1 part sincere belief
1 part willingness to lie to protect sincere belief
2 parts denial of any evidence or facts conflicting with sincere belief
2 parts desperation
2 parts wilful ignorance
A pinch of “You will burn in hell if you don’t believe!” – adjust to taste.
Mix well. Spew at will whenever evolution is mentioned.
(Amendments to the recipe are welcomed.)
- “You will burn in hell if you don’t believe!” suggested by Anne Squires-Dorsey on Facebook
- denial of conflicting evidence suggested by Blooórt Goðrúnarson on Facebook.
Any question that has to do with “before the big bang” or “outside of our universe” (those two are the same thing) has the same answer: I don’t know and neither does anybody else.
Everything anyone says about “before” or “outside” is necessarily speculation because we don’t know anything about that and we might never know anything about it.
Now, not all speculation is equal. We can speculate on the basis of beliefs that have no grounding in reason or testable evidence (eg. religion) or we can speculate starting from that which is strongly supported by evidence and reason.
However, even if our speculation starts from a sound, up-to-date, scientific understanding of our space-time continuum, we have no way of knowing to what extent, if any, the physics of “the universe” we inhabit is similar to that which may or may not exist outside of it.
By the way, this renders the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and all other First Cause arguments for theism, completely impotent.
Sorry, William Lane Craig, but your best-known defence of god-belief is, quite obviously, a non-starter.
Sam Harris challenges the notion that religion – specifically, Christianity – provides a decent basis for morality.
It’s pretty good. One quibble would be that it could be argued that the Bible doesn’t actually support the doctrine of Hell as a place of eternal, tortuous punishment and that that doctrine is actually a post-biblical invention of the Roman Catholic Church and later adopted by most other denominations.
The ridiculous Deepak Chopra employs an obvious logical fallacy in a vain attempt to defend his crumbling reputation.
I’d like some feedback on my refutations to two common arguments for the existence of God: the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine Tuning Argument.
My refutations are relatively simple. I’m aware that there are quite a number of more lengthy and more sophisticated responses but it seems to me that mine do the job. So, if you think there is something wrong with mine, I’d like to hear about it.
You don’t need religion. Rather, religion needs you, much the same way that any parasite needs a host.
Fuck these guys.
Religion + Government = Evil
I haven’t had a lot of time to post in the last little while. Living something that approximates real life has been a full time job lately! Our band played a couple of music festivals and I was quite involved in helping make one of those festivals run. In addition, work has been crazy because my job is ending and there’s a lot to do to wrap things up.
In the Facebook group, Creation Evolution Debate, someone posted this question:
“Why would a good god allow such horrible things to go on?” -Daniel Dennett
In other words, why would a good god allow humans to do such horrible things?
But why are humans doing such horrible things? Assuming for the atheist that any sort of god doesn’t exist, why are we treating each other so poorly?
At this time, this is what I consider to be a reasonable response:
This is my response to those who complain about so-called “scientism”. Science has quite clearly been demonstrated to be the most powerful method yet devised for distinguishing between that which is or isn’t most probably true. I don’t see any evidence to suggest that religion (or “spirituality” or “faith” or which ever other euphemism one might employ to avoid admitting to being religious) has ever had anything useful to contribute to the conversation.