Discarding theology

Why do atheists typically ignore "sophisticated" modern theology? Simple. The answer is embodied by the Courtier's Reply made by PZ Myers in response to critics of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Simply put, theology is not based on reality.

The Scientific Method is applicable to ANY area of knowledge of reality. What we typically call Science is the different branches of physics, chemistry and biology. But the method is also applied to other areas of knowledge including history and linguistics.

In fact, you use a less rigorous form of the method in your life. When your computer power off suddenly, you hypothesize that there is a blackout or that some hardware in the computer fried. You notice that other electrical appliances in your home is still powered thus ruling out the hypothesis of a blackout and you go on checking other things, so on and so forth.

Theology is basically the study of god. But the thing is, theology does not provide evidence of god's existence. It sometimes tries to prove god through pure logic (ie, armchair philosophy) if not ignoring the issue completely and jumps straight into sophistry about god presuming its existence.

I'm sorry. How is that not nonsense?

Theology is like Germ theory where viruses and bacteria don't exist. Theology is like Paleontology where bones never fossilize. Theology is like Chemistry in a universe where only hydrogen exist forever unchanged.

Dismissing claims for which there is no evidence for is not a "science". It's basic skepticism.

The same point is previously discussed in: Justifications and Beliefs

Do realize that atheists (at least those who have been called "New Atheists") are skeptics first, atheist in conclusion. We are not hostile to religion because of some Atheist doctrine. We are atheists because we were first skeptical of religious claims.

Comforting. Really?

When challenged to defend religion or just the belief in god(s), a common defense deployed is it provides comfort. hope and etc. This also a common argument from sympathetic non-believers when confronted with anti-theistic or anti-religious sentiments.

This defense is fallacious and, in my opinion, superficial. And in the context of particular religions, it is an utterly warped idea.


The Fallacy
That which is comforting is not necessarily true. It is a fallacy easily understood but frequently overlooked when it is committed (as is the case of this defense).

The truth value of a claim does not depend on the amount of comfort it offers. The truth can be painful; A lie can be comforting. An example of a comforting lie is the security blanket. The blanket itself does not provide any security apart from tactile comfort. But the belief that it does provides the same effect.

I don't think I need to push this point further - This should be easily understood.


Preferring Lies
When such a defense is made when the truth of a religion is in question, it carries with it implicitly that a comforting lie is more preferable over actual facts. I personally don't agree with this but if someone wants to believe comforting falsehoods, that's his/her prerogative. It becomes objectionable though if he/she takes steps to make others believe in his nonsense.

Granted that someone may actually value comfort over truth, I am unable to accept that something is still comforting if you actually knew it was false. If I was in those shoes, I'd be hard pressed to find any shred of comfort at all after realizing that it's a falsehood.

From this point of view, it is not surprising that this argument is made by sympathetic non-believers. If they were believers, I'd think that they would find such an argument pretty condescending - "Oh they don't care about truth, they just want to feel good."

In any case, such comforts afforded by a belief is superficial if the belief itself is false of unsubstantiated.


Comforting? Seriously?
I find this defense ironic in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity.

Just think about it, which part of believing that:
A sky-daddy overseeing this universe under his totalitarian rule and he shall judge who shall qualify entry into heaven (though he already knew beforehand whom shall and shall not enter heaven or hell before he even created anything at all). This same sky-daddy allegedly loves you and answers your prayers occasionally only if it is part of his divine plan by miraculously messing with the laws of nature if need be.

However, you're a miserable wretch because your ancestors committed the original sin which the sky-daddy should have seen coming. Somehow you and all descendants alike, who had nothing to do with that, has to take the blame according to his game rules. On top of that, the only way he could forgive humanity was via the blood sacrifice of his only son (who, apparently, is also himself). His son, or himself, went to suffer in hell for 3 days before he un-dies to return to heaven to be with his father, or himself.

Where on Earth is the comfort?!

Why immaterial?

I have been thinking. It seems that there is something fundamentally odd (perhaps, just plain wrong) with postulating an immaterial (and supernatural) entity as the creator of the universe.

I'm not exactly sure but the reason for adding such a property goes something like this: The universe (in its current state) is an effect whose cause is traced back to the Big Bang. No matter how science may attempt to explain using natural/material causes, it will eventually run into the problem that the cause must itself have been an effect. Thus it would only just add one more step to the regress.

The solution (in their opinion) is to postulate an immaterial (and/or supernatural, I don't think the distinction matters too much) agent (ie, god) to end the regress. Thus, it is also called the uncaused cause. Other properties that comes along include eternal and intelligent.

But I think it is just odd.

How does postulating an immaterial entity supposed to solve anything?

In fact, couldn't an immaterial cause be itself an immaterial effect and thus be no solution at all?

If the solution lies in the property of being eternal, why can't the cause be material?

Perhaps I'm just missing something and this post is just brain diarrhea.

Retarded Creationists

This entry will be a follow-up rebuttal to the points the creationist (Wendy Wright) in this video have made. This is going to be long - and educational. And I will recommend videos along way - they explain more with illustrations.

Richard Dawkins tries really hard to explain that there is multitudes of evidence for evolution. Given the location of the interview, he cannot, of course, show the evidence themselves - that which Wendy wants to see now although she remains unconvinced despite having previously seen them (or so she claims).

Let's start. Here's the first video in question.

1:12 - 1:31
There has been an effort within the scientific community to censor out information... against evolution that proves that evolution may not be as many scientists believe. There has been many times in which evidence that was brought forward to bolster the idea of evolution turned out to be fraudulent.

Actually, no. There is no such thing. (Shocking, eh?)

The alleged frauds and hoaxes said to cast doubt or even disprove evolution were exposed by the scientific community itself. There is no need to "censor" such information simply because they known to be false. Not to forgetting to mention that they are not evidence that the case for evolution is built on.

Here's a video by AronRa that deals with a few of the hoaxes (Haeckel's drawings, Nebraska Man, Archeoraptor, etc) that creationists frequently claim to show that evolution is a fraud:

Moving on...

1:31 - 1:52
So what we argue for is to teach the controversy. Don't censor out the facts that goes against evolution... such as the famous pig's tooth, the tooth that was claimed to be an example of a prehistoric man and turned out to be just the tooth of a pig.

The "famous pig's tooth" example (Nebraska Man) has been dealt with in the video mentioned above.

What about teaching the "controversy" then? No, we shouldn't.

We should teach only science in a science class - thus only valid scientific theories should be taught. As much as creationists would like to believe the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably true and is accepted by the scientific community. Non-scientific or even unscientific ideas have no place in the science curriculum.

We don't teach the "controversy" between Evolution and Creationism the same way we don't teach the controversy between Heliocentrism and Geocentrism. The same way we don't teach the controversy between Reproduction by Sex and by Storks. You get the idea (I hope).

2:36 - 2:45
There is no evidence of evolution from one species to another. There's microevolution within a species but not going from one species to another.

False. This is patently false.

There are plenty of transitional forms (ie, evidence of one species evolving to another) in the fossil record. In fact, EVERY fossil found is a transitional form.

I'd recommend these two videos, by AronRa and by standup4REALscience

3:11 - 3:58
Scientists are now claiming that they are the only ones that can speak on this issue. And yet when people who look at the evidence, go to the Smithsonian Museum on Natural History and when we look for where is the evidence to show evolution from one species to another all we find are drawings, illustrations, there aren't the actual material evidence showing it. So, while there are attempts to say that only scientists can speak on this. What we have are scientists that are then creating an isolated community and saying that we're the ones... almost like... it's almost like it's a religion in which only scientists can speak or teach on it and to teach everyone else and everyone else must believe what the scientists, what particular scientists, say...

This is what I call implicit arrogance. Look at the language used here. She paints a picture in a way that it seems that it is scientists who are being unfair. She goes so far as to claim that the scientists are operating as though they were a religion.

Now here's the wake up call.

YOU are not qualified to make valid comments with regards to the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory for the matter. If you're not trained in the field, you have as much to contribute to the discussion as a car mechanic has on performing a heart surgery.

Only scientists (biologists specifically for evolution) can speak on such issues because they are the only ones who are qualified.

So why did I say that she was being implicitly arrogant? Because she thinks her complete lack of qualifications (may I add critical thinking as well) trumps the scientific consensus by people who are trained and have worked in the field. Now, that's some fat-ass arrogance there.

6:07 - 6:34
The ad hominen attacks that people who have faith in evolution use against people who don't buy into that... I think shows the lack of confidence in the evidence. If evolution had so much evidence behind it then those people in favour wouldn't to be reduced to ad hominen attacks against those who say show us the evidence show us what's lacking

Ad hominen attacks? I'm guessing that that is referring to things like:

"You retard, can't you see the freaking evidence?"
"Faith-heads cannot be convinced even if you place the evidence right in front of them."
"Oh god, you moron. I can't be bothered to explain any further."

It's not the lack of confidence that result in such comments. It is the sheer exasperation when creationists refuse to be convinced even when presented with the multitudes of evidence for evolution.

It's NOT "you moron, you better believe what I believe."
It's more like "you moron, the bloody evidence is so freaking obvious."

7:28 - 7:39
What they claim to be the evolution of a foetus in the womb based on hand drawings which has been proven to be false and yet they continue to publish it in scientific textbooks.

That's about Haeckel's drawings. It was also discussed in the first video I recommended (watch it if you haven't).

The thing with Haeckel's drawings is that even though Haeckel admitted that a few of his drawings are not based on actual observation, he's still sort of correct.

Embryos do in fact look extremely similar during the early stages of development. Some of those features displayed during development are indicative of their evolutionary history (ie, evidence for evolution).

Here's a blog entry by biologist PZ Myers on the topic of Haeckel's embryos. (Extremely long article - you've been warned)

8:18 - 10:13 [End of video]
*Babbles on about morality and science then more on the alleged lack of evidence*

How we operate society is completely separate issue from the validity of a scientific theory. It is a naturalistic fallacy to claim that because evolution says so and so therefore we should/would do so and so.

That is a very simple concept to understand. We don't have to operate our society's on Darwinian principles. If the principles are true in nature, that's that. It is a retarded claim to say that those principles are false simply because we don't like them.

Facts are facts whether you like them or not.


** Wow, the sheer amount of crap in one video... I don't think I will start on the second one...

2012

Yes, darn it, the world is NOT going to end in 2012. I don't understand why people even entertain such a retarded idea let alone actually believing it.

Here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson on CNN answering to this ludicrous belief.

I kid you not!

I was in discussion with christian who thinks that the bible "did not make a mistake on the issue" about the solar system being heliocentric/geocentric.

So, I replied with the following [Post #106]

But of course! The bible cannot be wrong - It's the big book of multiple choice.

You want geocentric universe? Supported by the bible.

You want heliocentric universe? Supported by the bible.

It's the reason behind why modern christians can say that the bible wasn't wrong but their predecessors are wrong.

[I quoted Wikipedia where it mentions that the Church was against Copernicus and Galileo because their theories were against the "Holy Scripture".]

The Power of the Holy Book of MCQ - It supports anything you want as long you search hard enough.

I kid you not - he replied with the following.

Hehe... and did you even wonder why Bible is infallible like what you said, it supports anything as long as you search hard enough. Can ordinary men even come up with such a book???

Lesson of the day:
Only god could have come up with such a contradictory book that can support any position due to its ambiguity.

Praise Yahweh! Praise Jesus!

LOL.

Tired

I'm so tired of listening to christian "explanations".

Absurd.

Illogical.

Incoherent.

Warped ideas about love and hate, knowledge and wisdom, persecution and respect.

So tired.

Life would be more beautiful without the concept of god.

Science, it WORKS! Bitches.

Perhaps, I'm the bitch for this post because I'm going to be bitching about something.

I am definitely sick of theists who say "I believe in science but I just don't believe in evolution."

I'd say that they are fricking hypocrites.

Seriously, unlike the holy books, you don't get to cherrypick stuff to believe in. The body of knowledge known as science is acquired by the scientific method. It's a package deal. You don't get to reject part of this body of knowledge (in this case, the theory of evolution) and still say you accept the scientific method.

While science may have many disciplines, they are not discrete subjects like mathematics is separate from literature. They are interlinked. They are fundamentally the results of the same methodology: the Scientific Method.

To make matters worse, those theists are rejecting science for one absurd reason: their religious dogma. Between the multitudes of evidence science offers and their ancient religious dogma, they reject the evidence and the science.

That is patently absurd. And it is also incredibly hypocritical.

If you want to reject the theory of evolution, please be acknowledge that you are not rejecting the theory itself but the scientific method also. In such a case, do yourself a favor and stop being a hypocrite about it. Don't use anything that is derived from science and that includes evey piece of technology.

You are trampling on the hard work of the many generations of scientists who devoted their lives to bettering our lives by increasing our knowledge. You dare condescendingly call scientific theories "just a theory of man" and claim that it is wrong when it contradicts your holy book. You downplay all the good that science has brought and call it the evil that leads to nazism. Yet everyday you're using the products of the method that you so lovingly despise.

Why don't you examine your presuppositions? That god exist? That the universe must have been created? That you cannot bear the thought of death? That you want so badly to believe in an afterlife? That the holy books are accurate?

Use reason and logic.
Look at the evidence and draw conclusions.
Not let your desires cloud your judgement.

Screw faith which simply is the belief with no evidence.
Don't presuppose the conclusion when looking at the evidence.
Live a life based in reality not fantasy.

Trust science not simply as an authority.
Trust it because you know what it is and how it works.
Trust it because of its fine track record.

SCIENCE, IT WORKS! BITCHES!

The Atheist Experience: Clips on Youtube

The Atheist Experience videos are about 90 minutes long and that is way too long for some people to sit through. So some fans uploaded shorter clips of their favorite parts of certain episodes on Youtube. And here is a few that I picked out.


Does Logic And Reason apply to God?
What ever does it mean that you can't use reason and logic in issues regarding god(s)? Why is it applicable only if it comes to the biased conclusion? Why the particular exception anyways? This short clip touches on the topic.

Episode 531 | Topic: Viewer Mail | By Matt and Tracie
Click here.


Warning: Faith Can Cause Mental Illness!
Religious inconsistencies: Strong faith or mental illness?

Episode 535 | Topic: News | By Matt and Ashley
Click here.


Saudi woman sentenced to death for making a man impotent
Attacking religions: Is religion truly a force for good or is progress just a by-product of its ulterior motives. Stupid beliefs deserve criticism; No special protection accorded.

Episode 540 | Topic: Agnosticism & Prejudice | By Matt and Tracie
Click here.


Atheists don't believe in Anything!
Believe in nothing? Meaningless therefore suicide?
Bullshit! The promise of an afterlife diminishes the value of this one. As an atheist, I value this life much more and I hold my own beliefs apart from my disbelief in god. Not believing in god does not mean atheists believe in nothing; that's an extremely skewed perception of us.

Episode 556 | Topic: Batman & Atheism | By Matt and Tracie
Click here.


God's Moral Lesson in the Story of Abraham
Instead of focusing on Abraham's obedience, why not think about God's character? Ever wonder why Abraham never questioned why God wanted a sacrifice? Is asking for human sacrifices within God's character? How is that moral at all?

Episode 557 | Topic: John Hagee | By Matt and Don
Click here.


'I am more moral than God!'
God condones slavery. That is immoral. Period.
We are more moral than Yahweh.

Episode 568 | Topic: Moral Judgement | By Matt and Jen
Click here.


Logical Fallacy: God did it!
Argument from Personal Incredulity. Therefore, God did it.

Episode 573 | Topic: Moral Judgement | By Jen and Matt
Click here.


Matt Dillahunty DESTROYS a Theist
Matt's Terrific, Merciless Rant on God's moral standards
God moral? Have you read the damn bible?
An omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god that: condones/requests for human sacrifice, endorses slavery, commits mass murders, requires death penalties for petty crimes and punishes his creations infinitely for finite crimes. That's moral?

Episode 574 | Topic: Still More Scamlets | By Matt and Don
Click here for Part 1 and Part 2.


13 Year Old Rape Victim Stoned To Death
13 year old. Girl. Married. Raped. Stoned for adultery. In stadium with a thousand watching. What's more to say?

Episode 577 | Topic: Still More Scamlets | By Jen and Martin
Click here.


God is the Ultimate Judge! - Another Great Rant
Moral judgement is within yourself. Don't sacrifice your humanity to this insane religion that claims to know the absolute truth and morals. Note: Watch this for your own character growth.

Episode 579 | Topic: Live Callers | By Matt and Tracie
Click here for Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.


Distinct Evidence for God's Existence?
Evidence for anything must be unique in order to be recognized as evidence. An "evidence" that can be used for any god is not an evidence for any specific god. In some cases, theists go so far as to assert without evidence at all. Pathetic.

Episode 583 | Topic: Live Callers | By Matt and Tracie
Click here for Part 1 and Part 2.

Oh Their God...

Looks like somebody is desperate for suicide bombers.

Iraqi woman had 80 women raped to recruit suicide bombers
A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Seriously, what the fuck was she thinking? I mean, she IS a woman and she organized the rapes of 80 women.

This is what happens when you have ambiguous instructions from your "holy book".

Morality becomes a non-issue.

Crazy supporters

Supporters. Supporters? Supporters!?!
That was my response yesterday when I saw the article - Bali Bombers: Indonesia on alert...

It's really sad. There are supporters for those three people who were accomplices in the 2002 Bali bombings. Words cannot express how I feel.

I mean, how can anyone even THINK about supporting such people? It's like advocating to legalize murder. But of course, this is probably because religion was involved. It's not just suicide bombing. It's fighting for god. This makes things even sadder though... We have fellow human beings who kill other human beings because of imaginary entities.

What a world we live in...