God - The Arguments

There are many 'Proof of God' websites. Some notable ones are:

All About Creation

Proof God Exists

Proof That God Exists

In addition to siting these sites, I will also site, as rebuttals:

The Skeptic

Richard Dawkins

I was drawn to make this post due to the long winded commentary of one of these site's administrators (Proof That God Exists's Sye Ten Bruggencate).

Here, we will take a brief review of the 'staple' arguments of each of these sites.

Proof God Exists and All About Creation are Intelligent Design Websites:

A summation of the intelligent design argument is:

Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes. Essentially that many organisms, including humans and animals, are too complex in nature to have come to be by chance mutation.

This argument's strong points against evolution are two-fold:

They assert that evolution can only make small changes on single components at a time.

They assert that the essential nature and complexity of the design leave no room for randomness or error.

The rebuttal to intelligent design (from the Skeptic):

The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evol

ve as individual parts. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes.

The assertation that the nature and complexity of the design of man would leave no room for randomness or error seem to disintegrate when you consider the presence of the appendix, and the relatively poor designs of the spine, birth canal, and the prostate. (Summation from the Skeptic, multiple contributors)

My Opinion: If God really did design us, we should sue him for poor quality control.

Third Site, Proof that God Exists's Argument (summation):

"To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature...

Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things."

My rebuttal here is simple:

1.) Morals are taught - a trained function. This is not to be confused with instincts which are inherent in virtually all life on this planet. I can teach a dog to attack people on sight, and likewise I can teach a child the same. This has been proven numerous times in psychological analysis.

2.) This argument is simpler to refute. There is no evidence supplied, either on this site or anywhere else to my knowledge to support this assertion that abstract ideas can not exist without God. He makes the assumption of God to explain the known of abstractions existing. There is no additional evidence supplied outside of quotes from the Bible. This is not how theories are proven in the scientific world.

I post this thread here due to the lengthy and cyclic commentary on some earlier posts. In an effort to lay this out succinctly and clearly, I made the entire discussion it's own topic.
*Minor edit on April 1, 2008 to fix formatting

Battlestar Galactica Last Supper

Click to see higher resolution version. Just an interesting picture.

Infidels.Org

This website I came across is loaded with excellent information. I gladly applaud the caretakers of it, as it has become a living, intelligent discussion.

Everything you wanted to know about prominent atheists, atheist discussions, and various discussions on political movements throughout the world that relate to atheism (such as the pariah, Intelligent Design).

The library at this site is simply astounding.

I gladly encourage anyone interested in understanding the viewpoint of atheism to visit Infidels.org.

Some links of note from the site:
Debunking the book, God the Evidence

The Debate of the Soul, Blind Nature, and God

Discussion of the Coming Apocalypse - a review of the Bible's Book of Revelations by an atheist

Obama's Pastor - My view

I saw this post at Atheist Revolution and had to more or less agree with AR on this one.

Originally, from ABC News (this is two entire quotes, both of which have been summarized or drawn out of context to give an appearance other then what was presented).

This is another case of only hearing as much of someone's quote as their detractors want you to hear. They piecemeal the quote to suit their attacks and leave any remnants of the truth lost in the trail of their 'creative editing.' It disgusts me when news organizations, like Faux News, intentionally misrepresent the truth.

Story The First Quote (Reverend Wright - Obama's pastor):

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

The Second Quote (Reverend Wright):

The winds of Katrina blew the cover off America. The hurricane exposed the hypocrisy, protecting white folks' property took priority over saving black folks' lives. This storm called Katrina says far more about a racist government than it does about the wrath of God.

The United States government has failed the vast majority of our citizens of African descent. For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got five million blacks who are out of work. For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condoskeeza [sic] Rice, you've got one million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his cap-blazing hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course.

The Third Quote (Reverend Meeks - not a friend of Obama, a member of the democratic Naitonal Party):

You have got some preachers that are house [bleep]. You have some elected officials that are house [bleep]. And rather than them trying to break this up, they are going to fight you to protect that white man.

Now, honestly reading everything that Reverend Wright has to say, I see he is angry. He feels that in many ways the country has abandoned him and his kind. I may not completely agree with him, but I certainly see some of his points. What I don't see here is the militant racist and anti-American that the news claims he is. He's a pissed off citizen - and I'd say he has a right to be. I'm a pissed off citizen, too. That doesn't mean I'm not a patriot and it doesn't mean I'm a racist. But if you take me COMPLETELY out of context, you could quote as saying just about anything you wanted.

Rev. Meeks on the other hand, is not a 'close personal friend of Obama.' He's nothing more then a democratic super-delegate who has announced his support for Obama. By mis-quoting Wright and honestly quoting Meeks and associating Obama to both, Faux News (here) insinuates a pattern of 'racist associates.' This in turn was picked up by many networks before anyone began to refute it.

Disgusting. And this is from the 'We Report, You Decide' network.

The Billboard War - Personal Rage

One billboard, a message recycled from the late John Lennon, reading 'Imagine No Religion.'





The attacks that railed against the billboard ad (featured left) show that Atheists are NOT Patriots. They show that Atheists HATE America.








These people need to stop drinking the Cool-Aid and wake up!

Without regurgitating the original story at the FFRF site, I'll drop my opinion here.

I am an atheist. I am a veteran. I am willing to bet 2/3 of the ones behind this billboard, if not more, have never served in any civil or federal function. How dare these non-serving, religious zealots question my patriotism because of my lack of belief in God.

They haven't sacrificed one minute of their time for this country and yet I AM NOT A PATRIOT!? Don't make me laugh.

I've put my life on the line for this country. Five generations of my family has done the same. My family has left our blood, sweat, and lives in nearly every battlefield America has fought on for the last century. Most of them believe in God, some do not. They are all patriots - proven and tested.

I don't believe in God. I love my country. I will scream out in disgust at anyone who seeks to associate Christianity with patriotism.

I do not Trust in God. I trust in the Constitution. I do not swear Under God. I swear on my own merit, on my own integrity. I have the freedom to say this because our flag still flies and my I and my ancestors have defended my right to say it.

My patriotism is absolute. Look hard at what YOU have done for your country before you call anyone's patriotism into question.

Edit: 29 March, 2008, 1804 MST
I have attempted to contact the administrator of www.ingodwetrustusa.org. They have not responded to my emails. Albeit, this lack of response may be due to the extremely inflammatory nature of the message I sent them.

It appears though, they are tough on billboards, but weak on confrontation.

Beware the Fake Christian!

Beware the False Christian! This is the truly dangerous Christian!

I will be the first to salute any honest Christian. It's hard to be a good Christian, impossible really, but I honestly admire those who try and make an honest effort at it. However, these people are truly rare.

I am no Christian, but I've read the bible a few times and I have a better then average understanding of what it is saying, in my opinion.

The true Christian does not judge, or at least tries not to. The true Christian does not condemn others, but rather seeks to help and enlighten. The true Christian does not visit hardship, prejudice, anger, or persecution on others - regardless of faith.

They are the selfless, forgiving, and patient epitome of good in society. According to the bible, this is what Christ was - and what he preached that all people should be.

True Christians do what Jesus would have done.

These people are rarer then diamonds.

False Christians, the vast majority, are just regular people who have adopted the moniker of 'Christian.' Through this self-proclaimed title, they judge, ridicule, harass, and sometimes even attack those who they feel aren't Christians.

The false Christian will say things like "Well, you're going to Hell."

Find me one spot in the bible where Jesus told someone they were going to hell. He didn't. He said what was required to go to heaven, but he never judged someone himself and told them they were going to hell. Furthermore he frequently chastised those who did judge the actions of others.

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' Christ said this as an angry mob was about to stone an adulterer.

'Speak not of the splinter in my eye until you have removed the plank from your own.' Christ also said, saying that all people were sinners and that no man was less of a sinner then any other.

The Faux-Christian (the pretend Christian) will persecute at will.

Judgement of others is what helps the False Christian justify that they are still 'Good Christians.' They say to themselves, 'I sin, but I'm not nearly as bad as Bob.'

I live, now, in a city packed full of militant false Christians, who raise militant False Christian children.

It is a sad thing that I see. And, while I am volunteering, I often wonder why it is that none of these False-Christians, have the time to volunteer for the community - like Christ did... I can honestly say, I'm glad I am an atheist, because at least I can live among better company.

Those that would call me a servant of the devil, ironically, will all be joining me in the same hell they say I'm headed to.

If there is a Hell, it better have a lot of vacancies.

No Child Left Behind

The law works like this:
Children take standardized federal tests. If they do well overall, their school is rewarded. If they do not do well overall. Their school's staff is punished (fired, suspended) or their school is closed.

Pros:
Many schools for many years have consistently failed to graduate kids with any measure of adequate knowledge. Kids graduated unable to read, write or perform simple math. This was happening across America and it is disgusting. Standardized testing with real consequences holds a staff accountable to a minimum level of education. If kids can't do at least this much, not only are you not going to graduate them, but we're going to punish you.

Cons:
Many schools have completely tailored their education to match these exams. In some cases, this has limited what kids can learn prior to leaving high school.

Simply firing teachers and closing schools, especially in areas where it was extremely difficult to find teachers before is propagating an already bad problem. After you fire the teachers and close the school, where do these kids go now for an education?

Reality:
I am perfectly content with my daughters PE class and economics class being eliminated in favor of more math, english, and science. A lot of these 'poor kids who aren't getting a well rounded education' weren't getting a well rounded education before either. They were being passed forward in schools they didn't care and weren't held accountable. These are the schools that are being punished.

A lot of teachers, especially in the teachers union, are militantly opposed to standardized testing. Despite their honest reasons for being against it, the reality is, sometimes we must all make sacrifices to account for the inadequacies of some.

Can the testing be improved? Definitely. And it should be expanded. This is a first step - more will follow if this program is to succeed. Following the European and Asian models, the standardized testing could be used, later, to determine scholarship eligibility.

Now, if only Bush would follow through on his promises to keep it funded...

Need Money for Jesus? Uncle Sam Tithes!

The Seperation of Church and State is again under fire. Literally, this time. When a Chicago church burned down in 2006, Gov. Blagojevich promised the church 1 million of the 10 million in damage assessed to the church to help rebuild it.

They say that the money will only be used to build administrative offices and classrooms and therefore doesn't 'potentially conflict with the separation of church and state.'

This is clearly a violation of church and state.

You can't honestly justify giving money directly to a church for reconstruction and absolutely guarantee that none of the money will be used at all for the church. And even if it isn't used to rebuild the 'worship area' it's being used to rebuild classrooms were children are taught about God and their faith. It's the same thing.

How anyone can even remotely justify that this isn't a violation of church and state utterly boggles my mind. And ironically, no one mentioned if the church was insured in the first place.

I know already the ACLU is planning on contesting any grant to the church - we'll see what happens.

The Faith-Based Bloc

Recently in a friends blog, I have seen an on-going discussion. Where it goes is easily predictable. It's a discussion about gay-rights, but it could be any one of many similar discussions.

The truth of the matter is that you can not argue any point with someone when the argument, to them is a matter of faith. There are a few reasons for this.

1.) There does not need to be a logical basis for their argument beyond my faith tells me so. I'm not saying this is 'wrong', it's simply a mechanic of faith. Not everything need be logical as faith defies logic.

2.) When you argue against something that someone considers a matter of faith, you aren't just discussing the argument at hand anymore. You're calling into question that person as well. Their identity is based on their beliefs, their beliefs shaped by their faith. When you call their viewpoint, which is based on their faith, into question, you are also questioning that person's identity for themselves. This immediately turns the discussion or argument into an emotional attack.

When you see these two points, you understand that once you go down the road of discussing a faith-based stance, you have already lost unless you can defend your viewpoint in terms that the audience (your religious opponent for instance) recognizes as legitimate. More then likely, their own holy text.

This is something a lot of atheists lose sight of. Religions continuously drum their messages out. The followers agree with most of these messages at face value. It is this united stance and the receptive nature of the audiences that makes the religious groups in America an extremely formidable opponent. They stand virtually unanimous on a huge number of issues. Their views are nearly identical on many major issues. A huge percentage of them vote.

This unity, their consistent voting turnout and the ease at which their votes can be decided (is the candidate pro-abortion or against) makes them an on-going political party (one of the most powerful at that) in-and-of themselves.

Theocracy here we come.

The New Epidemic -Drugs in Your Water

We have drugs in our water. Let's put this in context first.

Today the amount of violence we have in the streets has gone down since 1980, proportional to the population. However, the news coverage of it has increased by 6 times.


The past 6 years we have seen all of the following major, epidemic level headlines. Attacks within the United States Imminent (many times), Avian Flu Outbreak, Bubonic Plague Outbreak, Lead Tainted Toys, Mercury Tainted Foods, Poisonous Dog Food, Global Warming, Global Cooling and the list goes on.



Some of these stories had real merits. Some did not. The problem is that if the public is flooded with alarming messages, inundated with fear-mongering news stories, the public becomes 'conditioned.' Now, like the boy who cried wolf, people simply don't care enough to become outraged at 'real problems' because these real problems don't sound any different then the 'End All Life as We Know It' news stories they hear everyday.



This news story on drugs in our water is an excellent example. We have many medications that are present in extremely trace amounts in our water. We're taking about PPB/PPT (parts per billion or parts per trillion). For some reason this is surprising a lot of people - it shouldn't.

It is physically impossible to completely eliminate a chemical from a solution. You can only dillute its concentration - not eliminate it. The recycled water we get from waste treatment has eliminated all but a few parts per billion of the medications found in the waste from the outgoing water. That means they filtered out 99.999999% or more of the chemicals coming in. In many cases (most of the 41 million Americans that were broadcasted) the medications have been filtered out of 99.999999999% of the outgoing water (that's 1 molecule of medication for every 1 trillion molecules of water).

That means that in 1 pound of water there are 27,339,880,000,000,000 (27.3 quadrillion) molecules of medication immersed in 27,339,880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (27.3 octillion) molecules of water. This may all sound like a lot, but it isn't.

If we compared the known safe levels for poisons in water, like lead, pesticides, even salts, you would find far, far more then you'd ever find of any medication. Magnitudes of a 1,000 times more. THIS IS NORMAL! DO NOT BE ALARMED BY SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE!!!


The fact of the matter is, this 'Drugs in Your Water' story is yet another attempt to alarm the public - to keep them watching the news - for no reason other then to boost ratings and sell advertising.

BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID
- and watch the continuing story at 5 to find out how you will survive!

The New 'Fire Side Chat'

Contrary to popular belief today's video game revolution hasn't been all bad.

A lot of people will talk about violence and link it to violent video games. They'll talk about college dropouts siting their addiction to games as the cause of their downfall. They even talk about the influence of video games eroding at conventional social interaction.

What they don't talk a lot about is how informed today's video gamers (mostly youth and middle aged men of moderate income) are about politics and culture.

I routinely play 2 different MMO's (Massively Multiplayer Online games). They are and EVE Online and World of Warcraft.

Now, looking at these two games two very different groups of people play them.

WoW is largely Americans (on the US servers I play on) while on EVE its largely European.

The main topics of discussion in Barrens, Ironforge and Ogrimmar general chats (popular locations in WoW) are:

1. Chuck Norris
2. Politics
3. Current Events
   

The main topics of discussion in EVE in Jita, Rens and Oursulaert local chat are:

1. EVE mechanics
2. Politics
3. Current Events
   

You can't watch chat in either game for more then a few minutes without seeing a discussion (often heated) on politics. If you want to know what Hillary Clinton said in Ohio at a rally, just ask in Barrens general chat - odds are someone who attended is online and chatting about it. If you want to know what Putin said in his weekly address to Russia, jump over to Jita and ask.

In EVE it's overtly obvious to me how upset many foreigners have become with the US of recent years. Icelanders, English, Italians, Germans, Russians all venting their frustration at the US foreign policies. Meanwhile, in WoW you hear people amazed at what their own country, especially their media, thinks of their intelligence.

You hear the spin lines, you hear the blog quotes, the direct quotes, and the inevitable opinions.

Mostly, especially in recent years though, you can get more information, faster, more accurately on just about any recent event in game. And, better, I can get it from a real person's perspective, not just some suit on the news telling me what his editor decided they want me to hear.

Certainly there is some spam - there's a lot of it really - but both games have very functional 'ignore' commands. Both games have 24-hour political discussion chat channels.

The fact of the matter is that despite the video game crowd has been largely 'written off' as non-significant, this singular group has more knowledge on current events and politics then the average American easily.

So, say what you will about video gamers, but many (not all) you will find to be more informed then you expected - because they are talking about the issues every night.

Decision Day

There hasn't been a set of primaries with the amount of attention and competition like the one we have this year in decades.

Today, John McCain should seal up the Republican nod, but Obama and Clinton are still, likely, going to be neck and neck coming out of this primary.

The frightening reality here is this - McCain will move the Church even further into our government (theocracy on the horizon?). So... atheists are left with the Democratic contenders.

Completely ignoring Obama and Clinton's stances - they really aren't that different anyway. And, moreover, the only things the president truly controls is free trade agreements and the war.

We could talk about their experience but, despite the spin, that's not really much different either.

So the real questions are - Who will get more done? Who is more electable?

Electability:
Obama -

• His limited time in the lime light has the nice benefit of making digging up muck on him a little more difficult.

• Many republicans actually poll towards liking him
  

Clinton -

• Whitewater, suspicious suicides etc - the corruption scandals that marred her husband's time in office will be used extensively against her - especially since she was involved in many of them.

• Many republicans poll towards vehemently hating her.
  

Who can get more done?

The ongoing stop-block that Republicans in congress have against any progressive legislation is working. Which presidential candidate shows merit on being able to break this?

Clinton - "I will fight republicans"

Obama - "I will reach across the isle."

Many people hate comprimising a good thing for something a little watered down - but in this congress, no comprimise typically means no bill.

With that being said, either one of them are an improvement, but that doesn't mean much...