The Value Of Atheism

The following tweet was put out by Adam Baldwin the other day (note: he frequently deletes his tweets so the reference is no longer valid):

@adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

What have #atheists ever accomplished with their #atheism that would make their#atheist opinions worthy of respect?

http://twitter.com/adamsbaldwin/status/11173114775863296


Adam Baldwin put out the challenge above asking essentially, what did atheism ever do for humanity. Of course, he worded it in a very negative and sophistic way.

My response is as follows:

The value of atheism is that it is a rejection of the FALSE religious claims of just cause for genocide, genital mutilation, stoning to death, torture, and hate (etc). Atheism itself (the rejection of theism) provides ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for such obviously abhorrent actions.

So, you might ask, how does a secular person justify 'morality'. The answer is: EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY OTHER SINGLE PERSON HAS EVER DONE SO.

You learned your fundamental moral behaviors LONG before you knew anything about the details of the bible (and, in fact, a lucky few among us do not have any poisonous religious claims polluting their mind yet they are moral beings as well). You ALREADY knew it was wrong to hurt others because you FELT it. And the few people who don't feel this way are the psychopaths and sociopaths in the world. It has NEVER been demonstrated that a non-belief in god is correlated with a lack of empathy in any way. On the other hand, religious up-bringings HAVE been shown to have PTSD-like effects on children.

We humans have 'mirror' neurons which enable us to virtually experience what others actually experience. When you see someone else harmed you (tend to) imagine that you feel what they are feeling (unless you are mentally damaged). This is the underlying basis of our empathic drive and forms the fundamental basis for our sense of morality. Neuroscience is making incredible progress in this area of research.

Secondly, humans have the ability to share our ideas as a collective group. Through various agreements (implicit and explicit) we have established rules for social order that result in mutual support and protection of groups that we identify with (and to our great collective misfortune, also leads to conflicts with groups that we do NOT identify with).

Finally, because we are able to observe, reason, and make determinations for our individual and collective well-being (e.g., I'm hungry, I need to eat -- or my family is hungry, I need to hunt) we are also able to make similar determinations about our behaviors and their consequences in other areas of life.

Go back 10,000 years and imagine that you are a stranger entering a village and you start acting erratically (yelling, jumping around, acting unusual, foaming at the mouth, etc). The villagers might well kill you in self-defense.

It's not immoral to act strangely and yet people would have KNOWN not to do it. They don't need a 'god' to tell them how others are going to react to things.

You don't have to actually DO a thing to make a fairly good assessment of this result and adjust your behavior accordingly, if you are familiar with the customs and culture.

The problem you immediately run into when you try to use the Bible to justify some kind of absolute moral foundation is that #1 the 'laws' for people clearly changed over time (don't eat pig, ok to eat pig -- cut off foreskin, don't cut off foreskin -- god commanded slavery in the OT, slavery tolerated in the NT, and now is slavery moral or immoral?) and #2 the rules for 'God' are obviously different than those for men, if moral law was ABSOLUTE it would, by definition, apply equally. Yet, it is said to be immoral to commit murder but it's ok to commit murder if God orders it as he did of Abraham, as he did at Jericho, as he did to the many tribes, as he did of the first born of Egypt, and as he did of nearly the entirety of creation in the Flood.

Some final thoughts...

Do you think it's morally ok to CUT OFF a womans entire clitoris? Some religions^[Islam] claim that you must, how do you propose to prove them wrong? Does the Bible say you can't do that? It ORDERS the followers of Judaism to cut off part of the male penis so obviously god doesn't think too poorly of such practices and he utterly fails to mention any prohibition on doing this to women.

And Slavery existed in Jesus' time but he never spoke out clearly and condemned it. And the Bible was used for thousands of years to Justify slavery and the poor treatment of jewish people. Only very recently (historically speaking) did religious leaders FINALLY grow a fucking conscious and help to speak out against slavery.

These issues just show the complete ridiculousness of religious claims. Unless you can overcome all those objections then you have no basis to claim the superiority of religious claims.

I don't think it's moral/ethical to cut ANYTHING off any infant (unless there is a clear and established medical need). That goes for foreskins, clitorises, extra fingers or toes (unless they present a medical danger), penis on a hermaphrodite, or ANYTHING else [see also Circumcision]

Addendum: I would like to add here, that by rejecting rigidly, closed-minded claims of religion immense progress has been made in the sciences while the Catholic Church was busying burning scientists like Giordano Bruno at the stake and imprisoning Galileo Galilei. The Church had an odd love/hate relationship with scientists, they were sometimes supporters of those who would stay within their strict bounds. But it is that very factor of an a priori boundary of inquiry that is at the heart of the problem and when you compound that with a bloodthirsty penchant for the most extreme forms of torture you can imagine for those who dared think for themselves then yes, I do find fault. How many Popes in a row ordered murder and torture be done in Christ's name? And is even ONE acceptable? Imagine if an atheist organization existed today that had tortured people for 1000 years? Would ANY organization get away with that other than a religious one?

So I say those who have rejected these false religious beliefs have indeed done many wonderful things for mankind as a product of that rejection, or to use Baldwin's phrase "with their atheism". AND they didn't do it out of fear or bribery.

Living Without God

What living without belief in a god means to me...

I didn't stop being generous when I stopped believing in Santa

It means that I value human compassion. There will be no redemption in the distant future. Each and every person needs to be responsible for improving our collective well-being. People are abused and murdered every day and we have to work to improve this situation. Those who survive the abuses heaped on them do not generally end up being better or stronger people for it, far too often they end up continuing the cycle of abuse and they need our help and compassion; first and foremost in prevention.

It means that I cannot rely on the non-existent supernatural to make everything right at some nebulous point in the future. Therefore I must take my share of responsibility for how things are now and how things will be in the future.

Where do morals come from if not from god? They come from human behavior processed by human thought. This answer should be obvious. But without god there can be no absolute right or wrong? Wrong, there is no absolute right or wrong with god. The god of the bible tried to get people to murder their own children. The god of the bible ordered the slaughter of every man, woman, and child at Jericho (Josuha 6). The god of the bible directly Murdered all the first-born of Egypt, including innocent infants. The god of the bible Murdered every man, woman, and innocent child on the planet (except Noah's family) as part of the flood. Doesn't any of that seem wrong to you? If so, why is your innate sense of right & wrong better than gods supposedly is?

There are better ways to deal with our problems.

If the Christian god existed, he has allowed billions of children to be subjected to abusive parents (emotionally and physically) and then proposes to punish those children with eternal torment once they grow up to be less than ideal human beings? Doesn't that just seem wrong to you?

Consider the alternative, that we are animals who are slowly gaining greater cognitive abilities and we're now able to look back at our history and see the evils which we have propagated on our own. We are now capable of doing better but you have to take steps to be responsible for yourself and not scapegoat your own failings onto some mythical Christ.

And we are collectively guilty today for not immediately putting a stop to many of the evils that continue. Some will take longer but there are many things that we could end today if we all say, we're just not going to take it any more (cue rock music).

For example, it is not acceptable to stone people to death. It is not acceptable to put anyone to death, however horrible of a person they have been they are a product of our own collective failure to take action. I do not propose they be allowed to roam around free, but it is just not right to kill another human being unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent them from causing immediate harm.

500 million people live in abject poverty, without access to acceptably clean water, food, and shelter. and some 3 billion people live in unacceptable conditions that no human should have to endure.

15 million children die every year of starvation but for the cost of only ten Stealth bombers, every single child that starved to death over the past 10 years could have been saved. But these children will continue to suffer and die, every year, day in and day out, until we all stand up and say 'no more'.

Another major issue we face today is that the population growth rate is alarming (despite these problems which cause unacceptable levels of suffering and death). As we begin to fix the deplorable conditions our brothers and sisters are forced to live under we must gain control over our own reproduction rates. We have to be responsible and educate people so they can make better choices for themselves and others. And under these circumstances it is morally detestable to continue to preach this nonsense that god gets irate if you use a condom (or other forms of birth control).

I would love to see a world where abortions are not necessary but human-kind has not reached that level. If you are "pro-life" and want to end abortions then you need to go about it the right way.

First and foremost, by ensuring those who are alive and suffering have proper food and health care. If you cannot do that then you are not pro-life, you are just pro-suffering.

Secondly, you need to ensure that every child has a safe and happy home to grow up in with loving parents. And you need to accomplish this with compassion, not by forcibly removing children from their parents and shoving them into foster homes where they are abused further. If you want to "fix" a broken family move in with them and show them a better way. If that is too much of your time to bother with then you are part of the problem. Our current system of child protective services in the US is utterly broken and it wreaks havoc on everyone it touches. It is not based on compassion for the child although it pretends to be so. And through the rest of the world... well, we have a lot of work ahead of us.

It is irresponsible to assume there is supernatural safety net that awaits us. This is nothing more than a boorish excuse for inaction. So please, wake up and take some action to make the world a better place.

But I Had A Personal Experience!

Why we cannot rely solely on individual memory to document events.

Remarkable false memories By Daniel Simons

I myself have personally had some pretty amazing experiences and witnessed amazing phenomena as products of meditation (and on occasion, medication). I have SEEN a golden, radiant book with letters of fire burning onto the pages (meditation), I have seen images of the future that have subsequently come to pass (lucid dreaming, meditation), and I have been 'miraculously' saved from physical harm (reality). Be they coincidences, hallucinations, lucky guesses, or who knows, maybe even some quantum process that we don't understand yet. But not a SINGLE one of those experiences is evidence for something supernatural or a soul. The dreaming brain is perfectly capable of generating PROFOUNDLY meaningful and deep, rich experiences that are indistinguishable from reality to the observer. I know this because I practiced at it for many years.

Chilling Effects of Religious Bigotry

The maltreatment of Galileo Galilei in the hands of the Church is well known (despite their far-too-little-too-late and backhanded apology) but what may be less well known is that Galileo got off easy compared to Giordano Bruno who was murdered by the Church.

Copernicus suppressed his research due to the church, Campanella was tortured by the church repeatedly for supporting Galileo, Rene Descartes suppressed his research due to Galileo's treatment, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, Adam Sedgewick, Robert Chambers, Charles Darwin... all scientists whose work was negatively affected by the actions of the Roman Catholic Church against the progress of science.

Why, might we ask, was the work of Galileo and Copernicus so feared by the Church and by the Popes Paul V and Urban VIII?

The answer is simple, if the earth was not the fixed center of creation then the Bible was FALSE. It was, and still is, that simple.

The force and weight of this realization requires an understanding of apostolic succession - the Pope is not claimed to be an ordinary man but a man who is in the direct line of succession from the original apostle Peter:

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

These men KNEW what the bible said and what it meant better than anyone else and it was unquestioned that the earth was the fixed center of the universe (and they had absolutely no inkling of other galaxies). And, while I argue in the strongest possible terms that:

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth and died to give His work its final consecration never had any existence ~ Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965, Nobel Prize 1952), Ph.D, Christian theologian and Dean of Theological College of Saint Thomas at the University of Strasburg; The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), page 478

I do believe these men, these Popes, believed what they wrote and that the Bible proclaims that the earth is 1 Chronicles 16:30 "...all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" and Psalm 93:1 "...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved".

The very idea of the firmament is the rigid and solid vault of the sky set upon the solid, immobile earth and diving the waters below from those above. But now we know that space is vast and filled with many other stars like our own. It is not a fixed dome upon which chariots of fire move, ridden by the angels (the planets).

It took hundreds of years to overcome the deep-seated bigotry of the Roman Catholic Church against science, and now we live in a world where even 5 year old children can grasp the basics of planetary motion, human beings have traveled to the moon and back to earth, and people can communicate around the globe in a blink of an eye.

Thankfully the stewards of the RCC have slowly come around and seen the error of their ways (although they now turn a blind eye to the obvious contradictions with reality) - unfortunately, their blind eye extends to the horrible actions of their own Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and even their own Pope who was complicit in the cover up. Ye shall know them by their fruits indeed.

The Modern Secular Movement and YOU

It has been suggested that some atheists are only about making others feel insecure and unhappy. And while it is impossible to speak for all atheists (because we are an extremely individualized and varied group, beyond lacking a belief in a god) I will explain my views.

For one, I really don't believe that this is the primary motivation of the modern secular movement at all, even if there are a few mean spirited people out there. There are plentiful examples of mean-spirited believers. Just go look at a list of Hate Groups (e.g., Southern Poverty Law Center: Ideology) and you will find plenty of hate groups based on religious tenants. I don't see a single group on that list that claims to or even appears to hate others simply out of their lack of belief in a god.

So, while some atheists may be openly hostile towards some religious beliefs, they do so on an individual basis -- whereas, there are ample sources of hate speech in the religious texts of every major religion. Atheism does not command, on pain of eternal torment for disobeying god, that someone sacrifice their own child (as god did with Abraham), that parents should stone their children to death, that because god has given us a parcel of land we must commit genocide and infanticide against every resident of that land that stands in our way, or that we should stone our wives to death if we find they are not a virgin. But the bible contains all of these things.

And while I'm glad that not every member of these groups do these disgusting things (any more; if the bible is accurate people USED to do them), the fact is that they are still used by others to fuel hatred. The fact that many religious adherents ignore or make excuses for these things doesn't make the resulting problems go away.

Can you imagine if atheists had a book that said to go out and murder people like the bible does? The hypocrisy and double-standards are just at ridiculous levels.

Most outspoken atheists are simply about protecting our rights and, in some cases, simply doing what IS right. Atheists generally take issue, not with someones private beliefs (again, I'm sure there would be an occasional exception), but primarily with their actions.

Far too many 'believers' want to use their beliefs as an excuse to deny rights to people they simply don't like or don't respect (most often lately, women, children, and gay people). They have spent billions of dollars fighting against scientific education in the schools (because they know what happens when children are well educated - they know what it means that 93% of the National Academy of Science members do not believe in a god). They have spent billions fighting against gay rights. They have spent billions brainwashing people to fear condoms (not just teaching the 'virtues' of abstinence but actually telling people that "Condoms CAUSE Aids") which has resulted in millions of people suffering and dying, primarily in parts of Africa (which is compounded there by other, unfounded, magical beliefs). They don't just try to help the poor -- they preach that being poor is a virtue, and they trade their help for allegiance to a flawed and evil doctrine. This is called exploitation.

Just compare the typical Atheistic billboards "You know it's a myth", "Millions are good without god", etc with these:

http://www.dailyscroll.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/billboard_smaller.jpg

http://thevillageheathen.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/atheist_billboard.jpg

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/atheism-is-wonderful.jpg

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/christianbillboard.jpg

One claims that non-belief is Treason! They are suggesting we should be put to death because we find the idea of their child-murdering, slavery-endorsing, misogynistic god offensive to our sensibilities of decent behavior.

To me, there really is no comparison between those who are merely being outspoken against religion and the religious treatment of others (just look at the many wars fought between different 'Christian' factions - much less what they have done through history to non-believers and those of other faiths). I don't mean to only pick on Christians (the other major religions are absolutely no better), but they are the sect I know best because I live in the south and have to deal with their hatred, prejudice and nonsense on a daily basis.

They then parade around as if their faith is something to be proud of and I am not allowed to speak freely out of fear for my life and job because I have chosen not to believe things without substantive cause. For example:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/it_must_be_tough_to_be_an_athe.php

If you don't face this kind of bigotry on a daily basis then maybe you don't understand what others are going through, but I assure you it happens, frequently.

So, if someone seems too aggressive or outspoken on the subject maybe you should wonder what their reasons must be to have reached that point? I personally do not care what others choose to believe in private, but I do care about how they decide to practice it when it impacts my life.

All Atheists Are EVIL! (or maybe not)

Why aren't all atheists "EVIL" like Stalin or Mao?

It has been said, MANY times, and MANY different ways but the problem with this approach is that Atheism is only a SINGULAR position, on a SINGULAR claim.  Atheism (for most) says "I reject your claims about the existence of the god you are claiming".  Period -- that is it.  It doesn't say how you SHOULD behave or what else you SHOULD believe.  Most atheists do not claim to be able to PROVE, categorically that absolutely no god can even exist [which is NOT to say that Atheists do not have other positive beliefs in support of their position -- my point here is that ALL OF THOSE OTHER BELIEFS MATTER]

As any idiot should be able to trivially see, Atheism does NOT command genocide, the bible does so repeatedly and many totalitarians and fascists have done so and some of them have done so BECAUSE of the explicit commands to do so in the bible.

Atheism does NOT command the murder of ones own child EVER, but the bible says that god commands Abraham to do so - which means that it MUST be ok for your god to command people to murder their children and IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT HE DID NOT ALLOW ABRAHAM TO COMPLETE THE ACTION - the point is that god CLEARLY gave the command to do so.  That is not just EVIL, it is FUCKING EVIL.

Are ALL Catholics responsible for ALL murders committed by the byzantine empire JUST BECAUSE they both had a religion?  I do not claim so.

I don't lump ALL religions together so why do you feel justified in lumping ALL non-believers in religion together WHEN WE CLEARLY HAVE DIFFERENT VALUES, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF SYSTEMS from other non-believers such as Stalin or Mao?  You just look like a raging moron when you do this.

It is the utmost in ridiculous stupidity and ignorance to suggest that MY non-belief in YOUR god is, in any way, EQUIVALENT to the extreme forms of totalitarian regimes.  I assume you are JUST FINE with me rejecting Zeus (this was a God who supposedly ATE his own children so he wouldn't have any competition) or Odin or any of 30,000 OTHER gods?  So, why is your undemonstrated god so special?  Is it his lack of evidence?  Or maybe the fact that the stories were written 30 YEARS too late?  Or maybe it's the evidence of pseudepigrapha which means people have LIED about who wrote the books?  Or maybe it's the UTTER LACK of any historical documentation of events like the Saints rising from the dead?  Or the hundreds of errors, redactions, insertations and missing originals?  Or is it the FACT that the stewards of your 'religion' burned all evidence contrary to their claims, tortured and murdered people into converted, and ruled with an iron fist for 1700 years?   Tell you what, contact the James Randi foundation, get yourself a Bull carcass and get on TV with Randi supervising and you LIGHT that sucker on fire with JUST prayer (as it says in 1 Kings 18 that your 'god' can do) and I will convert -- how does that sound?


It is irrelevant that a FEW regimes from the past promoted or promulgated atheism BECAUSE some of the most PEACEFUL people in the world have also PROMOTED atheism (namely the atheistic Jains and Buddhists), as well as many western atheists.

I am not ONLY against religion, I am against ANY form of dogmatic system INCLUDING atheistic ones!  I don't judge people by "are they an atheist or not" I judge them by their words and actions.  And I judge beliefs by the EVIDENCES of their relative harms.

A belief that one should murder your children if you believe god tells you to IS HARMFUL.

A belief that you should believe nonsense IN SPITE OF evidence to the contrary IS HARMFUL.

A belief that you should murder, harm, degrade, devalue, or deny rights to classes of people for attributes which DO NOT HARM others (race, sex, sexual preference, food preferences, etc) IS HARMFUL.

A belief that threatening CHILDREN with eternal damnation in order to instill an utmost fear in them and indoctrinate them with emotionally charged rhetoric IS HARMFUL.

There are many others, these are just a few examples.

Can Science Disprove God

How can science disprove a higher power (or god) in general?

Science can, and only cares to, disprove definite, testable claims. So the question is not IS there a higher power, but how does some person claim to KNOW there is a higher power in ways that are observable (measurable) and then how do those observables demonstrate the reality of said higher power.

In simple terms, the one making a claim that something is real (a positive ontological claim) has the burden of proof.

For example, if the answer is "well, there is a higher power because my prayers are answered". That is a claim that can be tested. But the additional question is, is merely asking for something and then receiving actually evidence for a higher power? When you dig into these claims they usually vanish as being either Confirmation Bias (you ask for 100 things, 1 mundane item comes true - god exists!) or Wishful fulfillment (See Also: But I Had A Personal Experience).

Here it is worthwhile to study things like illusions (how our brains can be fooled) and things like Cognitive Biases.

Consider the alternative epistemic (how you approach knowledge or truth) approach, famously posed as Russell's Teapot.

So, how can science disprove a China Teapot in orbit about the sun?

Sure! I'll send a probe there, give me the coordinates.

Oh no, sorry it's invisible and undetectable (here I have Moved The Goal Post - a tactic often used by theists)

If we cannot DISPROVE the China Teapot must we then accept that it is true? Surely not.

We cannot absolutely disprove the teapot but it's an extremely reasonable position to be aTeapotist -- there almost certainly is NOT a Celestial teapot in orbit about the sun, it is no leap of faith to believe so. So saying "I disbelieve your claim of a Celestial teapot" is therefore a reasonable atheistic position - Even though it allows a (vanishingly small) possibility of being incorrect.

If, on the other hand, you believe a claim to be reasonable, but simply cannot find evidence to prove or disprove the claim then an Agnostic position may be more fitting (and many people will disagree with me on this point - and I admit to an oversimplification). Some might say that the multitude of anecdotal evidence, combined with possibly personal experiences is sufficient that we should remain Agnostic on the question. Some people see that as lending undeserved credibility to the claim.

Which label you use is of little practical difference, what really matters is your position, your evidence, and your reasoning.

I would argue that the idea of god is made-up. I base that on a deep study of ancient History and Shamanism (including my own personal 'Shamanic' experiences). And even though I have personally seen burning books, "angels and demons" (I would say entities), touched a lightray, and many other such things I absolutely do not believe in a spirit, or soul, or god, or higher power, or ghosts, or intelligent causative agency, etc. I believe in the power of my brain to create entire worlds and immersive experiences as it does while dreaming.

By most definitions I am therefore an atheist and I happy take up that position in a discussion on the subject.

But strictly philosophically speaking, I identify most strongly with Thomas Huxley's brand of Agnosticism. But not in the same way that most people use the term 'agnostic'. This is my blog entry on it if you have any interest in the philosophy of it: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html

However you identify (atheist or agnostic or antitheist or antheist or all of the above) I highly recommend reading some of the works of Thomas Huxley (who was also known as Darwin's Bulldog), Bertrand Russell, and Robert G. Ingersoll.

Google Books has a lot of these older texts available for Free! [including Darwin's Origin of Species, which is also available as a free 'amateur recording' audio book: ]

Why Are Atheists So Angry? (response)

This is a response to the Huffington Post article "Why Are Atheists So Angry?"

#1 Atheists are not, generally speaking, more or less "angry" than anyone else in my experience.

Are religious people somehow NOT 'angry' about children being raped and abused?

Would religious people be 'angry' if atheists (or members of other religions) pushed to make their religion of choice be against the law to practice or limited? What if I spoke of outlawing Judaism? You might not get 'angry', but many Jewish people surely would (and rightly so).

Christians are 'angry' about Sharia law being forced upon them in some locations? But they are shocked when non-Christians don't want their 'Christian' values (read: sexual repression) shoved down their throats?

Do Jewish people ever get annoyed when they have to explain for the 1000th time that NO, they don't eat Christian children? Some Atheists also get annoyed by the repetition of claims which are completely baseless and might express their frustration.

Why does a search for "angry jew" pull up 32,000 hits? Are Jewish people especially angry? [I'm not saying they are -- I am making a point about using bad data]

And how many 'angry' posts would I get if I posted an article dismissing the Holocaust? I dare say I would get more angry posts than you did -- and rightly so again.

These are the types of things I see people being 'angry', or more often simply frustrated, about.

You have failed to do the scientific work to conclude that atheists are any more or less angry than anyone else.

#2 Galileo got off easy compared to Giordano Bruno (murdered by the church); Copernicus suppressed his research due to the church, Campanella was tortured by the church repeatedly for supporting Galileo, Rene Descartes suppressed his research due to Galileo's treatment, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, Adam Sedgewick, Robert Chambers, Charles Darwin...

Might I suggest reading Andrew White's The Warfare Of Science With Theology?

The Christian church has been a consistent detractor and danger to scientific progress UNLESS it supported their theology. They were a brutal force of destruction for 1800+ years that is entirely deserving of our derision on all accounts (and the sitting Pope covered up child molestation and rape for the church).

No amount of building hospitals or orphanages (indulgences anyone?) will ever excuse the atrocities they committed. You cannot buy off the murdered.

#3 There are seemingly few "serious thinkers" on the side of theology. If a theist comes out making blatant factual errors, attacking straw men, and committing atrocious logical fallacies then sorry, they are a waste of time.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

The problem is that there are no simply no valid logical or empirical arguments for god. If you have a test I can perform that will clearly demonstrate GOD let's do it on National TV and be done with it?

If god were ontologically real and knowable then we would not have millions of different versions of belief about him - I cannot even find TWO christians who believe the same things about god.

For amusement I wrote this which barely even begins to scratch the surface: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/01/christianatheist-pre-discussion.html

#4 There is a post on my blog that addresses your question about wonder:

http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/02/living-without-god.html

You argue for Epistemological humility but postulate god in the same paragraph. Epistemological Honesty demands the opposite, that we remain silent about that which we cannot demonstrate - not assume it is true and commence slicing off parts of children's genitals on his command, denying rights to LGBT members of society, oppressing women, or murdering healthcare providers.

I do not say "there is categorically no god", I say that you have no evidence that supports your claims about god and I refuse to believe in something about which we have absolutely no actual knowledge.

I do know a bit about human psychology and history and I know that men seek power and control and I can see that religion gives them a startling mechanism for motivating men into unjust wars by demonizing the other side. I also know that men seek explanations and fear the unknown and the fearful are willing to believe the most horrid things rather than feel that they have a gap in their knowledge, and nothing looms larger than a mans own death.

Just because some men are too fearful to admit that they simply "don't know" (but all evidence says that they will rot and decay and never again exist) they have been inventing ludicrous explanations for many thousands of years (shamanic cave art suggests some 30,000 years) before "Moses" supposedly talked to a burning bush in a story that reads exactly like other shamanic experiences.

I don't fear death, I fear a life wasted in banal servitude to a mere idea invented by a few goat-herding, misogynistic, barbarian simpletons just because of a accident of my birth location (or I might be Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Baha'i, Jain, or Wicca - e.g.).

Einstein, Spinoza, and God

There are many Einstein quotes on God (almost a whole book :), he was certainly indoctrinated as a child before beginning to grow out of such beliefs, and he just as certainly used the word "god" metaphorically and in ways unfamiliar to most believers.

As a former believer myself, I know how difficult it is to rid oneself of beliefs that were ingrained into your psyche through a process of indoctrination so it is not unusual for ones beliefs to evolve over time as we continue to learn.

There is also a progression in his beliefs from childhood through later in life.

1929: Einstein tells Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:

I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 127, ISBN 0471114596

Commentary: First we have to understand what Spinozism is because Einstein ALSO stated that he didn't feel he was a pantheist. For Spinoza, God had infinitely many properties of which only a finite number of those were represented in our Universe - but I believe the aspect that attracted Einstein's thoughts at this point in his life would have been the aspects of "unity of all that exists" and a "regularity of all that happens". And this is what Einstein was referring to when he famously quipped "God does not play dice with the universe". But it is also fairly clear that, by this, Einstein means that the Universe is ordered and lawful, not random. This is, as yet, a deep and unresolved question in physics. Spinozism also stated that only God possessed free will, with our universe (humans included) being moved solely by fixed laws.

1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Commentary: At this point in his life, Einstein had moved further away from Spinozism towards a more Agnostic philosophy. The more we have learned the less likely any form of "god" seems but like millions of other propositions the NON-existence of a god isn't something that can be demonstrated. Neither can demonstrate that Zeus doesn't exist, nor Russell's Teapot. This is why Evidence is so critical in the formation of rational beliefs.

Closer to the end of his life Einstein had the following to say:

1954: Einstein in a letter to Eric Gutkind on January 3, 1954 wrote:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

letter to Eric Gutkind

1954: Einstein also wrote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Letter To An Atheist (1954) from Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1982) ISBN 0-691-02368-9

Commentary: I do NOT believe that Einstein was ever what we would call an Atheist - he consistently felt an adoration for the universe and believed that by understanding HOW it came to be we could understand the mind of "god" -- but absolutely and unquestionably he did not believe in a theistic (personal) god, he is adamant about that. Neither did he believe in a simple Deistic or Pantheistic concept of "god" ("I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist").

But then, Isaac Newton was an alchemist and I don't think we can hold that against his other contributions. The real shame to me that such intelligent men should have to feel social and culture pressures to conform to ignorant beliefs and suffer childhood indoctrination. Such abuses in the past offer no excuse for us to continue them into the future.

"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." ~ Albert Einstein

Agnosticism revisited (blog response)

Why Agnosticism Is Not An Option In Our Time | Indian Atheists

My response to the above blog entry:

You seem to be only arguing against some weakly, non-intellectual usage of the term agnosticism which has been misappropriated. So you aren't arguing against Agnosticism (the noun) but being agnostic (the poorly conceived, more modern adjective).

As Michael Martin writes in "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification":

Putting aside the current popular sense of the term, "Agnosticism" was coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869. According to Huxley, "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

[see also my blog: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html ]

Do you have a problem with valuing reason?

Do you have a problem with demanding evidence in support of a proposition?

Those are the two foundational, POSITIVE beliefs that make up Agnosticism. ANY other claims made by an Agnostic should flow from those two positions.

On the other hand, Positive Atheism asserts that there ARE NO gods, period. Which is a position that Agnostics would reject because #1 we don't have a valid definition for "gods" we can agree on and #2 we do not have evidence that there are NONE of those things. Assuming 'god' is, at a minimum something that existed prior to our universe and was, in some fashion, responsible for the creation of it we can't really know what that means. And if someone tries to assert AGENCY as a property of that thing then I would smack them down because they have no reason or evidence to claim such a thing (so-called cosmological arguments (including Kalam) are a complete mental masturbation that neither prove nor demonstrates anything about the actual universe).

But most Atheists these days only claim, that they don't believe in a god and a few more strongly assert that it seems unlikely gods actually exist at all. Those are fine positions to hold, the second one isn't demonstrated but is not an unreasonable working assumption (as you argue in your paper). But, that's new atheism -- Agnosticism was founded during a time when Atheists asserted that they essentially knew for a fact there were no gods and Huxley felt that our ability to know things is fairly sketchy epistemologically speaking.

As an Agnostic I am PERFECTLY willing to say that the Christian religion is BULLSHIT, it is a fraud and a sham. There is EVIDENCE to support this and absolutely NO evidence to support their claims. I see no evidence Islam is any better off although I admit that I have not studied it nearly as in depth but to the point that it draws from Judaism and Christianity before it it is equally a fraud.

But the question of how the universe came into existence is unknown by either science or any human. It IS a reasonable working assumption that this is a subject we can investigate and come to understand but it's also possible that this is a truly unknowable question because there are hints that it lies across physical boundaries that sufficient information cannot cross for us to make informed decisions.

That doesn't mean that I accept anyones claims about a specific god that they claim to magically know the mind of. It doesn't mean that I accept all claims as True by default (exactly the opposite).

So I would like to know exactly who's version of 'Agnosticism' you are arguing against because your point seems to be a bit of a strawman.

Your subject is "Why Agnosticism Is Not An Option" and then you don't even define what you mean by Agnosticism and you really never even mention it -- you just make points about how we live longer and know more now.

If the title was "Why modern religions are a complete sham" your arguments would be more on point.

To sum up -- I'm an Agnostic because I:

#1 value reason

#2 value evidence or demonstrations of claims

#3 believe that our ability to know truth is very weak epistemologically speaking, but falsification is on much sounder grounds

Those with a keen wit will probably see that this aligns very strongly with the scientific method.

And finally -- I don't like the idea of forming my position as only being in opposition to some other position. I do NOT grant the Theists the default position and stand in opposition to it.

And that's why I identify as Huxley-Agnostic and not Atheist (although I still speak out very strongly against religions and superstitious beliefs). But Atheists don't make me uncomfortable EXCEPT when they try to redefine Agnosticism :)

What About God

Let me be really clear here, I don't have a problem with the CONCEPT of a 'god' existing (if a 'god' exists fine -- prove it without resorting to lies, frauds, etc), but I DEMAND proof of EVERYTHING I choose to believe in -- ESPECIALLY when those things have large or profound impacts on my life. And I live as good of a life as I can, the existence or non-existence of a god has no bearing on me. I'm not perfect by any stretch but neither are any Christians and I would say I'm better than most.

Arguments that say life is too complex to just happen because of the nature of 'physics' are ridiculous because they propose that some infinitely complex and powerful agency JUST exists. They just make the problem WORSE, not better [and yes, Kalam, blah blah blah -- mental masturbation and nothing more, you cannot prove reality through logic - the axioms you use in logic are based on our imperfect OBSERVATIONS of reality]. I do believe that with extremely CAREFUL application of the scientific method we can EEK out semi-reliable knowledge of our world. But it is absolutely fraught with pitfalls.

The history of the texts used in the bible show that they are absolutely frauds, there are NO eyewitness accounts and absolutely NO contemporaneous accounts. The Testimonium Flavianum entry on Jesus is fairly clearly fraudulent and even if it wasn't it was written FAR too late and doesn't claim first hand knowledge. Where are the entries by Historians on the THOUSANDS of "Saints" risen from the dead? ZILCH. It is a LIE, a fake, and a fraud. At BEST, some of these people had ecstatic experiences and with their limited goat-herding knowledge they believed them.

For example, there is a lot of evidence that Judas of Galilee existed during this time period -- and absolutely ZERO evidence that the Jesus/Yeshua character of the bible existed. Absolutely ZERO. And interestingly, many of the things attributed to Jesus are DOCUMENTED by historians to actions of Judas of Galilee.

The synoptic gospels are all written 30+ years AFTER the alleged time of Jesus, they are all anonymous and ONLY by tradition attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. NONE are eye-witness accounts. Paul NEVER met Jesus, only claimed he saw him in what was essentially a vision. The earliest quotations from what we now call Matthew and Mark are NOTHING like the modern texts. There are THOUSANDS of errors/differences in the different versions of copies we have. We have NOT A SINGLE original autograph of ANY biblical text. We have only copies of copies of copies of copies. Yeah they are kinda sorta, mostly similar -- but then there are HUGE issues in the gospel accounts. See this video for just a FEW examples: David Fitzgerald Skepticon 3 "Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus" (youtube).

[even if the texts CLAIMED to be eyewitness accounts there is no evidence they actually are because of the dates written]

So textually, the bible is an absolute mess. And even the more honest of the hardcore biblical scholars ADMIT that the accounts of Jesus are clearly false.

"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed."
Albert Schweitzer(1875-1965, Nobel Prize 1952), Ph.D, Christian theologian and Dean of Theological College of Saint Thomas at the University of Strasburg
The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), page 478
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/

And in some cases critical passages have clearly been added to the texts later (e.g., in 2 Peter).

And claims it has been faithfully transmitted? COME ON! There are THOUSANDS of Christian sects who disagree with each other over what the passages even mean. Which ONE of those THOUSANDS have it right in every regard? Even if one of them had the right of it there would be absolutely no way to know. They disagree on MAJOR issues -- do we have Free Will or not? How do you get to Heaven? Etc It's just utterly ridiculous to suppose anything has been faithfully transmitted.

And then we come to the actual history of the 'Christian' church itself. After 1800 years of slavery, abuse, torture, murder, selling of indulgences (and yes, I know what indulgences are), misogyny, prejudice, suppression of valid scientific knowledge that was viewed as in conflict with the claims of the church, utter destruction of native CULTURE after CULTURE after CULTURE after CULTURE after CULTURE after CULTURE after CULTURE after CULTURE... it is absolutely filthy and disgusting to me to even SUGGEST that these filthy, disgustingly evil BASTARDS have anything to do with God in any way, shape or form. And they were the SOLE arbiters of 'God' for 1500 years, until the Protestant reformation -- and do not be confused, that did NOT fix anything what-so-ever so don't tell me you follow some protestant branch and that makes everything ok -- it doesn't. Every dollar you give them is a dollar spent in hatred of mankind. They should be WIPED from the face of the earth forever (peacefully I hope -- I'm not an advocate of violence).

So all we're left with is a nice metaphor and a FEW little bits of clear thinking from the bronze age like "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" (things I almost NEVER see any christian practicing). And these FEW nice little bits are utterly washed out by all the absolutely VILE and DISGUSTING parts of the bible (god COMMANDS genocide after genocide after genocide after genocide, COMMANDS infanticide, COMMITS genocide and infanticide, etc) -- that is NO God that I wish to be associated with, it's disgusting, vile and evil nonsense. The bible says "By their fruit you will recognize them" and you have to be fucking blind not to see the evil fruits of the Christian religion.

Deut 7: When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them...nor shew mercy unto them

And for WHAT crime are the children to be put to death? Allegedly because their parents were committing child sacrifices -- do you fail to see the ignorance of this claim?


There are certainly many very GOOD people who just happen to have fallen for the Christian lies. They are lied to so I don't hold them directly responsible but their money certainly goes to support many agendas that I view as absolutely EVIL.

Whatever you might think about God the use of the Church to deny GOVERNMENT RIGHTS GRANTED EQUALLY TO ALL (e.g., gay marriage) is absolutely DISGUSTING.

For all those reasons (and more, as you see I have MANY thoughts on the Christian religion -- my position is NOT unconsidered) I will NEVER support any Christian church (maybe if Jesus or God comes and talks me into it and even they will have a difficult time). There are MOUNTAINS of evidence they are frauds, evil, liars, and corrupted. No. Thank. You.


I see no evidence for God in the general sense, other than it seems to make some people feel better to think that others will suffer in eternal torment for their sins while the person being comforted invariable will spend their eternity in heaven, DESPITE their own sins.

On the other hand... (and let me know if you cannot use Google and need citations for any of these, I will be happy to supply them but this is already very long)

• There is LOTS of evidence that very complex chemistry happens, even in outer space!
• There is LOTS of evidence that every chemical needed for life to "happen" (and I reject using the word "by chance" here unless you can demonstrate anything in the universe is truly Random -- things happen by laws of physics -- we don't understand those ultimate laws of physics and we may never fully understand them -- but we observe consistently that things happen according to rules and not by Will).
• There is LOTS of evidence that these chemicals CAN hit a point where they being to self-replicate -- even WITHOUT the complex arrangement we have today.
• There is LOTS of evidence that these self-replicating molecules will TEND towards self-replicating RNA and with the right proteins available RNA is converted into DNA
• There is LOTS of evidence that these self-replicating RNA and DNA molecules CHANGE over time in various ways that explain ALL the variations we see today
• There is LOTS of evidence that this happened only once on earth (the possible alternative is that it happened several times but in extremely similar ways)
• There is LOTS of evidence that this CANNOT HAPPEN TODAY BECAUSE THE CHEMISTRY HAS BEEN UTTERLY CHANGED BY EARLIER LIFE -- well it could happen today but the changes are MUCH closer to zero than they were 4 billion years ago
• There is LOTS of evidence that this process involved clay, geothermal vents, ice, lipid vesicles, etc
• There is OBSERVED cases of a single-celled organism evolving multi-cellular forms -- OBSERVED, we SAW this happen
• There is LOTS of evidence in DNA that things have evolved from form to form over billions of years
• There is LOTS of evidence in fossils that MATCH the DNA evidence - the timelines MATCH, the types of mutations MATCH, the rate of mutation MATCHES

There is so much evidence for abiogenesis and evolution that it is almost inconceivable that the theory is incorrect. It is POSSIBLE that it is incorrect and MANY details are yet to be worked out, but I seriously question your credulity at believing these moronic ID/Creation people who have almost NO evidence that matches their claims. And when they stick their necks out and make a claim like the flagellum being irreducible complex they get TORN TO PIECES by the science.

There are hundreds of thousands of HARDCORE scientific, published, PEER REVIEWED papers on these topics that examine in great detail EVERY aspect we have the funds and time to investigate and they ALL align in one direction and it sure isn't Creation.

More importantly -- it is UTTERLY unimportant to me if evolutionary theory is correct or not -- science will progress, we observe, we learn more. Science has NOTHING to prove to me or you because it is YOUR OWN CLAIMS that are in question and YOUR CLAIMS are extremely lacking ANY evidence or support. I don't need science, or evolution, or abiogenesis, or physics, or the Big Bang, or ANYTHING else to REJECT your claims as ridiculous, unsupported, and UNdemonstrated.

And yes, I am 'angry' about the atrocities committed by the Christian churches over the years (and YOU should be too) -- the actions of individual Christians are on their own head -- but the church as a whole is responsible for actions commanded by the church leadership over the years in dogma, deed, Edict or order.

For just a FEW examples: Edict of Milan, Pope Innocent III said "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free...", Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum" which required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges, and be confined to ghettos, Catholic Christians who massacred of Jews in Nemirov, Polonnoye, Tulchin, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, Crusades, Inquisitions, LIES about condoms in Africa resulting in massive unnecessary suffering and death, fighting against human rights (e.g., gay marriage), promoting poverty and suffering and the oppression of women, etc.

This is an off the cuff rant so I apologize for any errors in the text, feel free to note any corrections or make fun of me.

Dictionary Atheism

Two posts from PZMyers on his fantastic blog, Pharyngula, have the world of #atheism in a bit of a tizzy:

• Why are you an atheist?
• You don't really want to be like Ray Comfort, do you?

Which even got PZMyers named idiot of the week. Harsh.

This is a difficult issue to respond to because I think that PZMyers' post is more of a rant and seems to be conflating several issues together (namely "Why" someone might be an atheist, how atheism is defined, what it means to be an atheist in practical terms, and possibly pondering an atheistic philosophy/mindset). So I fear that I cannot really respond in full without misrepresenting PZ's position in some ways but I'll take a crack at it.

PZMyers writes:

You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term."

I can agree with that. PZ framed this in the context of discussing "why" and "community", etc. To just toss in a dictionary reference in that context is out of place. This is different from using a dictionary definition of atheism in order to specifically frame a discussion or debate. But if someone in that discussion says atheism means that you believe in evolution, I think it is fair to distinguish between the two. When people start making ridiculous claims like this is when I usually see people beating other people over the head with the dictionary.

PZMyers further writes:

there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it's actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. My atheism is not solely a negative claim about gods, but is based on a whole set of positive values that I will emphasize when talking about atheism. That denial of god thing? It's a consequence, not a cause.

Fair enough here as well. I would agree with PZ that, if I ask you "Why" you are an atheist and you could only quote the dictionary at me, I would think you pretty dense. But I have never seen anyone do that. All those things you said are great. But one could reject all the claims, be skeptical, be reasonable in all other ways--but still decide that they believed in a god anyway. They would then not be an atheist despite having an 'atheistic mindset' (my term) that you described. People can hold unreasonable and conflicting beliefs. So that is why atheism means that someone doesn't believe in a god and skepticism means something else and we use both terms. We don't add skepticism to atheism even when we base our atheism on skepticism.

I cannot tell if PZ would agree with that position or not from what he has written, so maybe he doesn't have a beef with that. I don't know.

PZMyers also argues that other people are NOT atheists just because they fit the dictionary definition. But even Christopher Hitchens, in a debate, argued "Everyone in this room is an atheist, everyone can name a God in which they do not believe" and the Romans called the Christians atheists because they lacked belief in the obviously real Roman gods. The use of atheist as a derogatory term has a long tradition.

But I tend to agree with PZMyers that for a truly meaningful application of atheist to apply, it really should be a self-applied label based on the formation of an opinion or position. I can call Christians atheists all day (and I sometimes do just to taunt them) but I don't really think they have that 'atheistic mindset'. And I don't think babies and rocks are atheists because I believe that it requires at least an opinion (and I'm not really sure I want my position to be equated to that of a non-thinking rock).

So I would say that all of these things tend to lead atheists to what might be called an atheistic philosophy/mindset - but it is not part of the definition of atheist/atheism itself nor required to have reached an atheist position.

But when Myers says "there is more to the practice of atheism than [the dictionary definition]", I find this phrasing just seems wrong to me. The phrase "practice of atheism" honestly brings absolutely nothing to my mind, it seems alien and out of place. There might be the practice of science, or the practice of skepticism, or the practice of textual criticism, or many other practices but what is the "practice of atheism"? Did I miss a memo? Was I supposed to sacrifice something? :)

Myers also writes, "Calling yourself a Dictionary Atheist is like taking pride in living an unexamined life...people who can't recognize that there's more to their atheism than blind acceptance of what a dictionary says". But nobody is leaving beliefs unexamined here. That just seems like an unreasoned attack because we are just discussing the actual definition and meaning of atheism -- not "Why" someone might be an atheist. To me those are two very different subjects.

On a side note, it looks like PZMyers has a new fan in @JoeCienkowski (one of the more 'interesting' theists on twitter):
@JoeCienkowski: @RockDots I found your strawmen. Beat the hay out them! "Some atheists define atheism as a lack of belief in gods" @GodsDontExist @pzmyers
@JoeCienkowski: @GodsDontExist @pzmyers seriously, are you dumb? Are you just too ignorant to reason?? You have a belief there's no God. It's that simple.

Christian/Atheist pre-discussion questionnaire

Christian/Atheist pre-discussion questionnaire:

Atheist:

Do you disbelieve in a god? [Y]/N
Do you believe that No God exists with 100% Certainty? Y/[N]

Why? [check all that apply]
[X] rejection of undemonstrated claims, parsimonious epistemology
[X] rejection of fallacious arguments [especially the argument from ignorance]
[X] specific claims demonstrated to be false
[X] Other ________________________ (see my blog, iron chariots, rationalwiki, index of creationist claims)


Christian:

How are we to be saved? [multiple choice]
[ ] Grace Pre-destined
[ ] Grace Free Will
[ ] Actions
[ ] Faith
[ ] Accepting Jesus as Lord
[ ] Baptism
[ ] Other _____________________

Baptism Is?
[ ] Means Of Salvation
[ ] Outward Expression Of Inward Change
[ ] Obedience To God
[ ] Other _____________________

Baptism is accomplished by?
[ ] Aspersion
[ ] Affusion
[ ] Immersion
[ ] Submersion
[ ] Other _____________________

Please list your special Apparel requirements:

Please list your special age/belief restrictions:

Do you have to be changed into an ass for Baptism or is human form acceptable [see Apuleius]? Y/N

What are the sacraments? [check all that apply]
[ ] Baptism
[ ] Confirmation
[ ] Cannabis (e.g., Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church)
[ ] Blessing of Children
[ ] Lord's Supper
[ ] Marriage
[ ] Celestial Marriage
[ ] Endowment
[ ] Administration to the sick
[ ] Ordination to the Priesthood
[ ] Masturbation (just seeing if you are paying attention)
[ ] Ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods
[ ] Evangelist's blessing
[ ] ALL actions are sacraments
[ ] NO actions are sacraments
[ ] sacraments are FORBIDDEN
[ ] sacraments are symbolic only but allowed

Glossolalia is?
[ ] the work of the devil
[ ] The spirit of the Lord speaking through you
[ ] The confused and random firing of neurons in the brain's speech area, often brought on by drugs or rhythmic swaying, chanting and dancing
[ ] sometimes sign of mental health issues


You can drink poison and be bitten by snakes and be unaffected? Y/N

You can light bull meat that is soaking in water on fire through prayer (1 Kings 18)? Y/N

Through faith and prayer you can:
[ ] command mountains to throw themselves into the sea
[ ] command trees to throw themselves into the sea
[ ] wilt fig trees
[ ] nothing shall be impossible
[ ] cause ill patients, who know they are being prayed for, to suffer depression and fare worse when their health fails to improve

Children should be?
[ ] Seen and Not Heard
[ ] Stoned to death if they speak back to their parents too much or don't follow 'Gods' ways
[ ] spoiled if not beaten regularly
[ ] Eaten by their own disobedient parents in the end times
[ ] Treated like humans

If you believe god has ordered you to sacrifice your own child, you should?
[ ] Seek psychological help immediately
[ ] No Really! Seek psychological help immediately
[ ] saddle up your donkey and chop some wood

Causing the death of innocent children, is?
[ ] Always bad and evil
[ ] Not Always Bad (first born of Egypt, Jericho, seven tribes, Noah's flood)
[ ] Only ok for God because he has the right to take a human life any time he wants, but this isn't a relative morality standard, morals are absolute

Women should be?
[ ] treated as equals
[ ] silent and not try to teach
[ ] kept barefoot and pregnant because they are vessels of procreation

I know God is real because?
[ ] everything is evidence of God
[ ] the bible tells me he is real
[ ] I saw God/spoke with God (personal revelation) w/medication (includes cases of illness, near-death, extreme pain/suffering, emotional distress, drug use, etc)
[ ] I saw God/spoke with God (personal revelation) wo/medication or other effects
[ ] I lied about the above question because I don't want to look like a kook

Isaac is saved from sacrifice by?
[ ] God's Grace
[ ] Abraham's Faith

God commanded the the seven nations (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, aHivites, & Jebusites) to be "utterly destroyed" and shown no mercy because?
[ ] They were in the way
[ ] They occupied the lands promised to Gods chosen people
[ ] They sacrificed children to their God and, unlike with Abraham, God couldn't stop them himself (I have evidence of this)
[ ] They sacrificed children to their God and, unlike with Abraham, God couldn't stop them himself (I have NO evidence of this)
[ ] They sacrificed children to their God for which the punishment should be having all your children slain (God has a sense of Irony)
[ ] Other ______________________


Holy Communion is?
[ ] Silly Catholic ritual
[ ] Literal Body and Blood Of Christ
[ ] Symbol Of Christ's Body and Blood

The Bible is?
[ ] inerrant for all time
[ ] inerrant only in the originals
[ ] inerrant in spirit, but requires proper interpretation, which requires faith
[ ] inerrant but have become corrupted
[ ] not inerrant, but useful for knowing God

Jesus was?
[ ] an actual person
[ ] an ideal

Jesus is?
[ ] A man
[ ] A prophet
[ ] Son of God
[ ] God himself in the form of Jesus

Genesis is?
[ ] Real Science!(tm) Joe Cienkowski
[ ] A slightly metaphorical story about the Real Events which reveal God to us
[ ] A colorful creation myth which draws from Gilgamesh and other pre-biblical sources

Historical information from the Bible is?
[ ] all 100% true and accurate
[ ] mostly true and accurate
[ ] some true, some made up - hard to tell the difference

I could go on and on -- it would be amusing to put together a comprehensive set some day but it could take YEARS of work.

Add your own in the comments!

Something From Nothing

It is often derisively claimed that 'atheists' believe that something came from nothing (despite the fact that "creatio ex nihilo" has been Catholic dogma for centuries).

Of course this is utterly ridiculous because what atheists actually believe is that theists have not met a reasonable burden of proof for their claims -- atheism itself doesn't proclaim to KNOW anything about the origin of the universe.

But as I see it, There are only two options that have been put forth:

(1) In the beginning there was absolutely and truly nothing, not the vacuum of space, not time, and NOT god but truly NOTHING. And then out of this absolute NOTHINGNESS sprang the SOMETHING that now constitutes ultimate reality. This SOMETHING may be our universe or it could even be a precursor that existed for mere moments or even unimaginably vast amounts of 'time' before our current universe.

or

(2) There was NO beginning. Whatever "is" is, is eternal (take that Bill Clinton). And by that I mean that ultimate reality must be SOMETHING and that something would have to be eternal. That SOMETHING may or may not be our spacetime.


Neither option can really be said to be 'more likely' since we have absolutely no frame of reference from which to judge such things. We can go on our own intuition but even extremely well-educated and intelligent individuals could disagree.

I am actually partial to (2) despite constant assertions by theists that atheists "must" believe that something came from nothing. In my view of (2), Universes sometimes spring quantumly from the eternal void (in a similar fashion to virtual particles) with a relatively infrequent intensity that unleashes something along the lines of the proposed quintessence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics) ) which causes a rapid, inflationary period in the early burst of energy that prevents the normal quantum collapse. [note that the void in this case is NOT the vacuum of space]

In this model our universe sprung from the void as an energetic fluctuation so violent it created its own spacetime. The remainder of the energy twisted into nanoscopic vortices which have continued to whirl for billions of years, twisting into ever heavier particles through gravitationally powered fusion and then exploding again and again until enough of their energy was spent that the earth could form out of the fiery violence and then cool to the point where organic chemistry could continue the dance at an ever finer pace, with ever more detail until, in a sense, we have crystallized out of the substance of the universe.

I see no need in all of this for a personal, theistic god, who bothers to answer poorly conceived, ignorantly vile, and conflicting prayers; who watches us pathetic humans with a critical eye jotting down every time someone masturbates for later retribution on their 'soul'; who creates us with a flaw, damns us for having it, and nearly destroys us. And then for a small band of relatively ignorant humans to claim that THEY know the mind of this god and THEY know this gods Will and Wishes, and that they are now his authority on earth over all others... And then, to ice the cake, after many claimed millennia of this god being AT THEIR SIDE (winning battles, slaughtering first-born, Engineering great vessels, flooding the entire Earth with an unimaginable quantity of water which then disappears, turning water into wine (I thought yeast did that), we're supposed to believe that just because we have scientific methods now that this god has gotten shy and gone completely undetectable?

I believe that we are responsible for our own actions and that we are held accountable to our human morals by society. There are 'right' and 'wrong' actions for humans but these moral concepts are creations of human brains and derive from our ability to formulate fairly accurate predictions of behaviors and consequences for actions.

If it were absolutely wrong to murder then it would have been WRONG for god to command Abraham to murder Isaac. And yes, I know god cheated in the end but it was STILL WRONG for god to have commanded it and it's wrong for people to consider this a work of any moral authority when it repeatedly commands murder, genocide, infanticide, genital mutilation, rape, and many other horrors and NEGLECTS to mention anything about things such as microbes.

But in the process of evolution humans have acquired a sense of empathy and compassion because having those allowed us to operate more effectively as a social group which has allowed us to survive. And we have, therefore, collectively agreed that murder is not one of the things we want to tolerate. And thankfully we have moved past the more ignorant "morality" of the bible. For example, we no longer force a virgin to marry her rapist or force him to pay a bride price to the father. Those things were NEVER moral, NEVER acceptable, and NEVER divinely commanded. They were the unfortunate laws of the time. Thank GOODness we have moved past them.

Human morality is constantly shifting, and changing, and adapting to the situation.

3000 years ago murdering other humans en masse was justified in THEIR minds. They were, in a sense, protecting their own. It wasn't morally right by todays standards but THEY didn't have much of a problem with it (although I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people who were murdered probably objected). They also had little or no compunction against enslaving their enemies. Or beating them, sometimes to death.

And then things got really twisted up in their minds. They decided that, with their 'newly' found moral senses, they would make laws. Laws like, if your child is disobedient you can stone them to death. Laws like, women should be silent and subservient to men. Laws like, how much you can charge when you sell your daughter into sexual slavery. And Laws about taking slaves from your conquests. By ANY modern standard, these are immoral and primitive codes. EVERY modern Christian (sect) cherry picks through the Old Testament books and decided, based on nothing more than their own innate, modern sense of right and wrong, which of those codes they will decide still apply and of those which they still accept they redefine the appropriate punishments for them (very few modern Christian sects still hold to stoning people to death although they DO still exist).

And a few Islamic cultures (and other religions as well) also still practice stoning to death. They consider these actions moral, not just moral by human standards, but ORDERED by god and thus RIGHT by definition that CANNOT be questioned. Anyone who dares to question this authority is also Stoned to Death of course.

And even if modern Christians do not generally stone people to death they still follow this same kind of ignorant logic to equally ignorant conclusions about what is morally right because THEY believe it is ordered to be so by their "god" (because it is written in a book, written from 3500-1800 years ago approximately). And they ironically consider Themselves persecuted when challenged or asked to justify these beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, certainly not ALL christians nor ALL muslims are bad people (not even most of them) but they ALL support systems that are corrupted, violent, and by modern standards, evil. They also teach falsehoods, that even they don't claim to know directly or have ANY direct proof, as the truth. It IS folly and it SHOULD be unacceptable in this day and age.

If you really must believe in some kind of nebulous supreme power that is just fine with me. Be Deistic (god exists and created everything but is letting things run their course and has no influence over us and doesn't judge us) or Pantheistic (god is essentially everything, god is the universe and the laws of physics) or whatever floats your boat.

But PLEASE stop trying to claim any kind of personal and direct authority over others on the basis that you claim to know what this being might want from us.

Beware of false prophets

Matthew 7 enjoins us to "Beware of false prophets / Ye shall know them by their fruits"

Have we not had enough of the festering fruits of the world religions?

Are they not ALL heavily evidenced of internal corruption?

The jewish people (allegedly, according to the testaments of Moses) committed genocides clearing the land of Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. And destroying all other nations that would stand in their way. There is much evidence of wars and skirmishes and little evidence these genocides actually happened but I'm sure back in those uncertain days it was comforting to know that an all powerful being was on your side in a conflict nonetheless (Deutronomy 20:10-17).

Then comes the anointed one which Christians claim to follow, with his message of Peace from Matthew 10.

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Doesn't sound like the Jesus most people talk about, selective memory perhaps?

And then, around 312, Constantine, facing Maxentius who had revolved against him and held the majority Pagan support with a large military force, turned to a sect of Christians for political and military support. Defeating Maxentius, Constantine then began what was to become a century’s long effort to eliminate any book that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. With a new religion and a new Rome the future of the Christian faith would be set forever in bloodshed of those they opposed.

Christians have had many excuses over the hundreds of years since then.

Maybe they were following the Edict of Milan?
Maybe they listened when Pope Innocent III said "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..."?
Maybe the Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum" which required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges, and be confined to ghettos?
Or maybe they followed in the footsteps of Catholic Christians who massacred of Jews in Nemirov, Polonnoye, Tulchin, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, and elsewhere?

But everywhere Christians have gone, bloodshed, violence, torture, and brutality followed.

Sure, in the past 100 years or so the uglier aspects are better hidden in modern parts of the world (less so in those areas still wracked with sectarian violence).

We're not AS evil now is really the best they can claim. Or "well I'M a good person". Ok sure, you might be -- even a million of you might be good people. But the leaders of the churches to which you give money are generally NOT and religion is still the cause of much harm and suffering in the world.

You can keep your beliefs (if you can keep them to yourself) and you can keep your religion but you really need to put a STOP to the nonsense parts.


Islam is a weak point in my knowledge base. But I know there are many verses in the Qu'ran that are USED to justify hatred and violence -- sure, just like the bible you can throw up fluffy re-interpretations of those verses. You can absolutely be a good person (just like the Christians above). But what you can't do is claim your religion is free from a violent, bloody and questionable history. And I would absolutely not wish to belong to many of the nations with Islamic-based governments. I really don't need to know more than that to reject the religion BUT!!! if you have proof of any of your claims of miracles I am all ears.

However, I HAVE seen many of the claims of "advanced scientific knowledge in the Qu'ran" and they are all utter bullshit. Most are so incredibly laughable they are not even worthy of legitimate discussion. So you can just skip right past those and save your breath because I won't respond to such complete nonsense - it is a waste of time. If you want to be that credulous go right ahead. I can point out verses in Harry Potter that talk about a ring and say LOOK! It means Loop Quantum Gravity! That is literally how ridiculous those claims are.

So I say the "rotten fruit" should be thrown out and let the extremely few good seeds in there grow.

On Agnosticism

Agnosticism is a term that is bandied about by many, but is often misunderstood if not completely misused (at least from my perspective as a long-time Agnostic). There has certainly evolved a generic usage of the term 'agnostic' as an adjective which means to consider a proposition as unknown or unknowable. But I don't think it's reasonable for someone to claim this as their position on the question of God (hint, it's an adjective).

But as a proper noun, the -ism was coined by Thomas Huxley with a very specific definition as Michael Martin writes in "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification":

Putting aside the current popular sense of the term, "Agnosticism" was coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869. According to Huxley, Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

As you can see from this definition Agnosticism is not just a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about belief (but the two positions can still be compatible). Agnosticism, properly understood is a Positive belief in what we might call science or skepticism. In this sense it is a very different thing from the common form of atheism today (which is a rejection of theistic beliefs, or more accurately "a lack of belief in a god or god(s)").

I personally believe that even Positive Atheism is a fairly well supportable position these days. 100% absolutely certainty is NOT the point of belief - you can reasonably believe something when it is not contradicted by the evidence and has reasonable supporting facts. For example, scientists generally believe that there are Black Holes even though they are far from absolutely proven to exist (as described by relativity) and there are many open questions.

In his paper "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?" Bertrand Russell wrote:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

From this, I think that in Russell's day a more positive atheism was the prevailing brand of atheism whereas today the majority base their position on the lack of evidence for theism.
I generally identify myself as Huxley-Agnostic these days but I do not believe in any gods and therefore I am, in that sense, atheistic and will sometimes use that term when discussing with less discerning company. But I have always disliked the idea of defining my position in opposition to theism as I don't place that much importance on it.

Certainly Agnostics (and many others) have pondered if we can even ask questions like "does god exist" or "what is the origin of the universe". Such things might be truly unknowable -- but I would want that claim to be demonstrated before I accept it as fact!

Abiogenesis, Part I

Abiogenesis, Part I

This is more of a brain dump of what I have learned than anything else, so apologies if I ramble a bit.

I do not claim that science has all the answers here (this is an active area of research). But much like the early Church's stance on the Earth being the center of the universe, abiogenesis research has broken claim after claim made by the creationists about how it "must be" and what science has been able to piece together is a compelling series of events. It takes absolutely no faith to see the incredible progress that has been made in this field over the past 55 years (that is, IF the person bothers to actually investigate this field of study).

The original timescale involved was ~0.7B years in a lab the size of the entire Earth (possibly the solar system) so we have a lot of catching up to do in understanding the most likely pathways that the early Earth could have taken in creating the first organic "life" (some chemical structure capable of self-replication, mutation, and natural selection).

If creationists want to prove that abiogenesis is impossible then only need to find some specific STEP that absolutely cannot have happened naturally. Not a fallacious statistical argument saying that it's just too improbable to believe. An actual chemical combination that cannot possibly happen in nature and the specific, scientific reasons why.

So, what evidence do we have in support of a natural abiogenesis?

Here is a good review for starters: How life began on Earth: a status report

Remember that the DNA/RNA genetic system we have today is just what things have evolved into, don't assume they are required to kick start the process. What scientists generally believe happened was that there was a boot strapping process leading up to that first strand of self-replicating material (be it RNA/DNA or something else).

Peptide chains are simply "shorter" chains of amino acids (aka proteins). These naturally formed chains can perform functions, they can "store information", they change over time, and they can reproduce (e.g., see prion research). Those are all the things required for "evolutionary" processes to work over time.

(1) First of all, Jeffrey Bada's experiment showed once again that a wealth of organic chemistry and amino acids are generated naturally in the early Earth environment. There is also the later Miller experiment about organic chemistry in icy conditions (so it could be that an ebbing between warmer and colder conditions are required). The original Miller-Urey experiment was validly criticised for an inaccurate starting mixture, but even later versions of that experiment had corrected those problems.

See Discover Magazine: Did Life Evolve In Ice

(2) We are now also aware of a large number of exogenous sources of organic precursors (IDPs, Meteorites, Asteroids, Comets)

See Meteorite Crammed With 'Millions' Of Organic Compounds

Murchison meteorite: 14,000 specific compounds, including 70 amino acids, were identified...tip of the iceberg

(3) This soup can include shorter fatty-acid chains (created in geothermal vents on the clay walls) which under certain Ph conditions naturally form into protective vesicles, these vesicles can also divide under mechanical conditions AND they tend to combine with smaller vesicles into larger ones such that the contents are merged as well -- but tend to only grow so large before undergoing mechanical division.

See Autopoietic Self-Reproduction of Fatty Acid Vesicles,

Genetics Times: Researchers Build Model Protocell Capable of Copying DNA

(4) Unlike modern cell walls, these primitive vesicles are porous which allows building blocks in, which combine with other components and then are too large to escape

See Dr Jack Szostak's work

(5) Eventually, some of the peptide chains prove beneficial to the fatty-acid vesicle structures.

See Dr Jack Szostak's work

(6) We know that some peptide chains are self-replicating -- by setting up even a simple peptide chain which can self-replicate we set the stage for evolutionary processes over time to work. And we know that some single RNA strands have been found to be capable of replication as well.

See A self-replicating peptide, Peptide Self-Replication Via Template-Directed Ligation

(7) We also know that the Qb virus can reproduce without a cell if the chemical environment is available.

See The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies (excerpt)

(8) Finally, we're just now at the stage where we can start building complex life from scratch directly in the lab:

See Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template

There are, of course, many open questions, nobody is denying that -- but they are just questions and there is absolutely no indication that any of these problems are intractable (including ribose and chirality). Try Google Scholar: abiogenesis ribose

There are 100's of more research papers on the subject, this is just barely scratching the surface.

One of the big problems with religious belief structures which claim revelatory knowledge from God is that it blocks people from even attempting to understand what is true. Where in the bible does it explain the mechanism that God supposedly used to create the universe and to create life? If it doesn't speak to the how, then how do you claim to know that organic life could not have happened as part of the natural course of the universal laws which ultimately drive everything?

You should investigate further: Dr M Reza Ghadiri and Dr Jack Szostak

How do you get to RNA without the mechanisms in place today to create it?

That is now at least a half-solved problem, See Dr. Sutherland's research:

the chemicals naturally formed a compound that is half-sugar and half-base. When another half-sugar and half-base are added, the RNA nucleotide called ribocytidine phosphate emerges. A second nucleotide is created if ultraviolet light is shined on the mixture. Dr. Sutherland said he had not yet found natural ways to generate the other two types of nucleotides found in RNA molecules, but synthesis of the first two was thought to be harder to achieve. If all four nucleotides formed naturally, they would zip together easily to form an RNA molecule with a backbone of alternating sugar and phosphate groups.

And even that may have come from space: New Studies on the Murchison Meteorite Shed Light on the Pre-RNA World

More resources to read:

Reconstructing the emergence of cellular life through the synthesis of model protocells

and

Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell