Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Andy

2011-12-04T19:58:58Z

JesseW: you might want to make a user-page

{{Welcome}}
You edited here before but welcome. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:47, 3 November 2011 (CDT)

You may want to create a user page, just so folks have some idea about your interests, focuses and background are. (Plus, it makes your username blue, which avoids you looking like a newbie to Wikipedia-trained editors, like myself. ;-) ) [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 13:58, 4 December 2011 (CST)

User talk:JesseW

2011-12-04T19:57:19Z

JesseW: further reply

{{Welcome}}
[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:12, 9 October 2011 (CDT)
:Heh, well I've been around for a while, so need for the pre-fab welcome message. But thanks anyway! [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:35, 21 October 2011 (CDT)

== Article creation and editing guidelines ==

Regarding the [[Glenn Peoples]] article that you have just created, I'd like to refer you the editing guidelines regarding the creation of new articles, specifically the rule about not creating stub articles without any genuine value. I'd advice you to mark it as either a work in progress or a stub and start filling it with information, or mark the article for deletion. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:30, 4 December 2011 (CST)
:The reason I created it was that I thought Mr. Peoples was better known that it appears he is. I'll see what else I can dig up. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 13:41, 4 December 2011 (CST)
::I dug up and linked to one of his articles on [[Inerrancy]], and added a little more about his views and place in the Christian online world. I don't *think* it's useless, as it at least provides a way to centralize links to his works. But delete it if you wish. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 13:57, 4 December 2011 (CST)

Inerrancy

2011-12-04T19:55:58Z

JesseW:

#REDIRECT [[Inerrant]]

Glenn Peoples

2011-12-04T19:54:14Z

JesseW: add stub tag, as recommended by User:Andy

A New Zealand Christian philosopher, active in the Christian online world, with somewhat less conservative and traditional views than some of his peers.

==External links==
*[http://www.beretta-online.com/main.html His site]

{{stub}}

[[Category:Christian apologists]]

Glenn Peoples

2011-12-04T19:52:52Z

JesseW: add slightly more description (hopefully correct) of his views and peer group

Biblical inerrancy

2011-12-04T19:51:19Z

JesseW: typo

'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrine that the [[Bible]] is completely correct, or at least that it was completely correct in the original manuscripts.

This belief is surprisingly common, especially among [[Fundamentalism|fundamentalists]].

==Counter-apologetics==

# There are many contradictions in the Bible, many of them very hard to dispute. [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html Here is a big list.]
# The Bible is clearly inconsistent with scientific observations. The [[Genesis]] account of [[Creation]] is only the beginning. Take {{Bible|Job 38:22-23}}, for example. God is quoted as saying, "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?" We now know how snow and hail form, and it doesn't involve storehouses or war.
# The Bible is at least guilty of glossing over rounding error. By simple arithmetic we can arrive at the [[Biblical value of pi]]: three. Not 3.14, not 3.1415926536, not "a little more than three"; simply three.
# Some contradictions, like {{Bible|2 Kings 8:26}} and {{Bible|2 Chronicles 22:2}}, which give different ages for Ahaziah when he began to rule, are, Christians admit, really contradictions that are really in the bible. They have to resort to copyist error or some other similar explanation. This shows that the modern bible is not inerrant. This raises the question of why God inspired the original writers, but not the copyist.

[[Category:Bible]]

==Apologetics==

# Apologists claim the Bible is not necessarily inconsistent with scientific observations. Apologetics can spin or interpret the contents of Genesis 1, for instance, through a process known as [[exegesis]], into matching what [[science]] has to say in postdiction. It must be noted that the Bible is not a scientific book and should not be taken as such, yet despite that, many Christians attempt to use it as such anyway.
# Contradictions, such as the one afore mentioned regarding Kings and Chronicles, are only contradictions if studied without the exegesis to spin the interpretation as well. The same process of exegesis is frequently used to excuse why contradictions exist between the different Gospels. If each is interpreted in particular ways, one can smooth out such stark differences, such as why Jesus was or was not at the cave when the women came after he resurrected.
# According to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, scripture is inerrant in it's autograph. Critically thinking Christians see and recognize problems within scripture, interpolations, deletions, missing manuscripts, etc, and instead will claim that the recent copies and/or translations are in error, while the original texts as written by the original authors are not.

== Differing View of Biblical Inerrancy ==
# Karl Barth, known for advocating a "Neo-Orthodox" view of scripture, presents an attempted solution to counter-apologetics. Within the Neo-Orthodox perspective, both autographs and subsequent copies are understood as containing error, in that they do not always purport truth. Barth's view renounces that the Word of God is in the text (for God's Word must remain inerrant), and in doing so, claims that despite the Bible's being a "broken vessel", it is the vehicle through which God relays his Word. The text contains errors, but when read or preached, the Holy Spirit interprets the true, inerrant meaning to the hearer. This argument also fails because different readers and listeners interpret the same Bible text differently. For example [[Roman Catholic]]s interpret Matthew 16:18-19 as declaring that [[Saint Peter]] and all popes after him have authority to rule the church of Christ while [[Protestant]]s and [[Eastern Orthodox]] churches disagree that the pope has such authority. Contradictions in the interpretation of scripture indicate that no supernatural force is leading all readers and listeners interantly to any correct conclusion.
#[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/16.html#18 The Skeptics Annotated Bible] This explains the Roman Catholic view and problems with that view.
#[http://www.thercg.org/questions/p184.a.html Please explain Matthew 16:18-19.] This text has a Protestant explanation.

==External links==
*[http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/no-i-am-not-an-inerrantist/ No, I am not an inerrantist.] by [[Glenn Peoples]]

Biblical inerrancy

2011-12-04T19:50:47Z

JesseW: /* Differing View of Biblical Inerrancy */ add a view by Glen People's on the question

User talk:JesseW

2011-12-04T19:41:23Z

JesseW: /* Article creation and editing guidelines */ sure

Glenn Peoples

2011-12-04T05:18:08Z

JesseW:

A New Zealand Christian philosopher.

==External links==
*[http://www.beretta-online.com/main.html His site]

[[Category:Christian apologists]]

Euthyphro dilemma

2011-12-04T05:15:17Z

JesseW: /* External links */ and added one more (in prev. edit)

The '''Euthyphro dilemma''' is found in [[Wikipedia:Plato|Plato]]'s ''[[Wikipedia:Euthyphro|Euthyphro]]'' dialogue, in which [[Wikipedia:Socrates|Socrates]] asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is [[good]] commanded by [[God]] because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

==The dilemma==

It is common amongst [[Christian]]s to claim that God's [[omnibenevolence]] necessitates the goodness of his actions and commands, a view called "Divine Command Theory". The Euthyphro dilemma is one demonstration of an incompatibility between the perfection of God and his commands. For one, Divine Command theory claims that [[morality]] is meaningless unless it is derived from God yet fails to answer who made God moral and whether his moral commands could be considered objective rather than arbitrary.

Put in the context of Divine Command Theory, the Euthyphro Dilemma results in two unpalatable conclusions:

1) God is not the greatest, as he must call upon a standard of good greater than himself.
2) God's commands are arbitrary, grounded on his whims, and thus could be commands that we ourselves find morally abhorrent.

The first conclusion results in the view that God cannot change what is right and wrong. Killing and stealing are inherently bad, so God, being inherently good, cannot command them. Yet if right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do with the process. God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore only indirectly related to moral commands.

The second conclusion shows that God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree. If this is the case, then God has no higher standard to answer to, and therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary. Although God once decreed that [[murder]] and [[theft]] are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily, so then murder and theft would be right.

Another way to state the argument is in the form of a constructive dilemma:

I. Is something good because God commands it so or does God command it so because it is good?

II. If something is good because the God commands that it is so, then what is morally reprehensible to us can be good.

III. If God commands that it is good because it is good, then the good is greater than God.

IV. So, either the good is arbitrary or good is greater than God.

Much atheist literature has borrowed from the Euthyphro dilemma, even when not referring to it by name. For instance, [[Bertrand Russell]] wrote:
{{quote-source|The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.|''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]''}}

==Counter-apologetics==

===False dilemma===
There are several responses possible against the Euthyphro dilemma, but the sharpest criticism it falls under is that it is a false dilemma (i.e., commits the Bifurcation fallacy by presenting only two alternatives when there are actually more than two). The two cases presented are that (i) God commands something because it is good, and that (ii) something is good because God commands it. In the first instance, moral order is grounded ''outside'' God; in the second instance, moral order is grounded in God's ''arbitrary'' fiat.

The Bifurcation fallacy is proved by the existence of a third alternative, which it fails to present or account for; namely, (iii) that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. In this case God's commands are not ''arbitrary''; they are, rather, an expression consistent with his essential nature. Under this view, "God is good" is not a moral valuation (God has goodness) but an ontological statement (God is goodness); as a logical consequence, good is that which conforms to the nature and will of God, while evil is a privative term or that which does not conform to the nature and will of God.

This supplies the reason behind why "an all-loving God would never command evil." Under the Euthyphro bifurcation, the Christian theist has no reason to believe that God would never command evil on the one hand, or that God will not change his mind about what is evil on the other. However, under the third alternative the Christian theist does have good reason for his belief, that God commanding evil would amount to a logical contradiction: God wills what he does not will, an empty nonsense statement.

===God would never command immoral acts===

Firstly, God ''does'' command rape and murder several times in the [[Old Testament]]. For example, in {{Bible|Numbers 31:1-54}} God commands Moses and his army to "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." The army comes back with 32,000 virgins after doing God's will.

The Qur'an, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 34: “ Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Secondly, saying that God would never command [[evil]] in itself shows that God gets his morals from an outside source. If God would never command rape and murder because they're evil then where did he get the determination that they were evil?

This counter-apologetic contains certain risks, however, which a canny apologist may exploit. The theist may contend, sincerely or otherwise, that yes, because God commanded all of the ostensibly immoral acts contained within both Old and [[New Testament]], they are therefore good. The theist can then shift the burden of proof to the counterapologist and demand that he or she justify why such acts are objectively ''immoral'', opening the door to endless picayune objections, diversions, and moving of the goalposts. The non-believer can simply reply, "I don't want to follow a religion that worships a god who sometimes condones rape and murder." That does not answer the philosophical points but is a valid reason for rejecting an unproved and improbable religion.

In addition, apologists can also claim that this is an incorrect reading of the text. The specific command ordering the Israelite army to kill every woman comes not from God, but from Moses. Although Moses is "speaking" on the behalf of God here, it is not a divine command. However this layer of separation simply leads to the question of why God would condone such and act and endorse such a leader in Moses. It can be argued that God is still responsible for the murders or women and children and that God is guilty by association.

===God's nature===

The claim that God would not command evil because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?" Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies. If, on the other hand, God did not create his own nature, then either someone else created it (in which case the dilemma applies to the creator of God's nature) or the morality contained in God's nature is inherent in some way (in which case God is not truly the author of right and wrong).

Michael Martin has argued that theistic objections to the dilemma solve nothing, because it can easily be reformulated in terms of God's character: "Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?" The structure of this modified dilemma is exactly the same as before, and it appears to be if anything harder to escape.

If we identify the ultimate standard for goodness with God's nature, then it seems we are identifying it with certain of God's properties (e.g., being loving, being just). If so, then the dilemma resurfaces: is God good because he has those properties, or are those properties good because God has them?

===God provides a standard to emulate===
Rabbi Moshe Averick argues that the entire Euthyphro dilemma is the philosophical equivalent of an optical illusion. Because the dilemma was first applied to the pagan gods of the ancient Greeks, it ignores the unique perspective of monotheism. In Jewish theology "good" means attaching oneself to the only reality that has actual existence; namely God himself. In other words, God commands humans to "love their neighbor" not because it is "good" but because it will bring the created human into a relationship with the actual and eternal being of God. According to Averick:

<blockquote>
In the context of Jewish theology (and I would imagine, most monotheistic theologies), the Euth. Argument breaks down completely:
 - Is “loving your neighbor” good because God commands it? – Obviously not, that would make it arbitrary.
 - Does God command “love your neighbor” because it is good? - No, it is neither of these. God commands us to love our neighbors so that we can choose to have a relationship with him, so that we can attach ourselves to his infinite and actual being; God himself is THE good.

If this infinite being we call God actually exists, we have a real standard to determine a meaningful concept to moral truths. The standard is closeness to God, and the actual absolute existence which is his being. This is what the Psalmist means when he proclaims, "To me closeness to God ''is'' good" (Psalms 73:28).
</blockquote>

Despite claiming that he's not, Averick agrees to the first possible explanation: good is defined by God's nature. God's nature is good, and by doing good, we grow closer to God. If God's nature or commandments required doing something most people would consider immoral (rape, murder, genocide, etc.), it is still moral because it is in God's nature. As mentioned above, some apologists have no problem with this view of morality and will defend it. Averick continues (somewhat tangentially):

<blockquote>
The Euthyphro Argument as a challenge to Monotheism is nothing more than philosophical smoke and mirrors. The only reason it has some superficial appeal at all is because the word “gods” is used, giving the impression of some authority above human beings. Plato’s original argument, of course, involved the pagan gods of Greece. In fact, pagan gods have no more moral authority, nor moral credibility, than mortal humans. A pagan god is simply a human being projected to a large scale. He’s just bigger, stronger, lives longer, and can even throw a few lightning bolts when needed. Pagan gods are no different than The Incredible Hulk, The Flash, or Superman (who as the old TV show told us had “powers far beyond those of mortal men!”).

Formulating the Euthyphro Argument using pagan gods is exactly the same thing as saying: Does The Incredible Hulk command it because it is good, or is it good because The Incredible Hulk commands it? The moral proclamations of The Incredible Hulk, have no more or less significance, than the moral proclamations of Zeus, Mick Jagger, Jerry Seinfeld, Oprah Winfrey, or for that matter, any of the approximately 6,000,000,000 individuals living on this planet.

When stated this way, it becomes obvious how misguided and mistaken the whole argument was to begin with. What did you expect? Of course, pagan gods, superheroes, rock superstars, Jewish comedians, and even wildly successful talk show hosts – just like everyone else - can only tell us their totally subjective views on morality, or manufacture it arbitrarily.

Not so, the God of Abraham, the One God. The God of Monotheism is not a human being projected on a large scale. He is above time and space. He is above the physical. He is even above the spiritual. He created the spiritual. He is, as Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg has put it, “so totally and completely other than we are.” With the existence of the One God, greatness, goodness, meaning, and morality lie in front of us. They are within our grasp if we choose them. Without God, in the utterly empty void of the atheistic world, we are left with nothing but bleak despair, as expressed by the American novelist T.C. Boyle:

''{{quote|I am an atheist and a nihilist…I believe in nothing. And it causes me tremendous despair and heartbreak…there is nothing between us and the naked howling face of the universe. Nothing.|}}''
</blockquote>

Averick claims the nature of the pagan gods makes this a meaningless question when Plato posed it because the Greek gods, like celebrities and superheroes, obviously fall short of ownership or authorship of universal moral laws. He's basing this on a simplistic understanding of paganism, but it's irrelevant anyway because the dilemma applies to any being that is claimed to reflect or generate morality itself. This is a form of [[special pleading]]; even if it didn't apply to Plato's gods, it applies to Averick's. After this (dishonest) diversion, Averick evades/claims God is essentially unknowable, but quickly turns to warn of the emotional danger of atheism (quoting an atheist for good measure). This final claim has nothing to do with this article's topic: whether the truth leads a person to despair and heartbreak or joy has nothing to do with it's validity. Check out [[Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]] for more details.

===Can you be good without God?===

The issue of [[secular morality]] is a complex topic and is further explored in the related article.

==External links==
*[http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato
*[http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Christian_morality Christian morality] Atheism wiki on Christian morality

===Atheist expositions of it===
*[http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/ StrongAtheism essay]
*[http://othersidereflections.blogspot.com/2011/02/euthyphro-dilemma.html Reflections from the Other Side essay]

===Christian apologetic attempts at resolving it===
*''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'' by [[Rabbi Moshe Averick]]
*''[http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.pdf A New Euthyphro]'' by [[Glenn Peoples]]

{{Arguments against god}}

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

Euthyphro dilemma

2011-12-04T05:15:01Z

JesseW: /* External links */ sort links

Atheist Community of Austin

2011-11-23T21:26:53Z

JesseW: recat

[[Image:aca-white-blue-115x60.png|thumb|115px|The Atheist Community of Austin logo.]]
The '''Atheist Community of Austin''' (ACA) is organized as a [[Wikipedia:Non-profit organization|nonprofit]] educational corporation whose primary goals are to promote [[positive atheism]] and the [[separation of church and state]]. More generally, it works to develop and support the [[atheist]] community in and around [[Wikipedia:Austin, Texas|Austin, Texas]], to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote [[secular]] viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to oppose discrimination against atheists, and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.[http://www.atheist-community.org/]

The ACA sponsors two shows: a live, weekly, call-in TV show called ''[[The Atheist Experience]]'' and a bi-weekly internet audio show called ''[[The Non-Prophets]]''.

==External links==
* [http://www.atheist-community.org/ The Atheist Community of Austin official website]
* [http://www.atheist-experience.com/ ''The Atheist Experience'' TV show website]
* [http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/ ''The Non-Prophets'' internet audio show website]

[[Category:Atheist groups in Texas]]

Category:Atheist groups in Texas

2011-11-23T21:26:01Z

JesseW: since we have articles on two, might as well make a category

This category lists [[atheist]] groups in Texas.

[[Category:Atheist groups in the United States|Texas]]

Category:Atheist groups in California

2011-11-23T21:25:33Z

JesseW: argh wrong page

This category lists [[atheist]] groups in California.

[[Category:Atheist groups in the United States|California]]

Category:Atheist groups in California

2011-11-23T21:25:08Z

JesseW: since we have articles on two, might as well make a category

This category lists [[atheist]] groups in Texas.

[[Category:Atheist groups in the United States|Texas]]

Creationism

2011-11-18T06:45:01Z

JesseW: /* References */ add ref to Talk.Origins list

{{religion-stub}}

Broadly speaking, '''creationism''' is the belief that a [[god]] or gods were involved in the apparance of humans on Earth. The most vocal creationists are [[Christian]]s, but [[Jewish]] and [[Muslim]] creationists also exist.

In his 1992 essay, ''What is Darwinism?'', [[Intelligent Design]] founder [[Phillip Johnson]] defined creationism as follows:
: The first word is ''creationism'', which means simply a belief in creation. In Darwinist usage, which dominates not only the popular and profession scientific literature but also the media, a creationist is a person who takes the creation account in the Book of Genesis to be true in an very literal sense. [...]

: In a broader sense, however, a creationist is simply a person who believes in the existence of a ''creator'', who brought about the existence of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a ''purpose''. Whether the process of creation took a single week or billions of years is relatively unimportant from a philosophical or theological standpoint. Creation by gradual processes over geological ages may create problems for Biblical interpretation, but it creates none for the basic principle of theistic religion. And creation in this broad sense, according to a 1991 Gallup poll, is the creed of 87 per cent of Americans.
(Emphasis in the original.)

==Varieties of Creationism==
The umbrella term "creationism" covers a wide variety of beliefs:
* [[Young earth creationist]]s (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.
* [[Old earth creationist]]s (OECs) also believe that Yahweh created the Earth as described in Genesis, but interpret the [[Bible]] as allowing the Earth to be millions or billions of years old.
* [[Intelligent design]] proponents generally accept mainstream science's age of the Earth, and even large amounts of [[evolution]]. They do, however, claim that certain features of living beings are too complex to have evolved naturally, and that an unspecified intelligent designer (who is usually understood to be God) was involved at some point.

==References==
* [http://www.apologetics.org/whatisdarwinism.html What is Darwinism?] by Phillip Johnson
* [http://creationtheory.org/ Creationism versus Science], a very detailed resource with an extensive [http://creationtheory.org/Database/Search.shtml argument database]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Talk.Origins ''Index to Creationist Claims''] with over 600 entries

==See also==
* [[Intelligent design]]
* [[Genesis]]
* [[Creation myth]]

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Creationism|*]]

Ken Ham

2011-11-18T06:36:57Z

JesseW: de-link some redirects

{{apologist-stub}}
'''Ken Ham''' is a prominent creationist. He runs the website '''Answers In Genesis''', and has recently built a "'''Creation Science Museum'''" in the state of Kentucky.
==Rebuttals, mocking, vilification, etc.==
*From [[Pharyngula]]:
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/now_this_is_how_to_critique_ke.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/ken_ham_was_expelled_ha_haa.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/ken_ham_on_the_air_lying_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/im_getting_under_ken_hams_skin.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/ken_ham_baffled.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/madness_paranoia_ken_ham.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_still_doesnt_get_it.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightmare.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/the_creation_museum.php <- list of links to reactions to the opening of the Creation Museum
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/ken_ham_whines_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ken_hams_new_book.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_ham_spits_on_steve_irwins.php
* Elsewhere:
** http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/
** http://www.bobturf.org/aig.html
** https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/answers-in-genesis-rascals-or-retards/
** http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-1/ ([http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-2/ Part 2]; [https://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-3/ Part 3])
** http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/ <- whole site devoted to rebuttals
** http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010/01/oh-no-you-didnt-answers-in-genesis.html -- rebutting a claim that: "Without the Bible, logic makes no sense"
==External links==
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.creationmuseum.org/ Creation Museum]
* [http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Answers-in-Genesis.aspx AiG profile at MinistryWatch.com], including financial statements

{{Science}}

[[Category:People|Ham, Ken]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Ham, Ken]]

Creation Science Museum

2011-11-18T06:35:44Z

JesseW: #REDIRECT Ken Ham

#REDIRECT [[Ken Ham]]

Answers In Genesis

2011-11-18T06:35:36Z

JesseW: redir to Ken Ham

#REDIRECT [[Ken Ham]] till we get a individual page

Answers In Genesis

2011-11-18T06:34:55Z

JesseW:

#REDIRECT [[Ken Ham]]

Ken Ham

2011-11-18T06:24:02Z

JesseW: and another, rebutting a claim that: "Without the Bible, logic makes no sense"

{{apologist-stub}}
'''Ken Ham''' is a prominent creationist. He runs the website [[Answers In Genesis]], and has recently built a "[[Creation Science Museum]]" in the state of Kentucky.
==Rebuttals, mocking, vilification, etc.==
*From [[Pharyngula]]:
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/now_this_is_how_to_critique_ke.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/ken_ham_was_expelled_ha_haa.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/ken_ham_on_the_air_lying_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/im_getting_under_ken_hams_skin.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/ken_ham_baffled.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/madness_paranoia_ken_ham.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_still_doesnt_get_it.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightmare.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/the_creation_museum.php <- list of links to reactions to the opening of the Creation Museum
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/ken_ham_whines_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ken_hams_new_book.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_ham_spits_on_steve_irwins.php
* Elsewhere:
** http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/
** http://www.bobturf.org/aig.html
** https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/answers-in-genesis-rascals-or-retards/
** http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-1/ ([http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-2/ Part 2]; [https://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-3/ Part 3])
** http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/ <- whole site devoted to rebuttals
** http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010/01/oh-no-you-didnt-answers-in-genesis.html -- rebutting a claim that: "Without the Bible, logic makes no sense"
==External links==
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.creationmuseum.org/ Creation Museum]
* [http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Answers-in-Genesis.aspx AiG profile at MinistryWatch.com], including financial statements

{{Science}}

[[Category:People|Ham, Ken]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Ham, Ken]]

Ken Ham

2011-11-18T06:21:36Z

JesseW: and a link to a whole site devoted to such rebuttals

{{apologist-stub}}
'''Ken Ham''' is a prominent creationist. He runs the website [[Answers In Genesis]], and has recently built a "[[Creation Science Museum]]" in the state of Kentucky.
==Rebuttals, mocking, vilification, etc.==
*From [[Pharyngula]]:
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/now_this_is_how_to_critique_ke.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/ken_ham_was_expelled_ha_haa.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/ken_ham_on_the_air_lying_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/im_getting_under_ken_hams_skin.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/ken_ham_baffled.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/madness_paranoia_ken_ham.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_still_doesnt_get_it.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightmare.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/the_creation_museum.php <- list of links to reactions to the opening of the Creation Museum
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/ken_ham_whines_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ken_hams_new_book.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_ham_spits_on_steve_irwins.php
* Elsewhere:
** http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/
** http://www.bobturf.org/aig.html
** https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/answers-in-genesis-rascals-or-retards/
** http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-1/ ([http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-2/ Part 2]; [https://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-3/ Part 3])
** http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/ <- whole site devoted to rebuttals
==External links==
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.creationmuseum.org/ Creation Museum]
* [http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Answers-in-Genesis.aspx AiG profile at MinistryWatch.com], including financial statements

{{Science}}

[[Category:People|Ham, Ken]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Ham, Ken]]

Ken Ham

2011-11-18T06:20:12Z

JesseW: add more

{{apologist-stub}}
'''Ken Ham''' is a prominent creationist. He runs the website [[Answers In Genesis]], and has recently built a "[[Creation Science Museum]]" in the state of Kentucky.
==Rebuttals, mocking, vilification, etc.==
*From [[Pharyngula]]:
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/now_this_is_how_to_critique_ke.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/ken_ham_was_expelled_ha_haa.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/ken_ham_on_the_air_lying_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/im_getting_under_ken_hams_skin.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/ken_ham_baffled.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/madness_paranoia_ken_ham.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_still_doesnt_get_it.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightmare.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/the_creation_museum.php <- list of links to reactions to the opening of the Creation Museum
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/ken_ham_whines_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ken_hams_new_book.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_ham_spits_on_steve_irwins.php
* Elsewhere:
** http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/
** http://www.bobturf.org/aig.html
** https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/answers-in-genesis-rascals-or-retards/
** http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-1/ ([http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-2/ Part 2]; [https://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-3/ Part 3])

==External links==
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.creationmuseum.org/ Creation Museum]
* [http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Answers-in-Genesis.aspx AiG profile at MinistryWatch.com], including financial statements

{{Science}}

[[Category:People|Ham, Ken]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Ham, Ken]]

Ken Ham

2011-11-18T06:12:57Z

JesseW: add a pile of links, gained by sorting through a search results -- still need glosses, quotes, etc.

{{apologist-stub}}
'''Ken Ham''' is a prominent Creation Scientist. He runs the website [[Answers In Genesis]], and has recently built a "[[Creation Science Museum]]" in the state of Kentucky.
==Rebuttals, mocking, vilification, etc.==
*From [[Pharyngula]]:
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/now_this_is_how_to_critique_ke.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/ken_ham_was_expelled_ha_haa.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/ken_ham_on_the_air_lying_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/im_getting_under_ken_hams_skin.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/ken_ham_baffled.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/madness_paranoia_ken_ham.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_still_doesnt_get_it.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightmare.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/the_creation_museum.php <- list of links to reactions to the opening of the Creation Museum
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/ken_ham_whines_again.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ken_hams_new_book.php
** http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_ham_spits_on_steve_irwins.php
* Elsewhere:
** http://pnrj.xanga.com/709441435/what-i-learned-from-the-creation-museum/

==External links==
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
* [http://www.creationmuseum.org/ Creation Museum]
* [http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/Answers-in-Genesis.aspx AiG profile at MinistryWatch.com], including financial statements

{{Science}}

[[Category:People|Ham, Ken]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Ham, Ken]]

Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages

2011-11-01T07:35:59Z

JesseW: /* Books, articles, essays, other writings */ add ''Rational Conclusions'' by James D. Agresti

Got a page that you would love to see an article about, but you don't have the time or knowledge to write it yourself? Put a request here and somebody may do your work for you!

For those who are editing, don't forget to check the [[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted Pages]] list.

If any of the requests below correspond to existing articles, but those articles are still very short, please remove the entry here and tag the article with an appropriate [[Project:stub template|stub template]]. Stub articles in need of expansion can be found in the [[:Category:Stubs|Stubs]] category.

==People==
: ''See also:'' [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages/Lists of nontheists]]

=== Nontheists ===
* [[Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche]]
* [[Michael Martin]]
* [[Graham Oppy]]
* [[George Hamilton Smith]]

=== Theists ===
* [[Josh McDowell]]
* [[Roy Moore]]
* [[Alvin Plantinga]]
* [[Ralph Reed]]
* [[James Rutz]] ([[Jim Rutz]] as redirect)
* [[Richard Swinburne]]
* [[René Descartes]]

===Fictional, Biblical, scriptural===
* [[Abraham]]
* [[Paul]]
* [[Shiva]]
* [[Thomas]]

==Religions and religious topics==
* [[Calvinism]] ([[Calvinist]] as redirect)
* [[Canon]]
* [[Church]]
* [[Crimen Sollicitationis]] (A document from the Catholic Church that set the global policy for the treatment of allegations of sex crimes)
* [[Cult]]
* [[Heresy]], [[heretic]], [[heretical]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Pagan]], [[Pagans]], [[Paganism]]
* [[Saint]]
* [[Sermon]]
* [[Worship]]

===Specific denominations, sects, cults===
* [[Bahá'í faith]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Shia Islam]] (see [[Wikipedia:Shia Islam]] for various possible redirects)
* [[Shinto]] ([[Shintoism]] as redirect)
* [[Sunni Islam]] ([[Sunni]] as redirect)

===Religious texts===
* almost all of the individual books of the Bible (see [[Template:Books of the Bible]] for a listing)
* [[Torah]], [[Tanakh]], [[Talmud]]

===Bible stories, parables, etc.===
* [[Gods in the Old Testament]] — episodes 464, 466, and 483 of ''[[The Atheist Experience]]'' could be good starting points

==Supernatural, paranormal, magic, myth==
* [[Astrology]]
* [[Paranormal]]
* [[Witchcraft]], [[witch]]
* [[Ghost]]

==Philosophy, logic, ethics==
* [[Premise]]
* [[Proof]]
* [[Suicide]]

==Politics, society, culture==
* [[Abortion]]
* [[Faith-based initiative]]s
* [[Science fiction]]
===Law===
(Court cases, the state of freedom of religion in various states and countries, etc.)
* [[Torcaso v. Watkins]] -- The Supreme Court case that extended "no religious test" to states.

==Science==
* [[Emotion]]
* [[Human]]
* [[Mind]]
* [[Nature]]
* [[Volcano]]es A recent episode of The 700 Club presented Seven Wonders Museum curator [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/194479_helensmusem09.html Lloyd Anderson], who claims Mount St. Helens is proof that the earth can change drastically in a short period of time. This needs to be refuted with some hard facts.

==Media==
===Books, articles, essays, other writings===
* ''[[Atheism: The Case Against God]]'' by [[George H. Smith]], ISBN 978-0879751241
** [[wikipedia:George H. Smith|George H. Smith]], Wikipedia
* ''[[The End of Faith]]'' by [[Sam Harris]]
* ''[[The Moral Landscape]]: How Science Can Determine Human Values'' by [[Sam Harris]]
* ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]''
* ''[[Life--How Did it Get Here?]] By Evolution or By Creation?'', Watchtower society anti-evolution book.
* ''[[Atheist Books and Literature Listings]]'' Listing of published atheist literature by title and author
* Edgar C. Whisenant, ''[[88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988]]'' (see [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14080011/88-Reasons-Why-The-Rapture-Will-Be-in-1988] and [http://www.isitso.org/guide/whise.html])
====Apologetics====
* ''[[Rational Conclusions]]'' by James D. Agresti (2009), claims to "meticulously demonstrate the truthfulness of the Bible." I can't find a critical review of it, so it would be good to get one written, and post (or link to) it here.

===Film, TV, video===

===Websites, blogs, podcasts===
* [[Secular Web]]

==General, miscellaneous, other==

==See also==
* [[:Category:Stubs|Stub articles]] which ought to be expanded.
* [[Special:Uncategorizedpages|Uncategorized pages]] which ought to be added to one or more [[:Category:Browse_categories|categories]].
* Arguments from ''[[The Atheist Experience]]'' and ''[[The Non-Prophets]]''. [[User:Sans Deity|Matt Dillahunty]] has asked that if you hear a good argument on one of the [[ACA]]'s shows, please add it here if it isn't here already.

[[Category:Content development|Requested pages]]

Bible

2011-10-22T09:27:25Z

JesseW: /* Contradictions within the Bible */ add various external lists

{{wikipedia|color=#E7E7E7;}}
{{Books of the Bible}}
'''''The Bible''''' is the name used by [[Judaism|Jews]] and [[Christian]]s for their differing but overlapping [[canon]]s of [[sacred text]]s. The Bible is believed to be the inspired word of [[God]] by Christians and Jews alike.

==Composition==

The Jewish and Christian Bibles are actually collections of what were originally a number of independent books. The overwhelming majority of Christians refer to the Bible as the combination of Hebrew Scripture, known to Christians as the [[Old Testament]] or First Testament; and the [[New Testament]], which describes the life and message of [[Jesus]]. For [[Roman Catholic]]s, the [[Eastern Orthodox]], and some [[protestant]]s, the Deuterocanonical books — various writings important in the Second-Temple period of Judaism (often regarded by many protestants as the (or part of the) Apocrypha) — are considered to be part of the Old Testament and as such part of the Bible, although they are rejected by many protestants and are not in the Hebrew Bible as accepted in modern Judaism. Some books considered deuterocanonical by Orthodox Churches are considered apocryphal by other Orthodox Churches and/or Catholics. For Jews, the term refers only to the Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh, which includes the Five Books of [[Moses]] (the [[Torah]]) as well as the books of the Prophets and Writings. Both Christians and Jews regard the Bible as the revealed word of God, with widespread variation on its accuracy, interpretation and legitimacy.

==Christian perspective==

[[Fundamentalist]]s believe that the Bible is both divinely inspired and [[inerrant]]. They claim that every word of the Bible is [[Biblical literalism|literally true]], except for the parts which are intentionally written as allegories or [[parable]]s. It is free of contradiction and error. So for example, a Fundamentalist would most likely believe in [[six-day creation]] because he believes in the literal truth of [[Genesis]].

Liberal Christians take a more open view of the Bible, often believing that it is "inspired by God" but not inerrant. They may believe that, while the Bible is a good spiritual guide, it is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.

==Atheist perspective==

Atheists regard the Bible as just a period piece of literature. Its authors may have been sincere when they wrote it, but they were nomadic sheep herders with a narrow perspective on the world. In that sense it is little different than any other ancient text such as ''[[The Odyssey]]'': an interesting perspective on the mindset of early cultures, but of questionable accuracy, especially those passages that refer to [[supernatural]] events.

The Bible was also written well over a thousand years before the discovery of [[science]], which means that the Bible is nearly irrelevant to any scientific discussion. Not only is the literal story of Genesis completely at odds with modern [[cosmology]], but there are many other scientific errors in the Bible. For instance, there is the [[Biblical value of pi]] and the assertion that [[hares chew their cud]].

==Contradictions within the Bible==

The first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on the creation of man.
Gen 1:26 Man was created on the sixth day. Notice the first 5 days god was busy creating animals and plants.
Gen 2:4-7 Man was created right from the start.

===External lists===
* http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/101_Contradictions_in_the_Bible
* http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
* http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
* http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm#CONTRA

==Additional perspectives==

There is an excellent resource available at [[The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]].

==Unsuitable reading==

The Bible contains passages that many people would consider
inappropriate for children. The [[Skeptic's Annotated Bible]] has
topical summaries.

*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html Cruelty and Violence in the Bible]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html Injustice in the Bible]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html Intolerance in the Bible]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html Bad Family values]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html Bad treatment of women]r
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm Sex in the Bible]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lang/long.html Bad Language in the Bible]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm Depiction of Homosexuality in the Bible]

==See also==
* [[History of the Biblical canon]]
* [[The Brick Testament]]
* [[Fun facts about the Bible]]

==External links==
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/ An excellent online Bible, searchable in many languages]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran5.htm Biblical inerrancy (freedom of error) as understood by conservative & liberal Protestants]
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]
*[http://freespace.virgin.net/graham.lawrence/ The Fallible Gospels]
*[http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/ Bible Study Tools, learn the history of different bible versions and compare verses]

{{Christianity}}

[[Category:Religious mythology]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Prayer

2011-10-21T05:42:43Z

JesseW: /* External links */ add link to GodIsImaginary.com entry

{{quote-desc||Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down schmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?|[[George Carlin]]}}

'''Prayer''' is the act of speaking to a [[god]] or [[goddess]], either mentally or out loud, to profess loyalty or ask for favors. For example ancient [[Polytheism|pagans]] sometimes prayed to the [[sun]]. They were scared if they didn't pray the sun might set one day and not bother to rise the next day.

==Christianity and prayer==

Prayer in the [[New Testament]] is presented as a positive command ({{bible|Colossians 4:2}}; {{bible|1 Thessalonians 5:17}}). Christians are challenged to include prayer in their everyday life, even in the busy struggles of [[marriage]] ({{bible|1 Corinthians 7:5}}) as it brings people closer to God.

Prayer in the New Testament is also presented as being completely dependable. For example:

* {{bible|Matthew 7:7}} "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
* {{bible|Matthew 17:20}} "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."
* {{bible|Matthew 21:21}} "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
* {{bible|Mark 11:24}} "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
* {{bible|John 14:12-14}} "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."
* {{bible|Matthew 18:19}} "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Thus, the stipulations one must fulfill for having their prayers answered are these:

# Have faith. It doesn't matter how much, for even someone with the faith of a mustard seed will have their prayers answered.
# Don't doubt in your faith.
# Believe in Jesus and the works that he does.
# Believe that you will receive what you pray for.
# If you really want your prayer answered, get a group of people to all pray for the same thing.
# If your prayer is not answered it.s your fault because you didn't have enough faith.
The [[Bible]] says that if you adhere to these rules then this is what God will do for you:

# He will answer your prayers, no matter what you ask for.
# Nothing will be impossible for you if you pray about it.

===Can prayer move mountains?===
According to Matthew 21,21 and other verses prayer can indeed move mountains.
<blockquote>If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/21.html] </blockquote>
Has this ever happened? If a mountain ever fell into the sea it would cause such an enormous tsunami that history would record it. [http://www.iris.washington.edu/about/ENO/iows/2_2003a.htm] Any number of Christians have faith, Christians who don’t know about the tsunami might well pray in faith for a mountain to move but history does not record a mountain moving. This verse of the [[Bible]] can’t be literally true.

By the way if [[Jesus]] was an ignorant [[1st Century]] wandering preacher we can easily understand him talking about prayer moving mountains. Those who imagine Jesus was [[God]] and was therefore [[Omniscience|omniscient]] must wonder why on Earth Jesus would encourage good people to pray for such a devastating tsunami? Why does God allow tsunami in any case?

==Objections to prayer==

# As the George Carlin quote suggests, the act of prayer seems a little odd for people with belief in a god who is supposed to be [[omniscient]] and [[omnibenevolent]]. Clearly an omniscient god would already be aware of your problems and know what you want. Ultimately, your request may be regarded by God as either [[good]] or [[evil]]. If it is good, then why would God not have granted your wishes already? If it is evil, then why would God ever grant your request?
# Billions of people pray for various things every day. Many of the prayer requests are even contradictory. For instance, in a football game, often the players and fans on both sides are praying to win. If God answers prayers, which side should He choose? The side that prays loudest?
# Christians often state that God can answer prayers in one of three ways; "yes", "no", or "wait". This makes God no different from random chance. After all, when you pray it can either happen (i.e. God answers "yes"), not happen (God answers "no), or you have to wait to see if it will happen (God answers "wait"). This atheist video ridicules the Yes, No and Wait concept, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI&feature=related The best optical illusion in the world!]
# "Successful" prayers rarely have an unambiguous form. Apologists point to events like cancers that go into remission or people waking up from comas as [[evidence]] for the power of prayer. Yet cancer goes into remission and people wake up from comas all the time. How are we to tell the difference between cancer that healed naturally (or thanks to the presence of skilled doctors) and cancer that was cured miraculously? A commonly asked question is, "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" Live footage of a severed limb miraculously regrowing would be far more convincing as proof of the power of prayer. Yet such prayers are apparently never answered, or answered away from the prying eyes of meddlesome investigators.
# Some people say that it isn't God's will to perform unambiguous miracles through prayer. However, if it's all just God's will then why pray? God will just do what he wants to whether you pray about it or not.
# Christians might also say that God doesn't want to provide unambiguous proof of his own existence since this would deny faith. However, this rationalization ignores the myriad of times in the Bible that he does just that.
# Another common rationalization is that God uses unanswered prayers to demonstrate his power through the suffering person's life. For example, a patient with terminal cancer whose faith is deepened because of their ordeal. This raises the question, however, of why an all-knowing and all-loving God couldn't think of a less painful way to accomplish that particular goal. It also raises the question of why a person who already had faith has to endure more pain to have it "deepened".
# A less common rationalization is that a person who gets their leg shot off in a way chose to be on that battlefield of their own [[free will]] and, thus, God has no obligation to heal them. However, this ignores the millions born with missing limbs that were never healed. It's not that God ignores some amputees, it's that he ignores all amputees.
# Some might say that God does heal amputees by divinely inspiring doctors and scientists to cure them. This, however, is easily refuted by [[Occam's Razor]]. God's inspiration isn't necessary for doctors and scientists to find ways to cure amputees. And why did God feel the need to bypass this kind of helpful inspiration for thousands of years and reduce the suffering only in the modern age?
# Others say that God can't be tested since he's so much higher than us. This ignores the story of Gideon in the Old Testament and Thomas in the New Testament who both did exactly that and who received the proof that each had asked for.
# Some Christians say that Jesus never specified when he would answer prayers and that maybe he will answer them in the afterlife. This is unfair since God apparently answers so many other prayers during the believers' lifetimes. Also, the verses quoted above are unambiguous in the fact that they state that whatever you ask for you'll get during your life.
# Some might bring up the objection that these verses aren't to be taken literally. Firstly, the verses themselves are certainly written like they should be taken literally. Secondly, if this objection is used the believer must provide an objective reason why these verses are non-literal. If no reason can be provided then the verses should continue to be taken literally.
# {{bible|Matthew 21:21}} says that you must have faith and not doubt for your prayers to be answered. This offers a convenient loophole for unanswered prayers. If you pray and you satisfy every single stipulation and yet your prayer is never answered, Christians can always fall back on saying "You didn't believe enough" or "You doubted your faith". Since there is no empirical way to define how much belief is "enough", this becomes an [[ad hoc]] explanation which makes prayer [[unfalsifiable]]. It also undermines the fact that some theists will claim that they themselves or people they know of have become believers after being prayed for and where the result was some miraculous event.
# It's important to remember statistical probability when considering supposed miracles. For example, let's say there's a disease that has no cure and let's say 999,999,999 people so far have contracted it but none have survived. However, let's say the billionth person to contract it ''does'' survive. This isn't a miracle; it simply means that the odds of survival are now 1 out of 1,000,000,000.
# Finally, when all else fails a Christian might say "People have believed in Jesus for 2,000 years. There must be a good reason for it." This [[appeal to tradition]] is a non sequitur because it ignores the political and cultural forces that shape all societies and modes of belief throughout time and instead focuses on its own supposed inherent goodness. It also fails to account for all of the other competing beliefs that survived with it for equally long or longer periods of time like Islam and Judaism. Strangely, you don't hear Christians arguing that there must be good reasons for those religions' survival too!

==External links==

* [http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm Why Won't God Heal Amputees?]
* [http://www.valleyskeptic.com/george.htm George Carlin on Religion and Prayer] (full version)
* [http://godisimaginary.com/i44.htm Proof #44 - Think about a Christian housewife] from GodIsImaginary.com: "''Take one moment to think about a typical Christian and her "answered prayers."''"

[[Category:Religious rituals]]

Talk:The Case for Faith

2011-10-21T05:40:05Z

JesseW: add mention of relevant link

I don't know how to create a stub page here. When this page is created, an external link as follows might be added:
* [http://www.smijer.com/blog/archives/000909.html Case for Faith: Random Notes]

Another relevant link:
*[http://godisimaginary.com/i43.htm Proof #43 - Realize that a "hidden God" is impossible] from GodIsImaginary.com ; quotes ''The Case for Faith''. We should really have a page on the [[hidden God]] apologetic. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:40, 21 October 2011 (CDT)

User talk:JesseW

2011-10-21T05:35:00Z

JesseW: thanks anyway

Greta Christina

2011-10-08T20:53:40Z

JesseW: switch links, add mention of new blog location

'''Greta Christina''' is a professional author and blogger who writes on "[[Sex]], [[atheism]], politics, dreams, and whatever." She is best known for her blog post [http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2007/10/15/atheists-and-an/ Atheists and Anger] examining the "angry atheists" stereotype, and containing a thorough list of justifiable sources of anger for atheists. She now blogs at [[FreeThoughtBlogs]].

==External link==
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta Greta Christina's Blog]
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2008/06/11/site-map-2/ Site Map], a list of particularly good posts from 2008 and before.

[[Category:People|Christina, Greta]]
[[Category:Atheists|Christina, Greta]]

Shut up, that's why

2011-10-08T20:51:15Z

JesseW: update link to Greta's blog

{{stub}}
"'''Shut up, that's why'''" is the name given by author and blogger [[Greta Christina]] to a category of rhetorical tactics aimed not at countering atheists' arguments, but at stopping argument altogether. While some of them are [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]], others are not even structured well enough to qualify as logical fallacies.

==Rhetorical tactics==
Christina identifies several tactics that fall into this category:

* Why talk about about [[atheism]] when there are much bigger problems in the world?
* Religion is not in the same category as science and politics, and should not be expected to prove itself the same way (aka [[non-overlapping magisteria]]).
* Why do you care what other people believe?
* Religion is private. Why do we need to talk about this?
* Atheists act as though they're superior to everyone else.
* Atheists are whiny.
* I'm tired of hearing about atheism. Can't you give it a rest?
* Can't we just agree to disagree?

==External link==
* ''[http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2009/02/16/shut-up-thats-why/ Atheism and the "shut up, that's why" arguments]'' at Greta Christina's Blog

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]

Shut up, that's why

2011-10-08T20:49:54Z

JesseW: add link

{{stub}}
"'''Shut up, that's why'''" is the name given by author and blogger [[Greta Christina]] to a category of rhetorical tactics aimed not at countering atheists' arguments, but at stopping argument altogether. While some of them are [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]], others are not even structured well enough to qualify as logical fallacies.

==Rhetorical tactics==
Christina identifies several tactics that fall into this category:

* Why talk about about [[atheism]] when there are much bigger problems in the world?
* Religion is not in the same category as science and politics, and should not be expected to prove itself the same way (aka [[non-overlapping magisteria]]).
* Why do you care what other people believe?
* Religion is private. Why do we need to talk about this?
* Atheists act as though they're superior to everyone else.
* Atheists are whiny.
* I'm tired of hearing about atheism. Can't you give it a rest?
* Can't we just agree to disagree?

==External link==
* ''[http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/02/shut-up-thats-why.html Atheism and the "shut up, that's why" arguments]'' at Greta Christina's Blog

[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]

Satan

2011-10-02T05:59:20Z

JesseW: add web-cite copies of the various links

'''Satan''' (a.k.a. The Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub) is the personification of [[evil]]. Modern [[Christian]] mythology casts Satan as an [[angel]] who defied the will of [[God]]. He was cast out of heaven with his followers and was condemned to rule over [[hell]]. He is seen as “the father of lies”, the tempter of [[Adam and Eve]], the tormentor of mankind on earth, and the torturer of mankind in hell.

But this has not always been Satan’s lot. Before modern Christianity condemned him to hell, Satan had a very different mythology associated with him.

==Definitions of Satan==
{{Quote-source|Among those books of the Hebrew Scriptures written before 300 BCE, the term 'satan' (root word 's'tn') appears often. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb 'satan' which means 'to oppose.' The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was widely used in the early Christian church. They translated 'satan' as 'diaboloc' from which we derive our English term 'devil' and 'diabolic.'|[[Religious Tolerance]] web site}}

===Satan as an adversary===
There are several different definitions when the term 'satan' is used in early writtings. One is a person acting as an accuser or enemy. In {{bible|1 Samuel 29:4}}, the Philistines were distrustful of David, fearing that he would be a satan. (translated "adversary" or "someone who will turn against us"). In {{bible|2 Samuel 19:22}} Shime-i apologizes to King David. The King rejects the apology, saying that they should not be a satan to each other (translated "adversary" or "opponent"). In {{bible|1 Kings 5:4}}, King Solomon is talking to Hiram, the King of Tyre. He says that now that there is neither satan nor bad luck to stop him, he can build the Temple. (translated as "adversary", "enemy", or "one who opposes"). And in {{bible|1 Kings 11:14}}, God raised up Hadad the Edomite as a satan against Solomon. (translated as "adversary," or "opponent").

===Satan as a divine messenger===
Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a divine messenger sent by [[God]] as an adversary. In the story of Balaam in {{bible|Numbers 22}}, God appears in a dream, and tells Balaam to go with the princes of Moab to meet Balak. But when Balaam sets out the next morning on his donkey, God is angry with him for his attempt to evade God's wishes, and he sends an angel/messenger to kill Balaam. The donkey sees the angel and takes evasive actions, but the angel is invisible to Balaam, who beats the animal. The donkey asks Balaam why he had beat her three times and Balaam (who doesn't seem to realize that a [[talking donkey]] is particularly odd) replies that the donkey has mocked him. The angel then appears and explains that he has come as a satan to kill him. (translated as "one who opposes, "withstand," "adversary")

===Satan as a divine councilor===
Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a member of God's council, sort of a chief prosecutor. In {{bible|1 Chronicles 21:1}}, Satan, "a supernatural evil emissary," acting on God's behalf, influences David to hold a census. The census is taken, but God becomes angry for reasons not given in the writings. God then offers David his choice of one of three punishments: a three year famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies' armies, or a plague throughout Israel. David selects the plague and God kills 70 thousand men. There is no mention of the number of women or children, or even if the 70 thousand includes women and children. In {{bible|2 Samuel 24}}, the identical event is described. However, this time, the text states that God influences David to hold the census, yet still becomes angry that it was done and punishes the Israelites with a plague. Some scholars consider the writings in 2 Samuel to be the original account. It is believed that when Samuel was finally edited (circa 560 BCE), the editors thought that all supernatural actions (good and bad) came from God. When Chronicles was written over a century later (circa 400 BCE), the author viewed God as operating indirectly through his helpers.

In {{bible|Job 1-2}}, Satan is clearly described as one of the members of the court of heaven. Here, Satan is portrayed as a servant of God whose task it is to dutifully carry out evil deeds at God's instruction. And in {{bible|Zechariah 3:1-7}}, Satan is again portrayed as a member of God's council, where he objects to the selection of Joshua as the high priest.

==The transformation of Satan==

The Protestant Christian Bible closes the Hebrew Scriptures with the book of Malachi, written circa 397 BCE. The Catholic Bible continues with seven other books called the Apocrypha. They both pick up the story again at the birth of [[Jesus]]. This gap of several centuries is commonly called the "intertestamental period." By the end of the "intertestamental period" Satan had taken his place as the ruler of hell and the enemy of God and all mankind.

So what happened between 300 BCE and 33 CE to alter the previous theological ideas?

During the last three centuries before Christ's birth, the portrayal of Satan in Judaism changes. From the middle of the 5th century BCE until 53 BC and even later, the Jews picked up a number of concepts from the official religion of Babylon called Zoroastorism: specifically, the concept of angels, of Satan (Angra Manyu aka Ahriman, the God of Evil) and of the immortality of the [[soul]]. Of the three main divisions of Judaism (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees) in the 1st century BCE, the Essenes seems to have focused the most on Satan. The Zoroastrian/Persian dualism concept appears in Jewish writing: God, formerly the source of good and evil, becomes wholly good; and Satan as profoundly evil. History is suddenly viewed as a battle between them. No longer was Satan simply God's prosecuting attorney, helper, or lackey. Satan, and his demons, suddenly become humanity's greatest enemies.

In the Apocryphal texts, the Book of Tobias mentions the demon Asmodeus and the angel Raphael, betraying the Persian influence. In the Book of Enoch, the word “Satan” occurs in both singular and plural forms and, in Ecclesiasticus, he is identified with the subtle serpent of Genesis. Finally, the Book of Secrets of Enoch describes his rebellion against God and consequent expulsion from heaven. Note that none of these texts are part of the officially recognized Hebrew Scriptures. They are very late additions to Hebrew theology, with dates of writing ranging from 200 BCE to about 100 CE. Ironically, one of the reasons that the Protestants use for their rejection of these texts within the bible is that neither Jesus nor his followers quotes directly from them, yet the entire context of an all-evil opponent of God who falls from service and resides over Hell is taken from these late period stories.

Clearly, Jesus and his followers were familiar with these texts in the early part of the first century C.E. Mythology had completed Satan's transformation from the loyal servant of God to his most significant adversary.

Some modern Christians have rejected the idea of Satan, while some others have taken the Satan concept to the extremes of their imaginations, blaming him for everything from rock and roll music to [[homosexuality]].

==External links==
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/ Zoroastrian Scriptures ]
* [http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor7.htm Influence of Zoroastrianism on other religions] ([http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sullivan-county.com%2Fz%2Fzor7.htm&date=2011-10-02 WebCite copy])
* [http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch04.htm The Hebrews to 1000 BCE]
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm About Satan / Early history: 300 BCE to 100 CE] from ReligiousTolerance.org, ([http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fchr_sat2.htm&date=2011-10-01 WebCite copy])
* [http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/09/28/gospel-disproof-6-satan/#comment-2846 A comment by abadidea on a post at Alethian Worldview], listing and providing glosses for all the (few) mentions of Satan in the Bible

[[Category:Religious mythology]]
[[Category:Characters in the Bible]]

Satan

2011-10-02T02:18:25Z

JesseW: add a link to a list of the few mentions of Satan in the Bible

'''Satan''' (a.k.a. The Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub) is the personification of [[evil]]. Modern [[Christian]] mythology casts Satan as an [[angel]] who defied the will of [[God]]. He was cast out of heaven with his followers and was condemned to rule over [[hell]]. He is seen as “the father of lies”, the tempter of [[Adam and Eve]], the tormentor of mankind on earth, and the torturer of mankind in hell.

But this has not always been Satan’s lot. Before modern Christianity condemned him to hell, Satan had a very different mythology associated with him.

==Definitions of Satan==
{{Quote-source|Among those books of the Hebrew Scriptures written before 300 BCE, the term 'satan' (root word 's'tn') appears often. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb 'satan' which means 'to oppose.' The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was widely used in the early Christian church. They translated 'satan' as 'diaboloc' from which we derive our English term 'devil' and 'diabolic.'|[[Religious Tolerance]] web site}}

===Satan as an adversary===
There are several different definitions when the term 'satan' is used in early writtings. One is a person acting as an accuser or enemy. In {{bible|1 Samuel 29:4}}, the Philistines were distrustful of David, fearing that he would be a satan. (translated "adversary" or "someone who will turn against us"). In {{bible|2 Samuel 19:22}} Shime-i apologizes to King David. The King rejects the apology, saying that they should not be a satan to each other (translated "adversary" or "opponent"). In {{bible|1 Kings 5:4}}, King Solomon is talking to Hiram, the King of Tyre. He says that now that there is neither satan nor bad luck to stop him, he can build the Temple. (translated as "adversary", "enemy", or "one who opposes"). And in {{bible|1 Kings 11:14}}, God raised up Hadad the Edomite as a satan against Solomon. (translated as "adversary," or "opponent").

===Satan as a divine messenger===
Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a divine messenger sent by [[God]] as an adversary. In the story of Balaam in {{bible|Numbers 22}}, God appears in a dream, and tells Balaam to go with the princes of Moab to meet Balak. But when Balaam sets out the next morning on his donkey, God is angry with him for his attempt to evade God's wishes, and he sends an angel/messenger to kill Balaam. The donkey sees the angel and takes evasive actions, but the angel is invisible to Balaam, who beats the animal. The donkey asks Balaam why he had beat her three times and Balaam (who doesn't seem to realize that a [[talking donkey]] is particularly odd) replies that the donkey has mocked him. The angel then appears and explains that he has come as a satan to kill him. (translated as "one who opposes, "withstand," "adversary")

===Satan as a divine councilor===
Another use of the Hebrew term translates as a member of God's council, sort of a chief prosecutor. In {{bible|1 Chronicles 21:1}}, Satan, "a supernatural evil emissary," acting on God's behalf, influences David to hold a census. The census is taken, but God becomes angry for reasons not given in the writings. God then offers David his choice of one of three punishments: a three year famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies' armies, or a plague throughout Israel. David selects the plague and God kills 70 thousand men. There is no mention of the number of women or children, or even if the 70 thousand includes women and children. In {{bible|2 Samuel 24}}, the identical event is described. However, this time, the text states that God influences David to hold the census, yet still becomes angry that it was done and punishes the Israelites with a plague. Some scholars consider the writings in 2 Samuel to be the original account. It is believed that when Samuel was finally edited (circa 560 BCE), the editors thought that all supernatural actions (good and bad) came from God. When Chronicles was written over a century later (circa 400 BCE), the author viewed God as operating indirectly through his helpers.

In {{bible|Job 1-2}}, Satan is clearly described as one of the members of the court of heaven. Here, Satan is portrayed as a servant of God whose task it is to dutifully carry out evil deeds at God's instruction. And in {{bible|Zechariah 3:1-7}}, Satan is again portrayed as a member of God's council, where he objects to the selection of Joshua as the high priest.

==The transformation of Satan==

The Protestant Christian Bible closes the Hebrew Scriptures with the book of Malachi, written circa 397 BCE. The Catholic Bible continues with seven other books called the Apocrypha. They both pick up the story again at the birth of [[Jesus]]. This gap of several centuries is commonly called the "intertestamental period." By the end of the "intertestamental period" Satan had taken his place as the ruler of hell and the enemy of God and all mankind.

So what happened between 300 BCE and 33 CE to alter the previous theological ideas?

During the last three centuries before Christ's birth, the portrayal of Satan in Judaism changes. From the middle of the 5th century BCE until 53 BC and even later, the Jews picked up a number of concepts from the official religion of Babylon called Zoroastorism: specifically, the concept of angels, of Satan (Angra Manyu aka Ahriman, the God of Evil) and of the immortality of the [[soul]]. Of the three main divisions of Judaism (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees) in the 1st century BCE, the Essenes seems to have focused the most on Satan. The Zoroastrian/Persian dualism concept appears in Jewish writing: God, formerly the source of good and evil, becomes wholly good; and Satan as profoundly evil. History is suddenly viewed as a battle between them. No longer was Satan simply God's prosecuting attorney, helper, or lackey. Satan, and his demons, suddenly become humanity's greatest enemies.

In the Apocryphal texts, the Book of Tobias mentions the demon Asmodeus and the angel Raphael, betraying the Persian influence. In the Book of Enoch, the word “Satan” occurs in both singular and plural forms and, in Ecclesiasticus, he is identified with the subtle serpent of Genesis. Finally, the Book of Secrets of Enoch describes his rebellion against God and consequent expulsion from heaven. Note that none of these texts are part of the officially recognized Hebrew Scriptures. They are very late additions to Hebrew theology, with dates of writing ranging from 200 BCE to about 100 CE. Ironically, one of the reasons that the Protestants use for their rejection of these texts within the bible is that neither Jesus nor his followers quotes directly from them, yet the entire context of an all-evil opponent of God who falls from service and resides over Hell is taken from these late period stories.

Clearly, Jesus and his followers were familiar with these texts in the early part of the first century C.E. Mythology had completed Satan's transformation from the loyal servant of God to his most significant adversary.

Some modern Christians have rejected the idea of Satan, while some others have taken the Satan concept to the extremes of their imaginations, blaming him for everything from rock and roll music to [[homosexuality]].

==External links==
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/ Zoroastrian Scriptures ]
* [http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor7.htm Influence of Zoroastrianism on other religions]
* [http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch04.htm The Hebrews to 1000 BCE]
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm A History of Satan]
* [http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/09/28/gospel-disproof-6-satan/#comment-2846 A comment by abadidea on a post at Alethian Worldview], listing and providing glosses for all the (few) mentions of Satan in the Bible

[[Category:Religious mythology]]
[[Category:Characters in the Bible]]

Atheist Community of Austin

2011-09-02T07:02:43Z

JesseW: refresh

Atheist Community of Austin

2011-09-02T06:48:34Z

JesseW:

American Atheists

2011-09-02T06:47:50Z

JesseW: recat

'''American Atheists''' is a national group dedicated to working for the [[civil right]]s of [[atheist]]s, promoting [[separation of state and church]], and providing information about atheism.

The organization was founded by [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], the noted atheist activist, as the result of her successful battle against mandatory [[school prayer]] and [[bible]] recitation.

==External link==

* [http://www.atheists.org/visitors.center/about.html American Atheists official website]

[[Category:Atheist groups in the United States]]

Atheist group

2011-09-02T06:46:52Z

JesseW:

#REDIRECT [[:Category:Atheist groups]]

Atheist group

2011-09-02T06:46:44Z

JesseW:

#REDIRECT [[Category:Atheist groups]]

Black Atheists of America

2011-09-02T06:46:21Z

JesseW: add a page for this group I just heard about

'''Black Atheists of America''' is a [[atheist group]] "dedicated to bridging the gap between atheism and the black community." They are headquartered in Garden City, New York. They have made a number of online videos, and are working on starting up programs to support science education and after-school programs to teach critical thinking.

==External links==
* [http://www.blackatheistsofamerica.org/ Homepage]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/BlackAtheistsAmerica YouTube channel]
* [https://www.facebook.com/BlackAtheistsofAmerica Facebook page]

[[Category:Atheist groups in the United States]]

Proselytizing

2011-09-02T02:08:15Z

JesseW: add 4 links converting atheist guides -- seems relevant to the page

{{wikipedia|Proselytism}}
{{wiktionary|proselytize}}
'''Proselytizing''' is the practice of attempting to persuade someone to join a group or adopt a belief. It is used primarily to refer to [[evangelism]], but "deconversion" attempts and nonreligious persuasion (to a political party, say) also fit the definition.

== Prominent proselytes ==

Most [[Christian]] groups do [[missionary]] work, which generally includes proselytism. Groups particularly noted for proselytizing include:
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* The [[Roman Catholic]] Church
* [[Mormonism|Mormons]]
* Born-again Christians
* [[Jews for Jesus]]
* [[Southern Baptist]] Convention
* The Church of [[Scientology]] (through "personality tests")

== Legality ==

The [[First Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]] guarantees both [[freedom of speech]] and [[freedom of religion]]. Proselytism is legal under both of these provisions, but only to the extent that the potential convert's rights are not infringed upon.

== Guides to converting atheists ==
Various atheists have written descriptions of what it would take to convince them to believe in god(s). Religious groups also have created such guides.

From an Atheist perspective:
* [http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html Ebon Musings: The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists]
* [http://blog.barrypearson.co.uk/?p=255 Barry's blog: How to convert an atheist]
* [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2090 Common Sense Atheism: How to Convert Atheists]

From a Christian perspective:
* http://www.wikihow.com/Persuade-an-Atheist-to-Become-Christian

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Society]]
[[Category:Law]]

Ardent Atheist

2011-07-22T06:15:58Z

JesseW:

'''Ardent Atheist''' is a radio show on New Dissident Radio every Wednesday from 7 to 8 PM (PST). It's hosted by Emery Emery and Heather Henderson. It's an interview show, with past guests ranging from Moon Zappa (Frank Zappa's daughter) to [[PZ Myers]]. The first show was in February 2011. The shows are also available for download as podcasts.

==External links==
* http://newdissidentradio.com/ardent_atheist.html
* http://www.ArdentAtheist.com
* http://www.twitter.com/ardentatheists
* http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ardent-Atheist/188767997824840

{{Atheist shows}}

Ardent Atheist

2011-07-22T06:15:39Z

JesseW: a live radio show about atheism

Template:Atheist shows

2011-07-22T06:09:55Z

JesseW: add Ardent Atheist

{{Navbox|name = Atheist shows
|titlestyle = background:#C6C6C6;
|title=[[:Category:Atheist shows|Atheist shows]]
|groupstyle = background:#E7E7E7;

|group1=Live TV shows
|list1=[[The Atheist Experience]]

|group2=Video bloggers
|list2=

|group3=Live radio shows
|list3=[[Ask an Atheist]]{{,}} [[Ardent Atheist]]

|group4=Podcasts
|list4=[[American Freethought]]{{,}} [[The Infidel Guy]]{{,}} [[Point of Inquiry]]{{,}} [[The Non-Prophets]]{{,}} [[Hellbound Alleee]]{{,}} [[Eight Hour Lunch]]{{,}} [[Dogma Free America]] [[Chariots of Iron (podcast)]]
}}

User talk:Sunny256

2011-06-12T22:50:28Z

JesseW: do it

Welcome! It's always nice to have another Wikipedian around the place. What sort things are you thinking of helping with on Iron Chariots? I've been mainly trying to add links to various New Atheist blog entries (especially [[Greta Christina]]'s Blog) on relevant pages -- I'd be delighted with further help; or there's lots of other things to do. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:34, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
:Hah, just noticed that you've been here for years longer than I have. Guess you know better than I do what you want to be doing. Sorry for the confusion. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:35, 3 June 2011 (CDT)
::Thanks for the welcome! Good thing. :) Well, yes, I've been searching around for things to do here, this wiki is a very good source to have. Have been thinking of fixing up the categories and other things like that, but wanted to ask somewhere first if that's OK. Maybe I should just start and see how it turns out. [[wikipedia:WP:BOLD|WP:BOLD]], as they say in Wikipediaspeak. See you around! [[User:Sunny256|Sunny256]] 05:53, 12 June 2011 (CDT)
:Do it. Now there are two of us who think it's a good idea. ;-) [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 17:50, 12 June 2011 (CDT)

Atheist groups

2011-06-10T20:23:50Z

JesseW:

#REDIRECT [[:Category:Atheist groups]]

Category:Atheist shows

2011-06-07T06:51:31Z

JesseW: {{Atheist shows}

TV, radio and internet shows promoting an [[atheist]] point of view.

{{Atheist shows}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Television and radio shows]]

Dogma Free America

2011-06-07T06:51:09Z

JesseW:

'''Dogma Free America''' is an internet [[podcast]] series that premiered on December 10, 2006.[http://dogmafreeamerica.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=159824] The podcast features interviews with [[atheist]]s and [[freethinker]]s from around the world.

On November 22, 2007, it was [http://dogmafreeamerica.libsyn.com/episode-50-dogma-free-america announced] that the show would be ending with its 51st podcast. However, as of [http://dogmafreeamerica.libsyn.com/2008/04 April 2008], the podcast resumed and has aired on a roughly biweekly schedule.

==External links==
* [http://dogmafreeamerica.libsyn.com/ Dogma Free America] website

{{Atheist shows}}

[[Category:Atheist shows]]

Chariots of Iron (podcast)

2011-06-07T06:51:02Z

JesseW:

''This page is about the podcast. For information about the [[Bible|Biblical]] phrase, see [[Chariots of iron]].''

'''Chariots of Iron''' is "a bi-weekly podcast featuring news and topical discussions on atheism, humanism, skepticism, science, religious history, scriptural criticism and (of course) wacky religious antics."

==External links==
* [http://www.chariotsofiron.com/ Official site]
* [http://atheistnexus.org/group/chariotsofiron Chariots of Iron] page on [[Atheist Nexus]]

{{Atheist shows}}

[[Category:Atheist shows]]

American Freethought

2011-06-07T06:50:53Z

JesseW:

'''American Freethought''' is a (roughly) weekly [[podcast]] aimed at "[[freethinker]]s of every stripe: [[atheist]]s, [[agnostic]]s, [[skeptic]]s, [[secular humanist]]s, [[bright]]s, [[rational]]ists, or whatever else you wish to call yourselves."

==External link==
* [http://www.americanfreethought.com/ Official website]

{{Atheist shows}}
[[Category:Atheist shows]]

Ask an Atheist

2011-06-07T06:50:45Z

JesseW:

[[Image:AskanAtheist.jpg|160px|thumb|Mike Gillis (left) and Sam Mulvey on ''Ask an Atheist'', episode 4, "Why Do Atheists Have a Show?".]]
'''Ask an Atheist''' is a live call-in radio show based in Tacoma, Washington, dedicated to "atheism, skeptical inquiry, and issues of separation of church and state." It airs on Sundays from 3:00pm - 4:00pm PST. Inspired by [[the Atheist Experience]], the program was created by Mike Gillis, Casey Doran, Sam Mulvey and Jeremy Whitman. It is a production of NEDM Media and produced by Mike Gillis, Sam Mulvey, Jeremy Whitman and Beth Lehman.

The program debuted as a televison show on [http://www.scantv.org/ SCAN Community Media] [[public access]] in Seattle on June 6, 2010. Past episodes are archived on the show's official website and on YouTube.

In January of 2011, the program was relaunched as a radio show on [http://www.klay1180am.com/ KLAY 1180 AM], a local owned station based in Lakewood, WA.

==Format of the show==

Ask an Atheist is hosted each week by one of a rotation of Hosts, who acts as master of ceremonies for the program, along with a Topic Host who has prepared a specific topic for the episode, and a Color Commentator to keep things lively. The rotating lineup of Hosts currently includes Mike Gillis, Casey Doran, Libbie Mistretta, Paul Case, Sam Mulvey, and Rich Lyons.

After a series of listener emails and a commercial break, the Co-Host will speak on their topic for the duration of the program, allowing for calls from viewers. The calls need not stick to that show's topic, allowing the discussion to touch on any question or challenge the caller may have about atheism or skepticism.
Recent official topics have included "[[Conspiracy theories|Conspiracy Theories]]", "[[Biblical contradictions|Biblical Contradictions]]" and "[[Epistemology]]."

The show is concluded with a segment called "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," a look at three news stories relating to religion, skepticism and belief. The first is something positive, the second negative, and the third, simply unusual.

== External link ==
* ''[http://askanatheist.tv/ Ask an Atheist]'' official site

{{Atheist shows}}
[[Category:Atheist shows]]