Thursday, August 30, 2007

The persecution of Christians pt 1

I will be examining Thomas Horn’s essay on the Persecution of Christians in three parts. It has always been interesting to me that in the current day and age, that Christians consider themselves to be an endangered class. The oddity comes given their mass amount of numbers, increasing status, and tax exempt business opportunities. Yet somehow they are not happy that those that don’t agree with them are given equal opportunity to have their voice heard. My voice is in bold

More Christians died for their faith in the twentieth century than at any other time in history, says Christian Solidarity International. Global reports indicate that over 150,000 Christians were martyred last year, chiefly outside of the United States.

OK, let’s look at this statement a little closer. I do not intend to marginalize the death of anyone who was targeted for the way that they chose to live their lives. As a matter of fact, being from a country where persecution for beliefs is not sanctioned, I really have no personal perspective on it, except to say that the persecutions are wrong.

With that being said let’s see if the persecution of Christians has increased as CSI is claiming. The current population of the earth is roughly 6,700,000,000. They are saying that 150,000 Christians were martyred. This is equivalent to a little less that 0.2%. In Jesus’ day there were roughly 231,000,000 people in existence. This means that for the numbers to be comparable as a percentage only 461 Christians would need to be martyred in a given year. The number of people that actually were martyred is surprisingly higher. This is compounded by the fact that this all happened in a small area of the earth, so we are being generous by even considering the global population.

However, statistics are changing: persecution of Christians is on the increase in the United States. What's happening to bring about this change?

It sure is changing. Conditions for Christians have done nothing but get better since the world has become more and more secularized. In the places where Christians are still facing persecution, it is typically at the hands of other religions.

According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in America is taking us?"

You must be absolutely fucking kidding me. You think that there is a growing sentiment against Christianity today that parallels that of Nazi Germany? Leave it to Christians to break out the Hitler argument anytime they get a chance. So if Christians are becoming isolated and marginalized then explain to me why 77% of the U.S. population claim Christianity, and an additional 7% claim some other Christian oriented religion. Or explain to me why every single President of the United States of America with the exception of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson claimed some version of a Christian faith.

Tolerance of anti-Christian attitudes in the United States is escalating.

God forbid that people who don’t agree with Christianity be tolerated!

recently, a woman in Houston, Texas was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween. Officers informed her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued.

This is an obvious encroachment on this woman’s free speech. If this story is true then she has a very nice settlement on the way from the city. Of course a search of the news archive in Houston turns up no such story. There is a story out of Georgia though were a 67 year old man was arrested for handing out Bible tracts at a parade. He is suing and hopefully, he will win.

In Madison, Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation distributes anti-Christian pamphlets to public school children entitled, "We Can Be Good Without God."

So your literature is O.K. to pass out to school children but opposing literature is not?

The entertainment industry and syndicated media increasingly vilify Christians as sewer rats, vultures, and simple-minded social ingrates.

Really? What show was that?

The FBI and the Clinton White House brand fundamentalist Christian groups as hate mongers and potential terrorists.

If this is true, what do you think the chances are that she was talking about the religious groups that "are" hate mongers and "potential terrorist." Take for example the Westboro Baptist church which pickets the funerals of dead soldiers with signs that read “God hates fags.”

The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago warns that plans by Southern Baptists to hold a convention in the Windy City next year might foment "hate crimes" against minorities, causing some Christians to fear that speaking openly about their religious beliefs will soon be considered a crime. All this, while Christianity itself is often a target of hate-crime violence. We remember the students at Columbine, and the United Methodist minister who was fatally beaten and burned in a remote part of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to name a few of the recent examples of interpersonal violence aimed at believers.

This is exactly the type of propaganda that I am talking about. If a religious event causes hate crimes then it should be monitored closely. Certainly Christians will be allowed to speak openly about their beliefs unless they are inciting people to riot. The part about the students at Columbine seems like an odd statement to me since the shooters were not targeting Christians specifically but were shooting the kids that they felt had treated them as outcast. Here is the story of the United Methodist minister in Tennessee. A quick read through it will show you that he was not killed for being a man of god, but that the whole situation was a robbery gone wrong. Interesting though that when these horrible things happen to any other person that they are just random horrible events. When they happen to a Christian all of the sudden they are immediately considered persecution.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Michael Vick’s apology

"For most of my life, I've been a football player, not a public speaker so, you know, I really don't know how to say what I really want to say.

I understand it's not important as far as what you say but how you say things so now I take this opportunity just to speak from the heart.

First, I want to apologize for all the things that I've done and that have allowed to happen. I want to personally apologize to Commissioner Goodell, Arthur Blank, of course Bobby Petrino, my Atlanta Falcons teammates, for our previous discussions that we had and I was not honest and forthright in our discussions and I was ashamed and totally disappointed in myself to say the least.

I want to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts and you know what I did was very immature, so that means I need to grow up.

I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to better Michael Vick the person, not the football player. I take full responsibility for my actions. Not for one second will I sit right here and point the finger and try to blame anyone else for my actions and what I have done. I'm totally responsible and those things just didn't have to happen.

I feel like we all make mistakes. It's I made a mistake in using bad judgments and making bad decisions and those things just can't happen. Dogfighting is a terrible thing and I did reject it. I'm upset with myself and through this situation I found Jesus and I asked him for forgiveness and I'd just turned my life over to God. I think that's the right thing to do as of right now.

Like I say, for this entire situation, I never pointed the finger at anybody else. I accepted responsibility for my actions and what I did and now I have to pay the consequences for it but since I think it will help me as a person I've got a lot to think about in the next year or so.

I offer my deepest apologies to everybody out there in the world who's affected by this whole situation. If I'm more disappointed in myself more than anything is because of all the young people, young kids that I've let down who look at Michael Vick as a role model. So I have to go through this and put myself in this situation, you know, I hope that every young kid out there in the world watching this interview who's been following the case use me as an example to using better judgments and making better decisions.

Once again, I offer my deepest apologies to everyone and I will redeem myself, I have to.

I got a lot of down time, a lot of time to think about my actions and what I've done and how to make Michael Vick a better person."

I believe that in this case, the punishment has fit the crime. What Vick did was disgusting but no people were injured, only animals. I am not saying that it is not wrong but it is not as serious as if he had done it to another person. The one thing that did stand out in this apology is the appeal to god and Christianity. It seems to me that whenever a celebrity gets into trouble and has to apologize publicly that this is the card they play. It only speaks to the stupidity of the American public that this is all it takes. The Christians are happy because they can claim that they have won another soul and the apologizer is happy because all will be forgotten by the public and they can get back to their normal lives. I hope Vicks apology was sincere. Somehow I think it is an act though. Either way I suppose it doesn’t really make any difference

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

The one and only

I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. All of you atheist bloggers need to convert or you will go to hell. I saw the truth in a vision. Jesus revealed himself to me. I now believe in miracles, virgin births and global flooding. When I die I will go to heaven to live in paradise and scoff at all you idiot unbelievers. You cannot criticize me because my beliefs must be respected. Any proofs you offer as a counterpoint will be discounted and immediately considered wrong! I will start going to church and will dedicate large portions of my paycheck to ministries that the pastor deems appropriate. I will be a mindless slave and cease to think for myself. All doubters are ignorant. Your comments are welcome!

Thursday, August 16, 2007

The Atheist Survey!

Why do you not believe in God?

To date I have not been shown sufficient evidence for the existence of god. I search all of the time. I am the Fox Mulder on Jesus and god, meaning “I want to believe. I am simply not willing to accept these ideas without any evidence. It would be wonderful if there was an afterlife and I was going to live forever in paradise with unlimited margaritas and a little stone mansion. This simply seems like a farfetched promise that no one will ever have to make good on. In the meantime I have to make good on subscribing to a system of mind control and indoctrination in order to be accepted into a community of people who believe that there is a man in the sky watching every move that we make.

Where do your morals come from?

This certainly seems to be the questions of the year with Christians doesn’t it? Christians have been force fed the idea that the only standard for morality can be their god. Not only does this philosophy have many weaknesses when held up to the countless recorded civilizations that had strict moral codes before Christianity but it is blown out of the water the moment that an atheist lives his/her life in a moral fashion. The fact is that morals have been developed as part of human evolution and have been essential in the survival of a species that has very few physical defenses and must rely on intelligence and community in order to survive on a daily basis.

What is the meaning of life?

Life only has meaning to the individual who is living it. Ultimately there is no purpose or goal to life. We were lucky enough to win an exclusive genetic lottery through some surprising odds. You do not get to choose what part of the world you were born to or whether or not you are born rich or poor. The decisions you get to make in your journey through life are what make life beautiful and purposeful. Meaning is therefore relative. Some people find meaning in being parents while others could only feel life had meaning if they were a high powered CEO of a large company. Others even still prefer to live life exploring the world in which they were born to. All of these choices imply that they are meaningful to the chooser.

Is atheism a religion?

Atheism is a lack of religious belief or dogma. More specifically atheism is a non-belief in deities. This is not specific to the Christian god although the Christians seem to take atheistic and agnostic belief systems as a personal attack. Dawkins says it best when he talks about everyone being an atheist in respects to ancient gods like Thor. Dawkins says that the difference between the atheist and the Christian is just that the atheist believes in one less god than the Christian does. I believe this statement to be a good representation of the atheistic viewpoint.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

During troubling times I tend to problem solve and take actions that will improve and make my situation better. Even when I was a Christian I never put a ton of stock in prayer. I prayed daily but I always had the notion that god wanted me to be active in the problem solving process. It has always perplexed me that in the middle of a crisis a Christian will stop and pray when they could actually do something to help alleviate a particular situation.

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

I do not believe that it is anybody’s place to try to convince another human being to stop believing in a particular belief system unless that belief becomes dangerous to society or innocent individuals. With that being said, there are many situations were religion is somewhat good or helpful to people in their given situations. I believe that if anyone is going to have their mind converted it is going to be because they were seeking knowledge on their own. The atheist and the agnostic should simply be available to discuss the issues with the inquisitive mind. They of course have no obligation to do this if they do not wish to.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

Weren’t they committed by Christians? Even the atrocities that were actually committed by secularist were often done for religious reasons. I have actually covered this topic in great detail here. Anyways atheism is not a unified dogma or belief system. It is rather the lack of a belief system. Atheist tend to be more diverse than snowflakes. Since what we consider to be evil exist in humanity, it tends to exist across the board. This means you can find evil in any thought process that is a human creation.

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

How could 10s of millions of people have purchased Brittney Spears CDs? Humans have a blessing and a curse of having a highly overdeveloped frontal lobe that is capable of advanced thought processes and self realization. Having the knowledge that we will one day die it is no wonder that we began to ponder what happens after death. It is easy to see how these myths could easily be created, amended and passed on from generation to generation.

Why does the universe exist?

The universe exist because random matter progressively followed uniform and complex laws over billions of years to create strands of protein that overtime would develop into one of the many life forms that will eventually become extinct. The universe has no direction or purpose and therefore we should enjoy what we have every single day and count ourselves lucky that we had a chance to enjoy our experiences in this lifetime.

How did life originate?

Obviously this question is under investigation. As human beings living on an impressive planet in a small corner of the universe, we have taken it upon ourselves to study and understand the world that we live in. There are many questions that we have answered and many more answers that we are searching for. I would recommend “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin as a springboard for the foundation of your understanding to this question.

Is all religion harmful?

It certainly seems like it can be in the wrong hands. I think that there are things about religion that make it exceptionally dangerous. One of those things is the idea of infallibility. If people are able to justify something in scripture then they cease to think for themselves about whether or not it might actually be wrong or harmful. It is an especially dangerous situation when these doctrines make it into the minds of someone who is mentally ill or unstable. We have very good documentation of tyrant leaders and religious wars that were led in the name of god. Countless people have been killed and put to death simply because they have not agreed with a specific version of religious thought or ideology. You would think that this type of behavior would be something of the past, but you would be wrong.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?

I don’t believe that there is anything sinister about religious moderates. The only thing that I consider to be bad about them is the way that they tend to vote.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

I do believe that there is. I believe that there is a large portion of society that would not be capable of continuing life on a day to day basis without the thought that there might be a higher purpose or an afterlife. These people would become distraught and desperate without this belief system and the power that it harnesses. This would be a very scary situation because there is nothing more terrifying than desperate people.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

I guess I will go to hell.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

No, only actions should be respected. Beliefs make people do all sorts of silly things. Actions are really the only thing that we can judge people by.

Are atheists smarter than theists?

The issue with this question is causation. I think that across the board you will find the same degree of intelligence in most differing belief systems. Interestingly enough though the more education one receives the more likely they seem to be to embrace atheism.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

I for one believe that Jesus was likely to have existed. I believe that he was a man and that the stories about him were exaggerated in order to establish an organization that could gain public trust and collect their money without an argument.

Would the world be better off without any religion?

I am not certain. As a system of control it seems to have some pleasant and unexpected benefits. Of course the flip side of that is that there are some horribly evil atrocities that can be attributed to it as well.

What happens when we die?

Your brain ceases to function and your body proceeds on a journey through several stages of decomposition. In most cultures you are placed in a coffin and buried 6 feet deep beneath the earth.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

A Reasonable Morality

Throughout the history of humanity, a society's moral codes were inexplicably tied to the local religion. Things have not changed in 2007. Many Christians believe that a belief in God is necessary for a person to live morally; atheists disagree. The atheist's argument revolves around the idea that natural law and civic virtue is available to people due to their ability to reason. The system of morality is established by natural law and civic virtue. Therefore, morality is a by-product of people's ability to reason.

A few terms must be defined before the discussion can begin. These definitions are taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Natural law "constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature which is universally binding and universally knowable." Civic virtue is "a willingness to do one's part in supporting the public good." Reason can be defined as "the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do." Morality "is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal." Christians are men and women believing in the Judeo-Christian God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, and the existence of an afterlife. And atheists are men and women who believe that it is impossible to prove the existence of a divine being or an afterlife.

Many Christians believe that morality comes from God; an example of this is the Ten Commandments. For many believers, a life of sin and depravity is the only option for those who do not accept God. This is illogical, not only because it presents an either-or situation, but because it brings up questions of the source of goodness. Frank Zindler, a professor of biology and the editor of American Atheist Press, writes:

Plato showed long ago…that we cannot depend upon the moral fiats of a deity.
Plato asked if the commandments of a god were 'good' simply because a god had
commanded them or because the god recognized what was good and commanded the action accordingly. If something is good simply because a god has commanded it, anything could be considered good…On the other hand, if a god's commandments are based on a knowledge of the inherent goodness of an act, we are faced with the realization that there is a standard of goodness independent of god and we must admit that he cannot be the source of morality.

There is a standard of goodness independent of God and it is called natural law. This is the system that is at work in the natural world. From the beginning, survival of the species was, and still is, the overwhelming purpose of an organism. Certain behaviors benefit the group, while others hurt it. Generosity, loyalty, defending the group, etc, are behaviors that benefit the group. On the other hand, murder, stealing, selfishness, lying, etc, are behaviors that can damage the group's ability to survive. Throughout the evolution of humans, this behavior was analyzed as right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. Over time, this analysis would form the moral code that underlies ancient and current societies. In other words, "they are generalizations from experience…A moral law makes explicit in theory what is implicit in fact. The fact creates the rule; it is not the rule that creates the fact."

Even C.S. Lewis, one of Christian's favorite apologists, saw the foundation of morality as reason—"the fundamental maxims of civic morality are accessible to all human beings by virtue of their God-given reason. This natural moral code cannot be escaped, he said; it is the source from which all moral judgments spring." This reason is the key to morality, not religious dogma. It is the mind of humans that separates them from the animal world; reason is the best weapon with which to face everyday events. Too often, Christianity demands that reason and a questioning mind be shut down to give way for blind faith.

For two centuries, we have looked to the Christian God to provide us with morality and have not been satisfied. The issues that we face today are human problems and it is within our humanity that the answers will be found. This is the time for a return to reason, for a new focus on natural law as it applies to humanity, for civic virtue to once again gain prominence in our national discussion.

Civic Virtue. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,, July 25, 2007.

Cohen, Chapman. "Morality Without God." American Atheists, Inc.,

Morality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Natural Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,, July 25, 2007.

Practical Reason. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,, July 25, 2007.

West, John G., Jr. "Politics from the shadowlands: C.S. Lewis on earthly government." Policy Review (Spring 1994 n680: 68(3).

Zindler, Frank R. The Probing Mind, February 1985.

Fallacies of Morality

Fallacies occur often in everyday speech, especially when one is caught off guard. "One of the first questions atheists are asked by true believers and doubters alike is, 'If you don't believe in God, there's nothing to prevent you from committing crimes. Without fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like.'" The obvious response is "Of course not," but the fear behind the question is quite real and deserves consideration.

In this essay, I will analyze the above statement and discuss the main fallacies of false alternative. I will offer an alternative argument that says belief in God is not necessary to live morally and, in fact, may undermine true morality. I will then discuss several examples that support my claim.

Explicit in this statement is a fallacy of false alternative. This statement offers an either-or proposition: Either a person believes in God and lives a moral life, or they do not believe in God and are not able of living a moral life. Limiting the possible outcomes that extend from a belief or non-belief in God is not logical.

In a letter to the Romans, the great Apostle Paul wrote about living a moral life. "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I do." He is referring to the sin nature that Christians believe to be born into all humans. It is this sin nature that causes them to sin and not to live morally.

In addition, the Bible has a story of a non-believer who acts in a moral way when the religious leaders have turned away from a fellow believer. Many people are familiar with this story as the parable of the Good Samaritan. Without the teachings of God and attending religious services, the Samaritan knew that the moral behavior was to help a man in need.

Belief in God is not necessary to live morally and, in fact, may undermine true morality. This is an incredibly bold statement that atheists are presenting and needs to be examined carefully. Not only have many Christians lived complete lives of depravity, but Christianity itself is based on immoral premises.

As to the first point, the Old Testament is full of stories of rape, genocide, child sacrifice, and war all done in the name of God. The New Testament does not fare much better with God striking down Ananias and Sapphira , and the constant threat of Hell. The Crusades have recently been examined in a different light, not as a great and holy movement, but an attack of fear and intolerance. Even in the present day, the Catholic Church is making reparations to the thousands of children molested by priests.

As to the second point, the immoral premises of Christianity follow:
• presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous
• the doctrine of blood sacrifice
• the doctrine of atonement
• the doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
• the imposition of impossible tasks and rules

Christians are pushing their creation myth into schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design" while attacking evolution, which is more plausible based on scientific research to date. Refusing to let creationism be a rich myth, Christians are attempting to take the story literally, despite inconsistencies in the book of Genesis. The origin of humanity is important because it shapes our understanding of our place and purpose in this world. To twist that message for Christianity's gain is unethical.

The premise of blood sacrifice, whether it involves an animal, a man, a woman, or a child, is immoral. Life is sacred and should not be offered up to spirits in the sky. One of the most disturbing stories in the Bible describes the great patriarch Abraham tying his son Isaac up, placing him on an altar of wood, and raising a knife to kill his son according to the commandment from God. Luckily, an angel stops Abraham from going through with this act and commends him on his faith. This story is evidence of the sadistic mind behind the Christian's God.

Blood sacrifice is inextricably linked to atonement. The original sacrifice for the sins of the Jews is once and for all paid with Jesus Christ becoming the sacrifice for all humankind; he becomes the scapegoat for humanity. It is one thing to take the place of another in their punishment; this theme is common enough in literature, theater, ballet, and other dramas. It is quite another thing to absolve a person the responsibility of their actions. Without a sense of responsibility and consequence, chaos will reign unchecked.

As to the last two points, they are interrelated as well. At the end of time, God acts as Judge and rewards and/or punishes humanity based on their behavior and faith. This is a judgment that extends for eternity because Christians believe in the eternal soul. These rules and tasks that God demands of his followers are impossible to fulfill. It is not just actions that are considered sin, it is the thought behind the action that is punishable as though the actual sin were committed. "The essential principle of totalitarianism is to make laws that are impossible to obey. The resulting tyranny is even more impressive if it can be enforced by a privileged caste or party which is highly zealous in the detection of error."

Taken together, these premises create a totalitarian regime that seemingly establishes unattainable rules and tasks, then punishes its followers for not performing adequately. The guilt and the shame that go along with this kind of situation, along with the terrorism that is practiced in the name of God, makes the very premises of Christianity immoral.

Atheists do not need belief in the Christian God to know right from wrong. It is an utter fallacy to state that atheists must live immoral lives without Christian teaching. It is Christianity itself that is flawed, not atheism.

Acts 5:1-11. The Holy Bible. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007.

Luke 10:25-37. The Holy Bible. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Morality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy., 07/17/07

Romans 7:19. The Holy Bible. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999

Zindler, Frank R. The Probing Mind, February 1985.

Morality: The Natural vs. The Supernatural

The central question of my essay is whether or not a system of morality can exist apart from religion; therefore, the definition of morality is pivotal to both sides of this argument. I am defining morality as a system of rules governing outward behavior; a line separating right and wrong; a set of guidelines benefiting not only the individual, but society as a whole. The Judeo-Christian faith believes that this system may only come from God, while atheists believe that morality is a natural system established by reason and logic.

From the beginning, it must be understood that I am considering only the Judeo-Christian faith in opposition to atheism for this essay. Time limits and other obligations keep me from attempting to take on all the religions of the world, past and present. Sam Harris, an atheist author, is fond of pointing out that "we are all atheists in regard to Zeus and the thousands of other dead gods whom now nobody worships." But for now, I will remain in the present and discuss modern Christianity and atheism.

Christians believe that God created the world and everything in it. They believe that He gave them the Holy Bible and that He is directly involved in their lives. For many Christians, religion is such a crucial aspect of their lives that they cannot comprehend a worldview without a belief in God. Their initial reaction is one of shock and horror. The Apostle Paul wrote that if the resurrection is a false hope than, "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." It is thought and preached that without religion as a compass, atheists surely must lead lives of depravity and meaninglessness. Jacques Abbadie, a French theologist from the 17th century, says:

An atheist cannot be virtuous: to him virtue is only a chimera; probity no more than a vain scruple; honesty nothing but foolishness;--he knows no other law than his interest: where this sentiment prevails, conscience is only a prejudice; natural law only an illusion; right no more than an illusion; right no more than an error; benevolence no longer has any foundation; the bonds of society are loosened; the ties of fidelity are removed; friend is ready to betray friend; the citizen to deliver up his country; the son to assassinate his father, in order to enjoy his inheritance, whenever they shall find occasion, and that authority or silence shall shield them from the arm of the secular power, which alone is to be feared. The most inviolable rights, and most sacred laws, must no longer be considered, except as dreams and visions.

Christians believe that God is the creator of all things; He is in all things and nothing can be separated from Him. Stephan Evans, based on the writings of Kierkegaard, said, "I shall treat the claim that God provides the foundation for morality as equivalent to the claim that it is because of God that there are such things as moral obligations, or that it is because of God that there are particular moral obligations." Because they believe this to be true, it naturally follows that the system of morality has its origin in and cannot be separated from Him.

Atheists recognize a type of morality in the natural world of animals. They also see evidence that morality exists in humanity as a result of evolution and the survival of our species. It must also be remembered that many civilizations existed with laws and rules of morality before Moses met God on Mt. Sinai and received the Ten Commandments.

Frank Zindler, biologist and editor of The American Atheist magazine, is of the opinion that "the behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included." Zindler also references the African apes and baboons that are genetically similar to humans and finds several interesting relations. These apes live in social groups similar to humans; they care for their children and live according to rules. If the group is attacked, the older male apes even show altruistic behavior by "linger(ing) at the rear of the escaping troop and engage(ing) the leopard in what often amounts to a suicidal fight. As the old male delays the leopard's pursuit by sacrificing his very life, the females and young escape and live to fulfill their several destinies."

If morality is not supernatural, it is natural. It is a man-made system to govern behavior so that the community can prosper and grow. Morality is based on the experiences of trial and error that took place during evolution. Many atheists believe that morality was clearly in place before anyone created a religion to regulate life. And it is because mankind lives in societies that morality necessarily evolved. From an evolutionary standpoint, the success of a species depended on their ability to pass on their genes. Morality is the system of rules that made this a possibility.

Those who believe that the Ten Commandments were the beginning of moral codes need look to India, Persia, and Egypt as societies that had systems of laws that predate Christianity. These laws dealt with murder, adultery, cheating, lying, property rights, and more. In An Infidel Manifesto, Gary Lenaire quotes the 19th century lawyer and orator Robert Ingersoll:

Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love. All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old; all that were new are foolish. If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: 'Thou shalt not enslave thy fellowmen.' He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: 'The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband.' He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: 'Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defense.'

In this essay, I have looked at the definition of morality as a system of rules governing outward behavior; a line separating right and wrong; a set of guidelines benefiting not only the individual, but society as a whole. I have looked at the Christians belief that morality can only come from God and the atheists belief that morality comes from a variety of experiences that occurred in our distant past. In keeping morality grounded in religion, humankind is cheated from the rich and amazing social history that is theirs.

Burke, Thomas. The Christian Vision: Man and Morality. Michigan: Hillsdale College Press, 1986.

Evans, Stephan. Kierkegaard on Faith and the Self. Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006.

Lenaire, Gary. An Infidel Manifesto: Why Sincere Believers Lose Faith. Maryland: Publish America, 2006.

Meacham, Jon. "God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren." Newsweek. 9 April, 2007

The Holy Bible. New King James Version. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Zindler, Frank R. "Ethics Without God." The Probing Mind. February 2005. American Atheists.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Mad at god

The idea of getting mad at god seems about as silly as being angry with a leprechaun. Some people do believe in god though and occasionally they get into squabbles with him. When some of these people get mad at god they stop going to church. Others research alternative philosophies and try to find a world view that makes sense to them. Some people start their own groups or become immersed in work. Some simply choose not to think about it. Some people become political, some atheist and some humanitarians. Not Thomas Kyle Nursey though. When 23 year old Thomas of St Augustine Florida became angry with god he decided that the only way to solve the dispute was to drive his Ford F-150 through the front door of the local Catholic Church. Luckily for him god has offered to forgive him in exchange for 150 hail marys, a 15% increase in his tithe, and the donation of his first born sons young virgin ass to the parish. Ok, I made that last part up, but hey, this is the Catholics we are talking about.

Scamming the scammer

Have you ever been sent one one those scam emails? This is what I like to do when I get them!








Dear sister in Jesus

I am glad to help out with this noble cause. Please tell me what more
I need to do to help you out. I know that time is very important so I
am ready to move quickly. I have prayed on this issue and I believe
that God has brought us together to make a great change in this
world. Please write back soon and we can work out the details of what
you would require.

In our Lord

Dear Beloved

First let me thank you sincerely here for your quick response to my request. I pray that the good Lord will give you the desired strength and courage to achieve your heart desire which is raising this organization to help the Aged, Children and your National Park Project. In fact I would whole-heartedly dedicate this fund to you and your society organization because of its humanitarian purpose, I will give directives to my Lawyer to make sure the funds gets to you without delay. One important favor that you will do me is to make sure that my name and my Husband's name has a stand in your Society Organization.

I would want you to send me a Copy of your international passport or Driver's License, and all the necessary documents concerning your Society my Lawyer, He shall use all these to secure all the Documents that shall accompany the money to you through Diplomatic Means .My Lawyer's name is BARRISTER PEDRO RUI MENDES, A PORTUGUSE NATIONAL BUT BASED IN LONDON WHERE HE HAS HIS LEGAL CHAMBERS.

His e-mail address is: so write him now and tell him that I directed you to contact him for more details on how to deliver the funds to you through diplomatic Courier Means, also I will forward all your information to him, I will also tell him about you right away and he will be expecting your mail, please I will like you to hasten up because It will be of a great JOY to me if I will still be alive to see this Great Project Growing up, With this I will die a more Happier death. I will attach a copy of my picture in the Hospital now so that you will always have me in mind and consider my kindness too ok? Please on receipt of this picture i am sending you now, you must keep it very safe in your computer as this is the only i got now for future references ok?

I must let you know that due to my present health condition that is fast detoriating now, i would love this whole transfer to be completed within a short time because i wish to witness the commencement of this project before i go to answer my glorious call.

Finally, i must advice you here that if in any case you find yourself incapable of carrying out this project with needed attention, please do not hesitate to show your incapability so that i shall go to Lord in prayers for another capable SOUL.

Finally, also forward to my attorney on his above email address, your direct contact telephone/fax numbers including cell phone if any for easy communication, your contact address, your age, current occupation and position.

Yours in Christ Always,
Mrs. Theresa Cole

Dear Christian Sister Mrs. Cole

The Lord has filled my heart with happiness and sadness at the same time. It heavies my heart that such a loving and caring soul must be taken from this earth at what seems to be a most inopportune time. I spoke with my bank about the transaction this afternoon and not only will they back me in continuing forward with this process but they have also agreed to display a commemorative plaque regarding your generous contribution to our great Lord’s work. The bank manager was a bit skeptical regarding the transaction though and suggested that I verify that you are real by having you send me $2 U.S.. Currency through the postal service. Please include your personal return address. The bank says that this can be used to verify an actual location so that we can be assured that the account is not a dummy account and that the money will indeed go to do the Lord’s work. The account that we will be using already has roughly $25,000 in it that we are saving to feed starving children just across from the Mexican border. As soon as I receive these documents from you I can forward you my bank account number, passport and drivers license. I believe that the Lord has brought us together. Please work quickly to verify yourself and may the Lord bless us both. Let me know if this will be possible and I will send you a physical address.

In Christ

Hello My Dear Beloved
Greetings in The Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,

Many Thanks for your mail just received and the content quite understood. In regards to your e-mail, I must tell you that I feel so sad and disappointed that you did not believe that I am real after sending you my picture just because your bank manager is skeptical about the transaction.


Well, I am sorry to tell you that what you ask me to do is not possible as the funds has already been packaged and sealed by the Diplomatic Courier Company that are going to deliver the funds to you in your country in a CODED BOX as a consignment because due to the 9/11 RECENT BOMB ATTACK in united states, the funds shall be packaged in a CODED BOX as a consignment and delivered to you at your door step in your country through diplomatic Means.


Honestly, I still don’t understand the reason why your bank manager should be skeptical about the transaction, but GOD WILL BEAR ME WITNESS IF I AM FOR REAL OR NOT.

My Dear, I want you to understand that this transaction is not by force, and I will not beg you or force you to do this wonderful work of God Ok? So if the skeptical of your bank manager will make you not to continue with the God’s work, then just forget it.

For your information, this funds will be delivering to you at your door step via a diplomatic Bankers Courier Service and not bank to bank transfer, so let it be known to you that this transaction has nothing to do with your account for now.

You are only required to receive the funds from the diplomatic agent who will be delivering the funds to you in your country and then have it deposited to your bank account yourself.

Moreover, be informed that all the legal documents of this funds has been secured and changed in your name and it cost me about 8,500.00 Pounds Sterling to Secure the documents including Affidavit of change of ownership on your behalf through the help of my lawyer who swear out the Affidavit on your behalf from HER MAJESTY here in London, and I have to closed down my account to secure all these necessary/legal documents on your behalf because I don’t want to bother you about the money for obtaining the documents.

So, there is no how I can even get a cent not to talk of sending you $2 U.S Currency through the postal service now Ok? So, like I stated on my email to you yesterday, if you are incapable of carrying out this project with needed attention, please do let me know your incapability so that I shall go to Lord in prayers for another capable SOUL Ok?

Once Again, Thank you for your kind understanding.
Remain Blessed in the Lord Jesus, Amen.
Truly Yours Sister in Christ,
Mrs. Theresa Cole.

Yea Dear beloved sister Mrs. Theresa Cole

After attending a 42 hour humanitarian relief effort I crashed into my bed for a long sleep. I awoke in the middle of the night to a vision from our great Lord. He told me that you are for real and shamed me for questioning you. It was at that moment that I realized the error of my ways and decided that I needed to meet with you personally to give you the requested documents and lay my hands on you in prayer. I have emptied my life savings and booked a flight to London where I hope to meet with you and your lawyer. I leave in just a little bit so please email me back with the address of the hospital that you are staying at and I will be with you shortly. Also I plan on looking up your lawyer and personally hand delivering the said documents so that you will be spared any shipping fees to the United states. I await your swift reply and look forward to meeting with you soon and eventually, spending eternity in heaven with you.

In Christ our savior

Thank you for your mail and the content quite understood, but unfortunately that won’t be necessary as the funds has left this morning to
due to your late response because the Courier company here where the funds was deposited doesn’t tolerate any delays once consignment is packaged for shipment.

So, due to the delay and late response from your end, they have moved the consignment to a security Company in Paris France where you are requested to go and pick up the funds I a cash payment from the officials in the security Company in Paris.

So, be informed that the funds
($12 Million) is now in Paris France in your name, and all you need do is to prepare to make a trip to Paris France. Also be advised to council your flight booked to London and re-book your flight to Paris France Ok?

Documents are not required from you in Paris as my attorney has already sworn an Affidavit of change of ownership of the funds that backed up the and accompanied the consignment/Funds to Paris France. You can as well go to Paris with either your driver’s license or your international passport just for proper identification by the officials in Paris Ok/
However, I also want to inform you that my attorney have just traveled to Africa to defend one of his client who has a Court case with the Government there in Africa, but he shall be communicating with me, you, and the people in Paris France as long as he stay’s there in Africa.

Finally, I have been instructed by my doctor to stop clear off computer because of my present health conditions that gets worst every day and i am going down, so I will be off the computer for some days now or weeks and will not be able to look at my e-mail as the case maybe.

So, for more details on how you are going to Paris, contact my attorney on his email as I gave to you before and asked him to give you more details on how to go Praise to claim the consignment/Funds. My attorney is fully aware of the whole things regarding the France issue as he made the arrangement with the Courier Service here in London because of your delayed. So, also furnish my attorney with the following informations bellow:

Your Full Names and Your Full Contact Address
Your Full Accessible Direct Contact Telephone Numbers including Cell phone number if any. Age Sex, Marital Status, Current Occupation and position.

Once Again, the e-mail address of my attorney is so kindly contact him now with the requested informations, and also ask him to give you his number he is using temporally in Africa so that you can reach him and talk with him as well and also give my lawyer your own number.
I will also instruct my lawyer to contact you, you should try and contact him because he is always a very busy person.
I will have to stop here for now.
Thank you and remain Blessed in the name of the Lord.
Thanks and God Bless.
Truly Yours Sister in Christ Jesus.
Mrs. Theresa Cole.

Verily I say unto you Miss Sister in Christ our Lord almighty, hail to the all powerful, in Jesus almighty holy divine name Mrs. Theresa Cole..

I have landed in London and checked my email at a local internet station. I was very saddened to see that you had changed the location of the money transfer to Paris France. At this point the money is second to me and I simply want to meet with you and lay my hands on you in prayer. I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to contact your attorney until I have met with you face to face. I know you said that you needed to step away from the computer because of your deteriorating health but I trust in Jesus that he will bring you to your computer one last time to check your email. An even greater blessing happened to me. Yeah truly God is great. Since I was out of money and stranded here in London I had no other option but to go to the embassy. I told the officers there about you and your generosity. I showed them all of the emails and the pictures that you sent me and it turns out that they were looking for you to! They agreed to help me find you. Praise the Lord, they were able to pinpoint your location through the IP addresses that you were using to send your emails and have already set up an airplane. I will be with you shortly to sit by your side through you final hours..

With love in Christ

Monday, August 13, 2007

New Author

I would like to welcome Telos as a contributing author to the Angelsdepart blogsite. Telos is an English writing major with an art history minor. She is one semester away from graduation and is already being courted by several major publishing houses. She is also a fairly recent de-convert from Christianity. I think you will enjoy her post.

Story #19

Intergalactic Hussy has started a site for atheist, agnostics and free thinkers to post their deconversion stories. I thought this was a great idea so I submitted mine. Please take a moment to visit the site and give her your support.

Story #19

The truth hurts

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

An Imaginary Friend

This is the conclusion to the god debate. All italicized quotes are Bnonn's words from our previous debate.............

When agreeing to enter a debate on any topic where the authors will be “emotionally” tied to their argument, one needs to remember that there will be no winner. The debate will simply be an exchange of ideas. For example in the preceding debate on the “existence of a god” or “whether or not we can know a god exist” between Bnonn and myself, one would have to wonder how to determine “a winner.” I am certain that the atheist will look at the debate and say “Nice job putting this guy in his place angelsdepart” and Christians will look at it and say “you defended Christianity valiantly Bnonn.”

The truth is, that since neither side can actually be proven, this discourse was about nothing other than winning a debate. No lives will be saved, no minds will be changed, and no one will be enlightened. Certainly from an atheistic or agnostic worldview this is no big deal. Religions and their inferior ideologies tend to be so weak that they hunger for more and more converts in order for them to feel that their beliefs are justified. In the past they often had the power to kill anyone who spoke out against their belief systems. interestingly enough Christians love to bring up John Calvin.

John Calvin of course was a cold blooded killer. Please click the above link for the whole story. If we are to have any sort of respect for a Christian apologist then we need to somewhat call his life into question. If he was mean at times or stole a candy bar when he was a kid then that would seem forgivable. If he was so unsure about his beliefs that he needed to kill anyone who disagreed then we can assume something entirely different about said source.

Since the power of the Christian ideology is beginning to wane, they do not have the luxury of destroying dissenters. This has led to an avalanche of free thinkers and an immense progression of civilization in general. In the present day Christians simply tend to create rhetoric and false dilemmas that do not allow for any other worldview to be considered.

It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth………………. I am indeed saying that to prove my viewpoint all I have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview.

the difference is that reality is unintelligible and impossible if there is no God.

Although Bnonn appears at many times to be acting intelligently his antics are equivalent to a child pounding his/her fist and stomping his/her feet screaming “I’m right because I say so.”

So even if it is the case that revelationism (sic) does not establish the truth of Christianity automatically, you should still recant your previous agnosticism and earnestly try to determine which revelation is true. I say this only to remind you that your agnosticism has been soundly refuted and you have therefore lost the debate

Bnonn began the debate with immaturity and arrogance. He uses name calling and ad hominem attacks with full understanding of how damaging this was to his argument and how insecure it made him appear.

yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown)

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate.

After being called out on his immaturity Bnonn surprisingly had the grace to admit his mistake and apologize, although the result was his insults being more subdued and clever

permit me to apologize now for any irrelevant ad hominem in my previous post.

Anytime a point was made during this debate that Bnonn could not answer he attempted to save face by saying it was nonsensical or that it ignored the actual argument at hand. These tactics were used even if the arguments were essential.

Now, you say of war and atrocities that, "The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior." Again, let me remind you that, even if it does, this is irrelevant to its truth.

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence?

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense

so to focus on the flood is really to ignore the far more fundamental disagreements which we face.

What I found really interesting in this debate though is that Bnonn’s whole premise seemed to rest on the idea that empirical proof was not sound. Bnonn feels that we cannot “know” anything through testing but only through the divine revelation of god. Of course god’s divine revelation is revealed through our ability to test things over and over again so not only is it circular logic but the difference between the two is negligible. Regardless Bnonn can’t seem to make up his mind on the topic.

without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims

So far, you have offered numerous reasons for doubting the truth of Christianity. These reasons have basically been empirical in nature, one way or the other.

Empiricism is founded upon logical fallacies, and therefore cannot produce justified claims to knowledge

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances.

Bnonn seems to take the lead from the Bible itself when it comes to contradicting himself

From an ethical standpoint it should go without saying that I deny that the Bible approves atrocities whatsoever

God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

It seems that Bnonn's belief that all knowledge is divinely inspired has taken away his ability to seek knowledge on his own and think for himself. As a matter of fact Bnonn asserts that in order for something to be disproven one must be able to prove all of the potential alternative explanations for the given event.

That is to say, if you claim to know that the Flood did not occur (and here is why I concede no point at all regarding it), then you must also claim to know all the other things, including philosophical ones, upon which this alleged knowledge is based.

Of course this is obviously false. We can know that many things are not true without knowing all of the possible outcomes. Such nonsense could only come from one who believes that knowledge can only be gained through communication with a magical creature in the sky.

If there is a god, I want to know him/her. I want someone to present proof. I am more than ready to believe in a god but I will not believe in or worship a god that wants me to accept him/her without any evidence for his/her existence. I spent 22 years being indoctrinated in religion, I led a very successful ministry and led many people to Christ. I knew all along that something was fishy with the whole system but I accepted, on faith, that everything I saw going on around me was a part of god’s divine plan. Faith is not sufficient. Faith is a fancy way of saying that you will be punished if you seek knowledge and truth.

Only in humanism do we really have the tools to enjoy and value life. To a Christian, this life is just a step. If someone is murdered or taken in a natural disaster or sent to war and blown to bits, the Christian believes that they have simply moved on to heaven. Death is not a sad occasion in the Christian worldview but a joyous one. Their loved ones have simply gone to be with Jesus in paradise. It is only through the shedding of these primitive belief systems that we can truly understand what is most valuable. This life is short. It is precious. When it is over there is nothing more. So believe what you are going to believe, but humor me on one thing. Take a walk. Stare at the stars. Make someone smile. Be nice for no reason. Do what you can to make the world a better place regardless of what you believe, because all we have in life is each other.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

No Proof (The final response to god)

My voice is in bold print as always!

I would like to start this rebuttal by commenting on your defense of the scripture verses that I posted as contradictions. You took two verses that I actually posted as having no contradiction then refuted them as if they did. This misunderstanding is not conducive to either of us in this debate so let me clarify.

Your fourth example (1 Pet 5:8) indicates no apparent contradiction at all, since 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, which you list in contradiction to it, do not state which angels were imprisoned;

See I had actually listed both of these examples under the answer “no” for is the Devil free to roam and tempt us. If angels sinned and were cast into hell then wouldn't they be devil's or demons? How does this not pose a contradiction? Since you have failed to address this appropriately I will consider that you have conceded this point and move on to the next.

So omnipotence does not imply the ability to do logically absurd things, like creating uncreated beings, or imagining square circles.

I don’t believe that this was ever implied. This completely ignores the blatant contradiction that was pointed out!

Your assumption of a contradiction here is caused by a failure to understand the overall context of the story, which results in a failure to correctly identify the causality of the people's defeat. God generally uses normal means to accomplish his purposes

There are two major issues that I take with your refutation here. The first is that in order for your explanation of why god has not contradicted him or herself here to work, you have to say that god did not follow through with his/her promise because his/her people failed to “devote them to complete destruction.” This seems to be a recurring theme in the bible. It seems that god tends to enjoy solving disputes through violent means.

What would be really impressive in situations like these is if god made himself/herself known directly to the enemies of his/her people. A direct revelation from god could not be refused. There are many examples of god making people’s hearts hardened and making them disobey his/her command, but he/she never coerces someone to follow them.

The second thing is, if god normally works through average everyday means then how do we know that it is god working? If we assume that it is god working but he/she is working through everyday means then how is that any different than there being no god?

Would they have prevailed against the chariots if they had obeyed God? Of course they would have. God, being all-powerful, was in absolute control of the situation and could direct it as he pleased.

In this statement you present even another perplexing issue and that is the issue of free will. If god is omnipotent and all knowing then god is aware of the outcome of everything in the universe. I would hope you would assume that god knows the future. Assuming that we agree on this then it would seem silly for god to issue a covenant knowing full well that it would be broken. How can you say that if they had obeyed god that they would have prevailed when obeying god was not even an option and god knew it in the first place. If this is the case then god was being deceitful here, which is, as I might add, something that he is not able to do.

Furthermore there is a countless amount of absurdities and direct contradictions in the bible that are impossible to reconcile. A couple of these are the two conflicting accounts of the creation story. In Genesis 1:25-27 we see clearly that humans were created after the animals and in Genesis 2:18-19 humans were created before the animals. As we agreed, if the bible has just one error then it cannot be the holy, inspired, divine, perfect word of god.

All this considered, the conversation on the completely ludicrous account of Noah’s flood, seems to have been dropped. I know that our debate format has not been formal, but had it been then this would have been considered a conceded point.

Regarding the issue of the reliability of oral tradition I have to say that your sources seem to be a bit biased. Even so there are some serious issues in the threads that you have linked me to with oral tradition regarding the canonization of the bible.

“it also ignores the considerable importance given to rote memorization in Jewish society of the time, which would have permitted reliable oral transmission, even for longer material.”

If we are to assume this true then we need to also assume that every single book that is in the bible was created out of this specific tradition. Regardless, if in fact it was the whole founding tradition of a particular culture to pass things on orally instead of writing them down then there would still be a large degree of error. This is if we assume that they were particularly skilled at it. Just because a particular technology was the best at one time, doesn’t mean that it still wasn’t prone to the errors that are related to it in the first place. (By the way your link from was either ripped off from McDowell or vice versa. Also anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry. I think you could think of all of the issues that may bring up for your citation.)

Therefore, we can certainly say that the condition upon which your premise rests is amply met: God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

This is good enough for me! There is nothing for me to debate if you agree with me. You follow this by breaking down a logical statement as fallacious when it is clearly logically sound. There are many instances in the New Testament where violence is specifically spoken out against . Although I will admit that it is my own assertion that god is not worthy to be worshipped if he commands atrocities, my assertions can also be backed with scripture.

For example in Luke 17:2 Jesus states that if someone were to even offend a little child that he would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea. (Mathew and Mark seem to disagree with Luke on the semantics of this statement.) Despite this “god” (who, stay with me now, is Jesus) commands children to be killed on several occasions. Number 5:11-21 commands a woman who has committed adultery to abort her child. Numbers 31:17 presents a command to kill young male children. Hosea 13:16 has accounts of unborn children being “ripped up.” In 1st Samuel 15:3 god commands the death of “suckling” infants. There are also a few examples of god being worshipped for slaughtering babies Psalms 135:8, 136:10, 137:9. I am more than happy to go on.

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances………The problem you have is that probability is measured by dividing the number of actual situations of something by the number of possible situations……..In other words, the accuracy of any scientific experiment is completely unknowable, and thus will never increase even if you were to run experiments until the proverbial cows returned.

If it is your goal to attack and disprove science in order to strengthen your own worldview then that is fine. Probabilities would probably be the worst arm of science for you to go after because it is one of the most precise.

For example we do have a way of knowing exactly the potential outcome given consistent variables. If you are coming up with slightly different outcomes it is likely that your variables have not been consistent. For instance, in your example regarding a measurement taken on the speed of sound, I would question whether or not the scientist was controlling for variables, such as wind speed, air density and elevation.

Let’s say we have two six sided dice. On each dice each number has the exact same possibility of coming up on each roll. The previous roll will not affect the later roll. We can predict and prove over multiple trials that the number 7 will come up more often than any other number. This is because seven has 6 ways of being made on the dice. 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1. Whereas 6 and 8 only have 5 ways each 1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2, 5+1 and 2+6, 3+5, 4+4, 5+3, 6+2. It continues to digress. 5 and 9 have 4 ways to be made, 4 and 10 have 3 ways, 3 and 11 have two ways, 2 and 12 have one way. Not only can we use probabilities to test this but we can also use empirical experiments.

In the short run you may see numbers that defy what we know the actual probabilities to be but the more trials we run, the closer the numbers will come to the actual probabilities. This particular example is the foundation of the casino industry. The static nature of these laws are what cause casinos to consistently thrive over the long run with only a slight edge in the numbers. To say that we can’t know anything through repeated testing is entirely un-provable because it is so obviously false.

Therefore, performing repeated experiments is self-evidently pointless from a logical point of view, since you can have no idea whether this is helpful or not.

These calculations are extremely helpful. Being able to “know” and “measure” things is incredibly important. When an airplane takes off the pilot needs to take note of the starting altitude, the temperature, and the wind velocity in order to set his speed appropriately. If there was no way to accurately measure the environment then the pilot would have no way to know how much speed and distance he will need in order to get his airplane airborne. I would suppose that if we were to rely on god for these calculations that we would see a sharp decrease in airplane safety. I am thankful that our country is not that fanatical yet!

After all, it's not reasonable for you to ignore results which are outside your arbitrary margin of error if you don't presuppose that your results will be consistent in the first place.

Yes I agree, but you are assuming that scientist do this. If you know a scientist that is doing this then he is not following the scientific method and his research would be considered invalid.

For example, why do you assume that only one of the results can be correct? Why do you not instead assume that, at that one particular point in time, the experiment yielded a different result, making the whole question of probability moot?

I don’t assume that at all. As a matter of fact I have conceded that the reason why our knowledge does not stay consistent is because the variables consistently change. Water boils and freezes at different temperatures depending on your current elevation. If we know several of these measurements then we can come up with a formula that will allow us to figure out these access points at any given elevation without actually going there. We are also able to use measurements from the past and present to predict (and rather reasonably well) events that will occur in the future. Some examples of this are solar and lunar eclipses as well as the appearance of comets.

You assume that the future will resemble the past, and that an experiment conducted in one location will yield the same result when conducted in another.

Uniformity is only a baseline that is assumed in an environment where all variables are controlled. Your statement here is false.

I have shown that scientific theories do not describe reality as it actually is, and never can; that they are not actually empirical at all; and that they are founded upon assumptions which are rationally unjustified. Attempts to justify them result only in circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. The form of reasoning in the scientific method itself can be essentially represented as follows:

This object is spherical.
Billiard balls are spherical.
Therefore, this object is a billiard ball.

This is a perfect example of faulty logic. You have applied it here to the scientific process even though science would not derive this result. Once again you have committed the strawman fallacy. Many objects are spherical. This seems like a feeble attempt to make a philosophical point. Unfortunately your premise has completely fallen short of acceptable.

Thus, since the assumptions underlying all scientific reasoning are logically fallacious, it follows that all scientific theories are logically fallacious also.

I do not know how to say this without sounding like I am being mean, but I need to call into question your education regarding science and it’s methodology. You seem on the surface to be reasonably intelligent yet some of your beliefs are wholly rooted in superstition and faith. Intelligent people that believe in gods and fairy tales tend to do so because they are very good at coming up with intelligent explanations to explain away the obvious contradictions in their worldview.

If you would like to take the stance that we have no way of knowing anything except through god and that we must rely on god for everything, then I must insist that your actions follow your words. The next time you are sick you should rely solely on prayer to help you. Do not go to the hospital, do not buy medicine and while you’re at it you might as well drop that insurance plan. You need to do away with thermometers and clocks and any other “inconsistent and manmade” measuring device. You should not use automobiles or airplanes since their construction and daily operations rely solely on the calculations of the scientific method.

It is time for you to rely wholly on god and to cease to borrow from the world of science which you seem to abhor. If you are not willing to live this way then you really have no reason to continue. Religion was sufficient to quell the intuitive nature of humans before we had the means to discover the world for ourselves. Now it appears to be a relic that will fade as the world becomes more and more educated.