Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Designer

2010-01-11T12:34:06Z

Blu Matt: Redirect to ID

#REDIRECT [[Intelligent design]]

Christianity

2010-01-11T12:27:12Z

Blu Matt: Comment about subsects

{{wikipedia|color=#E7E7E7;}}
'''Christianity''' is the largest [[religion]] in the world. Its members are split between [[Catholic]]s, [[Protestant]]s and [[Orthodox Christian]]s, although there are literally thousands of sub-sects each with their own ideas about how Christianity should manifest itself.

Christianity takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]], but the religion is based to a large degree on the writings of the [[apostle]] [[Paul]], some of which constitute several books of the [[New Testament]]. The religion is based on the [[Bible]].

==External links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&NR=1 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer]

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Christianity|*]]
[[Category:Religions]]

Category:Eponymous law

2010-01-11T11:59:23Z

Blu Matt: Added

[[Category:Browse categories]]

Adolf Hitler

2010-01-11T11:58:21Z

Blu Matt: Added link to Godwin's law

{{wikipedia}}
Many people mistakenly think that '''Adolf Hitler''' was either anti-religious or an [[atheist]]. This is in fact untrue. Hitler saw himself as doing [[God]]'s work, was inspired by [[Martin Luther]] (the father of the [[protestant]] reformation), and was in constant contact with the [[Catholic Church]].

==Apologetics==

[[Apologists]] make these claims about Hitler:
# Hitler was an atheist
# Hitler shows that atheism and [[secularism]] are dangerous
# Hitler persecuted [[Christian]]s

==Counter-apologetics==

===Hitler was an atheist===

Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler said in his famous book, ''Mein Kampf'', that he was doing the work of God:

: "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our [[Creator]]. By fighting off the [[Jew]]s. I am doing the [[Lord]]'s work."

And in 1938, Hitler declared, "I am now as before a [[Catholic]] and will always remain so." Hitler also drew much of his inspiration and [[anti-Semitic]] hate from the works of the protestant reformer Martin Luther.

===Hitler shows that atheism and secularism are dangerous===

Hitler's [[Nazi]] Germany was anything but secular. Hitler championed religious indoctrination in [[public school]]s, negotiated a [[treaty]] with the [[Vatican]] in which German [[tax]] money went to the church, and made special protection for Catholic churches and [[priest]]s, which were ''de facto'' applied to German protestant churches and [[minister]]s, as well.

: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general [[moral]] instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people."
:: — ''Hitler, April 26, 1933, during negotiations which led to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.''

: "Embued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions."
:: — ''Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on Jan. 30, 1934''

The EM German Army belt buckle also read "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us — see [[In God We Trust]]). To say that Nazi Germany was secular is factually incorrect.

===Hitler persecuted Christians for their belief===

As the above shows, Hitler and Nazi Germany were neither atheistic nor secular. Christians have claimed that many of their faith were sent to the death camps. The only Christians who were sent to the death camps specifically because of their religious beliefs were the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], who were [[pacifist]]ic and a threat to Germany's war effort. Most other Christians in the death camps were the German administrators. Atheists, on the other hand, ''were'' targeted for their beliefs and sent to death camps:

: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
:: — ''Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on Oct. 24, 1933''

The situation was different in Poland. Polish churches were shut down, but this was because they resisted Nazi influence.

==Further reading==
* http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html
* http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

==See Also==
* [[Godwin's law]]

[[Category:People|Hitler, Adolf]]
[[Category:Catholics|Hitler, Adolf]]

Godwin's law

2010-01-11T11:57:14Z

Blu Matt: Added

'''Godwin's law''' is a humorous eponymous law formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990, which states that:

{{Quote|As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] approaches 1.}}

The law is an observation that, as Internet discussions can become more heated over time, the longer the discussion the likelihood is increased that one of the arguers will compare either another arguer to a Nazi or Hitler directly, or their viewpoint as having a Nazi- or Hitler-related component. This appears to be especially true during any discussion of [[atheism]] with religious people.

==See Also==
* [[Poe's law]]
* [[Hitler#Hitler_was_an_atheist|'Hitler was an atheist']]

[[Category:Humor]]
[[Category:Eponymous law]]

Poe's law

2010-01-11T11:57:02Z

Blu Matt:

[[Image:EdwardCurrent - Checkmate, Atheists!.jpg|thumb|[[Edward Current]] is often mistaken for a real fundamentalist Christan by [[YouTube]] users.]]
'''Poe's law''' is a humorous law formulated by Nathan Poe, which states that:

{{Quote|Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a fundamentalist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.}}

It is a comment on the wide range of extreme and, many might say, insane opinions expressed by religious [[fundamentalist]]s, especially on the Internet.

Parody often works by exaggerating the salient features of a person or situation beyond reasonable bounds. Poe's law says that there are no bounds to what fundamentalists will say, and therefore they are impossible to parody.

==See Also==
* [[Godwin's law]]

[[Category:Humor]]
[[Category:Eponymous law]]

Poe's law

2010-01-11T11:42:56Z

Blu Matt: Added link to Godwin's law

Banana argument

2010-01-11T11:36:38Z

Blu Matt: /* False premise p1: Evolutionary straw man */

The '''banana argument''' is a variation on the [[argument from design]], saying that some things are the way they are because they were designed especially for our pleasure and comfort.

==Background information==
This argument was presented by [[Ray Comfort]] as "the atheist's worst nightmare" in the ''[[Way of the Master]]'' episode entitled "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]".

==Argument==
===Way of the Master Version===
[[Image:Raybanana.jpg|thumb|right|Ray Comfort with a banana]]
[[Ray Comfort]] on ''[[Way of the Master]]'':
{{Quote|It's my theory of where the soda can may have come from. Billions of years ago, there was a big bang in space. Nobody knows what caused the big bang, it just happened. And from this bang issued this huge rock, on top of the rock was found a sweet, brown bubbly substance. And over millions of years, aluminum crept up the side, formed itself with a can and a lid and then a tab. And then millions of years later, red paint, blue paint, white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words '12 fluid ounces - Do not litter'.}}
{{Quote|You're saying, 'What are you doing, you're insulting my intellect' - and so I am. Because we know, if the can is made there must be a maker. If it's designed there must be a designer. To believe the soda can happened by chance is to move into an intellectual-free zone... is to have an echo when you think... is to have brain liposuction}}
{{Quote|Behold, the atheists' nightmare. Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find, on the far side, there are 3 ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves, on the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made, one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents - green, too early - yellow, just right - black, too late. Now if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda can makers have placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find a wrapper which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice it has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth. It's chewy, easy to digest and its even curved toward the face to make the whole process so much easier. Seriously, Kirk, the whole of creation testifies to the genius of God's creation.}}

===List Version===
Note that the banana:
# Is shaped for the human hand
# Has a non-slip surface
# Has outward indicators of inward content:
#: Green - not ripe enough
#: Yellow - just right for eating
#: Black - too ripe
# Has a tab for easy removal of its wrapper
# Is perforated on the wrapper for easy peeling
# Has a biodegradable wrapper
# Is shaped for the human mouth
# Is pleasing to the taste buds
# Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy

The conclusion: obviously the banana was designed by "Almighty God" for the benefit of human beings.

===Syllogism===
::p1. We know that a soda can its obviously designed
::p2. Bananas superficially appear similar to soda cans
::c1. The banana is designed
::c2. The designer is God

==Counter arguments==
===False premise p1: Evolutionary straw man===
The first fallacy in Comfort's argument is that he commits a [[straw man]] fallacy in his description of the evolutionary process. This is not uncommon for Comfort who continually makes remarks about ''dogs crawling out of the primordial soup and not being able to find a mate'' or ''if evolution is true how come we don't see any crocoducks''?

In this particular instance the main aspects of the straw man include the facts that:
* A soda can does not have a process of self replication and generic variation. That being the case it is a bad comparison for evolution, as this hereditary development is ''the'' process which brings about the the change in biological organisms that Comfort is ultimately trying to convince us is impossible.
* The first point not withstanding, the idea that a soda can would just form aluminium sides or the words '12 fluid ounces - Do not litter' for no reason (or presumably reasons of human convenience) is not consistent with [[natural selection]], the main process by which evolution occurs. For positive changes to be propagated and or negative changes to be rejected, these changes must impact the organisms abilities to survive and replicate in some direct, or peripheral way. How would paint forming the English words 'Do not litter', in this way impact on the soda cans survival and replication abilities?

===False premise p2: Illusions of design===
The banana argument is built upon the assumption that everything that "looks designed" must have a designer. It inherits all of the weaknesses of other [[argument from design|arguments from design]].

===Special pleading: The banana is designed===
Even if the argument supported the existence of a banana designer, it wouldn't prove Comfort's assumption that the banana designer is supernatural, or more specifically, his personal God.

As it turns out, the reason the common banana we buy in the supermarket shows so many hallmarks of design for humans convenience is because it '''is''' designed to some degree, just not in the way Comfort thinks.

The bananas that we eat today were specifically bred by humans to be a size that we like. [[Wikipedia:Banana|Natural bananas]] are much smaller and are full of cherry-pit sized seeds. Far from being evidence of God, this is actually evidence of ''human'' "design".

This was possible due to ''variation under domestication''. Ironically enough, the title of the very first chapter in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' published 150 years ago. Domestication works exactly the same as the natural evolutionary process, except rather than a ''natural selection'' criteria, the domestication selection criteria is what best suits the animal or plant breeders purposes. He or she controls the hereditary outcomes of genetic linage by controlling which male and female of the species mate.

In fact, cultivated bananas are [[Wikipedia:Parthenocarpy |parthenocarpic]], which means they have been selectively bred to the point where they are sterile and unable to produce viable seeds. This means that they can no longer propagate ''without'' human intervention such as [[Wikipedia:grafting |grafting]].

You may take some nihilistic solace in the fact that if the human race dies out, at least we will take the banana plant with us.

==Other counter arguments==
* Even if the argument showed that bananas were designed, it would not prove that there is only one designer; maybe millions of banana designers participated.
* Even if the argument showed that there once was a banana designer, it wouldn't prove that the banana designer still exists.
* The argument provides no good reasons to suppose that a naturalistic, non-design explanation for bananas is improbable, let alone impossible.
* The list of features above smacks of [[cherry picking]] to devise a good example. Given the range of variation in fruits and vegetables, the enormous number of possible combinations of their attributes, and the fact that the foods we eat are almost by definition the ones "most suited" for our consumption, it would be extremely improbable that no fruit or vegetable would seem "especially well-suited" for our use.
* The fact that a banana fits perfectly in our hand might say more about the [[evolution]] of hands than it does about bananas. The human hand is very versatile, able to change shape enough to hold a tiny pebble or a large tree branch. Lots of things not designed for our enjoyment also fit in our hands (e.g., weapons).
* The number of objects in the universe that are inedible and even dangerous to humans far outweighs the number of objects that are tasty. Is this evidence of a malevolent designer, or none at all?
* Humans evolved to be able to eat naturally-occurring foods. From this perspective, the argument sounds a bit like [[Douglas Adams]]' analogy of a puddle thinking that the hole it's in was perfectly designed to contain it.
* More animals than humans eat bananas (especially naturally occurring bananas). Perhaps bananas were created for monkeys and humans just knew a good thing when they saw it.
* Humans eat all kinds of food and not all of it is easy to get at. The [[wikipedia:coconut|coconut]] is also enjoyed by humans and yet, apart from having a non-slip surface (like almost all natural objects) and tasting good (like most foods humans eat), it holds none of the other properties of the banana. A [[wikipedia:cow|cow]], whose meat some might say is far more delicious than a banana, is fairly difficult to hold in the hand when in its natural form. Like many other foods, cows also require special preparation before eating, otherwise some dangerous diseases can result. The diseases, by the way, come from bacteria that theists would also say were created by God.
* Some humans are allergic to bananas, casting doubt on the premise that bananas or humans are designed one for the other.
* Not an argument for Christianity. If it were designed, the banana could have been designed by Odin, Zeus or any other deity.

==Additional notes==
Ray Comfort in episode #103 of the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show, conceded that this is a bad argument due to the human domestication of the banana.

He has since recanted in somewhat of a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k notpology], that the argument is still valid as it was God who gave us the ability to domesticate said plants and animals, and furthermore that he no longer uses the banana argument solely because atheists have maliciously removed the argument from its proper context, a segment in which Comfort compares evolution to the [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)#Arguments|spontaneous natural formation of a Coke can]] over millions of years.

==Links==
===See also===
[[Argument from design]]
[[Ray Comfort]]

===External links===
* [http://youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw Banana argument video clip] – As presented by Ray Comfort on youtube
* [http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com/2006/05/ray-comfort-concedes-banana-argument.html Comfort conceded the banana argument] - Hellbound Alleee announcement of Comfort conceding the argument
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k Rays Banana Notpology] – Rays retraction of original Hellbound Aleee conceding of argument
* [http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html The banana argument in written form] - Presented completely without intentional irony (poe's law)

===Reference===
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8362370429542569287# Way of the Master s1e07] – Comforts Way of the Master series episode ''The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism''

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Teleological arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments from design]]

User:Blu Matt

2006-12-04T08:59:25Z

Blu Matt:

Born and bred (at least 3rd generation) [[ignostic]] [[atheist]].

Currently employed in the physics department of a well respected university in the UK.

I also submit articles for [http://www.nullifidian.net/ Nullifidian.net]

Richard Dawkins

2006-12-04T08:57:54Z

Blu Matt: oops...

Richard Dawkins is a British zoologist, currently holding the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of [[Science]] at Oxford University. He is also a very outspoken [[atheist]].

Amongst his popular published output on [[zoology]], [[biology]] and [[evolution]] his latest work ''[[The God Delusion]]'' is concerned primarily with [[religion]], [[belief]] and the effects it has, and has had, on society, and why such should be considered anathema to those who value life.

Dawkins' opinions on the various aspects of religion have been seen by some to be quite agressive, and he is famous for opining that bringing children up in a religious environment is tantamount to child abuse, and for comparing religion to a [[meme]], or mind virus.

==External Links==
* [http://richarddawkins.net/home Richard Dawkins' web site]
* [http://richarddawkins.net/foundation The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]
[[Category:Science]]

Richard Dawkins

2006-12-04T08:57:08Z

Blu Matt: Changed web site references after the split at the RDF

Richard Dawkins is a British zoologist, currently holding the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of [[Science]] at Oxford University. He is also a very outspoken [[atheist]].

Amongst his popular published output on [[zoology]], [[biology]] and [[evolution]] his latest work ''[[The God Delusion]]'' is concerned primarily with [[religion]], [[belief]] and the effects it has, and has had, on society, and why such should be considered anathema to those who value life.

Dawkins' opinions on the various aspects of religion have been seen by some to be quite agressive, and he is famous for opining that bringing children up in a religious environment is tantamount to child abuse, and for comparing religion to a [[meme]], or mind virus.

==External Links==
* [http://richarddawkins.net/home Richard Dawkins' web site]
* [http://richarddawkins.net/foundation/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]
[[Category:Science]]

Root of all evil

2006-12-04T08:55:22Z

Blu Matt: Added C4 references

{{stub}}

According to [[Paul]] in [[1 Timothy]], 6:7–10, the love of money is the '''root of all evil'''.

== Cultural References ==

'''''Root of All Evil?''''' is a two-part miniseries about religion, presented by [[Richard Dawkins]] and originally aired in 2006 in the United Kingdom on Channel 4.

=== Naming ===

While the [http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html Channel 4 web site] and popular references usually refer to the television show as ''The Root of All Evil?'', the programmes themselves omit the definite article "The", leaving simply ''Root of All Evil?''.

[[Category:Atheist shows]]
[[Category:The Bible]]

Loch Ness monster

2006-10-20T10:23:18Z

Blu Matt:

{{wikipedia|Loch Ness Monster}}

The Loch Ness monster (sometimes, affectionately, called ''Nessie'') is a contemporary [[mythical creature]] thought to reside within Loch Ness, a narrow yet deep body of water near Inverness in Scotland, UK.

Nessie and Loch Ness are popular attractions, with thousands of tourists arriving each year in the hope of catching a glimpse of the creature.

Systematic investigations of Loch Ness have failed to provide conclusive evidence of the existence of any such creature.

[[Category:Mythology]]

Jesus died for your sins

2006-10-15T11:11:06Z

Blu Matt: Shocking typo! ;-)

{{stub}}

"'''Jesus died for your sins'''" (or "Jesus paid for your sins") is a common [[appeal to emotion]] used by [[Christians]] when attempting to offer a reason to why one should accept [[Jesus Christ]] as their [[saviour]].

This statement is based upon the Christian [[doctrine]] that Jesus was sent to [[Earth]] by [[God]] to take away the [[sins]] of the world, and was cruxified, died, resurrected three days later and rose to heaven to be with God, his father (who is also himself).

===Counter Apologetics===

"God sacrificed himself to himself to save people from an eternal punishment for the 'sins' of people who didn't know any better, but which he knew were going to happen ([[omniscience]]) because he engineered the circumstances in which they would commit sin?"

"Sacrifice? Jesus was cruxified by people who didn't agree with his contemporary blaphemy, knowing that he was a god, was taken off the cross just a few hours later, supposedly died, rose from the dead and is now in heaven? It doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me!"

"A better sacrifice would have been if Jesus had died and was suffering in [[hell]] right now and for the rest of eternity, for us. That would be a ''real'' sacrifice."

Jesus died for your sins

2006-10-15T11:10:31Z

Blu Matt:

{{stub}}

"'''Jesus died for your sins'''" (or "Jesus paid for your sins") is a common [[appeal to emotion]] used by [[Christians]] when attempting to offer a reason to why one should accept [[Jesus Christ]] as their [[saviour]].

This statement is based upon the Christian [[doctrine]] that Jesus was sent to [[Earth]] by [[God]] to take away the [[sins]] of the world, and was cruxified, died, resurrected three days later and rose to heaven to be with God, his father (who is also himself).

===Counter Apologetics===

"God sacrificed himself to himself to save people from an eternal punishment for the 'sins' of people who didn't know any better, but which he knew were going to happen ([[omnipotence]]) because he engineered the circumstances in which they would commit sin?"

"Sacrifice? Jesus was cruxified by people who didn't agree with his contemporary blaphemy, knowing that he was a god, was taken off the cross just a few hours later, supposedly died, rose from the dead and is now in heaven? It doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me!"

"A better sacrifice would have been if Jesus had died and was suffering in [[hell]] right now and for the rest of eternity, for us. That would be a ''real'' sacrifice."

Jesus died for your sins

2006-10-15T11:09:52Z

Blu Matt: This needs tidying up, a better definition and more CA examples.

{{stub}}

"'''Jesus died for your sins'''" (or "Jesus paid for your sins") is a common [[appeal to emotion]] used by [[Christians]] when attempting to offer a reason to why one should accept [[Jesus Christ]] as their [[saviour]].

This statement is based upon the Christian [[doctrine]] that Jesus was sent to [[Earth]] by [[God]] to take away the [[sins]] of the world, and was cruxified, died, resurrected three days later and rose to heaven to be with God, his father (who is also himself).

===Counter Apologetics===

"God sacrificed himself to himself to save people from an eternal punishment for the 'sins' of people who didn't know any better, but which he knew were going to happen ([[onmipotence]]) because he engineered the circumstances in which they would commit sin?"

"Sacrifice? Jesus was cruxified by people who didn't agree with his contemporary blaphemy, knowing that he was a god, was taken off the cross just a few hours later, supposedly died, rose from the dead and is now in heaven? It doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me!"

"A better sacrifice would have been if Jesus had died and was suffering in [[hell]] right now and for the rest of eternity, for us. That would be a ''real'' sacrifice."

Jesus Christ

2006-10-15T10:47:46Z

Blu Matt: Linked to entry 'begotten'

[[Image:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498) Jesus cutout.jpg|thumb|right|Jesus in Leonado da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper"]]

'''Jesus Christ''', according to [[Christian]] Doctrine, is the "Only [[begotten]] Son of [[God]]," who came to die for the sins of man, so that all people may have everlasting life in heaven.

{{quote-source|For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believe in him will have everlasting life|{{bible|John 3:16}}}}

The Jesus of [[the Bible]] is shown to perform [[miracles]], such as walking on water, curing the blind, and raising the dead. He also commands great respect with his desciples.

==Historical Jesus==

Despite the fact that 2 billion people worldwide believe that Jesus was a real person, who was born of a virgin, lived, prescribed laws, got up the nose of the Jewish Council, fell out of favor with his subjects, and then got nailed to a tree, there is no hard evidence that such a person existed.
There are some passing references to people that ''may'' have been Jesus.

Some [[atheist]]s consider discussion of the existence of a historical Jesus to be a [[red herring]]. They argue that, while a person named Jesus may or may not have existed, there is clearly no reason to believe that he had special powers, was the son of God, or performed miracles. Even if it could be firmly established that Jesus the man existed, this would not be evidence for the extraordinary claims that make up the foundation of the Christian religion.

==Naming==

"Jesus" is the anglicised version of the Latin ''Iesus'', from the Greek ''Iesous'', from the Aramaic ''Ieshua/Yeshua'', from which we get the modern westernised name Joshua.

"Christ" is the anglicised version of the Greek word ''christos'', which is a translation of the Hebrew word ''Mashiach'' (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed". Contrary to the popular opinion, Christ isn't a reference to Jesus' family or surname in the modern western tradition. ''Christ'' refers to the state of being "annointed" (a common reference to being a teacher or priest or some form of authority). Many Christian sects refer to him as Christ Jesus.

More precisely, he should be referred to as ''Jesus the Christ''. As a person, he is normally referred to as ''Jesus of Nazareth'', although this obviously contradicts the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

[[Category: Religious mythology]]
[[Category: The Bible]]
[[Category: Deities]]

Begotten

2006-10-15T10:46:47Z

Blu Matt:

{{quote-source|For God so loved the World that he gave his only '''begotten''' son, so that whosoever believe in him will have everlasting life|{{bible|John 3:16}}}}

The word '''begotten''' (past participle of ''beget'') commonly appears in statements about how [[God]] and [[Jesus Christ]] are supposedly related, and emphasises the [[metaphysical]], as opposed to physical, relationship between the two.

''Begotten'', while being an archaic equivalent of ''born'', has subtler overtones of "bring about" with less emphasis on the suggestion of (natural) birth when describing this relationship.

The use of ''begotten'' is also a strong indicator of a [[Christian]] bias, as it appears as a very common example of a [[meme]] that shows the influences of Christian [[doctrine]]. When people in English-speaking countries are asked "Who is/was Jesus?", a common answer is a paraphrasing of "Jesus is/was the ''only begotten'' son of God", rather than the simpler statement "Jesus is/was the son of God".

Kent Hovind

2006-10-15T09:48:43Z

Blu Matt: Fixed 300 lies link too

{{stub}}

'''Kent Hovind''' is a [[young earth creationist]] preacher based in Pensacola, FL.

Many of the arguments he uses to "disprove" evolution are so bad that even other young earth creationists have distanced themselves from him.

==Legal Troubles==
Hovind has had several run-ins with the law. As of August 2006, he has been accused of 58 counts of tax evasion.

==External Links==

* [http://www.drdino.com/ Creation Science Evangelism]
* [http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ Dinosaur Adventure Land]

===Sites Critical of Hovind===

* [http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html 300 Lies of Kent Hovind]
* [http://www.kent-hovind.com/ Analysis of Kent Hovind]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read]

Kent Hovind

2006-10-15T09:47:23Z

Blu Matt: Fixed thesis link

{{stub}}

'''Kent Hovind''' is a [[young earth creationist]] preacher based in Pensacola, FL.

Many of the arguments he uses to "disprove" evolution are so bad that even other young earth creationists have distanced themselves from him.

==Legal Troubles==
Hovind has had several run-ins with the law. As of August 2006, he has been accused of 58 counts of tax evasion.

==External Links==

* [http://www.drdino.com/ Creation Science Evangelism]
* [http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ Dinosaur Adventure Land]

===Sites Critical of Hovind===

* [http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html/ 300 Lies of Kent Hovind]
* [http://www.kent-hovind.com/ Analysis of Kent Hovind]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read]

Cosmological constant

2006-10-12T11:57:29Z

Blu Matt: Oops! No maths parser!

Cosmological constants (also known as physical or universal constants) are observed and measured values for naturally occurring phenomena. These include, but are not limited to, the speed of light in a vacuum ''c'', the gravitational constant ''G'', Plancks constant ℏ, the elementary charge ''e'' and the permittivity of free space ε0.

== Arguments ==

* [[Fine tuning argument]]

Cosmological constant

2006-10-12T11:53:10Z

Blu Matt: Tidied and added a bit of detail

Cosmological constants (also known as physical or universal constants) are observed and measured values for naturally occurring phenomena. These include, but are not limited to, the speed of light in a vacuum <math>c</math>, the gravitational constant <math>G</math>, Plancks constant <math>\hbar</math>, the elementary charge <math>e</math> and the permittivity of free space ε0.

== Arguments ==

* [[Fine tuning argument]]

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2006-10-04T18:24:46Z

Blu Matt:

I'll probably have the book finished by the weekend and I'll try to get a review up. In short, however, it's like he read my mind - and then poured it on on paper far better than I could have done on my own. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:24, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

: I've not managed to get it yet, and I'm still working through <cite>The Ancestor's Tale</cite> (which is a bit of a hard slog when the majority of my reading time is on the bus to and from work) but as soon as I do I'll do my bit. [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 19:17, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

: Shit, why didn't I preorder this book? I know ''exactly'' what you mean about the mind-reading thing! <cite>The Ancestor's Tale</cite> is taking a temporary respite on the shelf, along with Chomsky and Pullman [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 13:23, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2006-10-04T18:23:01Z

Blu Matt:

I'll probably have the book finished by the weekend and I'll try to get a review up. In short, however, it's like he read my mind - and then poured it on on paper far better than I could have done on my own. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:24, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

: I've not managed to get it yet, and I'm still working through <cite>The Ancestor's Tale</cite> (which is a bit of a hard slog when the majority of my reading time is on the bus to and from work) but as soon as I do I'll do my bit. [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 19:17, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

: Shit, why didn't I preorder this book? I know ''exactly'' what you mean about the mind-reading thing! [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 13:23, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Category talk:Fictional deities

2006-10-04T00:21:20Z

Blu Matt:

Aren't they ''all'' fictional? I thought that was sort of the point of this site... Would it be cheeky to add the gods of world religions here? [[User:Libraryjuice|Libraryjuice]] 04:11, 1 September 2006 (MST)

: Did you read the description at the top of the category page? -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:47, 1 September 2006 (MST)

:: I did. ;-) [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 19:21, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2006-10-04T00:17:11Z

Blu Matt:

How To Win Every Argument

2006-10-02T22:24:21Z

Blu Matt:

'''''How To Win Every Argument''''' by [[Madsen Pirie]] was published in 2006 as a humourous yet insightful guide to "the use and abuse of [[logic]]".

Contrary to the impression of the subtitle, the book details a catalogue of 79 common (and not so common) [[logical fallacies]], arranged in alphabetical order, as well as a handy classification of the various fallacies into five categories of:

* formal;
* informal (linguistic);
* informal (relevance - omission);
* informal (relevance - intrusion); and
* informal (relevance - presumption)

Where applicable, fallacies are listed under their traditional Latin names. Otherwise, they are listed by the name of the fallacy in English.

The book succeeds in explaining why various argumentative or seemingly reasoned positions are invalid with obvious examples, clear descriptions and simple commentary.

''How To Win Every Argument'' is written with an irreverent style, and is not lacking for humour, which primarily manifests itself in the brief commentary and explanations of where a logical fallacy breaks down.

The dust jacket of the hardcover edition contains imagery of a sledgehammer and a walnut, the walnut being intact on the front of the dust jacket, and broken on the rear. The rear cover of the dust jacket also contains an image of a fake sticker, claiming:
: "Publisher's Warning: In the wrong hands this book is dangerous. We recommend that you arm yourself with it whilst keeping it out of the hands of others. Only buy this book as a gift if you are sure that you can trust the recipient."

The book is published by Continuum, with the ISBN 0-8264-9006-9

[[Category:Logical fallacies|*]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Literature]]

Logical fallacy

2006-10-02T21:59:57Z

Blu Matt: Added Literature section

{{wikipedia}}
A '''logical fallacy''' can be any one of a number of formal or informal mistakes in a [[deductive proof]].

Note that an argument can be fallacious but still correct. For instance:
# All fish live in the water.
# All trout live in the water.
# Therefore all trout are fish.

The [[premise]]s are [[true]] and the conclusion is true, but the conclusion is not a [[valid]] [[inference]] from the premises. To see why, notice that we could use identical reasoning to prove that "all whales are fish" (of course, whales are mammals not fish).

Likewise, an argument can be logically [[valid]] but still wrong:
# All bugs are insects.
# All spiders are bugs.
# Therefore, all spiders are insects.

One of the premises is factually incorrect (which one depends on your definition of the word ''bug'') and the conclusion is also untrue. However, the conclusion is an accurate deduction based on these premises. Validity and soundness are also discussed in the article [[Validity vs. soundness]].

For examples of logical fallacies, visit the [[:Category:Logical fallacies|logical fallacies category]].

==Literature==
*''[[How To Win Every Argument]]'' by Madsen Pirie, ISBN 0-8264-9006-9

==External links==
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument] at [[The Secular Web]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies|*]]
[[Category:Logic]]

Richard Dawkins

2006-10-02T21:51:51Z

Blu Matt: Expanded entry, added link to RD website

Richard Dawkins is a British zoologist, currently holding the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of [[Science]] at Oxford University. He is also a very outspoken [[atheist]].

Amongst his popular published output on [[zoology]], [[biology]] and [[evolution]] his latest work 'The God Delusion' is concerned primarily with [[religion]], [[belief]] and the effects it has, and has had, on society, and why such should be considered anathema to those who value life.

Dawkins' opinions on the various aspects of religion have been seen by some to be quite agressive, and he is famous for opining that bringing children up in a religious environment is tantamount to child abuse, and for comparing religion to a [[meme]], or mind virus.

==External Links==
*[http://richarddawkins.net/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]
[[Category:Science]]

Jesus Christ

2006-08-05T14:57:09Z

Blu Matt: Added naming section

'''Jesus Christ''', according to [[Christian]] Doctrine, is the "Only begotten Son of [[God]]," who came to die for the sins of man, so that all people may have everlasting life in heaven.

''"For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believe in him will have everlasting life"'' - [[John]] 3:16

The Jesus of [[the Bible]] is shown to perform [[miracles]], such as walking on water, curing the blind, and raising the dead. He also commands great respect with his desciples.

==Historical Jesus==

Despite the fact that 2 billion people worldwide believe that Jesus was a real person, who was born of a virgin, lived, prescribed laws, got up the nose of the Jewish Council, fell out of favor with his subjects, and then got nailed to a tree, there is no hard evidence that such a person existed.
There are some passing references to people that ''may'' have been Jesus.

Some [[atheists]] consider discussion of the existence of a historical Jesus to be a [[red herring]]. They argue that, while a person named Jesus may or may not have existed, there is clearly no reason to believe that he had special powers, was the son of God, or performed miracles. Even if it could be firmly established that Jesus the man existed, this would not be evidence for the extraordinary claims that make up the foundation of the Christian religion.

==Naming==

'Jesus' is the anglicised version of the Latin ''Iesus'', from the Greek ''Iesous'', from the Aramaic ''Ieshua/Yeshua'', from which we get the modern westernised name Joshua.

'Christ' is the anglicised version of the Greek word ''christos'', which is a translation of the Hebrew word ''Mashiach'' (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed". Contrary to the popular opinion, Christ isn't a reference to Jesus' family or surname in the modern western tradition. ''Christ'' refers to the state of being "annointed" (a common reference to being a teacher or priest or some form of authority). Many Christian sects refer to him as Christ Jesus.

More precisely, he should be referred to as ''Jesus the Christ''. As a person, he is normally referred to as ''Jesus of Nazareth'', although this obviously contradicts the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

[[Category: Religious mythology]]
[[Category: The Bible]]
[[Category: Deities]]

Islam

2006-08-05T14:10:39Z

Blu Matt: Added article

{{stub}}

A '''Muslim''' (also spelled Moslem, and historically Musselman) is an adherent to [[Islam]]. The word means (in Arabic) "one who submits to [[God]]" ([[Allah]]).

Muslim can also be used as a synonym for the adjective Islamic (of or pertaining to Islam).

Tree of knowledge

2006-08-02T22:54:54Z

Blu Matt:

{{stub}}

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is, according to the [[Bible]], the tree God placed in the center of the [[Garden of Eden]] whose fruit contained all knowledge of [[good]] and [[evil]]. This is contrasted with the idea that [[Adam and Eve]] were created without such knowledge.

Supernatural

2006-08-02T17:51:44Z

Blu Matt: Expanded the link for ESP

'''Supernatural''' (and/or paranormal) typically refers to claims of phenomena which [[science]] cannot explain.

==Examples==
*[[God]]/god/gods
*[[ghosts]]
*[[prayer]]
*[[Extra sensory perception|ESP]]
*[[divining]]
*[[majik]]

==Responses==
In the entirety of human history, not one claimed occurence of a supernatural event nor one claim of supernatural ability has ever been reliably proven. In fact, not one shred of verifiable [[evidence]] has ever been provided for any supernatural claim.

Talk:Supernatural

2006-08-02T17:48:41Z

Blu Matt:

Is there a reason why magic has been spelled "majik"? -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 09:51, 1 August 2006 (MST)

: Probably to distinguish it from "magic" (as in illusion/prestidigitation) though I think it's more correct to write it as "magick"[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:12, 1 August 2006 (MST)

:: Can we just spell it as "magic"? "Magick", "majik", and other variants just look stupid. If we need to talk about what David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy, et al. do, we can just say "illusion" or "stage magic".
:: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:33, 1 August 2006 (MST)
::: I agree with [[User:Arensb|Arensb]] here. -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 10:48, 2 August 2006 (MST)

Robert Green Ingersoll

2006-08-02T17:43:33Z

Blu Matt: /* External Links */

'''''He stripped off the armor of institutional friendships'''''
'''''To dedicate his soul'''''
'''''To the terrible deities of Truth and Beauty.'''''
-- Edgar Lee Masters, "Poem for R. G. Ingersoll"

'''Robert Green Ingersoll''' (August 11, 1833 – July 21, 1899) was a nineteenth century orator, lawyer, and [[agnostic]]. In a time before pay per view television and motion pictures, Ingersoll commanded premium fees for speaking engagements. Although Ingersoll spoke on the subjects important to his age, he earned the sobriquet "The Great Agnostic" with lectures titled “Superstition”, “Some Mistakes of Moses”, “The Gods”, and the famous “Why I Am an Agnostic”.

As he grew richer and more famous he became a friend and inspiration to the celebrities of his day. Among those people touched by Ingersoll's oratory were Walt Witman, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison and many others. Mark Twain once remarked of Ingersoll, "What an organ human speech is when employed by a master".

Ingersoll's unwavering defense of Science, Humanism, and agnosticism make him one of the great heroes of the free thought movement. His speeches and essays are a "must read" for any serious student of anti-apologetics.

==General Biographical Information==

Robert Green Ingersoll was born in Dresden, New York on August 11, 1833. His father, John, was an itinerant minister who gave fiery abolitionist sermons. His mother, Mary, died when Robert was one and a half years old. He had four siblings, Ruth, John, Mary Jane, Ebon and Clark.

Because of his family's constant traveling Ingersoll was poorly educated until he was enrolled in school at the age of 15. He would later say that his real education began when, idling at a cobblers shop, he happened to pick up and read a book of poetry by Robert Burns. Having learned to love education he spent a short time as an itinerant teacher in Illinois and Tennessee.

Eventually he settled in Peoria, Illinois where, with his brother Ebon, he apprenticed in law and stood the bar. It was at this point that Ingersoll became active in politics and began to forge his reputation as one of the greatest orators of his day.

Robert met his wife, Eva Amelia Parker, while trying a case in Groveland, IL. Amelia was the daughter of a well-to-do family and some credit her with Roberts introduction to agnosticism. Amelia and Robert would have two daughters, Eva Robert in 1863 and Maud Robert in 1864.

Although he originally opposed Lincoln's candidacy, when the civil war broke out Ingersoll mustered a regiment to fight with the union army. A Colonel of the regiment, Robert served under General Prentiss. He saw devastating action at the battle of Shiloh. He was appointed Chief of Cavalry after several other engagements, but was eventually captured by the south. He was offered release if he resigned his commission, not an uncommon practice at the time, which he did.

At home he began to secure his fortune and his reputation as a lawyer and an orator. He acted as an attorney for the rail roads and as the defense attorney in many criminal cases. Among his most famous successes was as the defense attorney in the "Star Route Scandal", a federal case in which the defendants were charged with defrauding the government in the handling, or mishandling, of postal routes. Among his most important failures was the defense of C.B. Reynolds on charges of Blasphemy. Reynolds was found guilty but, because of Ingersoll's spirited defense, Reynolds was levied a 'wrist slap' fine and blasphemy laws were rarely prosecuted again.

Ingersoll served as Illinois' first Attorney General and was active in politics for most of his life. He campaigned for many republican candidates, helped James Garfield win his presidential bid, and managed the successful congressional campaign for his brother Ebon. His presidential nominating speech for James G. Blaine, "The Plumed Knight Speech", set the standard for political oratory in his day. Robert was offered the chance to run for Governor of Illinois. But, knowing he would have to ameliorate his agnostic and humanistic opinions, he refused to run writing:

''"I have in my composition that which I have declared to the world as my views upon religion. My position I would not, under any circumstances, not even for my life, seem to renounce. I would rather refuse to be President of the United States than to do so. My religious belief is my own. It belongs to me, not to the State of Illinois. I would not smother one sentiment of my heart to be the Emperor of the round world."''

After a long career as a lawyer and orator, Ingersoll died at the age of 65 of heart deceases while staying with his daughter's family at Dobbs Ferry-on-Hudson, New York. According the Ingersoll biographer, Herman E. Kittredge, after a day of feeling ill ''"Mrs Ingersoll said: "Why, Papa, your tongue is coated -- I must give you some medicine." He looked up at her with a smile and said, "I am better now," and, as he did so, closed his eyes...Ingersoll was dead."''

Today Robert Ingersoll's birthplace in Dresden, New York is maintained as a historic monument.

==A Man of His Times==

It must be remembered that Robert Green Ingersoll was a man of his times. Although his positions were enlightened for his day, many of his ideas would strike modern readers as deeply offensive. He was a staunch abolitionist but did not believe in racial equality. Even as he argued that the law must apply equally to all men regardless of race or religion, he maintained that former slaves should be moved to a separate homeland.

His eloquent defense of women's suffrage did not change his opinion that women where the back bone of home life. It is unlikely that Ingersoll could have imagined the working women of today.

Ingersoll believed in the capitalism of his day and felt that work was among the highest of human values. A large portion of his wealth came from his enormously successful defense of the railroad "robber Barron's". This included loop-hole-legal-wrangling that deprived many farmers of their land for the good of the railroad's rights-of-way.

Although Ingersoll was connected to some humanist and atheist organizations, it is unclear how much of his wealth was spent to support these groups.

Robert Ingersoll's eloquent defense of humanism, science, and agnosticism make him deserving of great respect in the non-religious community. But he was a human being, with all the flaws and foibles of our species, and very definitely a man of his times.

==Quotes==

The doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the savagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with torture, with flaying alive, and with burnings. The men who burned their fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies forever.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Crumbling Creeds"''

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)''

Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind?
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses"''

An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses"''

The old lady who said there must be a devil, else how could they make pictures that looked exactly like him, reasoned like a trained theologian -- like a doctor of divinity.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, from "Superstition" (1898)''

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the star-less night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, from "A Reply To The Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D."''

But honest men do not pretend to know; they are candid and sincere; they love the truth; they admit their ignorance, and they say, "We do not know."
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Superstition" (1898)''

The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply To Dr. Lyman Abbott"''

In all ages hypocrites, called priests, have put crowns on the heads of thieves, called kings.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll (1884), quoted from Herman E. Kittredge, A Biographical Appreciation of Robert Green Ingersoll, Chapter XII''

The churches have no confidence in each other. Why? Because they are acquainted with each other.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, quoted from the book Ingersoll the Magnificent, edited by Joseph Lewis, which does not cite references''

It may be that ministers really think that their prayers do good and it may be that frogs imagine that their croaking brings spring.
-- ''Robert Green Ingersoll, "Which Way?" (1884)''

Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, discussing the practice of not allowing atheists to give testimony in court: "In most of the States of this Union I could not give testimony. Should a man be murdered before my eyes I could not tell a jury who did it." -- ''quoted from the book Ingersoll the Magnificent, edited by Joseph Lewis, which does not cite references''

The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know.
--'' Robert Green Ingersoll, "Orthodoxy" (1884)''

==External Links==

* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/ingersoll.htm Quotes by Robert Igersoll]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/newton_baker/intimate_view.html Robert G. Ingersoll -- An Intimate View], by I. Newton Baker, A.M.
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/ The complete works of Robert Ingersoll]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/herman_kittredge/bio_ingersoll/index.shtml A comprehensive biography]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]

Argumentum ad absurdum

2006-08-02T17:38:53Z

Blu Matt: Added redirect

#REDIRECT [[Reductio_ad_absurdum]]

Argumentum ad temperantiam

2006-08-02T17:37:13Z

Blu Matt: Primary definition stolen mostly from Wikipedia's entry

{{stub}}

The '''middle ground''' (also called '''argumentum ad temperantiam''') between extreme points of view is often described as the [[logic|logical]] place to find the [[truth]]. This is a [[logical fallacy]]. The ''middle ground'' is most often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views which are deeply entrenched. It is considered a logical fallacy because the quality of being in the middle does not inform about the truth of the claim made.

==Examples==
* "If you don't believe in [[God]], you'll go to [[hell]] when you die."

* Teacher: What is 2+2? Student A: 4. Student B: 8. Teacher: No, the correct answer is 6.

* In the [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]], King Solomon's "decision" -- when confronted with two women who each claimed the same baby to be their own -- that the baby be cut in half and each purported mother given a half. Although this "plan" was really a brilliant way to determine the true mother (i.e., the one who said, "No! Don't do that!"), his given reasoning falsely assumes that the middle ground is best for all parties involved.

* In an [[argumentum ad absurdum]], the fallacy of the middle ground may be explained thus:

: ''"Boiling water is comparatively cold, molten lava is comparatively hot. Therefore it is best to bathe in molten lead, it is the middle ground."''

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Reductio ad absurdum

2006-08-02T17:30:48Z

Blu Matt: Added page

{{stub}}

Reductio ad absurdum is a type of [[logic|logical]] [[argument]] where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result.

Middle ground

2006-08-02T17:23:28Z

Blu Matt: Added redirection

#REDIRECT [[Argumentum_ad_temperantiam]]

Argumentum ad temperantiam

2006-08-02T17:22:33Z

Blu Matt: Page added

Douglas Adams

2006-08-02T17:17:37Z

Blu Matt:

'''Douglas Noël Adams''' (March 11, 1952 - May 11, 2001) was a cult British comic dramatist, amateur musician and author, most notably of the ''Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'' series of radio and television shows and books.

Adams was a self-declared "radical [[atheist]]", though he used the term for emphasis, so that he would not be asked if he in fact meant [[agnostic]]. He stated in an interview with [[American Atheists]] that this made things easier, but most importantly that it conveyed the fact that he really meant it, had thought about it a great deal, and that it was an opinion he held seriously. He was convinced that there is no [[God]], having never seen one shred of evidence to convince him otherwise, and devoted himself instead to secular causes such as environmentalism. Despite this, he did state in the same interview that he was "fascinated by [[religion]]." [...] "I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I’ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing." His fascination he ascribed to the fact that so many "otherwise rational... intelligent people... nevertheless take it [the existence of God] seriously".

Adams is credited with introducing a fan and later friend of his, the zoologist [[Richard Dawkins]], to Dawkins' future wife, Lalla Ward, who had played the part of Romana in a number of episodes of the ''Doctor Who'' television series.

==Quotes==
* . . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, `This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
** As quoted in Richard Dawkins's [http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html Eulogy] for Douglas Adams

* So, I was already familiar with and (I’m afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn’t apply the [[logic]] of [[physics]] to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘[[truth]]’. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it.
** [http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html Interview with American Atheists]

==According to Douglas Adams' Writings...==

Adams' fascination with religion was evident in much of his writing.

===The Babel Fish===

In the original ''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'', we are introduced to the Babel Fish, a small, yellow, leech-like creature that, if placed in your ear, will instantly translate anything said to you in any form of language.

:''Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.''
:''The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for [[scientific evidence|proof]] denies [[faith]], and without faith I am nothing."''
:''"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have [[evolution|evolved]] by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. [[Q.E.D.]]"''
:''"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of [[logic]].''
:''"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.'' 

===The Great Prophet Zarquon===

In ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'', we are introduced to The Church of the Great Prophet [[Zarquon]], who have been waiting for Zarquon's second coming. Zarquon (who obviously parallels [[Jesus]]) appears just moments before the end of the universe, and all he has time to say is: "Er, how are we for time? Have I just got a min-"

===God's Final Message===

In ''So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish'', the fourth book of five, in the horribly misnamed ''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'' Trilogy, God's Final Message to His Creation is...

'''"WE APOLOGISE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE"'''.

The two main characters of the book, Arthur Dent and Fenchurch, upon reading the message, are filled with a profound sense of peace, calm, and understanding: "Well, that's alright, then."

===Entirely Accurate Dating Technique===

"...and then, two thousand years after a man was nailed to a tree for saying how could it would be to be nice to people for a change..." (The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy).

==External Links==

* [http://www.douglasadams.com/ Official web site]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]

Douglas Adams

2006-08-02T17:15:19Z

Blu Matt: Small clarifications and some links

'''Douglas Noël Adams''' (March 11, 1952 - May 11, 2001) was a cult British comic dramatist, amateur musician and author, most notably of the ''Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'' series of radio and television shows and books.

Adams was a self-declared "radical [[atheist]]", though he used the term for emphasis, so that he would not be asked if he in fact meant [[agnostic]]. He stated in an interview with [[American Atheists]] that this made things easier, but most importantly that it conveyed the fact that he really meant it, had thought about it a great deal, and that it was an opinion he held seriously. He was convinced that there is no [[God]], having never seen one shred of evidence to convince him otherwise, and devoted himself instead to secular causes such as environmentalism. Despite this, he did state in the same interview that he was "fascinated by [[religion]]." [...] "I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I’ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing." His fascination he ascribed to the fact that so many "otherwise rational... intelligent people... nevertheless take it [the existence of God] seriously".

Adams is credited with introducing a fan and later friend of his, the zoologist [[Richard Dawkins]], to Dawkins' future wife, Lalla Ward, who had played the part of Romana in a number of episodes of the ''Doctor Who'' television series.

==Quotes==
* . . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, `This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
** As quoted in Richard Dawkins's [http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html Eulogy] for Douglas Adams

* So, I was already familiar with and (I’m afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn’t apply the [[logic]] of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘truth’. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it.
** [http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html Interview with American Atheists]

==According to Douglas Adams' Writings...==

Adams' fascination with religion was evident in much of his writing.

===The Babel Fish===

In the original ''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'', we are introduced to the Babel Fish, a small, yellow, leech-like creature that, if placed in your ear, will instantly translate anything said to you in any form of language.

:''Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.''
:''The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for [[scientific evidence|proof]] denies [[faith]], and without faith I am nothing."''
:''"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have [[evolution|evolved]] by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. [[Q.E.D.]]"''
:''"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of [[logic]].''
:''"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.'' 

===The Great Prophet Zarquon===

In ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'', we are introduced to The Church of the Great Prophet [[Zarquon]], who have been waiting for Zarquon's second coming. Zarquon (who obviously parallels [[Jesus]]) appears just moments before the end of the universe, and all he has time to say is: "Er, how are we for time? Have I just got a min-"

===God's Final Message===

In ''So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish'', the fourth book of five, in the horribly misnamed ''The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy'' Trilogy, God's Final Message to His Creation is...

'''"WE APOLOGISE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE"'''.

The two main characters of the book, Arthur Dent and Fenchurch, upon reading the message, are filled with a profound sense of peace, calm, and understanding: "Well, that's alright, then."

===Entirely Accurate Dating Technique===

"...and then, two thousand years after a man was nailed to a tree for saying how could it would be to be nice to people for a change..." (The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy).

==External Links==

* [http://www.douglasadams.com/ Official web site]

[[Category: Famous atheists]]

Intelligent design

2006-08-02T16:44:45Z

Blu Matt: /* History */

'''Intelligent design''' (sometimes abbreviated as ID) is a variety of [[creationism]] that relies on the [[argument from design]]. Proponents of the Intelligent Design movement claim that, unlike creationism, they are motivated by [[science]] and not [[religion]]. This is a claim that echoes that of ID's intellectual precursor, [[scientific creationism]]. Like scientific creationism, ID's claim to be scientific is suspect, since the ID movement has produced no original research. ID proponents tend to spend their time engaging in public relations and politics rather than doing science.

==History==

The Intelligent Design movement was spawned by lawyer [[Phillip Johnson]] when he wrote [[The Wedge Strategy]].

The movement experienced a major setback with the ruling of [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] by [[Judge John E. Jones III]] on December 20, 2005.

[[Flying_spaghetti_monster|Flying spaghetti monsterism]] was a parody theory 'designed' as an alternative to the traditional [[Christian]] [[creationist]] theory.

[[Category: Creationism]]

Fundamentalist

2006-08-02T16:38:23Z

Blu Matt: Added redirect

#REDIRECT [[Fundamentalism]]

Biblical value of pi

2006-08-02T09:16:36Z

Blu Matt: /* Counter-Apologetics */

In [[1 Kings]] 7:23, the [[Bible]] says:

* "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

==Counter-Apologetics==

[[Atheists]] often use this passage to demonstrate a mathematical error in the Bible, despite that fact that it is supposedly divinely inspired. Since the circumference of a circle is pi*diameter, a round sea could only be ten cubits across and thirty cubits around if Pi=3, rather than 3.1415 etc.

This shows that the Bible is not [[inerrant]] in such a way that no amount of denying scientific observations can sweep the objection away, because it is based on ''mathematics'', which is much harder to dispute.

==Apologetic response==

If you make a molten sea with a circumference of thirty cubits, you'll find that the diameter is 30/pi or 9.55 cubits. Or ten cubits, to round to the nearest integer.

In short, the Bible does not say that pi must be three, unless you are going to assume that the numbers given are accurate to more than two significant figures, which is unjustifiable given the wording.

[[Category: Arguments]]
[[Category: Arguments against the existence of God]]

Talk:Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

2006-08-01T21:14:48Z

Blu Matt: /* Omnipotence paradox */

WRT the last paragraph: is this really a cop-out? It only limits God to that which is logically possible, not just that which is physically possible. That is, defining God to be unable to have an apple and to not have any apples simultaneously does not necessarily limit his ability to travel faster than light, or go backward in time, or create planets out of nowhere. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:50, 17 July 2006 (MST)

: Perhaps cop-out isn't quite the right term. First, I wish to highlight the fact that "all-powerful" is a weird term to use once you start putting qualifiers on what "all" means. And they don't really stop at the logically impossible; they also say that God can't do things that are against his nature, whatever that means. It seems to me that when you start specifying the limitations on what God can do, it's sort of a "gateway drug" to deciding that you can add all kinds of restrictions and still say that he's omnipotent.
:
: If you can word that better, feel free to fix it. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:24, 18 July 2006 (MST)
:: I think you're making a sorites argument: "a god who can do everything, even the logically-impossible, is omnipotent"; "a god who can do everything except the logically-impossible is still omnipotent"; and so on, until we get to "a god who can usually raise his hand if no one's standing on it is still omnipotent".
:: I'll accept that "God can do anything he can do" is a useless tautology. But in this case, ISTM that it's up to the theist to define "omnipotence" in some reasonable way. The fact that there can be different degrees of omnipotence does not mean that they're all reasonable. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 08:52, 18 July 2006 (MST)

:::Then fix it! :) --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:56, 18 July 2006 (MST)

: This may be completely unrelated, and, if somebody doesn't like it, you can delete this, but not even God can go faster than light. I'd also like to not that I don't like this argument, because, as Arensb pointed out, God can do anything logically possible. Not even God can defy logic, because then I can be God. God cannot create something that can't exist. Before I change the article, however, I'd like to make sure that most people here agree. --[[User:atheistthoughts|atheistthoughts]]

:: An argument against that idea is that if the god "invented" the universe (and everything in it) then by definition logic is a construct that simply reflects that universe - if the universe changed (which is supposedly within the power of an omnipotent deity) then it's possible (although I obviously can't comprehend it) that the rules of logic, the universal constants, etc. could be changed as well. If the god cannot change the universe, then it is not omnipotent (again). [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 05:02, 1 August 2006 (MST)

::: Defending the idea of God is harder than I thought. I feel sorry for those Chrstian apologists. I don't think logic reflects the universe, but the universe reflects logic. You can't throw out logic and keep the universe, but you can throw out the universe and keep logic. Logic is, in a way, God. Even God has to obey logic. God didn't create logic, logic coexists with God. --[[User:atheistthoughts|atheistthoughts]] 11:30, 1 August 2006 (MST)

:: Re: "not even God can go faster than light":
:: Consider the case where the universe is a simulation being run on God's computer (à la ''The Matrix''). In this case, the laws of physics don't apply to God. In fact, the normal axes of space and time can't even be mapped to God's axes.
:: God may not be able to travel faster than light, any more than the author of Super Mario Brothers can jump higher than 300 pixels, but he may be able to pause the simulation, reach in with a debugger (which ignores the laws of the simulated universe), create an avatar (a burning bush, an angel, a cluster of galaxies 600 Mpc wide in the shape of a mouth, etc.), and unpause the simulation.
:: Such a god ''might'' be able to create an FTL object or avatar. I'm not at all sure that he'd be able to create an electron with well-defined position '''and''' momentum, because I'm not sure that such a thing makes sense; or if it does, then it's probably not really an electron. But even this god can't make 0+1 be anything other than 1.
:: Does this help any?
:: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 13:07, 1 August 2006 (MST)

== Omnipotence paradox ==

Isn't this the same as the [[Omnipotence_paradox_argument|omnipotence paradox argument]]? [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 18:00, 31 July 2006 (MST)

: I think so. I guess these two articles ought to be merged (I vote to keep [[omnipotence paradox argument]]). But there's good stuff in both, so it's not as simple as just deleting one and redirecting the other.

:: I agree. [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 04:52, 1 August 2006 (MST)

::: I'm not so sure about this. I think that "Can God make a rock so heavy..." is a recognizable claim in its own right which ought to show up in the index. At the same time, I'm also inclined to be very cautious about any duplication going on. I notice that this page also duplicates some work on the [[omnipotent]] page.

::: I'd like to tentatively propose the following changes:
:::# Keep this page.
:::# Change the [[omnipotence paradox argument]] page to just [[omnipotence paradox]]. I don't think the modifier "argument" adds anything useful.
:::# On the OP page, remove detailed reference to "Can God create..." question; instead link this page from there.
:::# On the '''omnipotent''' page, remove discussion of the paradox and replace it with a link to the OP page.
:::# Also while I'm on the subject, [[omnipotent]] should probably redirect to [[omnipotence]], [[omniscient]] to [[omniscience]], etc.

::: Anyone have any objections/counter-suggestions?
::: --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:32, 1 August 2006 (MST)
:::: Sounds good to me [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 13:12, 1 August 2006 (MST)
:::: Ditto -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 14:14, 1 August 2006 (MST)

Talk:Supernatural

2006-08-01T16:51:33Z

Blu Matt: Majik?

Is there a reason why magic has been spelled "majik"? -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 09:51, 1 August 2006 (MST)

Isaac Asimov

2006-08-01T15:42:52Z

Blu Matt: Added

{{stub}}
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) was an author of science-fiction and promoter of popular science who wrote a number of books about a wide variety of subjects, including history, Shakespeare, and the Bible.
[[Category: Famous atheists]]

Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines

2006-08-01T14:18:35Z

Blu Matt:

Can I suggest that we have some sort of guidelines for how we think the best way is to structure things? Examples of this: Target page naming (e.g. Creationist > Creationism), linking to external resources, categories, and so forth. The sooner we get this down, the sooner we can nip errant page organisation in the bud (which I'd probably be guilty of otherwise!) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 05:26, 1 August 2006 (MST)

Yes, I'm planning (now that I've mostly finished with Episode 7 of Way of the Master) to rework the front page, the IC introduction page and included editing guidelines on style, structure, formatting....and other stuff. Unfortunately, it may not happen until next week, as I'll be leaving on vacation soon. Some of this information already exists in the admin forums, I just haven't finished incorporating all of it into the wiki pages. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 07:07, 1 August 2006 (MST)

: Splendid. Enjoy your holiday. :-) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 07:18, 1 August 2006 (MST)

Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines

2006-08-01T12:26:33Z

Blu Matt:

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2006-08-01T12:12:19Z

Blu Matt: /* The Deity */

[[Image:FSM3d.gif|thumb|A typical depiction of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
[[Image:FSM W 1600x1200 th1.jpg|thumb|"What Would the Flying Spaghetti Monster Do?" A parody of "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD?)]]
[[Image:Th iwant2believe1240x1024.jpg|thumb|"I want to believe", a reference to a poster in the TV series ''The X-Files'']]
The '''Flying Spaghetti Monster''' (FSM) is a [[deity]] invented by Bobby Henderson as a parody of [[Intelligent design]]. The FSM first came to public notice when Henderson wrote a letter to the Kansas School Board, which was considering adding Intelligent Design to the curriculum; Henderson argued for including the FSM as well, echoing many of the arguments used by Intelligent Design advocates.

Although the FSM is absurd, and there is no evidence for its existence, the same can be said of [[God]] and of the designer in Intelligent Design. Thus, Henderson argues, if a school district chooses to teach ID in the classroom, it ought to teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well, so that students can hear all viewpoints and make up their own minds.

==The Deity==

The Flying Spagheti Monster is depicted as a knot of Spaghetti, flanked by two meatballs, with eyes on stalks. Such a depiction is merely a guess, as the FSM is invisible to all known forms of scientific detection.

The FSM is said to be capable of altering measurement results to make the world appear older or otherwise different from the way it really is. Thus, a scientist may carbon-date an artifact as being 10,000 years old, but:
: [W]hat our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.
This illustrates the problem of trying to do science without [[methodological naturalism]].

FSM lore includes a creation myth, and a graph showing an inverse relationship between global temperature and the number of pirates in the world. Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are known as "Pastafarians."

In 2006, Henderson published the first book about the FSM, ''The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster''.

==External Links==
* [http://www.venganza.org/ Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]

[[Category:Deities]]
[[Category: Humorous web sites]]