ideas get spread around and were appropriated, akin to the eye again or bipedalism, although evolution can’t really take another creatures advantage and make it, its own. An idea can also develop once only (at least a further development) that then gets lost for ever, eg; Greek Fire, or Aztecs and their masonry, akin to the billions of creatures that have gone extinct in the history of earth.<br />
<br />
So even if we grant DNA as information, information can change by accident, information can have an origin if we think about it, and information can be independent of an advanced mind. Information is different to DNA, DNA is just chemistry and demanding it needs a mind to contain it, is the same as demanding a twisting river demands a mind to explain its twists and turns, it obeys understood rules of fluid dynamics and flow, similarly DNA obeys rules of biological chemistry. If you claim these rules had to be given by a rule giver then you are simply shifting the burden and playing a God of the gaps, eventually the gap will be closed and you will have to retreat or simply deny the discovery.<br />
<br />
Beyond all this babble, we have some interesting proof that a single mutation can make a big change, even with a "loss of information", in humans of all species; <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-45881563702645924282014-11-04T20:58:00.000+11:002014-11-04T20:58:00.169+11:00Stirring the pot<a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/peterboghossian" role="presentation">Peter Boghossian</a> recently tweeted that <a href="https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/528661439934775296">"Questioning that one can be proud to be gay is a leftist blasphemy. </a><a class="twitter-hashtag pretty-link js-nav" data-query-source="hashtag_click" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/justbornthatway?src=hash"><s>#</s><b>justbornthatway</b></a><a href="https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/528661439934775296">"</a><br />
<br />
While in the strictest definition of proud this could be conceived as correct, although the definition starts with proud of one's accomplishments, it finishes with proud of what ones own qualities. But on even a cursory glance at some of the literature around the pride movement the error is quickly found. Just as some people aren't proud for being an atheist, skeptical or human, people aren't proud for being Gay in the strict definition of the term, or for that matter proud for being anywhere else in the sexual spectrum.<br />They are proud for coming to terms with it in a predominantly heterosexual, binary gendered society, they are proud for coming out in such a hostile environment to not only gain support from non-LGBTI people but to make it easier for others to come out. This kind of pride sounds really familiar, oh wait a minute these are the same arguments for coming out as an atheist, for having the reason rally, or any number of Celebrations of reason etc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Boghossians premise, to quote a great philosopher that came before him "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." - Bertrand Russell<br />
But I think Boghossian may have missed the mark on this one, and in doing so has gotten off side a large part of the community that would invariably be opposed to some of the same things he is opposed to, yes you can be LGBTI and religious, but I think if you do you have a short and forgiving memory for the persecution you suffered under religious hands.<br />
<br />
Greta Christiana writes a more thorough refutation <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/11/01/peter-boghossian-and-what-gay-pride-actually-means/">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-47932497795307963672014-10-15T20:43:00.000+11:002015-02-05T10:28:35.429+11:00Is Islamaphobia a real thing?I like to think contentious thoughts, trust me I am writing some other blog posts that are rather contentious of my own beliefs. "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." - Bertrand Russell<br />
<br />
Well this one is on Islamaphobia. Or the perceived racism that people get accused of when questioning Islam.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that humans stereotype, and perform irrational prejudice based decisions. Even the most rational of us will still check for our wallet if we are bumped by a person in a train who looks like they had seen better days. This is simply mistrust, something that served us well when we had to mistrust a strange looking creature for example that could kill us, if we mistrusted it and ran we survived either way, if we didn't and the creature was deadly then we wouldn't have passed on our trusting genes.<br />
<br />
The common argument is that Islam is not a race, so it can't be racism. The joke that ran rife on Twitter post the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60">Ben Affleck V Sam Harris debate </a>was along the lines of: Tomorrow I am going to convert to Chinese. Which does make a good point, you can convert to Islam so it is not a race, anymore than Christianity is... or Judaism. But you can be an anti-Semite if you attack a Jew for wearing a yarmulke, just as you can be anti-Muslim if you simply attack a person for wearing a Hijab or Bisht. There are ill-informed prejudging people in the world, information is the only thing that can fix this.<br />
<br />
Ah but you can't really convert to Judaism, see <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184964">here</a> and <a href="http://forward.com/articles/195883/israeli-jews-who-arent-jewish-in-eyes-of-rabbis-fa/?p=all">here</a>. So maybe that is why Judaism gets that get out of insult card. But then really, Judaism is just a belief system, and beliefs can and should be criticized. Peoples should never be as this is a generalization, this is prejudging someone based on their appearance and is fallacious. As Christopher Hitchens once eloquently put it "Hate the religion, not the religious".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SOyeHS0ORYY/VDtpVEpCafI/AAAAAAAALos/YTj6DD5VFfk/s1600/Voltaire4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SOyeHS0ORYY/VDtpVEpCafI/AAAAAAAALos/YTj6DD5VFfk/s1600/Voltaire4.jpg" height="233" width="320" /></a></div>
Then again to break apart the word, Islamaphobia. Firstly my dictionary thinks it is not a word, homophobia it has no problem with, racism either. But anyway.<br />
Islamaphobia seems to allude to the fear of Islam. Homophobia is not really the fear of homosexuals. I doubt many straight people fear that a homosexual is going to take away their rights, homophobia is more a disgust that homophobes have at the idea of same-sex relations. I heard it best put as you aren't afraid, you're just an arsehole.<br />
So maybe it is the similar kind of unfounded fear here of Islam as homophobes have of homosexuals, don't get me wrong there are definitely some people out there who have unfounded fear of Islam, and will simply prejudge any Muslim they see as a member of Isis/Suicide bomber or whatever their culture has taught them. This is wrong and should stop now.<br />
The points however that Sam Harris and Bill Maher make are fair and do allow for maybe a founded fear of some Muslims. There is a larger percentage of Jews who decry Israel's war on Palestine over Muslims who decry ISIL, with <a href="http://www.truetorahjews.org/">two</a> <a href="http://www.nkusa.org/">different</a> Jewish groups against the state itself.<br />
<br />
Onto Indonesia which was mentioned as a shining light in the Muslim world. Indonesia is not that great, especially if you are an Ahmadiyya (a branch of Islam)... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Indonesia" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Indonesia</a> you also are in trouble if you question your faith; <a href="http://inewp.com/outrageous-indonesian-atheist-in-danger-because-of-blasphemy/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://inewp.com/outrageous-indonesian-atheist-in-danger-because-of-blasphemy/</a><br />
I think what Reza Aslan on the panel was trying to say has been said very well by Steven Weinberg;
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion."<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-grvSTY9T7TE/VD2Ys-1Ax4I/AAAAAAAALpQ/7f9LbvC60yU/s1600/1rCXvex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-grvSTY9T7TE/VD2Ys-1Ax4I/AAAAAAAALpQ/7f9LbvC60yU/s1600/1rCXvex.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a>So maybe that is it, reverse the percentage of Muslims that believe in death for apostasy, reverse the number of Muslim countries that are anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual and then you can complain when people try and use reason to attack your faith and attrocities attributed to it. Affleck was right in one of the last things he said, you don't criticize the people, you criticize the acts, and that is all I believe I and others are doing.<br />
<br />
Maybe a reverse-ISIL should form, that fights to end capital punishment in Muslim countries, that ends imprisonment for apostasy/homosexuality and expression of art, science and sexuality, you know fights for peace. Til then there is no such thing as Islamaphobia from people who know the numbers Sam Harris talked about, that is now probably a tens of millions of people thanks to the internet and the reach of Realtime with Bill Maher.<br />
<br />
Update: Interesting article <a href="http://observer.com/2014/10/muslims-on-barbarism/">here </a>similar to my own thoughts.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-67257612456396363582014-10-11T22:43:00.001+11:002014-10-12T22:34:09.670+11:00Response - Ten quick responses to atheist claims<b>Response to http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ten.quick.responses.to.atheist.claims/41439.htm (not going to link it as I don't want to give them the traffic :P )</b><br />
<br />
I can't believe supposedly educated philosophers have used these arguments in an attempt to answer atheist questions, I guess it was christiantoday's writer Heather Tomlinson who did and not Prof Lennox, but Lennox is a believer so he probably would use these or similar. I am going to try and go through these quick as I have better things to do, movie with the kids tomorrow.<br />
<br />
<b>1) You don't believe in Zeus, Thor and all the other gods. I just go one god more than you, and reject the Christian God.</b><br />
<br />
The first line in rejecting this is very facile, so what if Thor isn't compatible wit the bible, that doesn't nor ever could detract from its truth, if there was any.<br />
The real point of this argument is that most Christians will claim that these Gods were made up with no reason why, usually due to someone has told them they are made up. If they have any level of skepticism that prevents them from believing in these gods they will not apply the same level of skepticism to their own God.<br />
They quote Prof Lennox, who being a Christian would argue of course due to the complexity of the eternal nature of the Christian God he trumps the "simpler" story of the created Gods, this isn't an argument against a created God, it is just baseless assertion.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Science has explained everything, and it doesn't include God.</b><br />
This is an argument from ignorance. Science can't (at present) explain ethics or beauty, therefore God is missing loads of steps.<br />
<b> </b><br />
Science explains the origins of the universe, religion gives people hope who don't have the intellectual fortitude to say they don't know.<b></b><br />
<br />
<b>3) Science is opposed to God.</b><br />
I don't know if I have heard many people say this, there are religious scientists. Science follows naturalism, that there is a natural explanation for a phenomenon and then endeavors to find it<b>, </b>not once has this explanation been magical or supernatural... that doesn't mean it can't happen, but it isn't looking good.<br />
There are issues with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of being logically valid. You can always argue the incoherent God is outside logic, but that is destroying any argument you could make as you are arguing against using the very logic you are using.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>4) You can't prove that there is a God.</b><br />
I agree with Lennox here, you can't "prove" it, in the mathematical definition. Of course I don't think you can do it in the reasonable doubt definition either.<b> </b>Some of the arguments Lennox uses here I have rebutted before, especially the <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/search/label/WLC">WLC </a>ones. The slighlty new ones are the argument from personal revelation (people have witnessed miracles), which is easily countered with people have seen Elvis since his death, probably as many non-Christians have seen miracles they attribute to their religion, and UFO witnesses: Witness testimony is at best biased and untrue and worst a complete mental fabrication knowing or unknowingly to make the person the center of a attention. This is best summed up with anecdote != evidence (that symbol in the middle means does not equal).<br />
The other argument is from the Gospels, which for all we know where once considered a work of fiction or allegory, then there is the fact that they were witness testimony, not only written down near the event but in some parts of the bible almost a hundred years later.<br />
So yeah you can't prove there is a God, and can't prove a negative, but the balance of probability doesn't favor one at this stage.<br />
<br />
<b>5) Faith is believing without any evidence.</b><br />
Maybe Lennox doesn't know his bible; <b> "</b><span class="btext4">Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1.<br />Faith is not belief with evidence, we already have a word for that knowledge. Again quoting the Gospels that are of unknown authors and undefinitive veracity doesn't sway anyone. To quote Thomas Paine "</span>To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason,
and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like
administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist
by scripture."<br />
<br />
<b>6) Faith is a delusion. I'd no more believe in God than I would
in the Easter Bunny, Father Christmas or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.</b><br />
I don't think the people Lennox is talking about here are afraid of the light, these are the kind of people who would spend there entire life on an issue with a theory, and throw it out the window at the first strong sign of evidence to its contrary. I think most atheists I know would be intellectually honest enough to believe in God if he showed up and provided some proof, or if some decent evidence actually came to light.<br />
I don't know if there are many Christians who would throw away their beliefs if they found them wanting, because they wouldn't be Christians long.<br />
I know some atheists that wish a God did exist that answered prayers and actually had a plan for them, it isn't wish fulfillment if you don't have that wish.<br />
<br />
<b>7) Christianity claims to be true, but there loads of denominations and they all disagree with each other, so it must be false.</b><br />
This is more to the point that you think that an omnipotent being could make a religion that would appeal to all, if God is so powerless that 10,000 religions to appeal to the 10,000 styles of worshiper rather than 1<b> </b>that claims the monopoly on truth. The issue with the many denominations is many (see most) will claim that the others are wrong, and that the one you are currently in has the monopoly on truth and the other denominations believers are going to hell. They can't all be right with this monopolistic behavior, but they could all be wrong. Add these 10,000 denominations to the 15,000 other religions that have existed and you have an issue.<br />
<br />
<b>8) The Bible is immoral.</b><br />
Morality has a basis in a secular world, it is built from society, it is built for social harmony and community cohesion. It is basically; least pain to the most people, see my other post <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/08/argument-from-morality.html">here</a><b>.</b><br />
The bible is (based on the previous points) immoral, it encourages <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+15:18&version=KJV">Genocide</a>, OK's <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+25%3A45&version=KJV">slavery </a>and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28&version=KJV">rape</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>9) Surely you don't take the Bible literally?</b><br />
I know people don't take the bible literally, it would be very hard to, no one stones their kids for back talk anymore. I think most atheists would realize that few people<b>, </b>but the most fundamentalists take it 100% literally. The question is, are they the ones that are being honest. How do you tell which parts to NOT take literally, how do you tell which parts aren't allegory or metaphor, if your only answer is what your pastor tells you then you are on shaky ground.<b><br /></b>If you are a fundamentalist that takes it literally then the evidence is against you<b>.</b><br />
<b></b><br />
<b>10) What is the evidence for God?</b>Oh yes, please impart upon me something new from the last 2000 years of Theology and apologetics... Nothing new, just the same tired debunked arguments. Hmm....<br />
<br />
The question in this section is a valid one, if someone presented me real decent evidence for God and Jesus continued existence, then I think I'd be a bit terrified and want clarification... can I now get to heaven through good deeds or is it faith only or both, or am I predestined for hell as some faiths believe. I am guessing I would get none of these answers and I would have to just lead a good life and if God judges me well for that then he is just, if he doesn't then I would never have worshiped him/her.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-53751170323520485772014-09-06T16:24:00.000+10:002014-09-06T16:24:00.168+10:00Climate debate even among people accepting of the scienceThis happened a long time ago, much thawed ice has flown under the bridge of life, these people will likely still know who they are, as will others.<br />
<br />So a friend sent me this article; <a href="http://mindaberbeco.scienceblog.com/2012/09/18/118/">http://mindaberbeco.scienceblog.com/2012/09/18/118/</a> in relation to a mutual friend who is a bit of a climate pessimist. He is sure climate change is happening and is pretty sure we are fucked (to use his term). The friend who sent it is not a climate denialist, neither of them are. But they disagree on some things. I disagree with both of them on some things, this is what a healthy society is all about.<br />
<br />
Lets call them <b>Pessimist </b>and because being a pessimist can be seen as derogatory and to even things up, lets call the other <b>Stubborn</b>. These two disagree on; <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-the-40-year-delay-between-cause-and-effect.html">http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-the-40-year-delay-between-cause-and-effect.html</a>. Pessimist brought this up and Stubborn believed it was almost a form of denialism, refusing to even read the article.I believe his reasons are that the delay of 40 years is too great and that warming would show straight away.<br />
<br />
I don’t think Pessimist is a climate denialist, have a look at the site and the article he cites; <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-the-40-year-delay-between-cause-and-effect.html">http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-the-40-year-delay-between-cause-and-effect.html</a> For starters it is I believe the largest free online repository for climate science; it is pro climate change, each of its articles are peer reviewed and heavily cited. I know you have yet to read the article Pessimist cited, an article written by climate scientists, citing 6 other studies by climate scientists.<br />
<br />
The article stubborn sent me claims that these pessimists are not researched and lazy in the area of climate change, and I would wager that from Pessimists source he is more educated in climate change than most, including myself. I also note that like a good scared blogger, Minda has not opened up the comments at the bottom for rational discussion, or dissent, the exact same behaviour that climate denial blogs do, can’t have any rational dissenting opinions as it would hurt their cause. <br />
<br />
On a lighter note I posted the below to my facebook and didn’t get a quip from a climate denialist friend for once;<br />
<a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/376385_476960092325007_1600664230_n.jpg">https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/376385_476960092325007_1600664230_n.jpg</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-89777015224757072252014-08-21T20:00:00.000+10:002015-01-22T13:24:12.529+11:00God’s not dead…I watched this movie so you won’t have to. I
actually do like Kevin Sorbo, but he should have stuck to the other, more
interesting myths..<br />
<br />
"<i>God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project.</i>" -- graffito
<br />
Firstly to counter the title of this movie
with an interesting point, God is not dead, you can’t be dead if you never
existed… badum tsh.
<br />
<br />
Another one I find humorous is the
Professor at one stage telling a student they get extra credit for not
capitalizing the “G” in God, problem is it is a name so it has to be
capitalized. Without the capital you would need to define which one of the thousands
of gods humanity has dreamt up that you are talking about.
<br />
<br />
But on to the meaty rebuttal of this
movie’s “arguments”, arguments like this one;
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WPLoarV_NBM/U-78VX9wsYI/AAAAAAAAKXg/VkukI9sUS5c/s1600/10615323_669176059843092_5894026682134483911_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WPLoarV_NBM/U-78VX9wsYI/AAAAAAAAKXg/VkukI9sUS5c/s1600/10615323_669176059843092_5894026682134483911_n.jpg" height="400" width="228" /></a>
</div>
<br />
<b>So 34minutes</b> in before they finally get onto their arguments and over their story.
<br />
<br />
The first argument is weak seemingly on
purpose. The protagonist (Josh) is only starting out in defending his faith, he has yet to do his Christian apologetic <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qAKnwFNfQGs#t=29">montage</a>. Josh simply attempts to shift the burden of proof, no one can disprove god doesn't exist, see Hermoine's response above. He talks about God being on trial, but that has already been done, much better with the TV Movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1173494/">God on trial</a>.<br />
Josh then goes on to attempt to fit the
scripture to evidence to the scripture, basically cherry picking out parts that sound like they could mean the big bang; <a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter">https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter</a>
He then quotes Steven Weinberg description of what the big
bang would have looked like, "in the beginning there was an explosion and in 3 minutes 98% of the matter that is or ever will be was produced". Funnily enough I can't find this quote verbatim, but that matter that Josh alludes to that was produced from energy was simply Hydrogen, which later formed Helium, and inside stars via stellar nucelosynthesis it formed heavier elements, something we can witness via stellar spectography, a technique over a hundred years old, so surprising that its recentness has been overlooked.<br />
<br />
Josh then goes on to compare the previously held scientific belief of steady state, claiming science was wrong, while the bibles idea of a point of creation was correct... just off by billions of years and in its chronology, but regardless... This is further cherry picking, science adjusts its views based on what is observed, religious people attempt to fit the bible to science of the day. I am sure if there is enough evidence found for the multiverse some religious will claim this is where God lives. Sorry but you can't do that, either you make a prediction based on your belief and let your beliefs continued existence rest on if the prediction is found true, or you leave the discussion up to the adults.<br />
<br />
2500 years bible right, science wrong. The bible also states that the earth is a flat circle, <br />
"<i>It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in</i>" - Isaiah 40:22 In this case the word circle (gh) in hebrew is used in Isaiah 29:3 for the troops to encircle the city. And Sphere (rwd) is used in Isaiah 22:18. So the common complaint that sphere and circle where not known to biblical authors is erroneous, either take the missed predictions with the successful ones or toss the the whole thing away.
<br />
<br />
<b>38 minutes in;</b>
Wahoo we have the "Argument from design". I attacked this one <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2014/08/argument-from-design.html">recently here</a>. Basically the counters revolve around either negative design (flaws in Gods perfect creation) which all creationists will counter with, the fall... which is rather convenient especially when some of these flaws define our existence, and other ones such as the wasted space must have existed pre-fall: Basically 99.99999% of the universe is not only unhospitable but downright hostile to life. All this space is described as being created in the bible, not post the fall.I<span class="_5yl5" data-reactid=".1b.$mid=11407285630190=2a61ad38264ecdc1b50.2:0.0.0.0.0"><span class="null">f you apply the argument from design to a designer you have an issue, how did something that is more powerful come to be? So it requires a William Lane Craig word game of the un-caused creator. But if you
accept that then why not save a step and accept the un-caused universe?<br />
<br />
Josh then goes on to state "nothing jumps into
existing out of nothingness, atheists say except the universe". I have mentioned this before, but things do pop out of nothingness, virtual particles. That being said, no one is saying that the universe necessarily popped out nothing, the energy may have always existed, it could have been caused by some external event in the multiverse, we don't know, and until we have evidence we can't claim it was any of these or for that matter God.<br />
<br />
Josh then goes on to state that the argument that god doesn't
need a cause as Christians *believe* in an uncreated god. Well the universe doesn't care what you believe, the universe is despite of it, so far there has been no evidence of the supernatural, no evidence of a God, only evidence of natural causes, so which is more likely that a natural cause was the first cause, or that there was a supernatural cause?
Josh then asks his smart sounding question "If the universe created you, then who
created the universe". This can be turned around quite easily, if God created the universe, then who created God. If you want to say God is eternal then bite the bullet and admit the universe could be eternal, and admit that the universe being eternal is much less complicated.
<br />
The Professor and atheist then uses argument from authority to Stephen
hawking argue for a godless universe beginning. This is a pretty weak argument, there are so many more points this professor of philosophy could have attacked, yep Hawking is an atheist, great. My atheism doesn't depend on authorities or celebrities being atheists, that sounds more like a religion. To counter this, would all Catholics abandon their faith if the Pope or another <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/24/wasmotherteresaanatheist">Catholic celebrities</a> lack of faith were discovered, would all Chrisitians accept homosexuality if the <a href="http://newsone.com/780135/top-5-anti-gay-ministers-accused-of-being-homosexual/">Pastor they looked up to was caught with a gay masseuse</a>? Obviously neither of these events has happened, so they either refuse to believe what has happened, dismiss it with magic (the devil had its way with them), or construct some other special pleading.<br />I don't do that, Anthony Flew was an atheist, maybe he did become a deist, so what, people are fallible. Dawkins could as he has said cash in and get the Templeton prize in his dotty old age, and that wouldn't sway my lack of belief one iota. The fact that you think it should shows how fragile you think reasoned belief is.<br />
<br />
<b>1h3min in</b>
"Because there is a law such as
gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing" -
Hawking, grand design (this whole bit looks like it could have been taken from <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hawking-and-mlodinow-philosophical-undertakers">WLC's site</a>).<br />
<br />
Obviously here the authors of the movie are trying to make God the law giver, the fine tuner of these laws and constants. The problem with this is the universe could have been made a different way, could have been better. To imply that God needed to "fine tune" the universe for life to exist denies God's supposed omnipotence, if you have unlimited power you could ensure lifes creation in a universe that had no such fine tuning.<br />
<br />
Josh then goes on to quote John Lennox, who claims there are three errors
in that, of circular reasoning, the universe exists because it needed to exist,
it therefore created itself. Uh no, not really. I think they are referring to Lennox's article <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html">here</a>. Lennox a Christian, states his bias upfront, regardless I don't disregard someone outright necessarily due to their beliefs, I like writing by CS Lewis. Lennox here is right, the laws of physics are just laws to describe the action, the laws don't cause anything. They are just like the word Pool doesn't cause a pool, it just describes it to someone who knows English, but I don't think Hawking was saying that. He was saying because gravity follows the law, because it is predictable, because it is negative in energy, it could allow for a universe to come out of nothing. The quote is misunderstood and taken out of context.<br />
<br />
Really here using John Lennox is <a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority">Argument to authority</a>, sure he is a Mathematician, Philosopher and a Christian apologist, so what, he can be wrong, as can and has Hawking and every other human who ever was.
<br />Josh tries to counter his professor with a quote from one of Hawking's recent books, the grand design, he says page5, obviously that is going to depend on the version, but here is a hint it is the first page of Chapter 1. Hawking says "philosophy is dead", in context I, an amateur philosopher agree with him, and I agree with Lawrence Krauss who expanded on this. The philosophy of science is dead (Lennox's chosen field). It is dead, as simply thinking about a scientific issue will not bring out an outcome that comports to reality. Krauss uses the apt example, you don't have computer science philosophers. Just as you shouldn't have chemistry, biology, quantum physics or cosmological philosophers, it makes no sense.<br />Philosophy has its place, the philosophy of things science can't yet explore, consciousness, thoughts, emotion, language, arts.... give it time.
<br />
<b> </b></span></span><br />
<span class="_5yl5" data-reactid=".1b.$mid=11407285630190=2a61ad38264ecdc1b50.2:0.0.0.0.0"><span class="null"><b>1h7m</b>
<i>Darwinists have been saying you don't need
god. Darwin assumed lightning hit a stagnant pond. Life came from a simple
beginning, but nature cannot jump, pre-Cambrian explosion.</i>
<br />
Wow, OK there is no such thing as a Darwinist, I have said this before... But lets go, a Darwinist is someone who believes in the since massively refined Darwinian view of natural selection as a driving force behind speciation. There are a heap of people who accept evolution as I have described it and still believe in a God, people like the Pope and most of his clergy, various <a href="http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/657/">Muslim leaders</a> (with the exception of human evolution of course), and people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins">Francis Collins</a> (once head of the Human Genome project). In fact there is a famous saying "<i>Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution</i>", which is the title of an essay from a devout Russian Orthodox Christian called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky" title="Theodosius Dobzhansky">Theodosius Dobzhansky.</a><br />
<br />
Another Argument from design here... really, already repeating your arguments hey.
<br />
<b>1h21m</b>
Josh starts this bit with the problem of evil, stating it is the atheists most potent
weapon, OK. I'll bite, it is a good one. Not what convinced me, and actually some recent article I read suggested the shear enormity of the universe is a big convincing factor (source escapes me presently)."I can't believe the special stories that have been made up about our
relationship to the universe at large because they seem to be too
simple, too local, too provincial. The earth, he came to the earth, one
of the aspects of God came to the earth mind you, and look at what's out
there. It isn't in proportion." - Richard Feynman<br />
<br />
Lets quickly look at the good summation of the problem of evil from Epicurus <br />
"<i>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.<br />Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.<br />Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?</i>"<br />
<br />
Or the more recent one from Sam Harris<br />
"<i>Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist.<br />So God is either: impotent, evil or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.</i>"<br />
<br />
So this is the issue Josh has to contend with, how does he chose to do it? Free will, oh of course. So all the people killed every year of starvation through no fault of their own can simply will food to get to them, the people killed in earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, that's all either their sin or simply their own will? A good example I heard from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234">Darkmatter2525</a>, how about the victims free will, does God simply favour the murder or rapists free will over their victims?<br />
<br />
Oh and then Josh goes to the ultimate special pleading "God tolerates evil temporarily, his intention is to
one day destroy it." That's nice of him, why not now, what's he waiting for? It is kind of like seeing someone getting beaten while you hold in your hand a stun gun, do you wait till the victim is almost dead to step in, or do you start stunning the perpetrators left and right? If you wait, then you are a horrible human being.
<b>Josh then goes on to say the Professor doesn't believe in moral absolutes, yet at his exam in finals week, if he where to cheat he would be punished as though there is an absolute morality. God gives him a basis for morality, it is
wrong to cheat, what basis does atheist have. No god there is no reason or
standard morality, if God doesn't exist then everything is permissible. </b><br />
<br />
I love this argument, the good old argument from morality, I have attacked it <a href="http://www.sydneyatheists.org/2013/04/argument-from-morality.html">here</a>. Basically, humanity has determined morality through a long process of trial and error (mostly error unfortunately), if the bible is a basis for morality it is a bad one preaching genocide, slavery, rape and vengeance. <br />
Atheists could actually be deemed more moral as they do things <b>without</b> expecting an afterlife treat, they do good for goodness sake.<br />
<br />
Josh then tips his hand with the "life is
meaningless" rhetoric. If your life is meaningless without an unjustified belief system this isn't an argument for that belief system, anymore than life is more fun when you shirk work and get drunk and party all the time being an argument for drunkenness.<br />
Life is what you make it, if you suck at it don't lean on a crutch, make it better. If you are dealt a bad hand then hope others will help you, or simply be happy to be alive for a fleeting moment on this beautiful planet.<br />
<br />
I love the closing bits where the professor all callous says;“I’m going to enjoy failing you”. Why would a professor state this. I am not a professor, but if I was I would shoot down all his arguments publicly, I would ensure his peers <b>learnt</b> from his logical errors, and yes I would still fail him.<br />
<br />
Ah of course the old chestnut "do you hate God, why." Hehe, "Do you hate Zeus? Why?" Nope don't hate God, don't even hate believers, I don't even hate all religions. I hate magical thinking, I hate indoctrination and I hate the anti-science rhetroic. There is good some religions do, but mostly it is outweighed by the pompous preening and damage it has done to our society.
<br />
"Science supports gods existence", really. The aforementioned Templeton foundation has done their own studies into prayer, it has failed every time. Every time we have looked for the solution to a question that has plagued us it has been caused by a natural event, not once has the answer been supernatural, I would say that God being a supernatural entity is precluded by science.
</span></span><br />
<span id="Pascals"></span><br />
<h4>
<span id="Pascals">
Pascals wager</span></h4>
<span class="_5yl5" data-reactid=".1b.$mid=11407285630190=2a61ad38264ecdc1b50.2:0.0.0.0.0"><span class="null">One last argument, this time not from Josh, but from the in-firmed mother, Pascal’s wager, all-be-it with a poetic flair. Satan tempts us to stay in the cage, makes it comfortable even leaves the door open till it is too late and it slams shut.... OK so forget about the fact here that the devil is supposed to have rebelled against God yet still keeps his prison running, so what. Pascals wager has been destroyed loads of times. For those who don't know it, here it is;<br /><br />Either God exists or he doesn't, if you believe in him and he does and you die then you are rewarded with an eternity in paradise. If you believe in him and he doesn't exist, then you have lost nothing. If you do not believe and he does exist, then you will be tormented for all eternity or at least miss out on this eternal bliss.<br />
<br />
The issue of course with this is the God existence isn't binary, it isn't either yes or no, and it isn't 50% one way and the other. There have been around 10,000 Gods worshiped by humans thus far, as Bart said you could just make the real one madder and madder by worshiping the wrong one, of course it could be one we have yet to devise/receive word from, or it could be one who favours the use of our reason and only lets in ones that don't believe, or there could be no God.<br />
It also doesn't take in the personal and societal cost of religion, Churches currently shirk billions in taxes, people pay tithes, and waste part of their free time.<br />
<br />
Marcus Aurelius(possibly, a dubious source) answered Pascal before he was even born;<br />
"<i>Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, <br />then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.</i>"
<br /> </span></span><br />
<span class="_5yl5" data-reactid=".1b.$mid=11407285630190=2a61ad38264ecdc1b50.2:0.0.0.0.0"><span class="null">Finally the gem I have heard before, "The letter his ways are not our ways and
his thoughts are higher than our thoughts." The old God works in mysterious ways, his thoughts are higher than ours, it'd be like an ant trying to comprehend us.<br />
<br />
Sorry but no, if we were powerful enough to be able to communicate with an ant as god can communicate with us then we could make ourselves and our intent known to the ant, we could likely even get it on our side. This is a cop out, and beyond a weak argument it is horribly demeaning to your fellow human.
</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-11840324401578851182014-08-16T23:08:00.003+10:002014-08-16T23:08:43.723+10:00Argument from designThis is supposedly the most effective argument for belief in a God. I have seen it so many times, and I am now a believer... oh wait no I am not, so why doesn't it work on me and most other non-believers.<br />
<br />
Anthony Flew (<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/how-could-an-atheist-convert-to-christianity/">possibly, it could have been his ghostwriter</a>) in his book claimed it is what convinced him to abandon atheism and switch to deism... not theism of course, as that is at best as far as you can get if you accept the argument from design, deism. Remember deism yeah, the belief that there is a God or gods but not one as imagined by humans, not one that performs miracles or intervenes in human affairs... also known as the absent deity syndrome :)<br />
<br />
So to get to the argument, basically it states look at the *insert natural phenomena here*, usually something human centric. The complexity of the eye, the bacterial flagellum (not a sperm flagellum, as that is related to sex and there is one thing religion can't do and that is acknowledge the vulgar), the beauty of a flower or sunset, the perfect distance the Earth is from the Sun, the way the environment seems to fit together to just work, and the complexity of the human brain.<br />
<br />
Of course all of these are amazing things, things we know more about due to science... not religion. The anthropic principle basically answers all of them, but it is long and dry. Douglas Adams said it best;<br />
"<i>Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.</i>"<br />
<br />
Obviously in this story the earth is the hole and humanity the puddle, having evolved in the world that fits us rather well.<br />
<br />
There are still arguments from negative design; a heart that has too few arteries to supply it with blood causing premature heart failure, the hearts construction is fine for marine animals. Similar for the placement of spine along the back for an upright walker and the lack of extra sets of teeth for an animal such as us that lives so long, not to mention the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0">laryngeal nerve</a> that I am sure you have heard of, that runs from brain to voicebox to allow all animals to control its muscles, except it makes a detour below the heart which is a lot longer than needed for humans, but think about the poor Girraffes where the detour is 18feet.<br />
Creationists will quickly say these negatives are simply due to "the fall" when Adam and Eve where kicked out of the Garden, but none of the animals sinned as far as we know, so why where they punished? Why are some of the "punishments" a distinct part of our personality such as people who personality disorders, or other challenges. Why are some of these punishments impart an advantage, that would only surface in the modern era, such as colour blindness genes being associated with <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision">extra cones in their female parent</a>. Why would some of the animals that cause this malady, that supposedly came after the fall not be able to exist prior to the fall (remember Adam named them all, so there is a problem here), why do some such as lice show evidence of evolution along side humans. Of course they can answer all of these with <strike>a wizard</strike> God did it.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CFTLpGKM6kk/U-9XWVHSuRI/AAAAAAAAKYA/TES23ek0exM/s1600/XenaWizards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CFTLpGKM6kk/U-9XWVHSuRI/AAAAAAAAKYA/TES23ek0exM/s1600/XenaWizards.jpg" height="106" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />The universe is really not designed for us, most of it is deadly to us, too close to a star, neutron star, black hole, or galactic core and you will die, the blackness of space at a whopping 2.7Kelvin or -270.45 degrees Celsius (-454.81F) even and this freezing temperature the pressure is so low your blood boils, not to mention trillions of wandering asteroids and planets the size of Jupiter ready to wipe us out.<br />But even if all these design flaws didn't exist then so what, it looks designed. Maybe we design things that look like nature because we are a part of it, we can't design anything to not look like nature as we have no experience with things that aren't part of nature.<br />
<br />
"Complexity is not an indicator of design" - PZ Myers<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NmyCtWB_3OQ/U-8_2j8a8fI/AAAAAAAAKXw/Co6_lGhVtZI/s1600/201550175_07f737eca2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NmyCtWB_3OQ/U-8_2j8a8fI/AAAAAAAAKXw/Co6_lGhVtZI/s1600/201550175_07f737eca2.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
Say a gravity Spirograph aka a pendulum Spirograph, sure there is a designer in the device, but the complex pattern that emerges, emerges due to natural laws. Similarly streams and rivers, no design but brilliant in their complexity. If all we have observed, and all we have evidence for so far is natural processes forming complex structures then no one has the right to invoke a creator.<br />
<br />
The next argument from design, is a bit of a round about one, but our good friend <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2013/10/william-lane-craig-dishonest.html">William Lane Craig</a> uses it without knowing. When he uses his version of the <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2014/07/warning-this-video-may-be-laughable-to.html">Kalam cosmological argument</a>, he adds the universe has to have and uncaused cause, and that God is defined by Christianity as the uncaused cause, which I assume they take from "<span class="text John-1-3" id="en-NIV-26048"><i><span class="text John-1-3" id="en-KJV-26048">All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made</span></i>." - John 1:3 or maybe the extremely dramatic "</span><span class="text John-1-3" id="en-NIV-26048"><i>I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.</i>" - Revelation 22:13. Neither of those preceding verses actually say uncaused cause, but lets grant it. Surely saying God is the eternal uncaused creator of the universe is much more complex than granting the universe as being an eternal uncaused creator of itself. Adding God into the picture adds a consciousness, adds unlimited knowledge and power to that consciousness, it increases complexity so immensely that it can be discarded till the God hypothesis gets that same immense level of evidence... we already have a fair bit of evidence for the universe existing, none for the supernatural other than anecdote and possibly power encouraged hearsay.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-87759596550535952842014-07-17T19:13:00.000+10:002014-07-17T19:13:00.605+10:00Catholicism and the paedophilia problem.News came out this week that the Pope has said that the level of <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/13/pope-francis-says2ofcatholicclergyarepaedophiles.html">Paedophilia in the church is at 2%</a>. I had an argument with a priest some years ago, where he said that the levels inside the Church are the same as outside, my counter to that was that the difference is offenders outside go to gaol (jail for any Americans reading).<br />
Of course 2% seems higher than I would assume the general population is running at... I was wrong. Well it would seem so at <a href="http://www.k12academics.com/child-abuse/types/child-sexual-abuse/pedophilia/prevalence-child-molestation#.U8PK5PldV8E">face value</a>. (credit to redditor US_Hiker) Part of that article is behind a paywall, but more can be seen <a href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,232584,00.html">here</a>.<br />
The gist of it, anywhere from 4-9%, sad that so much of the general populace have paedophilic tendencies,
I am sure that not all of those act on it though, and the <a href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/">stats </a>seem to play that out.<br />
<br />
This leads me to think, was the Pope saying 2% of the churches
ordained are currently under investigation? Was he saying that there is
2% he or the police know about... what about the rest?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf">This study</a> seems to allude to their being a group of people who are strictly attracted to children: paedophiles, and another larger group that contains the aforementioned paedophiles, those that molest children without being primarily attracted to them... Then of course there are likely paedophiles who control their urges and don't act (good on them).<br />
It is undoubtedly a part of sexuality, a part I and I would imagine the rest of society wishes could be excised. Sexuality though is a complicated beast, so it is a tough
comparison to make the 2% the pope claims and the 4-9% that other studies claim. That or the Pope is lying...
<br />
<br />
Oh wait he is; <a href="http://atlanticcanada.legalexaminer.com/miscellaneous/myths-and-facts-about-the-catholic-sexual-abuse-crisis/" rel="nofollow">http://atlanticcanada.legalexaminer.com/miscellaneous/myths-and-facts-about-the-catholic-sexual-abuse-crisis/</a> Interestingly it seems to be similar to the general populace, surely there is some doctrine inside the Catholic church against lying?<br />
<br />
I feel it is apropos to post this video again to show the long standing problem the church has had with this issue. If I were the Pope I would suspend any priest accused, hand them over to police for trial, and if they are found guilty they would be defrocked, and excommunicated. But that is just me...<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hJ1_aQz6IuU" width="480"> </iframe>
<br />
I have posted about this as before, in my talk I delivered to Sydney atheists, synopsis <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2012/07/catholicism-arch-diocese-of-crazy.html">here</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-15686376919425688242014-07-14T21:01:00.000+10:002014-07-15T21:01:27.209+10:00Warning this video may be laughable to your atheism...<br />
Like all good theist videos and blog posts neither of these allow comments, what are they afraid of, some discussion? A dissenting opinion?<br />
Blog post; <a href="http://rbutr.com/http://godsnotdeadthemovie.com/blog/atheists-hate-video/">http://rbutr.com/http://godsnotdeadthemovie.com/blog/atheists-hate-video/</a><br />
Video;<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6CulBuMCLg0" width="480"> </iframe>
<br />I think I have attacked the good old Kalam a fair few times, but I wanted to do a direct rebuttal for <a href="http://rbutr.com/">rbutr.com</a>, as the only way to comment on these posts so here goes.<br />
<br />
<br />
Firstly, wow flashy video, maybe it will distract from the vacuos content?<br /><br />
<b>Whatever begins to exist has a cause</b>, noppppee. Even if it did, why don't we save a huge God labelled step and say the universe never began to exist? Believing that something popped into existence is actually less of a stretch than magic, as if it pops into existence you only need to explain the thing that popped into existence not the thing and the magician and the hat and the magic, that is if you don't grant that the magician did a trick, are you equating god here to a trick, ruse, or a lie, cause I would agree with you there. The addition of a magician and magic complicates things immensely as the addition of a God using his powers to create does the same thing.<br />
<br />
<b>Why don't we see this happening all the time</b>... we do at the sub-atomic level, virtual particles, pickup a book.<br />
<br />
<b>Did the universe begin, or has it always existed. </b>Atheists haven't been the only ones who have sponsored the universes eternal existence, so have believers, they were both wrong based on current evidence, where is that evidence for God again.. oh you have word games to define him into existence, sorry but that doesn't cut it. Yes Science was wrong at one stage, but science adjusts its views based on what is observed, religion doesn't.<br />
The universe could have always existed as a continuous cycle of expansion and contraction, this doesn't violate the <b>second law of thermodynamics</b> that is so often stated, incorrectly. The law states that all things tend towards disorder in a closed system. As the universe is running out of usable energy, but a reversal and collapse of this resets entropy. The usable energy doesn't dissapear, we aren't running out of it, it is simply dissapates into the universe, if the entire universe is collpased back on itself it becomes usable again, there is no where for the energy to be lost too as there is nothing outside the universe for it to dissapate too. <br />
<br />
There are other hypothesis' that get around this problem, such as the aforementioned virtual particles over a finite amount of time causing a singularity that then expands into a new universe of matter and energy, and negative energy (dark energy), the positive energy being countered by the negative dark energy, for a balanced checkbook universe with no net energy being created, the ultimate free lunch.<br />
<br />
All the arguments beyond here use evidence from science, evidence that has not once pointed to a divine creator, not once pointed to a supernatural cause to even the most mundane of events, there are no angels moving the planets in their orbits, there are no spirits guiding water down hill, and there is no God supported by modern evidence.<br />
<br />
They then go on to quote mine Physicists, all of whom agree this universe had a beginning, but this universe could have formed out of the collapse of the last one, or be just another bubble in the multi-verse, we don't know, and we are OK with not knowing, the only way to find out the truth is to start with no knowing and go from there. Supposing the answer (God) before you investigate colours your view and will ensure bad conclussions.<br />
<br />
<b>The Universe has a cause?</b><br />
If I grant the first two premises, which I am not, then it is a huge jump to that cause being an omnipotent, omnipresent entity. Why couldn't it be some stupid long dead being that had an accident with their super-collider causing this universe, after they had evolved naturally in their own universe.<br />
Why couldn't it be a natural cause such as the multiverse theory of two other universes colliding? Which of these is more likely, the natural cause when all other events we have observed (save the virtual particles I mentioned) have had a natural cause, or a supernatural cause that we have never observed, let alone in a repeatable scientific test?<br />
<br />
The universe can't cause itself, really? Where is your evidence for this statement, we know that virtual particles can, in certain situations cause themselves, so why couldn't the universe cause itself based on natural laws?<br />
<b>It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, Uncaused and powerful</b>...The universe or multiverse could certainly be timeless, on the others though, were is your proof, even a logical one. This is jumping to your preconcieved conclussion.<br />
<br />
Thanks for playing, better luck next time...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-76406677897523393582014-05-18T10:16:00.002+10:002014-05-18T10:16:46.183+10:00Peter Boghossian’s Manual for creating atheists<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me start by saying, Peter is an excellent writer. His
style of having a further reading section at the end of the chapters is brilliant
for expanding on concepts, he knows his stuff when it comes to the philosophy
of knowledge (epistemology) and his writing is direct and to the point. You
know there is a but coming, of course there is, otherwise I wouldn’t have
posted this.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t agree with the need for taking epistemological
interventions (seems like a high-brow way of saying attempting to beat common
sense into the senseless) to people, uninvited. If they are preaching on a
street corner then the invite is implied, if they are telling people they are
damned to hell then the invite is emblazoned in fiery letters 50ft high. I am
talking from experience here; I have performed my own fair share of as Peter
likes to call them “epistemological interventions”. Actually as I write this I
sit on a plane having spent the last hour attempting to disabuse the girl next
to me of her obsession with naturopathy, and raw-whole foods, as well as
attempting to convince her no cure for cancer is being suppressed by
pharmaceutical companies (which cancer I asked, likening cancer to a bacteria
of which there are millions of species), and that there isn’t a conspiracy by
Phillip-Morris in owning a medical company that produces chemotherapy medicine,
this is the way big business works buying other businesses to make money.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have also debated theists, even creationists (although I
think I did poorly, I should have tried a bit of Peter’s disabusing them of
faith, rather than fighting the science of which I am not qualified but
passionate) and debated street preachers with Brisbane atheists. I really enjoy
it, and as the theists do, I care for my fellow human being, and hate to see
them wasting their brain cells on magical thinking.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I just don’t think you can go to someone and question their
faith or ridiculous beliefs uninvited. The girl that now sits next to me
reading her “Crazy Sexy Diet” book (something that needs a thorough debunking),
has several times stopped reading to ask my opinion on something she has
thought off or just read, I have given it honestly and there has been a little
banter back and forth. I like to think I have raised her mind to the idea that
some of it may not be true, that she should question it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Maybe I am misunderstanding Peter, but it seems to me he is
suggesting we should actively intrude; this is something I am heavily against.
I don’t care what people believe in the privacy of their own homes or heads, I
am even fairly sure I am OK with them having the freedom to teach their
children their beliefs. But I think their children should be exposed to the
same schooling as others and part of that should include critical inquiry. I
also agree with Peter that perhaps belief in the supernatural via religion
should be treated as a mental disorder, though this one would be hard to pass
and makes me uneasy that it could be cause to put well-meaning people in care
just because of their personal beliefs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I also don’t agree there is no epistemological relativism,
the belief that there isn’t necessarily one bet way to come to truth. I believe
that knowledge could in fact be relative, there may be many ways of arriving at
a truth, and not all truths are equal. But this may be an argument in terms. <br />
Sure science is the best way to truth right now, but as others have said
science could discover a new method of reasoning and discovering things that is
faster and more accurate, but the scientific method will be the only way to
evaluate this and the only way to come to a conclusion that this new as yet
unknown method (if it even exists) is better. There is likely an ultimate
truth, but it can be tuned so much that it does become relative. Eg I am typing
this on a laptop. But a laptop by who’s definition. Am I really typing it, as
my fingers at the sub-atomic level aren’t actually coming into contact with the
atoms of the keys, it is merely the electromagnetic repulsion that makes me
feel like I am touching the keys, this fine tuning could conceivably go on for
a long time so that one may say I am not typing based on their definitions,
while one may say I am typing based on theirs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you can’t tell from that last waffle, I have also been
reading and writing a bit of philosophy myself lately.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think he also went down the route of moral absolutism as
well, but I have been reading multiple books at the same time so this may not
have been him. I don’t agree with Moral absolutism, and I have argued against
it partially <a href="http://www.sydneyatheists.org/2013/04/argument-from-morality.html">here</a> but will flesh out this position later. It can be summed up as AC Grayling has rather aptly done, what
morals exist to a man alone on a deserted island, surely they are different
than a man in society. I like to use other species to further illustrate this;
it is wrong for humans to rape, sane people will agree on this. But what if it
is the only way to further the species, as in the case of the deep-sea angler
fish, where the tiny male will force himself upon the female to ensure his
continued lineage? Where is the absolute morality in those situations? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some may argue it comes back to Peter Singers doing the
least harm argument, or my childhood ideology of creating the most amount of
pleasure,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>but this is problematic. The
male angler dies in the process, he also burrows into the female, presumably
causing her pain. So the least harm/most pleasure would actually possibly be
for the species to cease procreation, and thus cease to be. The same could be
said for a particularly ravenous, over-populating, polluting species of the
Great apes that we have a bit of a bias for.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Overall though, I thought it was a damned good book. I did contact
Peter about one of his references as I had some questions, he passed me onto a Steven.
The reference was to do with a Viking societies collapse in Greenland due to
starvation due to not eating shellfish(1). Something I found interesting as I
know a few people who love their Vikings enough to call their children Viking
names, have a home with authentic Viking fire pit in the middle and even cry
out Thor’s name in a thunderstorm as a sign of worship, I have never known one
of them to turn down shellfish. I also thought it could be an interesting
cross-pollination of dietary restrictions from Jewish culture, an interesting
study in memetics. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Steven cited Jared Diamonds book “Collapse”, but this doesn’t
seem right as Diamond was talking about the Nordes in Greenland having an
aversion to eating fish(2), not shellfish. Besides it was only an aversion, not
a religious restriction. Hence why they didn’t simply die out straight away(3),
it instead took almost half a millennia. There is also some recent (circa January
2013)(4) that shows that it may have just simply been too harsh and isolating,
and that the society didn’t collapse as such, but just left.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>References; </b><br />
(1) <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MtpBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT123&lpg=PT123&dq=norse+religions+prohibit+eating+shellfish&source=bl&ots=LgMqytJQsf&sig=iYVJKgR32SeZpKlmnSGWrX3e-lk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bfo8U_LLMca9kAXUt4CYCg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MtpBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT123&lpg=PT123&dq=norse+religions+prohibit+eating+shellfish&source=bl&ots=LgMqytJQsf&sig=iYVJKgR32SeZpKlmnSGWrX3e-lk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bfo8U_LLMca9kAXUt4CYCg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(2)<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr></wbr>Collapse_%28book%29</a><br />
"Diamond also writes about cultural factors, such as the apparent
reluctance of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_Norse" target="_blank" title="Greenland Norse">Greenland Norse</a> to eat fish."<br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#Norse_failure" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr></wbr>History_of_Greenland#Norse_<wbr></wbr>failure</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html" target="_blank">http://www.spiegel.de/<wbr></wbr>international/zeitgeist/<wbr></wbr>archaeologists-uncover-clues-<wbr></wbr>to-why-vikings-abandoned-<wbr></wbr>greenland-a-876626.html</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-60317193885224133612014-04-03T21:13:00.004+11:002014-04-03T22:37:56.883+11:00Ray ComfortIf you don't know who Ray is, I will spare you a link to his videos. But he is known colloquially as Bananaman, and here is the humorous video that was done when he won the 2009 Crockoduck award, really I'd rather give traffic to the excellent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAXDUofIAzM&feature=player_detailpage#t=236">Potholer54</a> than living waters, or whatever Money making scheme Ray has dreamt up.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/aAXDUofIAzM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
So Ray, has a line he uses a lot in his videos and "debates", I say debates as he doesn't really debate, just soapboxes and proselytises, he is good "fun". You would think he is a comedy act if you didn't know it was for real.<br />
Anyway here is his general line of argument, with Ray in bold, and the unwitting respondent following on.<br />
<br />
<b>Have you ever said a lie</b>? Yes<b>.<br />have you ever stolen anything</b>? Yes.<b><br />Have you ever taken the lords name in vain?</b> Yes<br />
<b>Have you ever looked at a woman/man with lust?</b> Yes<br />
<b>So, Jesus says if you look at a woman with lust, then you have committed adultery in your heart.</b><br />
<b>By your own omission you are a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterers at heart. If God judges you by the standards of the ten commandments where are you going, heaven or hell? </b>Hell/Don't think God would send his loving children to hell (followed by then you think Hitler is in heaven*)<br />
<b>How are you going to escape the damnation of hell? </b>Don't know<b> </b><br />
<b>Because you know the bible says the wages of sin is death.</b> <b>But there is a way out, God gave his only son for your sin, so you have to accept Jesus into your life and confess your sin, then you can have everlasting life.</b><br />
<br />
<b>************************************</b><br />
<br />
I am always surprised that this gives people even the supposed Atheists on his videos a moment where they seem to pause and reflect on it, almost deciding well hey I may as well believe just in case hey... or the old "I have to get right with my faith" line. It is Pascals wager, badly disguised in a long form to baffle people.<br />
<br />
I have written the below to counter it;<br />
<br />
<b>Have you ever stolen from someone you are not at war with?</b> Yes<br />
<b>Have you ever been a coward?</b> Yes<br />
<b>Have you ever Betrayed anyone?</b> Yes<br />
<br />
<b>Then by your own omission you are a thieving, cowardly, betrayer. And by those standards, Woden would send you to Heck to be tormented. So where do you think you are going? (don't wait for an answer, think what would Ray do... beyond creative editing aka lying)</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/GW05npbQHVs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<b>But there is hope, if you trust in Thor who petitioned Woden on man kinds behalf, if you fight with bravery and honour, and die in a battle while upholding these standards then you will not enter Heck, the Valkyries will rescue you to Valhalla to drink mead with Woden for all eternity.</b><br />
<br />
Obviously few believe this now, and even if they do I see very few Nordes
marching off to a Just war (is there any such thing now-a-days?). It is a
perfect refutation of Ray's dumbed down Pascals wager, but he will never hear
it, or respond with... "oh but how many people actually believe in Woden
or Thor", an Argument ad Populum, a logical fallacy, Woden and Thor are
just as likely to be True (if not a little more so as their claim is less than
omnipotence) than Yahweh and Jesus.<br />
<br />
*The counter to is Hitler in heaven is an easy one... How many people did
Hitler kill, in the order of tens of millions right, do you think even killing
tens of millions deserves an eternal torment and torture... if so then you are
lacking in empathy as I doubt any person could sentence even the worst person
to an unjust amount of torture for their crimes, let the crime fit the
punishment, eternal can never fit a crime carried out in a limited time such as
a human lifetime.<br />
<br />
This was just a quick post, I am working on a couple big ones at the moment,
a takedown of the some (hehe) Catholic apologetics, and a skeptics annotated
catechism, and a full on book (I have written way to much and self-editing is hard)... So yeah posts may be a little sporadic.<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:DoNotShowComments/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-AU</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-50909984837921896042014-02-15T10:46:00.000+11:002014-02-17T13:43:44.225+11:00Rebuttal to reasons atheism is stupidSometimes I read an article and get incensed enough I have to write a reply, the below did that for me, don't worry they are the same arguments you have heard for years; <a href="http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/11/5-reasons-atheism-stupid-2/">http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/11/5-reasons-atheism-stupid-2/</a><br />
<br />
Lets start with the opening, yes the bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God... it also said; "anyone who claims another is a fool is in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22. So I guess that writer of Psalms and this writer are going to hell if it exists.<br />
I shouldn't need to point out that an insult is the lowest form of attack, a simple ad hominem attack, with no merit. I agree that ideas need to be challenged and they can be insulted, but if you ever complain about someone calling your beliefs stupid then you have no right to put that label on someone Else's lack of belief... even if your beliefs include a talking snake, a talking donkey or a being who sent them self to earth to atone for their creations sin that offended itself, to appease itself so it wouldn't send its creation to a hell it created or allowed to be created... If we are going to go on stupid, surely buying the story of a virgin birth is stupid, surely buying the water into wine, walking on water, and the posthumous empty promise of punishment or reward is right up there with the stupidest things mankind has ever believed. But I digress, lets get into it.<br />
<h3>
1 - The existence of the universe.</h3>
Yes the universe exists, wow that must be proof of God... uh no, it would clearly be better evidence for the existence of God if we humans existed in a space that was not a universe, say a floating realm where all our need where met...<br />
<br />
The analogy here with the ball is silly, we have explanations for how balls come into existence from existing matter, as do we for planets, stars, galaxies and the entire visible universe, they are all natural explanations. Sure the explanation for the initial conditions the singularity are not yet known, but it is more honest to start with "I don't know" and search for an answer than to start with "Magic pixies started the universe off" and then only look at things that confirm your assumption.<br />
<br />
Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies.<br />
<h3>
2 - The Big bang.</h3>
The universe contracting back and forth forever isn't quite <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce">settled</a>, some evidence is pointing to that it may in fact be part of a <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm">multiverse</a>. Regardless if all of this fails to bring sufficient evidence, you can't say "I don't know"..."therefore God", as this will put your God in the ever receding pocket of ignorance that its forebears occupied, ignorance such as Thor being responsible for lightning (sorry Thor, you are totally the reason for lightning), a giant wolf eating the sun during eclipses, and the earth being held aloft by a giant tree.<br />
<br />
Atheists I know are happy with whichever way the evidence points, atheists like Bill Nye and Matt Dillahunty have both said all it would take to convince them that their position on God/s is wrong is evidence, theists like Ken Ham just said nothing could convince him his position is wrong, which is more intellectually honest.<br />
<br />
So again to take your argument and give it undue merit, lets say the universe had a definite beginning 13.8billion years ago, not the 6-10,000 that creationists argue, not the length of time humans have been around as a literal interpretation of the bible suggests, but 13.8billion years ago. OK, so what, it doesn't have to have a supernatural cause, everything so far observed has had a natural cause why should this be any different. There are plenty of possible causes from quantum mechanics to the bounce theory of universe inflation deflation, all of them infinitely more likely than a timeless, spaceless pixie... sorry God.<br />
<br />
Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies, which are both a lot less likely than natural causes we have observed.<br />
3 - The design of the universe.<br />
<br />
There is a bit of an argument to authority here, just because one previously atheist cosmologist now believes in God, doesn’t mean there is any evidence in modern physics or cosmology to point to God. In fact to counter your argument to authority with an argument ad populum (argument to numbers), 70% of the USA’s national institute of science, doesn’t believe in a personal God, Hawking has said God is un-needed and Victor Stenger has written a very good book debunking these cosmological constants need to be just perfect for life to exist. The truth is we just don’t know, life could actually be more likely in a universe with different constants, or it could be worse, we don’t have another universe accessible to us with these different constants in place in which to test your hypothesis that life is only viable in universe with constants with these particular values.<br />
<br />
No one is suggesting that life came about by chance, no biologist or physicist I have ever spoken to is that naïve. Natural selection seems to be a driving force for biological life. The constants being the way they are may not be chance, they may not be able to be any different. There is a principle called the anthropic principal, which basically states that the universe is capable of supporting life because we are here to observe it, eg I have seen these arguments before, because I tend to read websites with these arguments. It would be more amazing and confounding if we existed in world incapable of supporting life, or if everywhere was capable I mean the 99.999% of the universe that is extremely hostile to us the vacuum of space, the radiation… if all that was not there and the entire universe was habitable then your argument would hold more water, at present it is weak.<br />
<br />
My favourite quote on this is from Douglas Adams;<br />
<br />
“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”<br />
<br />
The universe doesn’t appear at all designed for us, surely if it were designed for us the entirety of space would contain breathable air, no deadly radiation. It is as likely for a God to exist that created the universe like this as it is for a tornado to whip through a scrap yard and build a 1979 Valiant charger.<br />
<h3>
4 – The design of mankind.</h3>
We don’t know what the first life was, just like a lot of first things they aren’t around anymore. The other issues is microscopic weak early cells don’t fossilise or leave much of a trace. Darwin was likely right, the first life was likely simple, probably not even DNA at all, but RNA like viruses that contain half the information that DNA does. I am no biologist, but they are currently looking at non-biological replication, such as rusts and the like that are leading us to some interesting conclusions. Again why does life have to start with a supernatural cause, when every other thing we have witnessed gets started with a natural cause.<br />
<br />
Yes Dawkins is right a single DNA molecule has a lot of information, but he didn’t suggest that just popped into existence one day, that is the theists claim. He proposes as do a whole swath of scientists investigating abiogenesis that life took millennia to form even the simplest of single celled bacteria. DNA is not data, or code or a message. It is just chemistry writ large, it only has a code that we have assigned to it, a message due to the way we or amino acids interpret it. Therefore DNA didn’t require a mind, just as chemistry doesn’t, therefore God doesn’t need to exists.<br />
<h3>
5 – The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.</h3>
Which historians have come to a consensus that Jesus even existed. A consensus means all the historians agree, this is simply false; there are plenty as listed below;<br />
<br />
These all have their own cases, the Nazareth bit of the name is supposedly a town, that didn’t exist till well after Jesus’ death, the time line in the gospels is wrong, the story inconsistent between the gospels, as well as known forgeries and additions, look up “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” for some fun, a section that there is almost consensus on it being a forgery. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory</a><br />
<br />
Saying that the willingness to die for ones beliefs validates them is also wrong, the suicide bombers the world over are willing to die for their beliefs, the Romans fought and died for their Gods as did the Greeks, Egyptians and others.<br />
<br />
Again an argument to authority here, a historian can’t explain the rise of the popularity of Christianity unless Jesus rose from the dead… I can’t explain the rise in the popularity and wealth of the Mormon church unless Joseph Smith did get those golden plates and speak to the angel Moroni, I can’t explain the rise of Islam so quickly across the middle east unless Mohammed did speak to the angel Gabriel. These are erroneous arguments, the popularity of an idea even the quick rise in popularity does not lend any credence to the claim.<br />
<br />
Not all of the previously mentioned claims of religions can be true, but they can all be wrong.<br />
<br />
The best idea is to way the existing evidence for a claim with the logical possibilities or impossibilities of that claim, say if I claim I have a mobile phone. It is not that impossible a claim so you may accept it out of hand, say I am God and you can see the logical impossibilities in this statement (why do I bother working, why aren't I killing the first born of Egypt etc), and you can also weigh this with the fact I have given no evidence of my God-like abilities and you can dismiss my claim. This is all that an atheist does with religions. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-87357791048166808942014-02-06T21:22:00.000+11:002014-02-06T21:22:48.768+11:00Why Frozen and Brave maybe the most important films of our time. <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-AU</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Sorry spoilers ahead.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Frozen has be lauded as a phenomenal piece of work by Disney
for reasons of <a href="http://geekmom.com/2013/11/feminist-controversy-frozen-misses-point/">Feminism </a>and <a href="http://stevensalvatoreshaw.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/disneys-frozen/">LGBTI</a> rights. Not only does she not get saved by
prince charming, no-one does. Like the other excellent work by Disney; Brave the
women save themselves. Damn straight they save themselves, they are tough and worthy of praise.
But that is not the only reason why it is the most important film of our time, after-all princess Fiona in Shrek (although not Disney at the time) saved herself a few times, and taught kids it was OK to be different.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Disney, whether you like it or not. Informs and changes the
world with the next generation. It does reflect somewhat the current times, but
in these two pieces it goes further, to tell little girls and boys out there watching it
that they don’t need to depend on someone else to save or complete them. It tells
everyone that the way they are born should be accepted, and that following
convention doesn’t always lead to the best result.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anna’s love saves Elsa and vice versa in Frozen, there is no
prince charming here to save them. The Queen in Brave saves everyone, and
defeats the undefeatable bear Mor'du, while her daughter manages to fix the
mistake she made in tricking her mother, I also love the scene where she shoots
for her own hand in marriage, yes I knew what was going to happen but it was
played out brilliantly. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Princess Anna
and Princess Merida aren’t always perfect princesses; they have their moments
of just being a person, messy hair in the morning, dirty dresses and feet on
seats. But they can still be ladies, still be strong, brave and confident and
still very caring and loving. They don’t even have to have a man to be the
leader of a nation as all these heroines prove, they get stuff done themselves,
gone are the sleeping/locked-up princesses of yore that needed a man to save
them.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then there is the LGBTI angle at least on Frozen, I did notice the sauna scene, but thought it was a son... how heteronormative of me. The song is the bit that first got me, so <a href="http://www.toplessrobot.com/2014/01/frozen_is_walt_disney_animations.php">I looked it up</a>, seems I was right there are other people thinking it is one big coming out anthem. Another big tick for this movie; acceptance and strength of conviction.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I want to address some of the criticisms in the articles I cited. Yes the princesses in both Brave and Frozen are "pretty", I don't think that is so bad, so are 99% of female and male leads, we are used to it. We already have the story I mentioned before of Shrek and the inner beauty which is shown in that. But regardless they are supposed to be princesses, and yet they all show their human traits of being less than attractive at several points throughout the films. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The sun is definitely rising on acceptance for whoever you are, a world empowered to the point were coming out doesn't need to happen anymore as no ones orientation will be assumed, a world were little girls and boys and everything in between are happy to be who they are.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So all the kids out there that see these films the
hundred or so times as they are likely to see it will grow a little bit stronger
and more confident. This film will have repercussions in 20 years’ time that
will see new prosperity and it makes me immensely happy, needless to say they
will be on high rotation for my kids once Disney releases them on DVD. Till then Fiona has bought the "Let It Go" song By Idina Menzel on Google play, and I plan to buy the whole soundtrack once I find it. <br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That does bring me to a question I wanted to ask, which version of "Let It Go" is better, the one by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk">Idina Menzel</a> or the one by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHue-HaXXzg">Demi Lovato</a>, my opinion is the first... and I have played it a few times today to confirm that :)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-64966426661286494642014-01-28T19:00:00.000+11:002014-01-30T11:08:49.478+11:00Advance Australia fairWell another Australia day has come and gone, and it has made me
think of a couple things. There was a lot of Australian pride on display
out and about. I am proud to be Australian, but I think our patriotism
is moving towards Jingoism, towards aggressive stop the boats, keep em
in Indonesian waters attitudes. What's next getting our kids to stand,
hand on heart every day reciting a pledge of our undying narrow-minded
love for Australia. I can see it now, Teacher: Lets all stand to say the
Australian pledge of allegiance. Students: Aussie, Aussie, Aussie...
OI, OI, OI.<br />
<br />
I usually think of Socrates when I see
people adorned in the Australian flag, or the boxing kangaroo. Socrates
supposedly said said "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of
the world", I think we need to remember that, and try and tear down the
barriers of nationality.<br />
<br />
The second thing I was
thinking of is related to the first, a particular member of Sydney
atheists is an "illegal" refugee, meaning they came here after not being
able to get to the embassy in their home country to apply to refugee
status. This person is extremely intelligent, fast becoming very
articulate in English and would be an enormous asset to this country.
However there is no precedent for leaving your home country due to
non-belief... sure if you believe differently to your home country then
you are welcome here, even if you have no intention of contributing to
society or integrating. But surely non-believers could just fake it
right? Forget about the possible punishments in some of these countries
if your non-belief is found out, or you show any sign of independent and
rational thought...<br />
<br />
Then while I was thinking of what
could possibly done to help this person and many others that are out
there I hear the oft unheard second verse of our national anthem and the
below bars stuck out at me;<br />
<br />
"For those who've come across the seas, We've boundless plains to share"<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to change those lines...<br />
Maybe
we need to actually evaluate peoples cases a bit better and keep up on
current reasons for refugees, it won't be long before we have homosexual
refugees fleeing Russia's draconian homophobic laws, and non-believing
refugees from the Middle Eastern, European, and African theocracies. As
the aforementioned persons case is a tenuous one, I have spared details.
But perhaps if everyone could write their local member, write the
newspapers and let them know that non-believers are being persecuted and
are likely to come here as refugees, then maybe awareness can be raised
and this is the last time we lose someone who is not just a nice
person, but would be a boon for any country.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-6411460289248599112013-12-29T20:00:00.000+11:002013-12-30T14:39:51.800+11:00Christianity is more ridiculous than all other religions<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sure we know all religions are pretty crazy, if it isn’t a
volcano burying, nuclear bomb detonating aliens, it is the land being made of
slain giants and children being born of the sea froth on a severed certain part
of the genitals. Whereas Christianity, a benevolent Zombie is going to come
back and save you from his dad, yeah makes about as much sense. Sure my
opponents here will say their ex-religion is the most ridiculous. I am sorry
but they can’t compete.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Judaism came before Christianity, and all Judaism’s
craziness has been inherited and enhanced. Islam came after, but tries too hard
to be the new crazy kid on the block.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rQz4vYYiX_c/Ur0RqUYzWQI/AAAAAAAAE3k/-1JB-V_fW5Y/s1600/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rQz4vYYiX_c/Ur0RqUYzWQI/AAAAAAAAE3k/-1JB-V_fW5Y/s200/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dV3szilKgCc/Ur0Q4N1xW6I/AAAAAAAAEz8/ON97uGmleWY/s1600/Slide2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a>
Plus how can you compete with the idea of the trinity.
Something so confusing that there have been innumerable tomes written on it, so
confusing that entire sects of Christianity have made it their core doctrinal
difference to remove, according to them and Islam the trinity didn’t happen. In
fiction they call this retcon, retroactive continuity, changing a past event to
fit the current story.<br />
<br />
I am not going to try and explain it as it was tough enough to believe when I
was a believer.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RVA43ihGVJ8/Ur0Rrn7yuSI/AAAAAAAAE4I/kmv69RNeCsw/s1600/West+Wollongong_Edmund+Rice+College.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RVA43ihGVJ8/Ur0Rrn7yuSI/AAAAAAAAE4I/kmv69RNeCsw/s200/West+Wollongong_Edmund+Rice+College.png" width="140" /></a>I actually had a desire, in high school to go into the
seminary. I discussed it with my School priest, and seriously considered it.
The priest actually talked me out of it, advising me I should get some life
experience first. I am glad he did, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. <br />
<br />
I found out pretty quickly that a lot of the religions of the world are mutually
exclusive, that even some denominations of Christianity are, they actually
proclaim others are wrong so they can’t all be right. This and the shear
logical inconsistencies of an Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
omnipresent deity, that somehow still allowed evil to exist led, me to realise Christianity
was ridiculous. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6Z5yiUpUPw/Ur0RsnfwpfI/AAAAAAAAE4c/KzwWtacF5fA/s1600/cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6Z5yiUpUPw/Ur0RsnfwpfI/AAAAAAAAE4c/KzwWtacF5fA/s320/cover.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Christians can’t even agree with each other, sure there are
different denominations of Jews and Muslims, orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, Karaite
Jews, Sunni Muslim, Shia Muslim and others. But Islam and Judaism can’t compete
with Christianity due to the number of versions, anywhere from 10-30,000… or
2.1billion if you believe as some current theories go, that every Christian
justifies their belief in their own way discarding pieces of doctrine they
can’t reconcile. Heck there is a test on line to see which denomination you
should try out; <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://tinyurl.com/xiantest"><b>tinyurl.com/xiantest</b></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
PS it thinks I should be in the Unity Church, not Unitarian
Universalists, but still liberal Christians that don’t believe in a Trinity,
but do believe in spiritual healing and well god…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lpi8FGFpm0A/Ur0RFHtnycI/AAAAAAAAE28/aHVmCdrkXYk/s1600/Slide6.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lpi8FGFpm0A/Ur0RFHtnycI/AAAAAAAAE28/aHVmCdrkXYk/s320/Slide6.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Some of these denominations try and follow all of the laws
of the Old Testament, some don’t. Some disagree on such minor differences as
days in which you should worship, words in prayers and who is the boss, and how
many super powers he has. Some like the<b> </b>Mormons who call themselves Christian are like the unwanted child, with other
Christians denouncing them, due to their “crazy” beliefs. Is it any crazier to
believe that after Jesus ascended into heaven after he had already resurrected,
that he then flew to the Americas to spread the same word to the lost tribe of
Israel? It really isn’t that much of a stretch. Really they have just written a
poor bit of Biblical fan fiction, you can’t blame them when the crazy
groundwork was already laid out.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_3tLpPOG9RQ/Ur0RrXI9SdI/AAAAAAAAE4Q/JNmN5QS7_M0/s1600/Sandro+Botticelli+-+La+Carte+de+l%2527Enfer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_3tLpPOG9RQ/Ur0RrXI9SdI/AAAAAAAAE4Q/JNmN5QS7_M0/s320/Sandro+Botticelli+-+La+Carte+de+l%2527Enfer.jpg" width="320" /></a>Hell is much worse than anything in the Old testament. Some Christians don’t believe in hell, others that we are
living there now. Only through faith… err no good works…err no a combination…
err no it is written and we have no say… can we be saved from eternal torment
of the levels of hell. They can’t even agree on the rules of the game, how is
anyone supposed to play.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh and don’t forget Jesus was sent to save us from Hell… a
hell he introduced into the doctrine. The comparable Jewish Sheol is a walk in
the park. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
(Matthew 5:22, 18:8, 25:41. Mark 9:43. Luke 3:17)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Sure the Muslim hell is “worse”, but again they are trying
too hard. Besides which one is more ridiculous, the one that came up with hell
or the one that expanded on the theme, there is even some <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BHWp_Hr0CVo/Ur0RrCi3PJI/AAAAAAAAE4A/Q7vRzVoluTE/s1600/SpZha.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BHWp_Hr0CVo/Ur0RrCi3PJI/AAAAAAAAE4A/Q7vRzVoluTE/s320/SpZha.jpg" width="249" /></a></div>
evidence the
Christian hell influenced the Nordic creation of Heck, yikes the crazy bled
into the myth with the almighty Thor that ain’t right.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
Heck the Christian idea of hell didn’t even fully come from the bible. The only
mention is of an undying worm and an unquenchable fire. Reminds me of a story from my youth. A friend and I were on a train and a man of questionable sanity got on at a major station, and started chanting "The Zombie and the WORM"... Needless to say we moved from the rather empty carriage we shared with him to a different one. Of course now I know the worm as from the bible is Satan, and the well the Zombie must be the Zombie Christ, back for your brains.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to hell, with us.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The levels of hell for different sinners and the other ideas
come from the known works of fiction “Dante’s Inferno” and “A Paradise Lost”.
How crazy is that, the place that you are going to get barbecued for all
eternity and yet you get most of your tourist information on it from a known work of
fiction.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even Satan isn’t really in charge, he and the angels that
rebelled are prisoners too. He was only able to tempt Jesus and the rest of us
via a whisper from hell… like a creepy obi-wan. It makes it interesting to
think that these demons can somehow effect events on earth even though they are
imprisoned, doesn’t make God a very good gaoler, even us fallible humans find
prisoners cellphones and confiscate them.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The claim that Hell is out of God’s site has been bandied
around a lot, but how is this possible with an omniscient/omnipresent being,
unless he decides to put that place out of his sight, unless he decides to
basically turn a blind eye to a torture he could stop, something most would
consider condoning the act… other religions have basically designated hell as
Gods dungeon, he is still in charge and can let people out if he wants… Fritzl
eat your heart out. <br />
<br />
That’s another point of contention, can you get out once you are sentenced,
some denominations say yes, some say no. Some like a lot of Anglicans agree
with us atheists and say hell doesn’t exist, they go on to say that if you
aren’t worthy you are annihilated. To quote an American catholic priest “Hell
was just an invention to keep people in line”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
There is an interesting argument, supposedly Satan fell to
hell imprisoned for all eternity, well given enough time, oh say an eternity
the chances are 100% that everyone will eventually fall, thus heaven as it is
outside of time is empty.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While we are on the topic of an afterlife. There
are also other destinations in Christian doctrine</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K6V7Zk0e4jU/Ur0RpG_oLQI/AAAAAAAAE3g/jsa_8FOrfMk/s1600/800px-Folk_Music_%2526_Limbo_Dance_C_IMG_2636.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K6V7Zk0e4jU/Ur0RpG_oLQI/AAAAAAAAE3g/jsa_8FOrfMk/s320/800px-Folk_Music_%2526_Limbo_Dance_C_IMG_2636.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Limbo, no not that
one but close enough; which is hell adjacent and split into various sections.
Mainly for those who died unbaptised, but not evil enough to be condemned to
hell. So unbaptised infants, and foetuses that died before birth… yep Church of
England retcon’ed Limbo a while ago and actually had tearful pleas from
adherents who had come to terms with their stillborn child residing there, but
now it was gone they had to mourn the abolition of this child, very sad in an
odd sort of way.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OC7RB6pxX0">Purgatory</a>; heaven adjacent part of Limbo, that is the
celestial waiting room. Somehow you are supposed to be able to be purified
enough here to enter the preferred postmortem destination; the supposed club
med in the sky… Heaven.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g1OCGKHbVSM/Ur0Rqm-DemI/AAAAAAAAE30/p9k5wbfZrr8/s1600/Proof-that-Heaven-is-Hotter-than-Hell-resized-776x1024.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g1OCGKHbVSM/Ur0Rqm-DemI/AAAAAAAAE30/p9k5wbfZrr8/s320/Proof-that-Heaven-is-Hotter-than-Hell-resized-776x1024.png" width="242" /></a></div>
We have the same issue with Heaven as we had with hell,
different Christian religions have different takes. Catholics claim you have to
be a perfect Saint to enter heaven, I was taught that you remain in purgatory
till the end of days when if you have redeemed yourself you will be judged, but
the Catechism that the Catholics follow is a bit vague on this and seems to
allude that you can be deemed a saint by God without the need for canonization…
it is rare that a religious text would be as vague as a horoscope…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Then there is what you’ll be like in this heaven, without
sin or urge to sin, never sad, maybe even becoming a full blown psychopath as
you look down on your relatives and children in hell to be entertained by their
suffering across the eons. (Tertullian 155AD)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then there are other denominations of Christianity that say
only a relatively small number of elect can get into heaven; the small number
of 144 thousand. The rest kick around till the end of days, to live a heaven on
earth in new bodies, an idea stolen from the Jewish idea of a bodily
resurrection when the messiah comes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Onto some more biblical specifics of heaven; yeah it isn’t a
24/7 party with loved ones, as most Christians are led to believe, at least not
according to the scriptures, it is just a story as it has evolved, just like
Hell.<br />
<br />
Jesus only talks about his father having many rooms in house and being together
with him in paradise…show off. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Paul says that Jesus will be seated at Gods right hand, and
then in the, some would say certifiably insane book of revelation we get a
better peak at what heaven is supposedly about. Long story short, you can’t see
God as he is a fire that would burn your soul, so he is surrounded by Seraphim…
no not pretty little angels, beasts with six wings, that are so terrifying they
also cover themselves with a set of these wings, lest you catch a glimpse of
their bodies and burn, then around them are 24 elders seated on thrones
chanting praise to the Lord saying “Holy, Holy, Holy is the lord God almighty,
who was and is, and is to come”, and then in a torturous round, every soul that
has gone to heaven sits around this spectacle praising the lord with the
different verse “<span class="text">To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb</span>
<span class="text">be praise and Honor and glory and power,</span> <span class="text">for ever and ever!”</span>… Sounds like a blast. I wonder how many
suicides they have among the elders and elect?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Then of course there is the aforementioned proto-Christian
Mormons, who if they are really good Mormons, they’ll get their own planet to
rule over as a god… What I want to know is who gets the lifeless hell hole of Venus
or the frigid dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt? You only get this highest of
heavens if you tithe as well as you can, this is actually in their doctrine…<br />
Then there are two other heavens, one for the ones who followed Moses laws, so
you would have been OK for that one Steve and Hussain, then the lower heaven
for the rest of us who don’t do too badly but don’t follow Moses law.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Catholics even argue at the highest levels on who can get
in, can you get in due to only your good deeds as the Pope claimed some of us
good atheists could, or do you have to believe as one of his Cardinals later
corrected?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So seems they can’t agree on the rules for heaven either…<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d9-jhHYVsZ4/Ur0Q-nOuOVI/AAAAAAAAE0g/n0ZjKiwXDGc/s1600/Slide13.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d9-jhHYVsZ4/Ur0Q-nOuOVI/AAAAAAAAE0g/n0ZjKiwXDGc/s320/Slide13.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
On
to something else before I finish.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sure there has been some violence done by my opponents
ex-religions, they both pale in comparison to the wrongs so far wrought on
humanity by Christianity. Just Catholicism alone has killed approximately 50million
people due to the inquisitions and witch hunts, 15 million South American
Indians, and 7-12 million in the 30years war.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iOafaOa9dBw/Ur0Q-7fdkuI/AAAAAAAAE0s/1BE3BIbvJS4/s1600/Slide14.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iOafaOa9dBw/Ur0Q-7fdkuI/AAAAAAAAE0s/1BE3BIbvJS4/s320/Slide14.JPG" width="320" /></a><br />
Not to mention the centuries of Crusades from 11<sup>th</sup>-13<sup>th</sup>
centuries and the additional 15<sup>th</sup> century crusade. The aiding of the
Nazi’s during World War 2 and well the Nazis themselves and the general
recommendation in Africa that condom use will condemn one to hell and not stop
the spread of HIV, plus pushing for “witches” to be punished and homosexuals
executed.<br />
Remember what Hitchens said, “Remember what they did when they were in power”,
Islam has a bit of power now and is flexing its muscles, and Christianity had
power for hundreds of years and had a lot more unfettered practise. (Gustave Dore crusades Richard and Saladin at the battle of Arsuf) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
The Vatican and most fundamentalists Christians also espouse
opinions on demons and exorcisms, believe in magic, witchcraft, telling the
future, demons, including funnelling them into pigs, and talking snakes and
donkeys.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Besides neither of my colleagues ex-religions have the
divine actually sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself… think about
the utter-absurdity of that for a second. Add to that the Catholic doctrine
that the wafer and plonk becomes the literal body and blood, and you have for
one absolute LSD induced, ridiculous belief system.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tdYtWN4MCRY/Ur0Q-zzyOkI/AAAAAAAAE0w/KsvtsMEiDFo/s1600/Slide15.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tdYtWN4MCRY/Ur0Q-zzyOkI/AAAAAAAAE0w/KsvtsMEiDFo/s320/Slide15.JPG" width="320" /></a>The mythos around Christianity is certainly extensive. There
are angels, demons, spirits and sorcery, witches, devils. Then there are things
that actually exist, although to same level of effectiveness as the previous
monikers, monks, brothers, sisters, Priests, bishops, cardinals, arch-bishops,
pastors, lay priests (no not what you think), and of course the pope, picked by
God… yet he can make mistakes and leave the job when he no longer feels like
it… what is the phrase, what God puts together let no man put asunder.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xVMAFeFql3A/Ur0Q_TonX7I/AAAAAAAAE04/eKQ0Zt1Sc0k/s1600/Slide16.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xVMAFeFql3A/Ur0Q_TonX7I/AAAAAAAAE04/eKQ0Zt1Sc0k/s320/Slide16.JPG" width="320" /></a>To finish off this bit, both Islam and Judaism have their
crazy leaders, none that can compare with a magic-smoke/God appointed
infallible leader like the pope. What is the phrase his own boss supposedly
said while on earth, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter heaven (<b>NOTE</b>, there was a comment about this usage, yes the eye of the needle may have
been a real place that it was difficult to traverse by camel, but the issue with
the popes wealth still remains, although regardless there is some evidence and
other uses of this eye of the needle phrase in the bible <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Christianity">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Christianity</a>
). Yet popes get sainted all the time, thus under the rules of their religion,
free ticket to heaven. Although they live in luxury and can claim they are
poor, they never want for anything, and are usually adorned with fine clothes
and jewelry. Sure Pope Francis can claim he washes the feet of the poor, is he
truly poor like the 3billion people that live on less than $2.50a day?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pbDs6F5ErN4/Ur0Q_0DoMsI/AAAAAAAAE1E/YRZkutUdSfQ/s1600/Slide17.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pbDs6F5ErN4/Ur0Q_0DoMsI/AAAAAAAAE1E/YRZkutUdSfQ/s320/Slide17.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
The current Pope has been praised for his better attitude, yet still refuses to
share sex abuse information with the UN (<a href="http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9B304620131204?irpc=932">http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9B304620131204?irpc=932</a>
), and preaches fire and brimstone from the pulpit (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10441960/Pope-Francis-corrupt-should-be-tied-to-a-rock-and-thrown-into-the-sea.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10441960/Pope-Francis-corrupt-should-be-tied-to-a-rock-and-thrown-into-the-sea.html</a>).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So peace be with you, my brothers, sisters, trans and
intersexed… but fuck the pope.<br />
<br />
I should appologise for using the lower second image in my talk, I have recently found it to be <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/francis.asp">false</a>. He did say the other things, and this; </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HfwgrZ0z39w/Ur6UChAJ78I/AAAAAAAAE4s/MZ7_raMiq2M/s1600/P0pMd.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HfwgrZ0z39w/Ur6UChAJ78I/AAAAAAAAE4s/MZ7_raMiq2M/s320/P0pMd.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
I have previously done a couple talks on ridiculous aspects
of Christianity, they are up on my blog <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2012/08/the-christian-occult-yes-such-thing.html">here </a>and <a href="http://atheism.morganstorey.com/2012/07/catholicism-arch-diocese-of-crazy.html">here</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<h3>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Second section:</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fejs6v1ShMM/Ur0RECsCmJI/AAAAAAAAE2o/KCuTna0-LVg/s1600/Slide30.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fejs6v1ShMM/Ur0RECsCmJI/AAAAAAAAE2o/KCuTna0-LVg/s320/Slide30.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Christianity has American gun nuts on their side who make things like this, so I think on the ridiculous front, we win.<br />
<br />
To counter my opponents points;<br />
Jews don’t as far as I am aware resort to creationism very often, plus they don’t
have the rich tradition of creationist apologetics. Apologetics that include
answers on how all the animals got distributed from the Ark via volcanoes, I
kid you not. Koala’s, Platypus, Kangaroos, and all Australian marsupials got
launched into low earth orbit to reach Australia, somehow avoiding burn up on
re-entry and the skeletal issues a sudden deceleration on impact with the
ground would cause.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
There was lots of punishments doled out in the Torah, but
not much recently, Christians have metered some out recently. Besides Hell is
much worse than all these ancient tortures combined, and as I mentioned in the
first section Jesus invented it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
I know I rambled on about an afterlife in the first piece,
it is an obsession of people of all faiths, a carrot for their end. This
section will be more generic.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Td99ouna5Cg/Ur0RsnS_EjI/AAAAAAAAE4g/5Nf2beGRHwk/s1600/tumblr_m3czs8t2ze1ruzuo6o1_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Td99ouna5Cg/Ur0RsnS_EjI/AAAAAAAAE4g/5Nf2beGRHwk/s320/tumblr_m3czs8t2ze1ruzuo6o1_1280.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Sure Judaism introduced Yahweh, aka Jehovah (depending on
how you pronounce the Tetragrammatons, if you are even allowed to, what is he
Voldermort, sorry he who must not be named), aka Adonai, aka Elohim, aka I AM…
that is a lot of aka’s maybe he is on the run. So sure maybe Judaism introduced
this mess, but Christianity made it popular. About 50% of Jews are
non-believers according to some surveys, Christians run the gamut from those
who believe in belief as Dan Dennett would put it, to fundamentalists who kill
for their cause to this day in abortion clinics, and 3<sup>rd</sup> world
countries.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oc9SwhgJrvM/Ur0Rr_wCz6I/AAAAAAAAE4M/5Uea4eAtpj4/s1600/bs427.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="80" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oc9SwhgJrvM/Ur0Rr_wCz6I/AAAAAAAAE4M/5Uea4eAtpj4/s320/bs427.gif" width="320" /></a>Christians are also quick to claim persecution, sure they
were persecuted long ago… so many Christians so few Lions, but they are not
persecuted now because stores prefer to keep all their Muslim, atheist, Hindu,
and Buddhist customers happy by simply saying happy holidays.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BCRD0i_qcow/Ur0RAwg367I/AAAAAAAAE1c/lNVbj5_QmhY/s1600/Slide21.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BCRD0i_qcow/Ur0RAwg367I/AAAAAAAAE1c/lNVbj5_QmhY/s320/Slide21.JPG" width="320" /></a>Christians also happily push other ridiculous and contradictory
beliefs, anti-abortion, but pro-gun, pro-war. Heck they have setup pickets in
front of legitimate abortion clinics, setup fake clinics, setup “help lines” to
guilt helpless women out of the procedure and then the extremists will simply
go kill a doctor, because nothing says pro-life like killing someone. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Christians are divided into different denominations, which I
already mentioned. But these are divided even further… with different sects
inside these denominations. I mentioned Opus Dei in my previous talk on
Catholicism, and it is on my blog. But there are also loads of others. Yep that
is there whip for self-flagellation.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-47L1s2_SpvA/Ur0RBPRNUyI/AAAAAAAAE1k/-h6RFY4B_iA/s1600/Slide22.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-47L1s2_SpvA/Ur0RBPRNUyI/AAAAAAAAE1k/-h6RFY4B_iA/s320/Slide22.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
That is the St Francis, or Franciscan cross, complete with apparent Jesus
penis (encircled). Then there are the Augustinians, Jesuits, and Dominicans. Even the
Catholics that usually present as a united front behind the Pope aren’t united,
there is the Old Catholic church, splinter Catholics in Africa, South America
etc. Even Catholics that are Geocentrists. These Geocentrists beat the earth
splitting/Neil Armstrong was a Muslim conspiracy theorists hands down… they
deny we even went to the moon, and satellites are pinned to the firmament or
rotating beneath it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Muslims see the Quran as the perfect word of God, some
branches of Christianity see the King James Version (first translated in 1611)
as the perfect word… something that has been translated from a translation from
a copy… At least Islam is somewhat consistent.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Muslims make pilgrimages to the Kaba or the Dome of the
rock, at least these places are interesting, not a stain on a door or a burnt
piece of toast.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The claim of our ex-Muslim representative that most Muslims
see the Quran as the final unedited word of the Abrahamic God, is quickly
trumped by the Mormon’s who see Islam as a precursor to their own religion.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Catholicism is obviously my forte, what with being steeped
in it for 20 odd years. With Pilgrimages to holy sites, discredited relics… you
will notice the background I chose for my slides looks a little like the Shroud
of Turin, no accident I assure you. A shroud that was subject to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin">radiocarbon testing</a> that came back with evidence it was made between 1260 and 1390.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qHY8h0zfD6w/Ur0RBZobp-I/AAAAAAAAE1o/12BrhVMHjwg/s1600/Slide23.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qHY8h0zfD6w/Ur0RBZobp-I/AAAAAAAAE1o/12BrhVMHjwg/s320/Slide23.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
I shall try and wander from Catholicism out into the wider
ridiculous Christian environment… Let’s start with my favourites, creationists.
Though this isn’t a far wander as the aforementioned Catholic Geocentrists are
also creationists… even the infamous creationist Ken Ham said the Bible is
silent on geocentrism. It isn’t but that is another argument.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Creationists, who we have debated before, check YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKGqibbei90">here</a>.<br />
To break down their beliefs, they
believe in a worldwide conspiracy by atheist scientists to suppress belief in
creation to push the atheist agenda, I guess as I am not a Scientist I don’t
get the cut of this lucrative cover-up money… This is so ridiculous, even other
Christians make fun of them. They not only have to ignore a mountain of
evidence in multiple areas of research, they have to deny evolution or wiggle
it into “micro evolution” when it comes to evolving pathogens…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtY_Co6Nb0w/Ur0RB-aFLdI/AAAAAAAAE10/MRNQNI_1IV8/s1600/Slide24.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtY_Co6Nb0w/Ur0RB-aFLdI/AAAAAAAAE10/MRNQNI_1IV8/s320/Slide24.JPG" width="320" /></a>Christian mega churches are another middle child only
phenomenon. Ridiculous structures, the size of university campuses, they will
regularly see more than 2000 attendees on a single weekend, this includes one
in our own neck of the woods Hillsong, which gets 24,000 in a single weekend.
They even managed to fill the allphones arena a while back for a one night only
event with attendance topping a ridiculous 21,000. These mega churches can’t
compete with old money though, St Peter’s has held 60,000 for Christmas mass
before, and its adjoining palace has an estimated 11,000 rooms… Besides without all these mega churches you wouldn’t get
real pastors saying things like that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-say5qsjG15Q/Ur0RCV70WkI/AAAAAAAAE2A/Tr9dH9ptueA/s1600/Slide26.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-say5qsjG15Q/Ur0RCV70WkI/AAAAAAAAE2A/Tr9dH9ptueA/s200/Slide26.JPG" width="200" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dQPP26UYuOQ/Ur0RCfzYAZI/AAAAAAAAE18/rBV2VC_HeR8/s1600/Slide25.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dQPP26UYuOQ/Ur0RCfzYAZI/AAAAAAAAE18/rBV2VC_HeR8/s200/Slide25.JPG" width="200" /></a><br />
To wrap up this section a bit about Jesus…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TMRfuGIa25I/Ur0RDDzyR1I/AAAAAAAAE2Y/KXpq54FSunM/s1600/Slide28.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TMRfuGIa25I/Ur0RDDzyR1I/AAAAAAAAE2Y/KXpq54FSunM/s200/Slide28.JPG" width="200" /></a><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-npJ5QfvBPqc/Ur0RCsKZnYI/AAAAAAAAE2M/7vqWz1OVWVc/s1600/Slide27.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-npJ5QfvBPqc/Ur0RCsKZnYI/AAAAAAAAE2M/7vqWz1OVWVc/s200/Slide27.JPG" width="200" /></a>How many Jesus’s are there, every insane ward is filled with
them, every small little cult like the Divine Truth in Brisbane (AJ Miller) or
the Branch Davidians in Waco have their own Jesus at the helm. We need to sit
all these Jesus’ down together and get them to hash it out, see which one can
come back from the dead zombie style, quick ferment water into wine and pirate
loaves and fishes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c4zupZAtZgM/Ur0RDaTQw1I/AAAAAAAAE2U/k58Fp12akyc/s1600/Slide29.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c4zupZAtZgM/Ur0RDaTQw1I/AAAAAAAAE2U/k58Fp12akyc/s320/Slide29.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Then there is the supposed reason for his coming to earth…<br />
Your kids do wrong, so in your infinite power you make a chosen child, which is
actually you, whom you then send to earth, pre-destined to die as a sacrifice
to yourself to appease your own lust for vengeance… What drugs where the writers
of this text on. Absolutely ridiculous, really puts the Pegasus ride and the
mountain of foreskins to shame</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
As we saw from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlreWZllIY">Raphael’s talk</a> a couple of months ago, and I
am sure by now you have all read his book. The case for Christ is a rather tenuous
one. There is a lot of evidence against the story being accurate, even
Christian theologians will quickly stand down if you push them on the
legitimacy of the birth myth with; the fact that there was never a census of
the entire Roman Empire, such an event is not recorded anywhere else and having
the entire population of the empire travel across Europe and North Africa just
to return to the land of the father's birth is ridiculous. There was a Judean
census, but then we fall into different problems. One Gospel states that this
happened during the reign of King Herod, but another account says that this
happened during the rule of the Emperor Augustus. This is an issue because
there was around 40 years between the death of one and the rise of the other.
Essentially, according to the Bible, Jesus was born, lived, died, rose again
and ascended into heaven allowing a full 7 years before the next account
suggests he was even born. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Ridiculous time line, ridiculous beliefs, ridiculous
traditions, ridiculous religion.</div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Closing:</b></h3>
<span lang="EN-AU">Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said,
"Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said,
"God loves you. Do you believe in God?"</span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian
or a Jew?" </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant
or Catholic?" </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What
franchise?" </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern
Baptist or Southern Baptist?" </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Northern Baptist." I
said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"</span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said,
"Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern
Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Northern Conservative
Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"</span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of
1912?" </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region
Council of 1912." </span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
By Emo Phillips.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All religions are crazy, but are they ridiculous. <br />
Are they able to be ridiculed? Sure plenty of comedians make a living off of
ridiculing Judaism, plenty more make plenty more of ridiculing Christianity,
you don’t see many ridiculing Islam, none is that brave. <br />
In this respect Christianity is the most ridiculed, thus the most ridiculous. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More ridiculous in the fact that there pantheon of sects is
larger than any of my opponents religions, the fact that there mythos is so
convoluted it would take several lifetimes to get up to speed, the fact that
they expect you to buy imperviousness to weapons, poisons and harm, to buy a
wafer becomes real flesh, that there adherents speak unknown languages or talk
to the creator of all, or that you will live on forever in worship of this
insecure, viscous, psychopathic, all-loving, all-knowing being. I think it is
clear from the small number of examples I have given that my ex-religion
Christianity is by far the most ridiculous, not just of the religions here, but
all of the ones that have ever been… even with its legitimising 2 billion adherents
protecting it from wider criticism.<br />
<br />
Full debate <a href="http://youtu.be/wO6wUchmSaY">here</a> </div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="371">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footer"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="index heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of figures"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="envelope return"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="footnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="line number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="page number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="endnote text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="table of authorities"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="macro"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="toa heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Bullet 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Number 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Closing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="List Continue 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Message Header"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Salutation"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Date"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Note Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Block Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Hyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Document Map"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Plain Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="E-mail Signature"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal (Web)"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Acronym"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Address"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Cite"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Code"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Definition"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Sample"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="HTML Variable"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Normal Table"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="annotation subject"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="No List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Outline List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Simple 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Classic 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Columns 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Grid 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table List 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Contemporary"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Elegant"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Professional"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Web 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Balloon Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
Name="Table Theme"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-90496482622352059652013-10-28T20:16:00.000+11:002013-12-16T19:10:39.930+11:00William Lane Craig dishonest?So if you don't know who William Lane Craig is (sometimes referred to as simply WLC), I will spare you having to sit through one of his rhetorical debates. He is the lead apologist for Christianity, which basically means he delights in arguing for the Christian viewpoint, and publishing books on his philosophy, one that attempts to proves God's existence, not just any God but the empty tomb God of the bible, with Jesus as his son. He is actually fairly intelligent, very well spoken and very well presented. He does however use faulty logic that has been cut down at every turn by atheists on youtube. He will of course sometimes dismiss their arguments with an appeal to authority, saying he is a published PHD, they are youtubers... yeah sorry that doesn't hold water, your argument must be sound.<br />
<br />
If you really want to see his arguments or the beautiful take downs, have a look, I will recommend some videos at the end.<br />
<br />
<br />
But the video I want to refute is here;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMop6q3dxY"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMop6q3dxY</a>It is only 2 minutes, but I will give you a quick recap. Carl Sagan once said in his truly skeptical fashion "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A good phrase to sum up a decent skeptical position to hold. If someone tells you they can fly, you may ask for a demonstration, if they say they can't demonstrate it now, then you are smart to withhold judgement and ask them when they can demonstrate this extraordinary ability. If they put some condition on it, you could attempt to still test them while fulfilling this condition, but if they refuse to be subject to testing then you would be wise to disbelieve them till some extraordinary evidence came in. Their say so is not enough, even a photo can be faked, you need some testable evidence.<br />
<br />
WLC goes on to probability theory, and says that things that are unlikely to happen statistically should be questioned. Yes that is right, WLC then uses the lottery numbers that were picked as a highly improbable event that should be questioned. It is two improbabilities, surely someone of WLC's intelligence knows this. The likelihood of lottery numbers being picked on a night that they are picked is nearly 100%, the likelihood that a set of numbers a particular individual has chosen maybe 1 in 100 million. But once the numbers have been picked, like a quantum wave function the probability is collapsed to 100%. This is why they record it and have overseers to ensure that it is all legitimate and no cheating is performed.<br />
<br />
The lotto numbers that were picked weren't picked due to some Divine hand, nor was the fact that they were picked an extraordinary claim. What would be an extraordinary claim is if one of the numbers picked contained a letter, but that claim would be satisfied with video evidence. If one of the numbers picked started talking then, maybe even a single source of video evidence may not be enough... if one of the numbers picked, talked (but only to certain people), and managed to create a universe and sentient beings in it, and send a lesser number that was somehow still the same to one of the planets in that created universe then no matter how many sources you had you may never have enough. A book written by ancients who witnessed this miraculous talking number would definitely not be enough evidence.<br />
<br />
So try this on for size WLC, varied levels of claim require equivalent levels of evidence. If you claim a dice landed on 6, and it causes no cost to me, I would likely just believe you. If my house were riding on this dice roll, not only would I want to see the 6, but I would throw the dice myself a few times to ensure it wasn't rigged... if my life were riding on it... well I don't think I would gamble that, but I would spend all my effort to ensure the roll was fair even going so far as to not let another roll the dice.<br />
<br />
He then goes on to try and tie in the bible saying you can offset that probability, one I have already dismissed by determining what is the probability that it would have been reported had it not occurred... Hmm papers and broadcast have misreported the lottery numbers several times, a quick google shows three in the first page of results, just for 2011 (<a href="http://www.northjersey.com/news/116970228_Lawsuit_says_ABC_got_lottery_numbers_wrong.html">http://www.northjersey.com/news/116970228_Lawsuit_says_ABC_got_lottery_numbers_wrong.html</a>) so there is a possibility that it was misreported.<br />
The same thing can be applied to the bible and other texts, was Homers Odyssey misreported, or did Poseidon have it in for Odysseus, were the writings of Heracles (Hercules) misreported, or did Zeus really have an extra-marital affair with a human that ended in a mighty warrior half-god son? These stories are mutually exclusive, so it is best to refrain from judgement till one has evidence for or against. The bible and its stories and adherents are not evidence, any more than the now lost (presumed destroyed by early Christians) books of stories of the Cult of Heracles and his known followers are evidence for his existence. Anecdote and here say does not equal evidence.<br />
<br />
Evidence has mounted against all of them, there are no Gods atop mount Olympus, none yet found in the seas, no signature for Yahweh the God of the bible, and some scholars including one who recently spoke for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlreWZllIY">Sydney atheists</a> are starting to questions Jesus' validity.<br />
Reserving judgement, on all of these is the only honest approach. You can go one step further and dismiss all of the hypothesis till one has clear evidence in its favour. Dismissing hypothesis' such as Zeus, Woden (Odin), FSM and Yahweh (God, Jehova, Elohim, Adonai) .<br />
<br />
All of this I watched, only a few weeks after I saw WLC debate Lawrence Krauss in Sydney were he goes on here to say he is an agnostic, this seems a little dishonest, maybe he isn't convinced by his own water tight arguments? Well small steps Craig, you'll get there eventually. <br />
Of course I make this rather large claim and have some video evidence to back it up, of course WLC can back peddle all he likes but here it is, shortly after Lawrence Krauss states the position that he doesn't claim certainty, as any good scientist should:<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V82uGzgoajI#t=3767"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V82uGzgoajI#t=3767 </a><br />
<br />
WLC take downs;<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo">Theortetical Bullshit's awesome takedown</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIdLmb_m4wA">Contingent argument takedown/Morality</a> This is the same as the age old logical fallacy, some doctors are men, some doctors are tall. Does that mean some men are tall?<br />
You can't actually answer yes with only those two pieces of information, the tall doctors could be all females and all the men in this hypothetical world could be short.<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE"><span id="goog_1466708785"></span>And of course the Awesome skydive Phil<span id="goog_1466708786"></span></a>, who seems to knock WLC's argument down again and again, yet he continues to use them.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1655629004999725391.post-38001211179985954672013-10-05T20:00:00.000+10:002013-10-05T20:00:03.506+10:00New atheists<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3]"><span data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[0]">I have had this post mulling around in my head for a while and I need to get it out.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3]"><span data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[0]">New atheists, oh how I hate that phrase. Most new atheists as they are described by theists, are basing their thought processes on the Socratic method and "new" philosophers like Voltaire and Denis Diderot. These are not new ideas, atheism is not new. What is new is the success that has been attained by these books, success that is well deserved due to hard work and due to timing, nothing more.<br />Socrates is over 2000 years old... I suppose that makes them New atheists in the same sense that Christianity is a new religion, continuing on from Socrates we had Epicurus, you'll know of him and from his problem of evil;</span></span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3]"><span data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[4s658].[1][4][1]{comment10151887446912902_28520401}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[0]"></span></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?</centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Then he is not omnipotent.</centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Is he able, but not willing?</centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Then he is malevolent </centre></i><centre><b>(evil)</b></centre><i><centre>. </centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Is he both able and
willing?</centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Then whence cometh evil?</centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Is he neither able nor willing?</centre></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><centre>Then
why call him God? </centre></i></div>
<br />
Interestingly Epicurus' was taught and influenced by the teachings of Democritus (father of the aptly named Democracy), who was friends with Hippocrates (where the Hippocratic oath gets its name, and thus modern medicine its founding precepts). So this "New" atheism has some 2000 year old ideas.<br />I like to respond to the claim that we are just blindly following these new idols with ironically a paraphrase from Richard Dawkins, the first atheist came into existence when the first conman met the first skeptic. Think about it, some guy comes down from a mountain into your village and says he saw a god atop the mountain that controls its occasional eruptions, and this god requires your devotion and donations of food, this conman will ensure is made pleasing to this god, as he eats it in his hut. <br />
<br />
So, unless you fandangle New Atheists to simply be a definition for the current successful atheists and their books, and those that are effected by them, then you are creating a definition that does not equal the words you have chosen. Most atheists I know from Sydney atheists were atheists before they read a single book of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Krauss, Stenger or any of the others. Myself inclusive. Sure there are plenty that where on the fence when they read one of these authors books, and then quickly fell off into non-belief, but most where either there and not out, or already there and out but not in fashion.<br />“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov, obviously Asimov is another New atheist... considering this is taken from one of the many thousands of letters that he wrote in his 72 year life (died 1992), compiled into the book "Yours, Isaac Asimov" in 1996, well before any of the New atheists where on the scene. The letter according to the annotation by his brother was written on Feb. 22, 1966, quoted again in 2006 by Janet Asimov in her book "Notes for a Memoir" Pg58. Sorry to labour this Isaac Asimov quote but I have found some contention on Christian blogs as to whether it is legitimate, seeing it in two different sources, as well as the times he criticises the bible in his other works, convinces me of its legitimacy.<br />
<br />
The aforementioned authors, I would say are also quick to attribute their thoughts and success to those that came before them, standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants such as Newton, Kant, Darwin, Kelvin, Faraday, Jefferson, Paine, Bertrand Russell, and many, many others who have contributed to the body of science and thought that makes up modern day atheism.<br />
<br />
So stop calling it new atheism, or I am going to call you Christians, a New Jew, and anything newer than 1700ad flash in the pan, eg flash in the pan Mormon, flash in the pan Scientoligist. Let the temporary nature of your belief system sink in for a bit.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Gnu_Atheists">Gnu atheists</a><br />
Yeah I have no problem with this term, as it is a mock of the "New atheists" term, and I am sure <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU">Richard Stallman (Of GNU/Linux)</a> would be proud. <br />
<br />
Some references;<br />
<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3">http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3</a><br />
<a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PdxlAAAAMAAJ&q=potent+force#search_anchor">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PdxlAAAAMAAJ&q=potent+force#search_anchor</a> search forthe words "potent force", in quotes.<br />
<a href="http://www.pantheismunites.org/Scholarly%20Publications/New%20Atheists%20and%20New%20Theologians.htm">http://www.pantheismunites.org/Scholarly%20Publications/New%20Atheists%20and%20New%20Theologians.htm</a> Raphael is a friend from Sydney atheists, and much more learned and scholoarly than I, in fact a discussion with him on facebook re-inspired me to finish this post off.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0