Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Fred Phelps

2008-05-03T20:22:02Z

Diagoras: updating link

'''Fred Phelps''' is the pastor of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] in Topeka, Kansas and the proprietor of the websites [[God Hates Fags]] and [[God Hates America]]. He is well-known for his extremist version of [[fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]. He is extremely opposed to [[homosexuality]] and attributes most of society's problems (including 9/11, the Indian Ocean tsunami, and the death of American soldiers in Iraq) to tolerance for homosexual behavior. He advocates the death penalty for homosexuals, as commanded in the [[Bible]].
* {{bible|Leviticus 20:13}}: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Phelps' congregation is largely comprised of his own family members. He generally shows little concern for getting along with anyone outside his congregation, even other Christians. As a result, mainstream Christians tend to write him off as not a [[true Christian]], even if they may agree with his condemnation of homosexuality.

==Social action==
The Westboro Baptist Church frequently attracts media attention for protesting funerals of homosexuals and deceased American soldiers. They celebrate such events as God's justice being enacted on a [[sin]]ful society, and believe that it is immoral and impious to feel sympathy for the dead and those who mourn for them in these instances.

One of the most famous incidents was his picketing of [[Matthew Shepard]]'s funeral. Phelps also declared his intention to picket [[Jerry Falwell]]'s funeral.

==External links==
*[http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ghfmir/main/index.html Westboro Baptist Church homepage]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7735501683185935638 Google Video: The Most Hated Family In America] - a documentary about Fred Phelps and his family

[[Category:People|Phelps, Fred]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Phelps, Fred]]

Irreducible complexity

2007-10-29T16:47:03Z

Diagoras: /* External links */

{{Wikipedia|Irreducible complexity}}
'''Irreducible complexity''', as defined by [[Michael Behe]] in ''Darwin's Black Box'' is a property of a system such that if any part is removed, the system ceases to function. Irreducible complexity is often used as an argument for [[Intelligent design]].

The classic illustration of an irreducibly complex system is a mousetrap: it consists of a base, hammer, spring, catch (or trigger), and fasteners to hold the pieces together. If any of those parts is removed, the mousetrap no longer works.

The argument, then, is that since [[evolution]] proceeds by adding parts to an existing system one by one, the precursors of an irreducibly complex system would have been useless, and would not have been selected for. Ergo, all of the pieces had to be put together by an intelligent designer.

==Counter-arguments==
===Scaffolding===
The argument that evolution always proceeds by adding parts is false. Natural selection can remove parts as well as add them. For instance, whales have no hind legs, but retain vestigial pelvises where their ancestors' legs were attached.

Another example of an irreducibly complex system is a gothic arch: if any stone is removed, the arch falls down. The way to build such a system is to install a scaffold, build the arch, then remove the scaffolding. Similarly, biological mechanisms do not have to co-exist with the structures that allowed them to evolve the way they did.

===Incomplete systems can still have a function===
While it is true that an irreducibly complex system with a missing part loses its original function, it may still have some other function. For instance, a mousetrap without a catch can still work as a tie clip, or a paperweight. A mousetrap without a base can be nailed to the floor. Such a mousetrap would not be as useful, but would still function.

For example, the bacterial flagellum, a long spinning hair that functions as an "outboard motor" for bacteria, is often cited as an example of an irreducibly complex system. But if some of its parts are removed, the resulting system bears a striking similarity to the Type Three Secretory System, a "syringe" that allows bacteria to infect other cells.

==External links==
* [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Irreducible_complexity Irreducible complexity] at [[EvoWiki]].
* [http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html "The Design Mousetrap" by Kenneth Miller]

Irreducible complexity

2007-10-29T16:19:11Z

Diagoras: /* Scaffolding */

Intelligent design

2007-10-11T11:46:12Z

Diagoras:

'''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. Virtually all of them are [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity|Christians]], usually of a [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] slant (officially, the [[Catholic Church]] endorses the theory of evolution). The aim of the ID movement is to conceal the religious nature of creationism in order to make the idea legally acceptable to secular public institutions.

==History==

The Intelligent Design movement was spawned by lawyer [[Phillip Johnson]] when he wrote [[The Wedge Strategy]]. It was a response to the U.S. Supreme Court case [[Edwards v. Aguillard]], which ruled that teaching creationism in public classrooms violated the [[U.S. Constitution]].

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]] and the belief in the [[Invisible Pink Unicorn]] were created as parody theories 'designed' as alternatives to the traditional [[Christian]] [[creationist]] theory.

[[Category: Creationism]]

Argument from design

2007-10-11T02:12:00Z

Diagoras: /* Counter-arguments */

The '''argument from design''' is an attempt to prove the existence of [[God]] based on the [[natural]] order of the [[universe]].

==The watchmaker==

This is the '''watchmaker argument''', one of the earliest formal expressions of the argument from design.
{{Quote-source|In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.|[[William Paley]], ''Natural Theology'' (1802)}}

==Counter-arguments==

* The appearance of design is subjective. What features denote design? Complexity? Order? Beauty? Suitability to a purpose? Any of these can be lacking in objects we ''know'' to be designed (i.e., manufactured by humans). We recognize designed objects by comparison with previously known designed objects and by contrasting them with ''naturally occurring'' objects. Thus, we know the watch had a designer because there is no evidence that watches occur naturally and a mountain of evidence that they are designed and manufactured. Furthermore, the fact that the watch is being singled out in the argument as an apparently designed object implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed, which seems to refute the whole point of the designer argument.

* Seeing design in nature involves confusing the direction of causality. Humans are the product of a long [[evolution]]ary process that has adapted us to the environments where we live. That our surroundings seem well suited to us (to the extent that they are) is not surprising, but is not evidence that it was ''designed'' for our benefit; rather it is a testament to the power of evolution to produce ''well-adapted organisms''. See [[Douglas Adams]]' puddle analogy.

* Continuing in the evolutionary vein, one of the beneficial adaptations of humans is the ability to infer intent. This allows us to anticipate behavior on the part of other organisms that might be detrimental (or beneficial) to our survival. However, this ability can be overgeneralized; we can see intent and purpose where there is none. Seeing design in nature is an example, since the religious view is usually that the universe was designed ''for our benefit''. Thus, inference of design is really a kind of fallacious inference of intent.

* We know that man-made objects are designed [[a posteriori]]. We have heard of designers. We know of companies that make such things. They are made out of plastic which doesn't occur in nature or finely polished purified silver which doesn't appear in nature. We know such things are designed because from our knowledge of the world we can logically conclude that they are designed. When presented with this notion in [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]] [[Michael Behe]] resorted to note that the inference held in science fiction movies: "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))." Often times the construction of the argument involves aliens or time travel to avoid the flaw.

* The conclusion does not follow. If we overlook the flaws in the argument, we could never conclude God. Rather some kind of designing intelligence. Watches are made by large groups of people and generations of tinkering with the design. As such, it might be better to conclude a pantheon of gods rather than Paley's one single deity. One could conclude the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] or aliens.

* If the appearance of design is all it takes to show that something couldn't have evolved, then who designed God? After all, in order to be capable of designing an entire functional universe, God himself must be incredibly complex and would need a designer as well. This makes the argument from design a subset of the [[cosmological argument]].

* Judging the intelligence of a designer who created the natural world would not lead to the conclusion of a perfectly intelligent one. There are a large number of rather stunning defects in nature that a competent designer wouldn't make, the human eye for example certainly relies on the principles of optics, but the ganglia is situation such that the nerves and blood which feed the eye are backwards and run across the light sensing cells of the eye. A hole is placed in the center such that humans and other mammals have a blind spot. Appendices serve no purpose and get infected and need to be removed. The human jaw is too small to properly fit wisdom teeth. Embryos sometimes implant themselves outside of the uterus and without abortion would kill the mother. If you were to conclude design, you would need to conclude an idiotic tinkerer rather than a divine perfect creator.

==Claiming design==

Paley compares the watch to a stone, noting that it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the stone occurred naturally, while the watch must be the result of intelligent design. This is entirely reasonable and consistent with science, yet Paley fails to clearly identify the precise reasons we're able to make such a distinction. Additionally, proponents of this argument often portray this as an argument that complexity, order and beauty are, on their own, evidence for design.

This view is logically flawed and raises problems which transcend Paley's original argument. If complexity and order are, on their own, evidence for design then everything must have been designed (as all things are complex and ordered at various scales) and everything must serve as evidence for this designer. Essentially, that rock which Paley dismisses can also be considered complex and ordered and must also serve as evidence for a designer. Indeed this is precisely what many [[Christian]]s claim, utilizing verses from the [[Bible]] to support it:

:'''"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."'''
:Romans 1:20

This view destroys Paley's original argument, essentially pointing out that the stone, the watch, the grass and all things are evidence of a designer. The contrast between "designed" and "naturally occurring" is eliminated.

==Recognizing design==

The truth that Paley only hinted at, and many creationists reject, is that we recognized "design" by contrast to the "naturally occurring". In the case of the watch, we have no evidence to support the idea that the watch is naturally occurring and overwhelming evidence that it was designed. We have knowledge about how watches are designed, we can identify specific designers and manufacturers we even teach these skills to new designers and manufacturers.

Where the rock is concerned, the opposite is true. We have no evidence to support the idea that the rock was designed and overwhelming evidence that it is the result of natural processes.

==External link==

* [http://skepdic.com/design.html Skeptic's dictionary entry on argument from design]

[[Category:Arguments from design]]

Argument from design

2007-10-11T02:09:13Z

Diagoras: /* Counter-arguments */

The '''argument from design''' is an attempt to prove the existence of [[God]] based on the [[natural]] order of the [[universe]].

==The watchmaker==

This is the '''watchmaker argument''', one of the earliest formal expressions of the argument from design.
{{Quote-source|In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.|[[William Paley]], ''Natural Theology'' (1802)}}

==Counter-arguments==

* The appearance of design is subjective. What features denote design? Complexity? Order? Beauty? Suitability to a purpose? Any of these can be lacking in objects we ''know'' to be designed (i.e., manufactured by humans). We recognize designed objects by comparison with previously known designed objects and by contrasting them with ''naturally occurring'' objects. Thus, we know the watch had a designer because there is no evidence that watches occur naturally and a mountain of evidence that they are designed and manufactured. Furthermore, the fact that the watch is singled out as an apparently designed object implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed.

* Seeing design in nature involves confusing the direction of causality. Humans are the product of a long [[evolution]]ary process that has adapted us to the environments where we live. That our surroundings seem well suited to us (to the extent that they are) is not surprising, but is not evidence that it was ''designed'' for our benefit; rather it is a testament to the power of evolution to produce ''well-adapted organisms''. See [[Douglas Adams]]' puddle analogy.

* Continuing in the evolutionary vein, one of the beneficial adaptations of humans is the ability to infer intent. This allows us to anticipate behavior on the part of other organisms that might be detrimental (or beneficial) to our survival. However, this ability can be overgeneralized; we can see intent and purpose where there is none. Seeing design in nature is an example, since the religious view is usually that the universe was designed ''for our benefit''. Thus, inference of design is really a kind of fallacious inference of intent.

* We know that man-made objects are designed [[a posteriori]]. We have heard of designers. We know of companies that make such things. They are made out of plastic which doesn't occur in nature or finely polished purified silver which doesn't appear in nature. We know such things are designed because from our knowledge of the world we can logically conclude that they are designed. When presented with this notion in [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]] [[Michael Behe]] resorted to note that the inference held in science fiction movies: "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))." Often times the construction of the argument involves aliens or time travel to avoid the flaw.

* The conclusion does not follow. If we overlook the flaws in the argument, we could never conclude God. Rather some kind of designing intelligence. Watches are made by large groups of people and generations of tinkering with the design. As such, it might be better to conclude a pantheon of gods rather than Paley's one single deity. One could conclude the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] or aliens.

* If the appearance of design is all it takes to show that something couldn't have evolved, then who designed God? After all, in order to be capable of designing an entire functional universe, God himself must be incredibly complex and would need a designer as well. This makes the argument from design a subset of the [[cosmological argument]].

* Judging the intelligence of a designer who created the natural world would not lead to the conclusion of a perfectly intelligent one. There are a large number of rather stunning defects in nature that a competent designer wouldn't make, the human eye for example certainly relies on the principles of optics, but the ganglia is situation such that the nerves and blood which feed the eye are backwards and run across the light sensing cells of the eye. A hole is placed in the center such that humans and other mammals have a blind spot. Appendices serve no purpose and get infected and need to be removed. The human jaw is too small to properly fit wisdom teeth. Embryos sometimes implant themselves outside of the uterus and without abortion would kill the mother. If you were to conclude design, you would need to conclude an idiotic tinkerer rather than a divine perfect creator.

==Claiming design==

Paley compares the watch to a stone, noting that it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the stone occurred naturally, while the watch must be the result of intelligent design. This is entirely reasonable and consistent with science, yet Paley fails to clearly identify the precise reasons we're able to make such a distinction. Additionally, proponents of this argument often portray this as an argument that complexity, order and beauty are, on their own, evidence for design.

This view is logically flawed and raises problems which transcend Paley's original argument. If complexity and order are, on their own, evidence for design then everything must have been designed (as all things are complex and ordered at various scales) and everything must serve as evidence for this designer. Essentially, that rock which Paley dismisses can also be considered complex and ordered and must also serve as evidence for a designer. Indeed this is precisely what many [[Christian]]s claim, utilizing verses from the [[Bible]] to support it:

:'''"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."'''
:Romans 1:20

This view destroys Paley's original argument, essentially pointing out that the stone, the watch, the grass and all things are evidence of a designer. The contrast between "designed" and "naturally occurring" is eliminated.

==Recognizing design==

The truth that Paley only hinted at, and many creationists reject, is that we recognized "design" by contrast to the "naturally occurring". In the case of the watch, we have no evidence to support the idea that the watch is naturally occurring and overwhelming evidence that it was designed. We have knowledge about how watches are designed, we can identify specific designers and manufacturers we even teach these skills to new designers and manufacturers.

Where the rock is concerned, the opposite is true. We have no evidence to support the idea that the rock was designed and overwhelming evidence that it is the result of natural processes.

==External link==

* [http://skepdic.com/design.html Skeptic's dictionary entry on argument from design]

[[Category:Arguments from design]]

Argument from nonbelief

2007-10-08T16:31:47Z

Diagoras: /* Free will */

The '''argument from nonbelief''', '''argument from reasonable nonbelief''', and '''argument from divine hiddenness''' are a related set of [[arguments against the existence of God]] having the following rough form:

# If God existed, this fact would be more obvious.
# God's existence is not, in fact, as obvious as we would expect, if he existed.
# Therefore, God does not exist.

==Arguments for the first premise==
===Argument for God's love===
[[J. L. Shellenberg]], the original proponent of the argument, has argued that a loving God would want to have a relationship with every person on Earth, which requires that his existence be made evident to everyone.
===Arguments from evangelical doctrine===
[[Theodore Drange]], who defended the argument in his 1998 book, ''[[Nonbelief and Evil]]: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God'', explicitly focused most of his book on the god of [[evangelical]] [[Christianity]]. He approvingly quoted David and Randall Basinger, who said, "[T]he philosophical community would be better served if it concerned itself primarily with... ''specific'' theological systems."''[citation needed]''

Drange cites a number of [[Biblical]] passages that suggest God strongly desires everyone to be aware of his existence:
* A number verses, including {{Bible|John 3:16}} and {{Bible|Romans 10:9}}, suggest belief is required for salvation.
* {{Bible|1 Timothy 2:4}} says God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Drange also cites a number of divine commands which suggest God wants everyone to believe:
:"(a) God commanded people to 'believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ' ({{Bible|1 John 3:23}}). (b) God commanded people to love him maximally ({{Bible|Matt. 22:37}}, {{Bible|Mark 12:30}}), and called that his 'greatest commandment.' (c) Jesus directed missionaries to preach the gospel message to all nations ({{Bible|Matt. 28:19-20}}) and to all creation ({{Bible|Mark 16:15-16}} NIV)."[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/drange1.html]

In spite of his emphasis on [[evangelicalism]], Drange has explained that he views his argument as a problem for anyone who would answer "yes" to two questions:
# Could God have done things that would have caused everyone, or almost everyone, to believe that he exists?
# Does God strongly desire that everyone, or almost everyone, believe that he exists?

==The argument's precise form==
Though Shellenberg refers to his argument as dealing with "divine hiddenness," he has specifically formulated it in terms of reasonable or inculpable non-belief:
# If God existed, there would be no instances of reasonable or inculpable non-belief.
# But there are instances of reasonable or inculpable non-belief.
# Therefore, God does not exist.

Theodore Drange, in contrast, has argued the argument should be formulated simply in terms of non-belief. First, he argues that the distinction between non-belief and ''reasonable'' non-belief is unclear. Also, he argues that even if it could be made clear, it would be irrelevant:
: "A perfectly loving deity would set vindictiveness aside and still want to help nonbelievers (by supplying them with evidence of his existence), despite their culpability."

==Objections==
===Free will===
Probably the most popular objection to the argument from non-belief is that if God caused everyone to believe, he would be interfering with their [[free will]]. There are many problems with this defense, however. We do not normally consider giving people [[evidence]] of something, or making them aware of something or someone's existence, as interference with their free will. Traditional [[scripture]]s show God frequently giving people (and even [[Satan]], who nevertheless still rejects him) overwhelming evidence of his existence through miracles, and evidently this does not interfere with their free will — or, at least, God as portrayed in these texts does not value free will highly. Also, the free will objection seems to imply that God wants people to believe in him without sufficient evidence; however, there appears to be no good reason for him to want this.

In addition to these things, it seems that the free will objection is not effective against the argument from reasonable non-belief. For example, in his debate with [[Austin Dacey]], [[William Lane Craig]] denied that "If god existed, he would ensure everyone who can have a loving relationship with him believe in him," appealing to free will in support of this point. However, Craig conceded that if God existed, everyone would have reasonable grounds for belief.[http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/147] On other occasions, Craig has said, "If you're sincerely seeking God, God will make His existence evident to you." This is representative of evangelical claims that all unbelievers are choosing wrongly or being dishonest, "suppressing the truth" as the Bible says. Another example of Craig's perspective is William J. Wainwright, who responded to the argument from non-belief by blaming non-belief on, "human corruption… sinfulness… perversity… [and] tendency to idolatry." This view, however, is almost as difficult to square with the evidence as the view that there are no unbelievers. Among the ranks of contemporary, outspoken non-believers are many people who were once sincere [[orthodox]] Christians, including ministers ([[Dan Barker]], [[Farrell Till]], [[John W. Loftus]]) and aspiring apologist-scholars ([[Robert M. Price]], [[Bart Ehrman]]).

===Calvinism===
Many [[Calvinist]]s have claimed that the argument from non-belief is inapplicable to Calvinism, because Calvinism holds that God does not want all persons to be saved. This, however, requires an implausible understanding of Biblical passages such as {{Bible|1 Timothy 2:4}}. Also, while Calvinism may not claim God wants everyone to be saved, Calvinists have typically claimed that God wants everyone to be aware of his existence, and in fact all people are aware of God's existence. [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/no_atheists.html]

==External link==
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/nonbelief.html The Argument from (Reasonable) Nonbelief] at Internet Infidels

==References==
*Theodore Drange. ''Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God.'' Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998.
*Daniel Howard-Snyder and Paul K. Moser, eds. ''Divine Hiddenness: New Essays.'' Cambridge University Press, 2002.

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

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

2007-10-08T16:26:45Z

Diagoras:

This is a principle of [[epistemology]] popularized by [[Carl Sagan]]. It states that when considering the validity of a claim, we require more rigorous [[proof]] if the claim is especially unusual or implausible.

For example, claiming that "It rained every day in Seattle last week" is not an extraordinary claim, and we might reasonably take the claimant's word as sufficient [[evidence]]. However, "It rained every day in the Sahara Desert last week" describes an extremely unusual event. Anyone making such a claim should reasonably expect to be asked for some sort of additional supporting evidence, such as news reports or moisture readings.

The need for extraordinary evidence depends not only on the unusual nature of the claim, but also on the consequences for accepting the claim as true. For example, if somebody claims "I am carrying $5,000 in cash" then you might find this a surprising statement, but it may not be directly relevant to how you behave. On the other hand, if the same person tells you "Please give me the keys to your old car, and then I'll give you this $5,000 in cash from my pocket," you may suddenly become very interested in seeing evidence that this money really exists.

== Supernatural claims ==

Claims of the [[supernatural]], especially claims about [[God]], are generally regarded as requiring extraordinary evidence, because:

# Direct observation of a supernatural entity would be a highly unusual event.
# Proponents often claim that the supernatural entities violate known laws of [[science]] (as in the case of [[miracle]]s or [[psychic]] powers). Therefore, these entities are difficult to square with the way that the universe is understood to work.
# Supernatural claims are frequently attached to substantial demands for changes in behavior.

For example, when a psychic claims that she has used her powers to solve a crime, the cost of checking this claim can be substantial in terms of police manpower. When a priest says "You must give 10% of your income to the church throughout your life," obviously there should be substantial interest in finding out whether there are sound reasons to do such a thing. Even regularly attending church carries an opportunity cost in terms of what you might do with your time if you were not in church.

== External link ==
* [http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm "The Dragon In My Garage" by Carl Sagan]

[[Category: Epistemology]]

God

2007-10-08T16:19:23Z

Diagoras:

Generally speaking, a '''god''' (or "deity") is a being with [[supernatural]] powers who receives [[worship]].

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Yahweh|The Christian God]], as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
Gods vary in the scope of their powers. [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theology]] has traditionally defined God ([[Yahweh]]) to be the [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]], and [[omnibenevolent]] lone creator of the entire universe. On the other hand, [[Greek gods]] such as [[Hermes]] and [[Dionysus]] are considerably less powerful, occupying a hierarchical [[pantheon]], squabbling with fellow gods, and exhibiting human traits such as anger and jealousy. However, some early books of the [[Bible]] seem to imply a finite god: In {{Bible|Genesis 18:20-21}}, God must personally visit [[Sodom and Gomorrah]] to see if they are as wicked as he has been told. In {{Bible|Judges 1:19}}, the men of [[Judah]] are unable to defeat the people of the plains, in spite of the fact that God was on their side. God's failure in this passage is attributed to the iron chariots of the enemy; this is the basis for the name of IronChariots.org.

==Counter-apologetics==

By far the most straightforward argument against the existence of a god is that there is no [[evidence]] for it. An important principle of [[science]] is that [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].

In the case of the Christian god, we are asked to explain the existence of a vast, complex, incomprehensible universe by inventing an even more vast, complex, incomprehensible being, which also happens to be intelligent enough to "plan" the entire history of the universe and still micromanage the details enough to answer [[prayer]]s, account for who will go to [[heaven]] and [[hell]], and deal with minutiae like how people deal with seemingly arbitrary rules about [[sex]].

Treated purely as an explanatory device, introducing a god into the universe raises far more questions than it answers. It brings up the obvious question of [[Who created God?|who created God]]. Science tends to reason from the complex to the simple, finding explanations of natural phenomena by breaking them down into basic rules. Of all the things we know of in the universe, intelligence in particular is one of the most complex and mysterious phenomena observed. To suppose that we could "explain" the universe by introducing a universe-spanning intelligence is completely backwards from the way science normally operates.

All this would be strictly academic nitpicking if there were any positive evidence for the existence of a god. Yet when pressed for evidence, apologists are notoriously vague. Rather than pointing to specific reasons why anyone should believe in such an improbable being, they point to the [[Bible]] as a historically accurate text; they bring up philosophical vagaries such as the [[first cause argument]] and the [[argument from design]], and they threaten hell by means of [[Pascal's wager]]. No test is ever proposed to demonstrate or falsify the existence of God; God's existence is merely assumed to be a default position (which also invokes [[argumentum ad populum]]).

==Capitalization of "God"==

As a point of grammar, the word "God" is usually capitalized when it refers to a particular god as a proper name; whereas "god" is in lowercase when it refers to one or more of a set of objects. For example: "I do not believe in your god."

Reverential religious texts often take the capitalization a step further when they are talking about their own gods, going so far as to capitalize pronouns that refer to the god. For example: "I love Him"; "We are saved by His grace".

==See also==
*[[theism]]
*[[monotheism]]
*[[polytheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ The Official God FAQ]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Religious mythology]]

Sodom and Gomorrah

2007-10-03T02:14:59Z

Diagoras:

Sodom and Gomorrah were two [[Bible|Biblical]] cities which, according to many [[Christian]]s, were destroyed for the [[sin]] of [[homosexuality]]. The story of their downfall occurs in the Bible in {{Bible|Genesis 19}}.

==External link==
*[http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/sodom_and_gomorrah/gn19_01.html The story of Sodom and Gomorrah at the Brick Testament]

[[Category:Bible]]

Intelligent design

2007-09-27T21:28:32Z

Diagoras:

'''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. Virtually all of them are [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christianity|Christians]], usually of a [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] slant (officially, the [[Catholic Church]] endorses the theory of evolution).

==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]] and the belief in the [[Invisible Pink Unicorn]] were created as parody theories 'designed' as alternatives to the traditional [[Christian]] [[creationist]] theory.

[[Category: Creationism]]

Intelligent design

2007-09-27T21:26:38Z

Diagoras:

'''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. Virtually all of them are [[Christianity|Christians]], usually of a [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] slant.

==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]] and the belief in the [[Invisible Pink Unicorn]] were created as parody theories 'designed' as alternatives to the traditional [[Christian]] [[creationist]] theory.

[[Category: Creationism]]

Good

2007-09-27T02:30:43Z

Diagoras:

'''Good''' has various meanings depending on one's perspective. [[Humanist]]s typically define ''good'' as any action or lack of action that causes an improvement in the life, health, happiness, or quality of humans or society. Many [[theist]]s define ''good'' as an action which is in accordance with [[God]]'s will.

Some theists will even claim that the word "good" is related to the word "God", but in fact they have two completely different etymologies. "Good" comes from the Proto-Germanic word [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=good&searchmode=none ''*gothaz''], while "God" comes from the Proto-Germanic word [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=God&searchmode=none ''*guthan''].

==The concept of "good" and God's will==

The theistic definition of ''good'' given above is problematic. If ''good'' is defined as whatever is in accordance with God's will then there is nothing to stop God from declaring [[murder]] and [[rape]] "good". If murder and rape are God's will then they must be good. Furthermore, what makes God's will automatically good? Does he get his definition of ''good'' from another source? If so, where does the source get their definition of ''good''? If not, then he's really just making up the definition of ''good'' as he goes along.

This issue is further explored by the [[Euthyphro dilemma]].

==See also==
* [[Secular morality]]

[[Category:Morality]]

God

2007-09-24T20:54:57Z

Diagoras:

Generally speaking, a '''god''' (or "deity") is a being with [[supernatural]] powers who receives [[worship]].

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Yahweh|The Christian God]], as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
Gods vary in the scope of their powers. Christian theology has traditionally defined God ([[Yahweh]]) to be the [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]], and [[omnibenevolent]] lone creator of the entire universe. On the other hand, [[Greek gods]] such as [[Hermes]] and [[Dionysus]] are considerably less powerful, occupying a hierarchical pantheon, squabbling with fellow gods, and exhibiting human traits such as anger and jealousy. However, some early books of the Bible seem to imply a finite god: In {{Bible|Genesis 18:20-21}}, God must personally visit Sodom and Gomorrah to see if they are as wicked as he has been told. In {{Bible|Judges 1:19}}, the men of Judah are unable to defeat the people of the plains, in spite of the fact that God was on their side. God's failure in this passage is attributed to the iron chariots of the enemy; this is the basis for the name of IronChariots.org.

==Counter-Apologetics==

By far the most straightforward argument against the existence of a god is that there is no [[evidence]] for it. An important principle of [[science]] is that [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].

In the case of the Christian god, we are asked to explain the existence of a vast, complex, incomprehensible universe by inventing an even more vast, complex, incomprehensible being, which also happens to be intelligent enough to "plan" the entire history of the universe and still micromanage the details enough to answer [[prayer]]s, account for who will go to [[heaven]] and [[hell]], and deal with minutiae like how people deal with seemingly arbitrary rules about [[sex]].

Treated purely as an explanatory device, introducing a god into the universe raises far more questions than it answers. It brings up the obvious question of [[Who created God?|who created God]]. Science tends to reason from the complex to the simple, finding explanations of natural phenomena by breaking them down into basic rules. Of all the things we know of in the universe, intelligence in particular is one of the most complex and mysterious phenomena observed. To suppose that we could "explain" the universe by introducing a universe-spanning intelligence is completely backwards from the way science normally operates.

All this would be strictly academic nitpicking if there were any positive evidence for the existence of a god. Yet when pressed for evidence, apologists are notoriously vague. Rather than pointing to specific reasons why anyone should believe in such an improbable being, they point to the [[Bible]] as a historically accurate text; they bring up philosophical vagaries such as the [[first cause argument]] and the [[argument from design]], and they threaten hell by means of [[Pascal's wager]]. No test is ever proposed to demonstrate or falsify the existence of God; God's existence is merely assumed to be a default position (which also invokes [[argumentum ad populum]]).

==Capitalization of "God"==

As a point of grammar, the word "God" is usually capitalized when it refers to a particular god as a proper name; whereas "god" is in lowercase when it refers to one or more of a set of objects. For example: "I do not believe in your god."

Reverential religious texts often take the capitalization a step further when they are talking about their own gods, going so far as to capitalize pronouns that refer to the god. For example: "I love Him"; "We are saved by His grace".

==See also==
*[[theism]]
*[[monotheism]]
*[[polytheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ The Official God FAQ]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Religious mythology]]

Yahweh

2007-09-24T19:59:25Z

Diagoras:

{{stub}}

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Yahweh, as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
'''Yahweh''', also known as '''Jehovah''' and '''YHWH''' (or '''JHWH'''), is the notional [[god]] of the [[Bible]] — "notional" because the text fails to present a consistent or coherent picture of the nature, characteristics, abilities or utterances of this deity such as would encourage one to acknowledge that a single real entity is being described. This situation no doubt results from the fact that the Bible is a [[post-hoc]] assemblage of texts from a number of different eras and [[mythic traditions]], in some of which the male creator-god is [[omniscient]], invisible, non-physical and [[all-powerful]], while in others he is fallible, visible, requires food, can be heard walking, has limited power, and so on.

==The tetragrammaton==

The [[tetragrammaton]] is the four-letter name of God, i.e. the letters YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה). The [[Hebrew]] writing system didn't originally include vowels and so modern linguists aren't sure of what the vowels of YHWH are.

In the Hebrew Bible, the symbols forming the word YHWH are not pronounced, as the "true name" of God is considered unpronounceable. When reading this word, [[Jew]]s substitute the Hebrew word "Adonai," which means "Lord."

==References in Popular Culture==

*A comedy skit in ''[[The Life of Brian]]'' revolves around numerous characters repeatedly saying "Jehovah" and being [[stoned]] to death for [[blasphemy]].

[[Category: Deities]]

God

2007-09-24T19:58:45Z

Diagoras:

Generally speaking, a '''god''' (or "deity") is a being with [[supernatural]] powers who receives [[worship]].

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Yahweh|The Christian God]], as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
Gods vary in the scope of their powers. Christian theology has traditionally defined God ([[Yahweh]]) to be the [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]], and [[omnibenevolent]] lone creator of the entire universe. On the other hand, [[Greek gods]] such as [[Hermes]] and [[Dionysus]] are considerably less powerful, occupying a hierarchical pantheon, squabbling with fellow gods, and exhibiting human traits such as anger and jealousy. However, some early books of the Bible seem to imply a finite god: In {{Bible|Genesis 18:20-21}}, God must personally visit Sodom and Gomorrah to see if they are as wicked as he has been told. In {{Bible|Judges 1:19}}, the men of Judah are unable to defeat the people of the plains, in spite of the fact that God was on their side. God's failure in this passage is attributed to the iron chariots of the enemy; this is the basis for the name of IronChariots.org.

==Counter-Apologetics==

By far the most straightforward argument against the existence of a god is that there is no [[evidence]] for it. An important principle of [[science]] is that [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].

In the case of the Christian god, we are asked to explain the existence of a vast, complex, incomprehensible universe by inventing an even more vast, complex, incomprehensible being, which also happens to be intelligent enough to "plan" the entire history of the universe and still micromanage the details enough to answer [[prayer]]s, account for who will go to [[heaven]] and [[hell]], and deal with minutiae like how people deal with seemingly arbitrary rules about [[sex]].

Treated purely as an explanatory device, introducing a god into the universe raises far more questions than it answers. It brings up the obvious question of [[Who created God?|who created God]]. Science tends to reason from the complex to the simple, finding explanations of natural phenomena by breaking them down into basic rules. Of all the things we know of in the universe, intelligence in particular is one of the most complex and mysterious phenomena observed. To suppose that we could "explain" the universe by introducing a universe-spanning intelligence is completely backwards from the way science normally operates.

All this would be strictly academic nitpicking if there were any positive evidence for the existence of a god. Yet when pressed for evidence, apologists are notoriously vague. Rather than pointing to specific reasons why anyone should believe in such an improbable being, they point to the [[Bible]] as a historically accurate text; they bring up philosophical vagaries such as the [[first cause argument]] and the [[argument from design]], and they threaten hell by means of [[Pascal's wager]]. No test is ever proposed to demonstrate or falsify the existence of God; God's existence is merely assumed to be a default position (which also invokes [[argumentum ad populum]]).

==Capitalization of "God"==

As a point of grammar, the word "God" is usually capitalized when it refers to a particular god as a proper name; whereas "god" is in lowercase when it refers to one or more of a set of objects. For example: "I do not believe in your god."

Reverential religious texts often take the capitalization a step further when they are talking about their own gods, going so far as to capitalize pronouns that refer to the god. For example: "I love Him"; "We are saved by His grace".

==External Links==
*[http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ The Official God FAQ]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Religious mythology]]

God

2007-09-24T19:57:50Z

Diagoras:

Generally speaking, a '''god''' (or "deity") is a being with [[supernatural]] powers who receives [[worship]].

[[Image:God.jpg|thumb|200px|right|God, as depicted by Michelangelo.]]
Gods vary in the scope of their powers. Christian theology has traditionally defined God ([[Yahweh]]) to be the [[omniscient]], [[omnipotent]], and [[omnibenevolent]] lone creator of the entire universe. On the other hand, [[Greek gods]] such as [[Hermes]] and [[Dionysus]] are considerably less powerful, occupying a hierarchical pantheon, squabbling with fellow gods, and exhibiting human traits such as anger and jealousy. However, some early books of the Bible seem to imply a finite god: In {{Bible|Genesis 18:20-21}}, God must personally visit Sodom and Gomorrah to see if they are as wicked as he has been told. In {{Bible|Judges 1:19}}, the men of Judah are unable to defeat the people of the plains, in spite of the fact that God was on their side. God's failure in this passage is attributed to the iron chariots of the enemy; this is the basis for the name of IronChariots.org.

==Counter-Apologetics==

By far the most straightforward argument against the existence of a god is that there is no [[evidence]] for it. An important principle of [[science]] is that [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].

In the case of the Christian god, we are asked to explain the existence of a vast, complex, incomprehensible universe by inventing an even more vast, complex, incomprehensible being, which also happens to be intelligent enough to "plan" the entire history of the universe and still micromanage the details enough to answer [[prayer]]s, account for who will go to [[heaven]] and [[hell]], and deal with minutiae like how people deal with seemingly arbitrary rules about [[sex]].

Treated purely as an explanatory device, introducing a god into the universe raises far more questions than it answers. It brings up the obvious question of [[Who created God?|who created God]]. Science tends to reason from the complex to the simple, finding explanations of natural phenomena by breaking them down into basic rules. Of all the things we know of in the universe, intelligence in particular is one of the most complex and mysterious phenomena observed. To suppose that we could "explain" the universe by introducing a universe-spanning intelligence is completely backwards from the way science normally operates.

All this would be strictly academic nitpicking if there were any positive evidence for the existence of a god. Yet when pressed for evidence, apologists are notoriously vague. Rather than pointing to specific reasons why anyone should believe in such an improbable being, they point to the [[Bible]] as a historically accurate text; they bring up philosophical vagaries such as the [[first cause argument]] and the [[argument from design]], and they threaten hell by means of [[Pascal's wager]]. No test is ever proposed to demonstrate or falsify the existence of God; God's existence is merely assumed to be a default position (which also invokes [[argumentum ad populum]]).

==Capitalization of "God"==

As a point of grammar, the word "God" is usually capitalized when it refers to a particular god as a proper name; whereas "god" is in lowercase when it refers to one or more of a set of objects. For example: "I do not believe in your god."

Reverential religious texts often take the capitalization a step further when they are talking about their own gods, going so far as to capitalize pronouns that refer to the god. For example: "I love Him"; "We are saved by His grace".

==External Links==
*[http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ The Official God FAQ]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Religious mythology]]

File:God.jpg

2007-09-24T19:56:27Z

Diagoras: God, as depicted by Michelangelo. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg

God, as depicted by Michelangelo. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg

Fred Phelps

2007-09-20T20:11:32Z

Diagoras:

'''Fred Phelps''' is the pastor of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] in Topeka, Kansas and the proprietor of the websites [[God Hates Fags]] and [[God Hates America]]. He is well-known for his extremist version of [[fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]. He is extremely opposed to [[homosexuality]] and attributes most of society's problems (including 9/11, the Indian Ocean tsunami, and the death of American soldiers in Iraq) to tolerance for homosexual behavior. He advocates the death penalty for homosexuals, as commanded in the [[Bible]].
* {{bible|Leviticus 20:13}}: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Phelps' congregation is largely comprised of his own family members. He generally shows little concern for getting along with anyone outside his congregation, even other Christians. As a result, mainstream Christians tend to write him off as not a [[true Christian]], even if they may agree with his condemnation of homosexuality.

==Social action==
The Westboro Baptist Church frequently attracts media attention for protesting funerals of homosexuals and deceased American soldiers. They celebrate such events as God's justice being enacted on a [[sin]]ful society, and believe that it is immoral and impious to feel sympathy for the dead and those who mourn for them in these instances.

One of the most famous incidents was his picketing of [[Matthew Shepard]]'s funeral. Phelps also declared his intention to picket [[Jerry Falwell]]'s funeral.

==External links==
*[http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ghfmir/main/index.html Westboro Baptist Church homepage]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528 Google Video: The Most Hated Family In America] - a documentary about Fred Phelps and his family

[[Category:Christian apologists]]

Young-Earth creationism

2007-09-19T14:57:21Z

Diagoras:

'''Young-Earth [[creationism|creationists]]''' (YECs) believe that [[Yahweh]] created the earth and all life on it in six 24-hour days, exactly as described in [[Genesis]], and that the universe (and by extension the Earth) is less than 10,000 years old.

{{stub}}

[[Category:Creationism]]

Evil Atheist Conspiracy

2007-09-19T00:55:37Z

Diagoras:

The '''Evil Atheist Conspiracy''' is a group of tongue-in-cheek [[website]]s, originally based on a recurring Usenet joke, created to poke fun at the belief of many [[Christian]] [[fundamentalist]]s that [[atheist]]s are conspiring to take over the world and persecute Christians.

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Humor]]
[[Category:Web sites]]

Angel

2007-09-19T00:47:53Z

Diagoras:

{{stub}}
In [[Christian]] mythology, an '''angel''' is a benevolent [[spirit]] created by [[God]]. The Hebrew word for angel also means "messenger".

They perform various tasks, like delivering messages from God to humans, acting as executioners and warriors, and protecting humans from harm, and telling God that he is [[holy]].

==Individual angels==
Only two Angels are mentioned by name in the Christian Bible: [[Gabriel]] and [[Michael]]. However in the [[Apocryphal books]] there are five more: Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jerahmeel.

[[Category:Mythology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Sermon on the Mount

2007-09-18T22:34:41Z

Diagoras: /* Love your enemies */

{|style="float: right;"
|-
|[[Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg|thumb|300px|'''The Sermon on the Mount''' by Carl Heinrich Bloch.]]
|-
|}
'''The Sermon on the Mount''' is the popular name for a [[sermon]] attributed to [[Jesus]], as written in {{Bible|Matthew 5-7}}. Many [[Christian]]s consider it to be one of the greatest messages ever delivered, some even going so far as to considering it proof of the [[divinity]] of Jesus.

==Sermon overview==
The sermon is portrayed in the [[book of Matthew]], chapters 5 through 7, though it parallels the [[Sermon on the Plain]] presented in {{Bible|Luke 6:17-49}} as well as some passages from [[Mark]]. Scholars are uncertain about the precise origin of the sermon but the parallels between the [[synoptic gospels]] as well as [[non-canonical]] texts like the [[Gospel of Thomas]] have lead many to conclude that the shared material may have come from the hypothetical [[Q document]].

The sermon begins with the [[beatitude]]s (a series of claims that many conditions which are discomforting in this life will be rewarded in the life to come), gives insight into Jesus' views on [[Jewish]] law and the [[Ten Commandments]], gives instructions on [[prayer]] (including what is commonly known as the [[Lord's Prayer]]) and general instructions on how to live. These instructions are viewed by many Christians as a manual for living life as a "true Christian" — by following the specific instructions of Jesus.

==Apologetic claims==
One key element of Christian [[theology]] is that the [[Bible]] is divinely inspired or, to some, the literal ''word of God''. A common apologetic claim used to establish the Bible as divine in origin and, therefore, authoritative is that the themes present in the book transcend the wisdom and intelligence of the era in which they were written. Some apologists cite the Sermon on the Mount as an obvious example of the divine nature of [[Jesus]], asserting that one need only read and evaluate the sermon to see that these are the words of an unusually wise being.

==Counter-apologetics==
While some of the passages in this sermon have been considered sage advice by readers of varying beliefs, the sermon includes many passages which seem to contradict the claim that the author was wise beyond mortal men. Many people have pointed out that rather than being the ultimate instructions for how to live life, the sermon contains several passages that would typically qualify as bad advice and projects some philosophical positions that are typical of the era and not indicative of a wise, transcendent being. A detailed, verse-by-verse look at the message in this sermon follows below.

As a whole, the Sermon on the Mount is, to put it bluntly, a bad sermon. Beyond giving some bad advice, it doesn't have any underlying theme. It is a hodgepodge of bottled wisdom. No section leads into another section, and often the advice within the sections are contradictory ({{bible|Matthew 5:16}} vs. {{bible|Matthew 6:1|6:1}}, {{bible|Matthew 6:7}} vs. {{bible|Matthew 6:8-13|6:8-13}}, {{bible|Matthew 7:20}} vs. {{bible|Matthew 7:21-23|7:21-23}}). Some sections switch justification for the advice midstream: {{bible|Matthew 6:25-26}} suggest you don't need to worry about food because God even looks after the lesser animals, then later in {{bible|Matthew 6:31-33}} the suggestion is that God knows what you need and if you believe you will have them "added unto you". On the whole, the "sermon" is roughly as coherent as just reading all the aphorisms of ''[[Wikipedia:Poor Richard's Almanac|Poor Richard's Almanac]]''.

According to the [[two-source hypothesis]] the Sermon on the Mount is taken from the [[Q document]], and primarily consists of bits taken from an unrelated non-gospel source. If this is the best Christianity can do, it seems rather ironic that it is likely borrowed from a different source.

==Detailed commentary==
====Introduction====
Any exercise in Biblical criticism is bound to raise objections from believers, as there are many possible interpretations and an individual's understanding may be steeped in nuance and subtlety. In this commentary, we try to present orthodox views, common understandings and direct literal observations that, in our opinion, best reflect the text.

Due to copyright concerns, this analysis quotes the [[King James Version]] of the Bible. This seventeenth century text is not always easily understood by the modern reader and there are disputes over the authenticity and accuracy of a number of its passages. These issues lead to other problems, which may be addressed elsewhere. For the purposes of this commentary, we will attempt to clearly and accurately represent the meaning of difficult passage in modern English by appealing to other translations.

===Beatitudes===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:1-12}}
::1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them,saying,
::3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
::4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
::5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
::6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=The first four beatitudes are found in both Matthew and Luke with the possible exception of verse 3 where the author of Matthew says "poor in spirit", while Luke simply says "poor". Luke includes two additional verses that are noticeably absent from Matthew - {{Bible|Luke 6:24-25}}:

::24But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
::25Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

These verses put a decidedly different spin on the beatitudes. When considered alongside other verses, they stress poverty as a virtue and wealth (and not simply the seeking of wealth) as a vice.

Regardless of which version (if any) is correct, the first four beatitudes address traits and conditions that are generally undesirable or, in the case of meekness, taken advantage of.

The speaker (who, for expediency will simply be referred to as Jesus, as orthodoxy attributes these words to him) is essentially saying, 'Don't despair, no matter how bad this life is, the next one will be better.' These statements may provide comfort to believers, but they are, in fact, simply assertions without justification. In addition to comfort for believers who feel oppressed by the outside world, these verses serve to pacify those, like women and slaves, who are oppressed from fellow believers.

These verses set the tone for a common theme that runs through the sermon, a theme that betrays the very mundane nature of the speaker. Instead of offering useful advice on how best to live this life, the one life we're certain about, the speaker shrugs this life off as meaningless, focusing instead on the life to come. Even if we were to assume that an afterlife exists, there's no reason not to live this life to the fullest as well.

Any being which possessed the wisdom and compassion that would qualify as divine and benevolent should realize this. Instead of pithy dismissals of this life, we should expect deep insight into the human condition and guidance on how to improve our time here '''in addition to''' promises of an afterlife.}}
::7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
::8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
::9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=While the first four beatitudes focused on negative traits, these next three focus on positive traits as a sort of instruction how to live. This serves as a sort of 'carrot' to guide people toward right behavior. We may do well to encourage people to be merciful, pure and seek peace, but promising recompense in an afterlife is only required for those who cannot understand that doing good for its own sake is its own reward.

These verses aren't bad advice; they're simply a naive way to develop a moral code. We should certainly expect something more from a divinely wise being.

It's also worth noting that Jesus, who advocates mercy, states in {{Bible|Matthew 10:33}} ''"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."'' These don't appear to be merciful words.}}
::10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
::11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=These verses establish the second theme of the sermon: persecution and martyrdom are to be expected. Indeed, the verses tell believers to rejoice in persecution and it is no small wonder that Christians often consider any opposition to their beliefs persecution. These verses not only serve as justification for martyrdom but establish an implied protective barrier around Christian beliefs which helps believers compartmentalize them, keeping them safe from criticism.

This isn't "good advice" or "wise counsel" - it's bad advice. It encourages divisiveness by discouraging cooperation. There's no incentive for Christians to seek out cooperative societal relationships with non-believers...they're expecting to be ostracized and persecuted - and any perceived persecution only serves to reinforce their beliefs.}}

===Salt and light===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:13-16}}
::13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Salt cannot lose its flavor. This particular statement is a metaphor, but it's a horrible one. He might as well have said "''You are the ocean of the earth. But if the ocean loses its wetness, how can it be made wet again?''" This doesn't represent wisdom beyond the capabilities of the time, it's a poor analogy and it's unreasonable to assume that any wise, divine being would have made such a poor analogy. This error is similar to the one made by Jesus in referring to the mustard seed as the least of all seeds ({{Bible|Mark 4:31}}) - it isn't. These are errors of fact which are only possible if the speaker lacks knowledge or is intentionally deceptive, neither of which is consistent with claims of Jesus' divinity.

But, more importantly, what is the ''meaning'' of the metaphor? Is Jesus saying that people who don't have God in their lives are worthless?}}
::14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Here Jesus is instructing believers to do their good works in public. He'll be directly contradicting himself in the next chapter and the contradiction will be addressed at that point.}}

===Jesus and the law===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:17-20}}
::17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Jesus here is stating that Jewish law will not be changed until heaven and earth disappear and anyone who breaks any commandment and teaches others to do the same will be called least in heaven. This is significant for several reasons...
# It doesn't say that breaking the commandments sends you to hell, it just says you'll be among the ''least in heaven''
#* This flies in the face of common doctrines regarding sin and hell. While apologists might state that Jesus is speaking to believers who aren't in danger of hell, he does talk about avoiding hell in this same sermon, establishing that the intended audience might be in danger of hell based on certain actions. This is a doctrinal contradiction without resolution.
# Jesus breaks a commandment '''and''' teaches others to do the same which, by these words, means he should be among the least in heaven. (He violates the Sabbath and then says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath - {{Bible|Mark 2:27}}).
#* Apologists often point out that Jesus, as God, is above the law. He makes the law, and may therefore break it when he likes. This does not settle the contradiction. What we have isn't simply a "Do as I say, not as I do" scenario; we have a direct contradiction: Jesus has said he hasn't come to change the law and no one should be teaching people to break it...and then he teaches people to break it—which represents a change in the law.
#* He violates a number of other commandments; pardoning an adulteress (which carried the death penalty) in {{Bible|John 8:1-11}}, declaring all food clean (violating kosher) in {{Bible|Mark 7:18-19}} and disrespecting his mother in {{Bible|John 2:4}}...among others
# Jesus says he's not come to "abolish the law but to fulfill" - what he really does is expand the law which might count as alteration.}}

===Murder and lawsuits===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:21-26}}
::21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Here Jesus establishes [[thought crime]]s and speech as equivalent to murder. While it might be good advice to suggest that people speak civily to each other, it is morally corrupt to establish that saying you hate someone is the philosophical equivalent to murdering them. Thoughts aren't crimes....actions are. While Jesus certainly didn't mean that we should put people to death for simply thinking about murder, his view here represents a naïve morality that builds a doctrine where those thought crimes should result in eternal punishment.

This simplistic morality is an echo of [[Old Testament]] morality, where the death penalty was prescribed for murder as well as working on the Sabbath or being an unruly child. It is expanded upon in the [[New Testament]] where infinite punishment is prescribed for finite crimes, including thought crimes - specifically the thought crime of disbelief.

He continues by establishing "thou fool" as the modern day equivalent of hate speech and stating that whoever says it is in danger of hellfire (the first of several references to hell, establishing the doctrinal issue in the previous note, and a problem for those who don't ascribe to a fiery hell). And yet, Jesus refers to people as fools on several occasions({{Bible|Matthew 23:17}}, {{Bible|Matthew 23:19}}, {{Bible|Luke 11:40}}, {{Bible|Luke 24:25}}). Is this just a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"? And does that sort of example represent a wise and benevolent deity?}}
::23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Good advice, if we exclude the notes on sacrificing on an altar. It's good to suggest that people reconcile their differences. This would be an exceptionally good idea if we extend it to "anyone" instead of "brother". As it stands, this instruction really only encourages believers to reconcile with other believers - that's partially good advice, but surely we can expect a divine being who supposedly loves all of us to go the extra mile. This notion of believers reconciling with believers is a common theme in the New Testament that encourages an "us and them" mentality that only adds to religious tensions.}}
::25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=This is a silly and pointless bit of advice with regard to the modern world. Civil and criminal issues are different, because our law is far more sophisticated than that of this religion. Secondly, advising people to settle out of court denies them the right to fight for their rights. It also encourages frivolous lawsuits. If Christians actually adhered to this verse, they'd be getting sued left and right by any non-Christian. They would have been sued into extinction.

Everyone knows this is bad advice which is why no one follows it. The only time this verse is referenced as binding is when one Christian wants to sue another...and has a weak case.}}

===Adultery===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:27-30}}
::27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=More thought crime nonsense. Lust isn't adultery. Lust is the trigger for the vast majority of sexual relationships, healthy, holy or otherwise. You might take actions because of lust, and those actions might be crimes...but the lust itself isn't. It's doubtful that many Christian couples have met, fell in love and married without lust being a contributing factor. It may happen, but it's rarer than those who do lust after each other and build a healthy relationship.

Additionally, this verse is sexist. Which would have been normal for the time, but there's no reason for a God to be so chauvinistic. "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully"... what about those who look at a man lustfully? Can women not lust? What about gays and lesbians?}}
::29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Taken literally this is stupid advice. Taken figuratively, it's still bad advice. Essentially, he's saying that it is wise to deny your nature instead of working to understand it, change it or channel it into productive, positive results. Let's look at this verse in relation to the adultery one: if lust is causing you to sin (whatever ''that'' is), eliminate lust from your life because it's better to eliminate lust than risk going to hell.

That exact advice is what has encouraged countless monks to lead a celibate life. It works for some, but not for others. Some struggle forever because they've been told to eliminate lust rather than being taught how to live a healthy life that doesn't allow lustful thoughts to control actions. It's the reason we have problems with priests abusing parishioners and monks engaging in all manner of self mutilation, torture and abuse.

This isn't good advice. Good advice informs someone about how to improve their nature - not deny it. No advice this foolish should ever be considered evidence of a wise god.

Additionally, this is another verse that advocates "hell" as a real place that we should avoid. It promotes a very simplistic "do good or be punished" morality which is vastly inferior to one in which we are encouraged to do good because it is good.}}

===Divorce===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:31-32}}
::31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=More bad advice and more sexism. These verses only address men divorcing their wives, there are no instructions for wives, because they are considered inferior subjects, nearly (if not actually) equal to property.

The advice is bad even if it applied to both partners; stay with your spouse unless they cheat on you. No matter how unhappy you are, no matter how much sadness or violence, you made your bed and deserve to suffer for the rest of your life. What this tries to do is force folks to "work it out", but it's based on a naïve view of reality that ignores the fact that people change and some situations are simply not good marriages, even without infidelity. It should not be considered the word of a wise god.

It also encourages sexual infidelity. If you're miserable and want out - go sleep with someone else and NOW you can get a divorce.

Finally, it's another example of Jesus violating the law ({{Bible|Deut 24:1-4}}). For someone who claimed that he didn't come to change the law, he certainly seems to be doing a lot of that.}}

===Oaths===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:33-37}}
::33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=This is, essentially, good advice. Most of us would be happy to live an honest life and feel no need to swear oaths to anything or on anything. There's no reason to think that oaths are evil, but speaking plainly and honestly seems to be good advice.

Unfortunately, Christians don't tend to live up to this. They're happy to be sworn in on a Bible (or a stack of them) for civil service. They're happy to pledge allegiance to the flag, the Christian flag and the Bible ... this is so important to them that they had to add the words "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (an action which violates the U.S. Constitution as well as this passage.)

They may simply be ignoring the words of Jesus and using the apostle Paul as an example. It's recorded in {{Bible|Acts 18:18}} that he swore an oath. We can hardly fault Paul for this, it's not the only thing about Jesus' life and ministry that he doesn't seem to be aware of.}}

===Eye for an eye===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:38-42}}
::38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Here, shortly after saying he didn't come to change the law - he tries to change it, yet again. Doing away with the "eye for an eye" mentality is certainly a good move, but telling someone to turn the other cheek is also bad advice.

It discourages people from actually standing up to defend themselves and protect their rights and lives. Fortunately, when push comes to shove, Christians are quick to dismiss this verse and actually defend their rights....and then some.}}
::40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=More bad advice. There's no good reason to set yourself up as an easily abused victim. A wise god would have taught people how to build a fair and cooperative society that didn't encourage victimization.}}
::42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Everyone knows how bad this advice is. Encouraging charity is great, but no one takes this verse seriously; any Christian willing to give me an interest free loan regardless of my financial situation and credit rating - please e-mail me.}}

===Love your enemies===
:{{Bible|Matthew 5:43-48}}
::43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text= This might qualify as good advice. It would certainly be nice to encourage tolerance, compassion, cooperation and brotherhood. However, there are situations where loving your enemies is a very bad idea...and we all recognize this. Do we love Osama, or Hitler? Some might, but it isn't common and there's no reason to think that it's wise. Christians don't ''really'' love their enemies. None of us do. And apparently Jesus doesn't either, as he's planning on torturing his enemies forever.

Let's encourage more compassion - but this one passage doesn't really help, especially in light of other verses that encourage divisiveness. It's certainly overshadowed by the understanding that the speaker is planning on punishing his enemies - forever.}}

===Do good to please God===
:{{Bible|Matthew 6:1-4}}
::1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Compare this to Matthew 5:16, above. He just told people to do their good works where they can be seen...and now he's contradicting that. Some apologists have claimed that this verse is about donating to charity and the other verse covers "other" good deeds. That seems to be simply word play to avoid the obvious contradiction. In any case, any being that might qualify as a god would surely have avoided any ambiguity that would lead to confusion - an observation that seems to apply to the bulk of the Bible and not simply this sermon.}}

::2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=The general discussion of rewards implies a general "good deed" further eliminating the appeal to this idea of charity being separate from good works. Anyone arguing that there is no contradiction here is rationalizing to avoid facing the difficulties that are evident to any reasonable person. The same seems to be true of those who reconcile the contradiction by claiming that good deeds are to be done in public, but don't arrogantly broadcast it. This ignores the order to do thine alms in "secret" where only God can see.

This is also another passage that encourages a simplistic action/reward morality instead of encouraging people to do good for its own sake.}}

===Prayer===
:{{Bible|Matthew 6:5-15}}
::5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=This may be the best verse in the entire sermon and, yet, very few Christians follow it. How much better would the world be if everyone's religious beliefs were a matter of private practice, instead of the constant attempts to push their beliefs on everyone else?

A proper adherence to this verse implies that prayer shouldn't be in school at all. It means that we shouldn't be swearing people in on Bibles, shouldn't open city council meetings with prayers, we shouldn't have Christian television networks, public prayer meetings, the National Day of Prayer...etc.

Christians who support those goals are hypocrites - they are willfully disobeying a direct order that they believe is from Jesus. It's not like they're disobeying Paul, or John...this is supposed to be the words of their savior, and they chuck it aside....proving that they are their own god, making their own rules.

Also, verse 7 basically says that you should pray what is in your heart, and avoid rote recitation and chanting... yet what do we have in verses 9-13?}}
::9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
::10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
::11Give us this day our daily bread.
::12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
::13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=The Lord's Prayer, something that is chanted and recited in nearly every Christian service on the planet. Catholics and Protestants alike have structured prayers and chanting - all in direct violation of what Jesus was saying. He provided a sample prayer about '''how''' to pray, and many joyously ignore his instructions and take it as an example of '''what''' to say. While this certainly isn't an admonishment of the passage, it's a clear indication that believers tend to pick and choose as it suits them.}}
::14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=This, setting aside the promise of forgiveness from a god, seems to be very good advice - forgive people. If we include the promise of forgiveness from a god, we have a potential path to salvation that seems to be largely ignored by fundamentalists. There are several occasions where Jesus discusses requirements for salvation and all of them seem to focus on deeds and actions.}}

===Fasting===
:{{Bible|Matthew 6:16-18}}
::16Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 17But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=[[Fasting]] is silly and dangerous. It's a religious ritual that only exists because someone discovered that if you torture your body by depriving it of food (or sleep or other necessities) you'll eventually weaken the mind and it'll be susceptible to "religious experiences", which really means hallucinations and programming. It's a way of making people pliable, not to the will of a God but to the dictate of any authority figure.

God shouldn't need people to torture themselves in order to communicate. It's patently absurd and unhealthy and, therefore, very bad advice.}}

===Treasures in heaven===
:{{Bible|Matthew 6:19-23}}
::19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=These verses expand the theme begun in the beatitudes, shifting the focus away from this life and on to the promise of an afterlife. Instead of simply promising justice and an end to pain, these verses portray any attempt to succeed in this life as futile. This is bad advice, whether there's an afterlife or not. Why not enjoy this life? It is possible to acquire wealth and experience pleasure without being evil.

As we have no evidence that any life beyond this exists, it seems to be doubly bad advice.}}

===Serving two masters===
:{{Bible|Matthew 6:24}}
::24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=This is a simplistic misrepresentation. It's almost true, but isn't relevant to life - because no one truly serves a single "master". Our lives are a complex dance of answering to various "masters" and we can define governing principles that allow us to serve all of them, to some degree.

It might qualify as good advice, in the limited sense of "don't let money run your life", but it might be better to go the "all things in moderation" route and say "don't let any one thing run your life"...including your religious beliefs.}}

===Do not worry===
:{{Bible|Matthew 6:25-34}}
::25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=More bad advice, don't worry about food, drink, clothing etc. It's one thing to encourage people to be less greedy and less materialistic, but this passage sets up Christians to divorce themselves from their responsibility to see to their needs.

Fortunately, almost no one follows this advice either; we can see how bad it is.}}
::26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=So, we should all be homeless and waiting around for God to feed us? Birds may not sow and reap, but the do scavenge and hunt. They actively seek to feed themselves and their offspring. In fact, their primary concern is survival - they're not simply fluttering around aimlessly waiting for God to drop food in their mouths.

This is horrible advice, it's a bad analogy, and it's a false portrayal of birds—and a wise god should know that.}}
::27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=That may be good advice as long as it's talking about excessive worrying. Rational concern for one's well being (occasional worrying) is actually a good thing and it is what keeps us from giving up and deteriorating.}}
::28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=More very bad advice. He's advocating that we be as driven to live as flowers, who do nothing. Comparing humans to a life form that doesn't think, move or interact does nothing to address the very real issues and concerns that people have.}}
::29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Don't worry about tomorrow. Don't save money, don't store food for the winter, don't plan for retirement... live for today and trust that God will make everything work out. This is some of the worst advice in the entire sermon, and it seems that most everyone recognizes it, even if they pay lip service to it. In much the way that Christians typically ignore Jesus' instructions to sell their belongings and give them to the poor, we all ignore this inane instruction to live without concern for tomorrow.}}

===Do not judge others===
:{{Bible|Matthew 7:1-6}}
::1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text= Amen. A piece of very good advice - don't be a hypocrite.}}
:: 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text= This verse has quite a few possible meanings and has been the subject of much discussion. Some consider it a cautionary warning to not waste effort on the ungrateful...that we should strive to do good for those who need it and appreciate it. That's probably pretty good advice. It's curious that someone who says "let your 'yes' be 'yes'" has to use such ambiguous language when he could have been more plain spoken.}}

===Seek, find and the Golden Rule===
:{{Bible|Matthew 7:7-12}}
::7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Nonsense. It sounds good, but it's not true and we all know it. The only sense in which it can possibly be true is if we grant another appeal to "the next life" - which is useless.

I suppose it might be good advice if it's simply viewed as a "don't give up, keep asking, keep looking, keep hoping" but to promise that you'll actually find what you're seeking is false hope.}}
:: 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? 12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=The [[Golden Rule]], which isn't original to Jesus (it's not even original to the Old Testament version that Jesus probably borrowed from), is pretty good advice. It's known as the 'ethic of reciprocity' and is foundational to many secular concepts of moral and ethical action. Jesus' version, while still fairly good, is actually one of the worst versions. "Do unto others what you would have them do to you" isn't nearly as wise as "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them".

For clarification, I might like someone to be brutally honest with me, but they might prefer that I sugar-coat my words. It's better to treat them in the way they want...and encourage them to treat you in the way you want.

There are other sayings that may be even better, like "Strive to do as much good as possible and as little harm as possible."

Why didn't Jesus say something like that?}}

===Narrow and wide gates===
:{{Bible|Matthew 7:13-14}}
::13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=The idea behind this may be good, but it's not always true. Sometimes it's very easy to do the right thing. However, as a method for encouraging people to do good even when it's difficult, it's very good advice.}}

===False prophets===
:{{Bible|Matthew 7:15-23}}
::15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=Horrible advice and logically flawed - so terribly flawed that no wise god could ever have said it. We're supposed to be on the lookout for false prophets, and how do we tell them apart? Take a look at their actions. False prophets (bad trees) cannot do good (bear good fruit). That's ridiculous to the point of being dangerous. In reality, all trees can bear good and bad fruit - and all people (or prophets) can do good and evil.

If we assume that there are true prophets, we're stuck accepting all of them until we catch them doing something bad.}}

::21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=This contradicts the previous passage - by pointing out that you, in fact, cannot judge them by their fruit. Someone prophesied and drove out demons...which would mean they were truly doing God's work, but in fact they were not.

This raises additional questions about salvation as, apparently, there are people who sincerely believe that they're doing the work of God and believe that they will be saved, yet they won't. Certainly this contradicts notions that belief is a key element of salvation.}}

===Don't build on sand===
:{{Bible|Matthew 7:24-29}}
::24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
{{Comment-box1|lmargin=75px|text=It's a fun little parable, but as we can see from the previous analysis, Jesus' words aren't any more stable than the
sand. That crowd may have been amazed...but there's no reason any of us should be impressed. Sages who came before and after him have been wiser and more foolish. There's nothing in this sermon that provides the great insight that we'd expect from a divine being and the mistakes and poor advice seem to eliminate any claim that Jesus was anything more than a normal man.

This sermon is a collection of some generic good advice, a couple of really nice ideas and a bunch of horrible advice that demonstrates a level of ignorance that isn't the work of any divine being. Instead of providing brilliant instruction on how best to live life, it dismisses life in favor of promises of a life to come. Instead of providing advice on how to cooperate and live together, it establishes divisive doctrines. Instead of offering insight onto the human condition and providing advice on how to have a healthy, thriving existence, it instead builds up an expectation of misery and persecution. It not only sets people up to accept their role as victim, it provides instructions on how best to take advantage of these willing victims.

While believers may claim to consider it the greatest message ever delivered, we need only look at their actions to see that they're just as likely to dismiss the silly notions and bad advice in this passage.}}

[[Category:Biblical criticism]]
[[Category:Religious doctrine]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

Separation between church and state

2007-09-17T14:50:53Z

Diagoras:

#REDIRECT [[Separation of church and state]]

United States Constitution

2007-09-17T14:50:35Z

Diagoras:

Designed by many influential [[deist]]s such as [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]], the '''United States Constitution''' is a [[secular]] document, despite the claims of people who think that [[America is a Christian nation]].

==The First Amendment==

The first amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) reads:
: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first two clauses are known as the ''establishment clause'' and ''free exercise clause'', respectively. Together, they define the ''wall of [[separation between church and state]]'' that [[Thomas Jefferson]] wrote of.

The [[Supreme Court]] has interpreted the establishment clause as meaning that the government may not favor one religion over another, or favor religion in general over no religion (or vice-versa). In other words, the government must remain strictly neutral in matters of religion.

At the same time, the free exercise clause guarantees freedom of religion. A proper balance between these two clauses can sometimes be hard to find.

In the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court established the ''Lemon test'' for determining whether a law violates the establishment clause: a law is legal if:
# It has a legitimate secular purpose, and
# Its principal effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
# It does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

==External links==
* [http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html US Constitution at the National Archives]
* [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/207/ Lemon v. Kurtzman]

[[Category:Law]]

Yahweh

2007-09-17T14:40:40Z

Diagoras:

{{stub}}

'''Yahweh''', also known as '''Jehovah''' and '''YHWH''' (or '''JHWH'''), is the notional [[god]] of the [[Bible]] — 'notional' because the text fails to present a consistent or coherent picture of the nature, characteristics, abilities or utterances of this deity such as would encourage one to acknowledge that a single real entity is being described. This situation no doubt results from the fact that the Bible is a post-hoc assemblage of texts from a number of different eras and mythic traditions, in some of which the male creator-god is 'omniscient', 'invisible', 'non-physical' and 'all-powerful', while in others he is fallible, visible, requires food, can be heard 'walking', has limited power, and so on.

==The Tetragrammaton==

The tetragrammaton is the four-letter name of God, i.e. the letters YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה). The [[Jew|Hebrew]] writing system didn't originally include vowels and so modern linguists aren't sure of what the vowels of YHWH are.

In the Hebrew Bible, the symbols forming the word YHWH are not pronounced, as the "true name" of God is considered unpronouncable. When reading this word, [[Jew]]s substitute the Hebrew word "Adonai," which means "Lord."

==References in Popular Culture==

*A comedy skit in ''[[The Life of Brian]]'' revolves around numerous characters repeatedly saying "Jehovah" and being [[stoned]] to death for [[blasphemy]].

[[Category: Deities]]

Yahweh

2007-09-17T14:38:32Z

Diagoras:

{{stub}}

'''Yahweh''', also known as '''Jehovah''' and '''YHWH''' (or '''JHWH'''), is the notional [[god]] of the [[Bible]] -- 'notional' because the text fails to present a consistent or coherent picture of the nature, characteristics, abilities or utterances of this deity such as would encourage one to acknowledge that a single real entity is being described. This situation no doubt results from the fact that the Bible is a post-hoc assemblage of texts from a number of different eras and mythic traditions, in some of which the male creator-god is 'omniscient', 'invisible', 'non-physical' and 'all-powerful', while in others he is fallible, visible, requires food, can be heard 'walking', has limited power, and so on.

==The Tetragrammaton==

The tetragrammaton is the four-letter name of God, i.e. the letters YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה). The [[Jew|Hebrew]] writing system didn't originally include vowels and so modern linguists aren't sure of what the vowels of YHWH are.

In the Hebrew Bible, the symbols forming the word YHWH are not pronounced, as the "true name" of God is considered unpronouncable. When reading this word, [[Jew]]s substitute the Hebrew word "Adonai," which means "Lord."

==References in Popular Culture==

*A comedy skit in ''[[The Life of Brian]]'' revolves around numerous characters repeatedly saying "Jehovah" and being [[stoned]] to death.

[[Category: Deities]]

Allah

2007-09-17T14:37:25Z

Diagoras:

{{wikipedia}}
'''Allah''' (Arabic: الله) is the [[God]] of [[Islam]] and the [[Qur'an]]. Although this god is called by his personal name of Allah, he is generally considered to be the same god as that of the [[Christian]]s and [[Jew]]s, whom the [[Muslim]]s call "The People of the Book". (Here, "The Book" refers to the first few books of the [[Old Testament]] of [[The Bible]], which all three [[faith]]s have in common. These faiths are also known as the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, as [[Abraham]] is a central figure in all three before the religions supposedly diverged.) According to Islam, Allah dictated the Qur'an to [[Muhammad]] through the angel [[Gabriel]].

Allah has all the same characteristics of the [[Christian]] God: he is [[omnipotent]], [[omniscient]], [[omnipresent]], and supposedly [[omnibenevolent]].

[[Category:Deities]]
[[Category:Religious mythology]]

User:Diagoras

2007-09-17T01:55:05Z

Diagoras:

I am an [[atheism|atheist]] who was attracted to this wiki by being a long-time fan of both [[The Non-Prophets]] and [[The Atheist Experience]]. I'm here to help write stuff...about atheism. I guess. Not much point in writing anything here; I just got annoyed seeing my name in red all the time.

James Randi

2007-09-17T01:47:45Z

Diagoras:

[[Image:Randi james.jpg|thumb|left|James Randi himself]]
'''James "The Amazing" Randi''' has an international reputation as a [[magic]]ian and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world's most tireless investigator and demystifier of [[paranormal]] and [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] claims.

Randi has pursued "[[psychic]]" spoonbenders, exposed the dirty tricks of [[faith healing|faith healers]], investigated homeopathic water "with a memory," and generally been a thorn in the sides of those who try to pull the wool over the public's eyes in the name of the [[supernatural]]. He is also a vocal [[atheism|atheist]] who does not exempt religious dogma from his relentless criticism of unfounded claims.

[[Image:Randi1.jpg|thumb|right|James "the Amazing" Randi in a more mystical moment.]]
==JREF==
In 1996, the [[James Randi Educational Foundation]] was established to further Randi's work. Among other duties, the foundation adminsters a [[million dollar paranormal challenge]], offering a prize to anyone who can prove the existence of any supernatural phenomenon. To date, it remains unclaimed.

==Quotes==

*''“I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a [[god]] is a basic [[superstition]] and that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s). Further, [[devil]]s, [[demon]]s, [[angel]]s and [[saint]]s are myths; there is no [[life after death]], no [[heaven]] or [[hell]]; the [[Pope]] is a dangerous, bigoted, medieval dinosaur, and the [[Holy Ghost]] is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision. I accuse [[Yahweh|the Christian god]] of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place—not to mention the 'ethnic cleansing' presently being performed by Christians in our world—and I condemn and vilify this mythical deity for encouraging racial prejudice and commanding the degradation of women.”'' — James Randi, in ''Skeptic'' magazine (1995 Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 11)
*''“I suggest that we might want to depose this incumbent God and start dealing with The Real World. He's proven — time and again — to be cruel, capricious, and vindictive. He drowns, crushes, burns, and starves millions of us every day. He created cancer, viruses, and germs to invade and destroy our bodies as He sees fit, and uses them very effectively. In His wisdom, He directed those in charge to impede [[stem cell research]] so that such a powerful approach would not be available to us and He wouldn't have to strain the Divine Intellect to disarm that defense. We amuse Him as we flail about vainly trying to appease Him. I vote that we dump Him.”'' — [http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/090205alley.html ''Swift'', 2 September 2005]

==External links==

* [http://www.randi.org/jr/index.html About James Randi]
* [http://www.reitstoen.com/randi.php James Randi multimedia archive]

[[Category:Atheists|Randi, James]]

Michael Shermer

2007-09-17T01:39:43Z

Diagoras:

'''Michael Shermer''' is the founder of [[The Skeptics Society]] and editor of ''[[Skeptic (magazine)|Skeptic]]'' magazine. He has a PhD in the history of [[science]] and writes about a large number of [[paranormal]] and [[supernatural]] claims from a [[skepticism|skeptical]] perspective.

==External links==
* [http://www.skeptic.com/ Official website of The Skeptics Society]
* [http://www.reitstoen.com/shermer.php Michael Shermer multimedia archive]

[[Category:Atheists|Shermer, Michael]]

Daniel Dennett

2007-09-17T01:39:22Z

Diagoras:

{{stub}}
'''Daniel Clement Dennett''' is a philosopher at Tufts University.

== Books ==
* ''Elbow Room: the Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting''
* ''Consciousness Explained''
* ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea''
* ''Freedom Evolves''
* ''[[Breaking the Spell]]: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon''

==External links==
* [http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm Daniel Dennett's homepage]
* [http://www.reitstoen.com/dennett.php Daniel Dennett multimedia archive]

[[Category:Atheists|Dennett, Daniel]]

Victor Stenger

2007-09-17T01:39:16Z

Diagoras:

'''Victor Stenger''' is an [[atheism|atheist]] author, known for his 2007 book ''[[God: The Failed Hypothesis]]''. He is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of [[philosophy]] at the University of Colorado, as well as a research fellow of the [[Center for Inquiry]] and fellow of the [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]].

==External Link==
* [http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Victor Stenger's homepage]

==Podcasts==
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-747701990399986353 Stenger on The Atheist Experience (Google video)]
* [http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2007-05-06.mp3 Stenger on The Atheist Experience (mp3)]
* [http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/The%20Non-Prophets%206.9.mp3 Stenger on The Non-Prophets]
* [http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=187989 Stenger on The Way of Reason]
* [http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=99 Stenger on Point of Inquiry]

[[Category:Atheists|Stenger, Victor]]

Victor Stenger

2007-09-17T01:38:27Z

Diagoras:

Michael Shermer

2007-09-17T01:38:11Z

Diagoras:

Daniel Dennett

2007-09-17T01:37:52Z

Diagoras:

Michael Shermer

2007-09-17T01:36:29Z

Diagoras:

Daniel Dennett

2007-09-17T01:31:39Z

Diagoras:

James Randi

2007-09-17T01:30:07Z

Diagoras:

[[Image:Randi james.jpg|thumb|left|James Randi himself]]
'''James "The Amazing" Randi''' has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world's most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Randi has pursued "psychic" spoonbenders, exposed the dirty tricks of faith healers, investigated homeopathic water "with a memory," and generally been a thorn in the sides of those who try to pull the wool over the public's eyes in the name of the supernatural.

[[Image:Randi1.jpg|thumb|right|James "the Amazing" Randi in a more mystical moment.]]
==JREF==
In 1996, the [[James Randi Educational Foundation]] was established to further Randi's work. Among other duties, the foundation adminsters a [[million dollar paranormal challenge]], offering a prize to anyone who can prove the existence of any supernatural phenomenon. To date, it remains unclaimed.

==Quotes==

*''“I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a [[god]] is a basic [[superstition]] and that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s). Further, [[devil]]s, [[demon]]s, [[angel]]s and [[saint]]s are myths; there is no [[life after death]], no [[heaven]] or [[hell]]; the [[Pope]] is a dangerous, bigoted, medieval dinosaur, and the [[Holy Ghost]] is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision. I accuse [[Yahweh|the Christian god]] of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place—not to mention the 'ethnic cleansing' presently being performed by Christians in our world—and I condemn and vilify this mythical deity for encouraging racial prejudice and commanding the degradation of women.”'' — James Randi, in ''Skeptic'' magazine (1995 Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 11)
*''“I suggest that we might want to depose this incumbent God and start dealing with The Real World. He's proven — time and again — to be cruel, capricious, and vindictive. He drowns, crushes, burns, and starves millions of us every day. He created cancer, viruses, and germs to invade and destroy our bodies as He sees fit, and uses them very effectively. In His wisdom, He directed those in charge to impede [[stem cell research]] so that such a powerful approach would not be available to us and He wouldn't have to strain the Divine Intellect to disarm that defense. We amuse Him as we flail about vainly trying to appease Him. I vote that we dump Him.”'' — [http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/090205alley.html ''Swift'', 2 September 2005]

==External links==

* [http://www.randi.org/jr/index.html About James Randi]
* [http://www.reitstoen.com/randi.php James Randi multimedia archive]

[[Category:Atheists|Randi, James]]

Richard Dawkins

2007-09-17T01:29:27Z

Diagoras:

'''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]
* [http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php Richard Dawkins multimedia archive]

[[Category:Atheists|Dawkins, Richard]]
[[Category:Science|Dawkins, Richard]]

Victor Stenger

2007-09-17T01:25:56Z

Diagoras:

Victor Stenger

2007-09-17T01:24:51Z

Diagoras:

'''Victor Stenger''' is an [[atheism|atheist]] author, known for his 2007 book ''[[God: The Failed Hypothesis]]''. He is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of [[philosophy]] at the University of Colorado.

==External Link==
* [http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Victor Stenger's homepage]

==Podcasts==
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-747701990399986353 Stenger on The Atheist Experience (Google video)]
* [http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2007-05-06.mp3 Stenger on The Atheist Experience (mp3)]
* [http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/The%20Non-Prophets%206.9.mp3 Stenger on The Non-Prophets]
* [http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=187989 Stenger on The Way of Reason]
* [http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=99 Stenger on Point of Inquiry]

Victor Stenger

2007-09-17T01:22:41Z

Diagoras:

'''Victor Stenger''' is an [[atheism|atheist]] author, known for his 2007 book ''[[God: The Failed Hypothesis]]''. He is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of [[philosophy]] at the University of Colorado.

==Podcasts==
* [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-747701990399986353 Stenger on The Atheist Experience (Google video)]
* [http://www.atheist-experience.com/archive/AtheistExp-2007-05-06.mp3 Stenger on The Atheist Experience (mp3)]
* [http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/The%20Non-Prophets%206.9.mp3 Stenger on The Non-Prophets]
* [http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=187989 Stenger on The Way of Reason]
* [http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=99 Stenger on Point of Inquiry]

Circular reasoning

2007-09-16T02:40:35Z

Diagoras:

'''Circular reasoning''' is a type of [[logical fallacy]] in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.

A very common example in the area of [[religion]] is the following [[argument from scripture]]:
# We know that [[God]] exists because the [[Bible]] says so.
# We know that Bible is correct because it is the inspired word of God.

In other words:
: Bible [[implies]] God implies Bible

Neither the assertion that "God exists" nor that "the Bible is correct" have been independently proved without relying on the assumption of the other.

==See also==
* [[Begging the question]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Cafeteria Christian

2007-09-16T02:31:10Z

Diagoras:

'''Cafeteria Christian''' is a term used to describe a person or church that picks and chooses the laws and doctrines of the [[Christianity|Christian faith]] to adhere to, in the same way that a customer chooses food items at a cafeteria.

Some examples of this practice include Christians who condemn [[homosexuality]] due to {{bible|Lev. 18:22}}, yet ignore the rest of the book's laws on food, clothing, and other practices; or Christians who condemn [[witchcraft]] because of {{bible|Lev. 19:26-31}} but ignore the command to kill practitioners in {{bible|Exodus 22:18}}. It could be argued that almost all Christians, including self-described [[fundamentalism|fundamentalists]], are cafeteria Christians, since they condemn the practice of [[slavery]] even though it is overtly supported throughout the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s.

This term can also be encountered as "Sunday morning Christian" or "Cafeteria Catholic." See also: [[cherry picking]].

==External links==

*[http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp Snopes.com: Letter to Dr. Laura]. Whether this letter was ever directly sent to the radio show host is still undetermined, but it regardless illustrates the problem of Cafeteria Christianity. In this case, using the [[Old Testament]] to condemn homosexuality, while ignoring its laws on [[slavery]], [[animal sacrifice]], [[kosher|shellfish]], and more.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity Wikipedia: Cafeteria Christianity]
*[http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/debates/debate024.htm Atheism Awareness: Cafeteria Christianity]

Cafeteria Christian

2007-09-16T02:30:12Z

Diagoras:

'''Cafeteria Christian''' is a term used to describe a person or church that picks and chooses the laws and doctrines of the [[Christianity|Christian faith]] to adhere to, in the same way that a customer chooses food items at a cafeteria.

Some examples of this practice include Christians who condemn [[homosexuality]] due to {{bible|Lev. 18:22}}, yet ignore the rest of the book's laws on food, clothing, and other practices; or Christians who condemn [[witchcraft]] because of {{bible|Lev. 19:26-31}} but ignore the command to kill practitioners in {{bible|Exodus 22:18}}. It could be argued that almost all Christians, including self-described [[fundamentalism|fundamentalists]], are cafeteria Christians, since they condemn the practice of [[slavery]] even though it is overtly supported throughout the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s.

This term can also be encountered as "Sunday morning Christian" or "Cafeteria Catholic." See also: [[cherry picking]].

==External links==

*[http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp Snopes.com: Letter to Dr. Laura]. Whether this letter was ever directly sent to the radio show host is still undetermined, but it regardless illustrates the problem of Cafeteria Christianity. In this case, using the [[Old Testament]] to condemn homosexuality, while ignoring its laws on [[slavery]], animal sacrifice, shellfish, and more.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity Wikipedia: Cafeteria Christianity]
*[http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/debates/debate024.htm Atheism Awareness: Cafeteria Christianity]

Ten Commandments

2007-09-16T02:23:11Z

Diagoras:

The '''Ten Commandments''' are laws given by [[God]] ([[Yahweh]]) to the [[Jew]]s via [[Moses]] in the [[Bible]], and are considered the most important laws in [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]].

The Ten Commandments are given in {{bible|Exodus 20:1-17}} ([[KJV]]):
# Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
# Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [...]
# Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
# Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates [...]
# Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
# Thou shalt not kill.
# Thou shalt not commit adultery.
# Thou shalt not steal.
# Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
# Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
They appear in virtually the same form in {{bible|Deuteronomy 5:6-21}}.

==Differing versions==

[[Catholic]]s and [[Protestant]]s use slightly different versions of the Ten Commandments, based partly on different methods of dividing up the verses in Deuteronomy. The Catholic version omits the prohibition against graven images — an obvious problem for the Roman Catholic church which is rife with shrines and statues. To make up for this, Catholics divide verse 21 into two commandments, thus separating the coveting of a wife from the coveting of farm animals. The Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments retain the prohibition against graven images, but it seems to be ignored since statues and other images have proliferated in their churches as well.

Another, substantially different version of the Ten Commandments appears in {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}:
# Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
# For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
# Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
# The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
# All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
# Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
# And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
# Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
# The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
# Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

This latter version is believed by scholars to predate the other two. It is explicitly labelled as "the ten commandments" (in {{bible|Exodus 34:28}}), whereas the better known version is not.

==The Ten Commandments in United States politics==
[[Image:ten_commandments.jpg|thumb|The FOE ten commandments monument at the Texas state capitol building in Austin]]
Starting in 1954, the [[Fraternal Order of Eagles]] (FOE), with encouragement from movie director [[Cecil B. DeMille]] (director of the 1956 movie ''[[Wikipedia:The Ten Commandments (1956 film)|The Ten Commandments]]''), began producing granite monuments displaying the Ten Commandments. Today, there are 145 such monuments documented in 34 states, plus one in Canada.

The monuments actually display ''eleven'' commandments, since they use elements of both the Catholic and Protestant versions. The commandments are not explicitly numbered on the monuments, but the second commandment is about graven images (as in the Protestant version), and the tenth and eleventh commandments treat the different versions of coveting separately (as in the Catholic version).

==Counter-apologetics==

A common claim by those who believe that [[America is a Christian nation]] is that United States [[law]] is somehow based on the Ten Commandments. They point primarily to the laws such as "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and "Thou shalt not steal" to claim that these are the basis for modern law.

In fact these sorts of laws have existed in societies throughout history, including societies which significantly predate the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Code of Hammurabi]] is a good example.

Most of the other commandments have marginal relevance to modern American law, or none at all.
*''No other gods before me:'' Violates the [[first amendment]] principle of freedom of religion.
*''No creation of idols:'' Not a law.
*''No taking the lord's name in vain:'' Violates freedom of speech.
*''Remember the Sabbath day:'' Despite the existence of so-called [[blue laws]] in many states, many consider these laws antiquated and increasingly irrelevant. Certainly there is no federal law demanding observation of the sabbath.
*''Honor thy father and mother:'' Generally considered a nice thing to do, but not a law.
*''Adultery:'' It is grounds for [[divorce]] and alimony, but it is not punished in any way to indicate that it is a real crime.
*''Coveting:'' Wanting things that you don't have is practically a way of life in America. In a capitalist system it is not only allowed but encouraged.

Promoters of the Ten Commandments are almost always [[cherry picking]] the Bible. In the chapter immediately following the Ten Commandments ({{bible|Exodus 21}}), God gives various instructions on how to properly conduct [[slavery]], including the rules for selling one's own daughter as a sex slave. There is no obvious reason why God's instructions in Exodus 20 are moral and should be followed today, but not God's instructions in Exodus 21.

==External links==
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project] at [[Religious Tolerance]]
* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm Which Ten Commandments?] at [[Positive Atheism]]
* [http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath_3.htm Different Versions of the Ten Commandments] at [[atheism.about.com]]
* [http://www.atheists.org/christianity/hangemall.html Hang 'Em All] by Frank Zindler at [[American Atheists]]

[[Category:Bible]]

Ten Commandments

2007-09-16T02:22:18Z

Diagoras: /* Counter-apologetics */

The '''Ten Commandments''' are laws given by [[God]] ([[Yahweh]]) to the [[Jew]]s via [[Moses]] in the [[Bible]], and are considered the most important laws in [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]].

The Ten Commandments are given in {{bible|Exodus 20:1-17}} ([[KJV]]):
# Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
# Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [...]
# Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
# Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates [...]
# Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
# Thou shalt not kill.
# Thou shalt not commit adultery.
# Thou shalt not steal.
# Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
# Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
They appear in virtually the same form in {{bible|Deuteronomy 5:6-21}}.

==Differing versions==

[[Catholic]]s and [[Protestant]]s use slightly different versions of the Ten Commandments, based partly on different methods of dividing up the verses in Deuteronomy. The Catholic version omits the prohibition against graven images — an obvious problem for the Roman Catholic church which is rife with shrines and statues. To make up for this, Catholics divide verse 21 into two commandments, thus separating the coveting of a wife from the coveting of farm animals. The Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments retain the prohibition against graven images, but it seems to be ignored since statues and other images have proliferated in their churches as well.

Another, substantially different version of the Ten Commandments appears in {{bible|Exodus 34:12-26}}:
# Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
# For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
# Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
# The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
# All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
# Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
# And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
# Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
# The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
# Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

This latter version is believed by scholars to predate the other two. It is explicitly labelled as "the ten commandments" (in {{bible|Exodus 34:28}}), whereas the better known version is not.

==The Ten Commandments in United States politics==
[[Image:ten_commandments.jpg|thumb|The FOE ten commandments monument at the Texas state capitol building in Austin]]
Starting in 1954, the [[Fraternal Order of Eagles]] (FOE), with encouragement from movie director [[Cecil B. DeMille]] (director of the 1956 movie ''[[Wikipedia:The Ten Commandments (1956 film)|The Ten Commandments]]''), began producing granite monuments displaying the Ten Commandments. Today, there are 145 such monuments documented in 34 states, plus one in Canada.

The monuments actually display ''eleven'' commandments, since they use elements of both the Catholic and Protestant versions. The commandments are not explicitly numbered on the monuments, but the second commandment is about graven images (as in the Protestant version), and the tenth and eleventh commandments treat the different versions of coveting separately (as in the Catholic version).

==Counter-apologetics==

A common claim by those who believe that [[America is a Christian nation]] is that United States [[law]] is somehow based on the Ten Commandments. They point primarily to the laws such as "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and "Thou shalt not steal" to claim that these are the basis for modern law.

In fact these sorts of laws have existed in societies throughout history, including societies which significantly predate the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Code of Hammurabi]] is a good example.

Most of the other commandments have marginal relevance to modern American law, or none at all.
*''No other gods before me:'' Violates the [[first amendment]] principle of freedom of religion.
*''No creation of idols:'' Not a law.
*''No taking the lord's name in vain:'' Violates freedom of speech.
*''Remember the Sabbath day:'' Despite the existence of so-called [[blue laws]] in many states, many consider these laws antiquated and increasingly irrelevant. Certainly there is no federal law demanding observation of the sabbath.
*''Honor thy father and mother:'' Generally considered a nice thing to do, but not a law.
*''Adultery:'' It is grounds for [[divorce]] and alimony, but it is not punished in any way to indicate that it is a real crime.
*''Coveting:'' Wanting things that you don't have is practically a way of life in America. In a capitalist system it is not only allowed but encouraged.

Promoters of the Ten Commandments are almost always [[cherry picking]] the Bible. In the chapter immediately following the Ten Commandments (Exodus 21), God gives various instructions on how to properly conduct [[slavery]], including the rules for selling one's own daughter as a sex slave. There is no obvious reason why God's instructions in Exodus 20 are moral and should be followed today, but not God's instructions in Exodus 21.

==External links==
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project] at [[Religious Tolerance]]
* [http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm Which Ten Commandments?] at [[Positive Atheism]]
* [http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath_3.htm Different Versions of the Ten Commandments] at [[atheism.about.com]]
* [http://www.atheists.org/christianity/hangemall.html Hang 'Em All] by Frank Zindler at [[American Atheists]]

[[Category:Bible]]

Pentateuch

2007-09-16T02:16:13Z

Diagoras: category

The '''Pentateuch''' is the name for the first five books of the [[Old Testament]]: [[Genesis]], [[Exodus]], [[Leviticus]], [[Numbers]] and [[Deuteronomy]]. According to tradition, the Pentateuch was written by [[Moses]], though almost all serious Biblical scholars dispute this claim.

[[Category:Bible]]

Hell

2007-09-16T02:11:08Z

Diagoras: /* See also */

In religious [[mythology]], a place where people go when they die or are destroyed by Jesus's [[Second Coming]].

The majority of Christians believe that [[God]] sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell for eternity. Various interpretations exist as to what constitutes hell-worthy behavior, how long an individual stays in hell, whether hell is a distinct place apart from the earth or the earth itself undergoing destruction as described in The Book of Revelation.

==The Origins of Hell==

Prior to the Exile, the Hebrews had no concept of Hell. There was a concept of Sheol, which is translated variously in the Hebrew Scriptures as "hell," "grave," and "pit." It is clear from each context that it is not a place of eternal torment. Jacob would hardly say "No, ...in mourning will I go down to [an endless hell] to my son." Nor is it probable that Job would pray to God to "hide him in a place of endless torment," in order to be delivered from his troubles. The only clear thing about Sheol is that this was a well-known concept amongst the ancient Israelites. It was not until the Pharisees (c. 100 BCE) that the notion of a spiritual life after death developed in any meaningful way in Jewish thought. The Pharisees, who were the forerunners of the rabbis, taught that when the Torah spoke of reward for following God's ways, the reward would be forthcoming in an afterlife, Olam Ha-Ba (world to come), as they called it.

==Differing Views of Hell==

===A Place of Eternal Torment===

The traditional view of Hell is a place of infinite suffering and misery. This view is support by [[Bible]] verses such as these:

* {{bible|Luke 16:24}}: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
* {{bible|Matthew 13:42}}: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
* {{bible|Matthew 25:41}}: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
* {{bible|Revelation 20:15}}: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

This view was also popularized in [[Dante]]'s ''[[Inferno]]'', in which Dante envisioned a multi-levelled hell where different crimes were punished by customized tortures.

===Separation From God===

[[C.S. Lewis]] favored a softer view of hell in ''[[The Great Divorce]]''. Lewis's hell is portrayed as an endless, desolate twilight city upon which night is imperceptibly sinking. The night is actually the [[Apocalypse]], and it heralds the arrival of the demons after their judgement. Before the night comes, anyone can escape hell if they leave behind their former selves and accept [[heaven]]'s offer, and a journey to heaven reveals that hell is infinitely small; it is nothing more or less than what happens to a soul that turns away from God and into itself.

==Atheist Perspective==

It is odd to a secular way of thinking that any finite crime would warrant infinite punishment. Any human who proposed to torture other people eternally would be considered cruel and monstrous.

Some theists claim that there are no finite crimes relative to God; everything humanity does is infinitely worse than what God would do, so every crime is worthy of infinite punishment. But this means that morality is based on a relative standard rather than absolute scale, and it would mean that even supposedly "good" acts which humans perform (such as [[pray]]ing) would also be infinitely evil.

Yet atheists are not limited to arguing against forms of punishment that must necessarily go on forever. Even finite punishments are unjust because, according to its own doctrine, the theist's God is, himself, originally responsible for establishing sin and defining transgression to his likes or dislikes. Following the illogical view that God ''must'' punish human beings out to its natural conclusion, the atheist comes to recognize some formidable problems:

# God was unable to create or develop other systems of punishment/reward that were less harmful to human life and the high value he himself attached to it.
# God was bound to a higher standard of morality if he was unable to forgive sin without the blood sacrifice of animals or other divine beings.
# God cannot be omnipotent and "wish that none would perish" while declaring that some will perish.
# God is a liar if he wishes all to be saved yet devises an intricate sorting system that is the cause of those who ''will'' perish.

==See also==
* [[Avoidance of hell]]
* [[Problem of Hell]]
* [[Pascal's Wager]]

[[Category:Religious mythology]]

Isaac Asimov

2007-09-15T18:51:01Z

Diagoras:

{{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]].

*''“Properly read, the [[Bible]] is the most potent force for [[atheism]] ever conceived.”''
::—Isaac Asimov
*''“[[Creationism|Creationists]] make it sound as though a ‘[[theory]]’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”''
::—Isaac Asimov

[[Category:Atheists|Asimov, Isaac]]