Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Ray Comfort

2008-02-17T04:15:30Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Counter Responses */ Removing RR's preaching

[[Image:Ray_Comfort.jpg|thumb|Ray Comfort]]

'''Ray Comfort''' is a New Zealand [[Christian]] [[apologist]] who co-hosts ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' radio show.

==Favorite arguments==

Ray Comfort has appeared on many a [[Freethinker|freethinking]] radio show. Some arguments come up time and time again.

===The Watchmaker Argument===

He will usually say something along the lines of "If I see a watch, it must have been made by a watchmaker, a loaf of bread by a baker, a building by an engineer, a creation by a creator."

This is the [[argument from design]].

===The Banana Argument===

Until recently, the [[banana argument]] was, according to Comfort, "the Atheist's Worst Nightmare". However, he conceded the argument on the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show.

===[[Are you a good person?]]===

This argument uses the [[appeal to emotion]]. He asks the atheist or unbeliever a set of questions.

*Have you ever told a lie?
**Well yes, everybody at some point...
***What are you called if you tell a lie?
****A liar.
* Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
**A little thing when I was young.
***What do you call a person who steals?
****A thief.
* Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
** Well, yeah.
* Have you ever used God's name in vain?
** Yes.
***You've taken the name of the God who gave you life in as a cuss word and that's called blasphemy.
*So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer. Would you be innocent or guilty in the day of judgment, if God judged you by the 10 commandments?
**Would you go to heaven or hell?

*If you were flying on a plane and knew it was going to crash and you had a parachute under your seat? What would you do?
**Put it on.
***You wouldn't just believe in it, you'd put it on.
****Jesus is that parachute.

==Counter Responses==
* Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you? ( has a murderer ever had days he didn't kill? He is still a murderer)
* What do you call a person who lies? A preacher.
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made.
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most systems of government were guilty until proven innocent. One would after an accusation was made be asked to prove his or her innocence or else punished for the act. If a person could prove their innocence their accuser would be guilty of false witness and typically put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one than today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than lying.
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
* Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?". Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank. Asked for justification of the claim that stealing a stick of gum when you were two is equal to robbing a bank, Comfort offers that because the crime is against in infinite God it demands an infinite punishment. Comfort's God is not only unjust, he also blames the victims and accords punishments depending on the victim rather than crimes.

[[Category:Christian apologists|Comfort, Ray]]

User:LtCmd.Lore

2007-08-12T00:12:58Z

LtCmd.Lore: Update

I am a male atheist, born in 1989. I was raised in the Jehovahs Witness religion. (Which could very well be considered a cult.)

I would consider myself a stong atheist in regard to the Bible god, and most other gods I'm familiar with. And of course a weak atheist in regard to all those other gods.
==Favorite counter-apologetic methods==
I like to be armed with short and to-the-point logical statements against the existence of god. Just enough to make them think, but obvious enough to avoid a full-fledged arguement.

I also like to use flaws in their beliefs about the Bible, like pointing out errors, inhumane laws, doctrinal differences, and scientific impossiblities.
Because if they are not willing to change their mind about things in their own bible, then there's very little point in discussing anything else with them.
==Interests==
I'm a computer geek. I know HTML, Javascript, C++. (and binary just for the fun of it)
I'm currently learning Perl. All of which are easier than English.
I like video games, mostly Nintendo and Sony. Specifically adventure and strategy games, like Pikmin, Mario, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy etc.
I also like driving, whether it's a car, ATV, boat, whatever.

I have also recently become interested in 3D modelling, I'm new at it though.

I'd like a career in video game design.

Angel

2007-08-09T01:17:36Z

LtCmd.Lore: New

{{stub}}
In [[Christian]] mythology, a '''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]]

Prophecy

2007-08-04T23:49:32Z

LtCmd.Lore: Prophetic books, additional qualifier.

{{religion-stub}}
A [[prophecy]] is a religious prediction, often imparted by a [[deity|god]] and recorded in a holy scripture.

==Prophecy in the Bible==
The [[Bible]] contains several books of prophecy. The most recognized of which are [[Isaiah]], [[Daniel]], [[Jeremiah]], [[Ezekiel]], and [[Revelation]]. Along with the many [[Minor Prophets]].

==Prophecy as an argument for God==
[[Theist]]s often claim the fulfillment of prophecies as evidence for the existence of [[God]]. Such a claim, if substantiated, would indeed constitute evidence for the existence of something extraordinary, and possibly [[supernatural]]. However, a valid prophecy must meet several criteria:
* It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
* It must be written before the events that it predicts.
* The predicted events must actually occur.
* It must not be overly vague.
* It must not predict a likely event.
* It must not be self-fulfilling.

==See also==
*[[Jesus fulfilled prophecy]]
*[[Messianic prophecy]]

[[Category: Religion]]

Here, Kitty Kitty! (Chick tract)

2007-08-01T06:06:54Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Commentary */

[[Image:herekittykitty_page22.gif|frame|Shame on you kids for practicing animal sacrifice! Don't you know that magic, like God, is just superstition?]]

'''Here, Kitty Kitty!''' is a [[Chick tract]] whose description is "Bad boys had mean plans for Betsy's kitty. Will help come in time? A great [[salvation]] story for children."

==Synopsis==

In this adorable 2006 [[Halloween]]-themed cartoon with Peanuts-inspired artwork, some adorable little kids decide to engage in some adorable ritualistic sacrifice.

Little Betsy's mean brother decides that he and his friends need to kill her cat so that they can cast a spell on the kindly [[Christian]] teacher, Miss Johnson. When Miss Johnson catches Betsy crying over her cat's impending doom, Betsy explains the whole sordid plot. Miss Johnson scoffs:

:* Miss Johnson: "But spells won't work on me, Betsy."
:* Betsy: "Why '''''not?'''''"
:* Miss Johnson: "Because [[Jesus]] protects me!"

She then seizes the opportunity to witness the good news about Jesus to Betsy, in adorable cartoon format.

Betsy is saved, but she's afraid that her cat may be lost already when she finds an empty cage and is confronted by her brother and his scheming friends. Luckily, Miss Johnson shows up in the nick of time and lets the boys off with a stern warning: "You don't have to do spells to get good grades... Don't do [[witchcraft]]... Do your '''''HOMEWORK'''''!"

==Commentary==

Bashing Halloween is an annual activity for [[Jack Chick]], perhaps because he hopes that homeowners will hand out tracts instead of candy to the mobs of grateful children. Halloween entries from other years include ''[[Boo! (Chick tract)|Boo!]]'', ''[[Happy Halloween (Chick tract)|Happy Halloween]]'', ''[[The Little Princess (Chick tract)|The Little Princess]]'', ''[[The Devil's Night (Chick tract)|The Devil's Night]]'', and ''[[The Trick(Chick tract)|The Trick]]''.

The really interesting point here is not the fairly mundane "Let me tell you about Jesus" story, which is becoming almost identical in every single tract. Rather, the thing to notice is how seriously Chick takes the whole mythos of [[magic]], witchcraft, and ritual sacrifice.

The teacher says, "Spells won't work on me... because Jesus protects me!" Spells won't work on the teacher ''anyway'', with or without the protection of Jesus, because magic is not real. However, it is a frequently repeated theme in Chick tracts that not only are Jesus, [[heaven]], and [[hell]] real, but so are witches and magic. To Chick and his ilk, accepting one set of superstitious beliefs seems to require accepting a bundle of other beliefs for which there is no [[evidence]]. But just ask anyone who believes in these things to prove it, and they'll be the first to explain that skeptics have a similar immunity to spells and the uccult: "Spells won't work on me, Betsy... because I'm a skeptic."

==External Links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1032/1032_01.asp Full tract]

{{jackchick}}

[[Category: Apologetic literature]]

Dark Dungeons (Chick tract)

2007-08-01T05:57:31Z

LtCmd.Lore:

[[Image:Darkdungeons page4.gif|frame|A scene from ''Dark Dungeons'']]

'''''Dark Dungeons''''' is a [[Chick tract]] whose description is "Debbie thought playing Dungeons and Dragons was fun... until it destroyed her friend."

==Synopsis==

Some very classic-looking 80's kids play [[Dungeons & Dragons]], and get caught in a crazy alternate universe of Jack Chick's imagination.

==Tract Walkthrough==

===A friendly game===
(Panel 1)
:* Ms. Frost: "Okay, Wizard, cast your spell!"
:* Marcie: "Okay, Dungeon Master. My spell of light blinds the monster."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=<nerdy>Um, isn't the dungeon master supposed to tell YOU whether your spell blinds the monster? :)</nerdy>}}

(Panel 2)
:* Frost: "The thief, Black Leaf, did not find the poison trap, and I declare her dead."
:* Marcie: "'''''NO,'' NOT BLACK LEAF! NO, ''NO!'' I'M GOING TO DIE! Please don't make me quit the game! Somebody save me! You can't do this!'''"
:* Frost: "Marcie, get out of here. '''YOU'RE DEAD!''' You don't exist any more."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Far be it from this editor to judge the depths of emotion that serious role-playing gamers experience, but has anyone ever seen a reaction like this in real life? It takes about ten minutes to roll a new character, right?

As this event foreshadows the suicide of Marcie, no doubt it is at least partly based on such incidents as the suicide of [[Patricia Pulling]]'s son Bink. However, the idea that Bink's suicide had anything to do with his character was never established. There is no clear [[evidence]] that anyone has ever become suicidally depressed over a lost character. However, this is fiction, so it's not all that important.}}

===The game turns real!===
(Panel 3)

:* Frost: "Debbie, your cleric has been raised to the 8th level. I think it's time that you learn how to '''''really''''' cast spells."
:* Debbie: "You mean you're going to teach me how to have '''''the real power?'''''"
:* Frost: "Yes, you have the personality for it now."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is where we get to the really wacky ideas that fundamentalists have about what Dungeons & Dragons is about. They apparently really believe that it is a gateway into real life occult activities. The lesson here is that if people are willing to turn off their [[critical thinking]] abilities and believe in one kind of supernatural entity without evidence, they are likely to accept a whole host of similar ideas for no good reason.

How does [[Jack Chick]] think that this initiation works, exactly? Is it only wizards who obtain "real powers" when they hit level 8? What if Marcie (the thief) had reached level 8 instead of getting killed? Would she have learned how to pick locks and hide in shadows? What if a fighter reaches level 8? Do they get a free suit of plate mail?

Although D&D deals with a world of fantasy and magic, many roleplaying games have entirely different themes. What happens to a player who reaches a high level in a superhero themed game? Do they immediately learn how to fly and burn things with their eyes? What about science-fiction characters? Are they issued futuristic laser guns? Do they get to captain their own starships?}}

(Panel 4)

:* Narration: '''''THE INTENSE OCCULT TRAINING THROUGH D&D PREPARED DEBBIE TO ACCEPT THE INVITATION TO ENTER A WITCHES' COVEN.
:* Frost: "I've brought Elfstar to become a priestess and a witch."
:* Cult member: "Welcome, Elfstar. You're now a priestess of the craft, and of the Temple of Diana."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Debbie has just been accepted into what bears an remarkable resemblance to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_XIII#Members Organization XIII]. One would think it would a bit more difficult than that to learn magic. Playing a board game isn't what I would call "intense training."

Jack Chick is not the only fundamentalist who seems to think that you can get in touch with the paranormal through such simple means. Sure it's just a board game, but so is a [[ouija board]], and many people think that one of those mass produced pieces of cardboard with the alphabet on it can allow you to contact souls from another world.

They don't allow their children to watch Harry Potter or play The Legend of Zelda for fear of their children getting possessed or becoming a sorcerer. These beliefs are [http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/harrypotterarticle.htm surpisingly common] among theists.}}

(Panel 5)

:* Debbie: "Ms. Frost, this is fantastic... This makes the game '''''real'''''... It's not a fantasy anymore. Last night I cast my '''''first''''' spell... This is '''''real''''' power!"
:* Frost: "I knew you were ready by the way you played the game... but this is just the beginning. There is so much more."

(Panel 6)

:* Frost: "Which spell did you cast, Debbie?"
:* Debbie: "I used the mind bondage spell on my father. He was trying to stop me from playing D&D."

(Panel 7)

:* Frost: "What was the result?"
:* Debbie: "He just bought me $200.00 worth of new D&D figures and manuals. '''''It was great!'''''"

===Debbie and Marcie===

(Panel 8)

:* Later That Week
:* Frost: "Hey Debbie! Marcie's on the phone. She wants to talk to you. She's really upset."
:* Debbie: "I can't. I'm fighting the Zombie. Tell her I'll see her tonight."

(Panel 9)

:* Debbie: "Hi, Mrs. Anderson. Marcie wanted me to see her tonight."
:* Mrs. Anderson: "I'm glad you're here, Debbie. Marcie has shut herself in her room and won't come out. She hasn't been herself for weeks. I've been very worried. Ever since her character in the game got killed, it's as though a part of her died. Maybe you can talk some sense into her."

(Panel 10)

:* Debbie: "Nooooo! No, Marcie, you didn't ''have'' to do that!"

(Panel 11)

:* Marcie's suicide note reads: "It's my fault Black Leaf died. I just can't face life alone! Marcie"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The connection between role-playing games and suicide is an urban myth - reputable sources have examined the claims, and found no basis for them. For more on the subject, visit [http://www.theescapist.com/basic_gaming_faq.htm#reputation The Escapist].}}

(Panel 12)

:* Debbie: "Miss Frost, I can't get Marcie out of my mind. How could she do something like this? If I'd left the game, she'd be alive today."
:* Miss Frost: "Get your priorities straight, Debbie. Your spiritual growth through the game is more important than some lousy loser's life."

(Panel 13)

:* Miss Frost: "It would have happened sooner or later. Her character was too weak."
:* Debbie: "But the law of our faith is that we can do whatever we want as long as we harm no one. But now we have harmed Marcie."
:* Debbie thinks to herself: "What have I gotten myself into?"

(Panel 14)

:* Miss Frost appears to grab Debbie roughly. "'''Don't be stupid, Debbie.''' I think you'd better let Elfstar take care of things. You're getting out of control."
:* Debbie: "'''I don't want to be Elfstar any more.''' I want to be Debbie."

===Debbie Finds Help===

(Panel 15)

:* Mike: "Hey Debbie, what's wrong? Can I help?"
:* Debbie: "I thought I had all the answers, Mike, but now everything is falling apart. ''Sob''"
:* Mike: "Debbie, I told you Jesus is the only answer. I've been praying and fasting for you."
:* Debbie: "Why would you do that for me?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[[Fasting]]?! Not only is that a very unhealthy and dangerous practice, it's also very ineffective. She didn't even know about it until he told her. The act of walking up and saying: "'Hey Debbie, what's wrong?'" Had a much greater effect then all of his praying and fasting combined.}}

(Panel 16)

:* Mike: "Because I know what you're involved in. It's a spiritual warfare that you can't win without the Lord Jesus."
:* Debbie: "What can I do?"
:* Mike: "Come with me to a meeting this afternoon. The speaker came out of witchcraft, and he knows what you're up against."

(Panel 17)
:* Narration: THAT AFTERNOON
:* Speaker: "You who are involved in the occult think that you have achieved power. But you have been trapped in a dungeon of bondage. The limited power you have been given is only bait to lure you to destruction. But Jesus came that you might have life and that more abundantly."

(Panel 18)
:* Speaker: "Jesus sets us free from the bondage of witchcraft and gives us victory over all the power of the enemy (Satan).* God's Word declares that you must '''''repent''''' of your sins and turn to Jesus Christ as your Saviour. (Luke 13:5). Then according to Acts 19:19 you should gather up all of your occult paraphernalia like your rock music, occult books, charms, Dungeons and Dragons material. Don't throw them away. '''''Burn them!''''' We'll do that here tonight. We will also be praying for the deliverance of those who have allowed occult forces to control them.
:* (footnote: * 1 John 4:4 and John 8:36)

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Scripture quoted in this panel:

{{bible|1 John 4:4}}: Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

{{bible|John 8:36}}: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

{{bible|Luke 13:5}}: I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

{{bible|Acts 19:19}}: Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.}}

(Panel 19)
:* Speaker: "If you want Jesus as your Lord, come forward now."
:* Debbie: (rising from her pew) "Oh, God! I need help... My life's a mess. ''Help'' ''me!''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is never made clear why Debbie's life is such a mess. Her two questionable actions are casting a mind-bondage spell on her father to acquire more gaming books (people have prayed for worse things), and neglecting her friend in a desperate time of need, something that could easily have happened at this very prayer meeting, or while at church on any given Sunday.

Debbie is obviously regretful of her selfish actions in regards to Marcie, a perfectly normal emotional response to the situation. So, other than choosing a religion that isn't Christianity, what is it about Debbie's life that is such a mess?}}

(Panel 20)
:* Speaker: "In the name of Jesus, I order* you spirits of the occult to leave Debbie."
:* Debbie: "Jesus, I repent of my sins and I want you to be my Saviour and Lord. You guide me through Life. You be in charge of everything... not that lousy D&D manual."
:* (Spirits are seen leaving Debbie as the Speaker drives them out.)
:* Footnote: *'''WARNING:''' See {{bible|Acts 19:13-17}}
:* Footnote: "If the Son therefore shall make ye free, ye shall be free indeed." ({{bible|John 8:36}}) ...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." ({{bible|2 Cor. 3:17}})

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Scripture quoted in this panel:

'''Acts 19:13''' Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. '''14''' And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. '''15''' And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? '''16''' And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. '''17''' And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

'''Important exorcism safety tip:''' Bring a picture ID when exorcising spirits and be certain to present it to them when asked, otherwise you may find yourself fleeing your house naked and wounded.}}

(Panel 21)
:* Speaker (praying over a pile of gaming material): "We take authority in the name of Jesus Christ and through the power of His shed blood and bind the demonic forces in this filth of Satan."
:* Debbie (bowing her head as the bonfire burns in the background): "Thank you, Lord, for setting me free."
:* Footnote: There shall not be found among you anyone...that useth divination...or a witch;...or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard....For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord. {{bible|Deut. 18:10-12}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=So, now what? The tract doesn't say what happens afterward, but I'll guess that Marcie is still dead (And in the world of Jack Chick, she's probably burning in hell right now.) So that didn't solve anything, except now Debbie can't play D&D or make a lucrative career performing magic. How is this better exactly?

Debbie should consider herself lucky that her new church group doesn't also recognize {{bible|Exodus 22:18}}: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," otherwise she may have found herself in the middle of that bonfire. Why are they choosing to focus on one Old Testament scripture while ignoring another?}}

===This Section Is Not Yet Completed===

==External Links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp Full tract]
* [http://www.fecundity.com/darkdung/index.html Mystery Science Theater meets Dark Dungeons] (a parody)
* [http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/?p=133 Chick Dissection] - Another analysis of this tract at [[Enter the Jabberwock]]
* [http://www.theescapist.com/darkdungeons.htm The Escapist - Dark Dungeons] - Another analysis from The Escapist, a roleplaying advocacy website. See also: [http://www.theescapist.com/random011102.htm Spellcasting 101], where Harry Potter and Dungeons & Dragons spells are "scientifically" tested to see if they can really be cast straight out of the books.

{{jackchick}}

[[Category: Apologetic literature]]

Dark Dungeons (Chick tract)

2007-07-25T08:59:01Z

LtCmd.Lore: Similar theistic fears. Ouija Boards.

Talk:Problem of evil

2007-07-01T03:17:32Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Animal suffering */ Take two

It seems to me that the problem of evil can be accused of the same excluded middle as [[Liar, Lunatic or Lord]]: how do we know that "God doesn't want evil", "God can prevent evil", and "God knows about all evil" covers all of the bases? Granted, I can't think of any other possibilities, and it looks as though no one else has, either, but how do we know there isn't a "none of the above" explanation that allows for both God and evil? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 06:57, 17 July 2006 (MST)

: We don't intend to work in a vacuum. That is how the argument goes as I understand it, and there are probably apologetic counter-arguments that are worth considering. Go find some good web pages on the subject and start copying or paraphrasing. If you find a strong Christian response, you can just post it and somebody will come respond to it soon. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:37, 18 July 2006 (MST)

== Animal suffering ==

The article states: "''Animals were suffering long before mankind, Adam and Eve, and original sin came into the picture.''" Hmm. According to the [[biblegatewaykjv:Genesis 1:20-27|first creation story in Genesis]], the animals were only created one or two days before Adam. Is that even long enough to say they suffered at all before A&E's original sin? Maybe everyone got screwed at the same time. <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:18, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

: Only young earth creationists take those days as literal. Most religions think that when the Bible says: "one day" it acctually means: "not a day". So when the Bible says that god made the earth in 6 days, it acctually means 6000 years, or six 7000 year periods, or even 6 periods of a really long time... (One has to wonder what took God so long...) So most religions would think that animals where around for anywhere from 1000 to 7000 years before humans showed up. [[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] ??:??, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

:: I think "who was here first" is largely irrelevant. They're being punished for something they're not responsible for. The infants that supposedly died in this God's wrathful flood were certainly younger than their 'evil' parents...but the question is, what did they do to deserve being killed. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:42, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

::: Okay, but that's not what I was questioning, nor is it what LCL was commenting on. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 01:07, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

:::: Sorry, but it seemed that the point was based on the concept that animals weren't around more than a few days before humans. Let me know if I totally missed the point. But even if they were only around for 2 days before the humans showed up, and if the humans sinned within hours of being created, then at least 2 generations of dayflies would have died. The point is, that god chose to create carniverous animals. They would be carniverous whether the humans sinned or not, so even if Adam and Eve had never sinned, the animals would still be suffering and killing each other to this very day.
[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 22:17, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Problem of evil

2007-06-30T01:11:57Z

LtCmd.Lore: Forgot to sign.

Talk:Problem of evil

2007-06-29T03:40:13Z

LtCmd.Lore: Animal suffering

Adam and Eve

2007-06-21T02:37:04Z

LtCmd.Lore: 'Doh!

'''Adam and Eve''' are purported to be the first [[human]]s, created by [[God]] in the Biblical book of [[Genesis]], who resided in the [[Garden of Eden]] until they were cast out following their [[original sin]].

==Summary==
In the second [[creation story]] in the [[Bible]], in {{Bible|Genesis 2:4-25}} through {{Bible|Genesis 3}}, [[God]] plants a garden "east of Eden", and creates the first man, Adam, there. He tells Adam that he may eat from any tree in the garden except for the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], or else Adam will die.

God then creates birds and animals as companions for Adam, but none is suitable. God then puts Adam to sleep, removes one of his ribs, and creates a woman, Eve, from the rib.

One day, the serpent tells Eve that contrary to what God has said, she and Adam will not die from eating the forbidden fruit, but rather that they will know good and evil, just like God.

Eve eats the fruit and gives some to Adam as well. After eating, they realize that they are naked and fashion clothes for themselves from fig leaves. Their sudden shame of nudity arouses God's suspicions, and they eventually confess that they have eaten the forbidden fruit.

God curses the serpent, saying that henceforth it will crawl on the ground, and that there will be enmity between its offspring and Eve's. He curses Eve with painful childbirth, and condemns her to be ruled over by her husband. He curses Adam, saying that he will now have to work the land for food.

Finally, God realizes that Adam might also eat the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. To prevent this, he banishes the two humans from the garden and places a guard to prevent them reentering it.

Adam and Eve proceed to have children and become the ancestors of all humans.

==Commentary==
This story is the origin of the phrase "forbidden fruit".

Although the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is often depicted as an apple, this is never specified in the text.

Although it is common to associate the serpent with [[Satan]], the text says no such thing.

Contrary to popular belief, the serpent in the story never lies: Adam and Eve do not die from eating the fruit, as God had said: Adam is said to live 930 years ({{Bible|Genesis 5:5}}). And just as the serpent said, they learn what good and evil are, thus becoming a little bit more like God.

{{Bible|Genesis 2:22-24}} makes it clear that Adam and Eve are not banished for disobeying God, but rather because God fears that Adam might become immortal.

In {{Bible|Genesis 2:22}}, God says that Adam has become "as one of ''us''", rather than "like me". This may be a remnant of an earlier version of the story, in which God was one member of a [[pantheon]] of gods.

It seems unjust for God to punish Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit: before they learned what good and evil were, how were they to know that disobeying God was wrong?

If God is all-knowing then he knew before he even created the garden that it would fail. He also knew before creating the serpent that it would cause Adam and Eve to sin, yet he created both. This combined with the previously stated fact that before eating the apple Adam and Eve had no concept of right and wrong shows that the blame lies not with them for falling for the trap, but with God for setting it.

Although Adam is said to have been created from the dust of the ground, and Eve from his rib, they are for the most part depicted with [[wikipedia:navel|navel]]s ("belly buttons"), which would imply that they were born with umbilical cords.

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

Adam and Eve

2007-06-21T02:32:42Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Commentary */ Eve from Adams rib

'''Adam and Eve''' are purported to be the first [[human]]s, created by [[God]] in the Biblical book of [[Genesis]], who resided in the [[Garden of Eden]] until they were cast out following their [[original sin]].

==Summary==
In the second [[creation story]] in the [[Bible]], in {{Bible|Genesis 2:4-25}} through {{Bible|Genesis 3}}, [[God]] plants a garden "east of Eden", and creates the first man, Adam, there. He tells Adam that he may eat from any tree in the garden except for the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], or else Adam will die.

God then creates birds and animals as companions for Adam, but none is suitable. God then puts Adam to sleep, removes one of his ribs, and creates a woman, Eve, from the rib.

One day, the serpent tells Eve that contrary to what God has said, she and Adam will not die from eating the forbidden fruit, but rather that they will know good and evil, just like God.

Eve eats the fruit and gives some to Adam as well. After eating, they realize that they are naked and fashion clothes for themselves from fig leaves. Their sudden shame of nudity arouses God's suspicions, and they eventually confess that they have eaten the forbidden fruit.

God curses the serpent, saying that henceforth it will crawl on the ground, and that there will be enmity between its offspring and Eve's. He curses Eve with painful childbirth, and condemns her to be ruled over by her husband. He curses Adam, saying that he will now have to work the land for food.

Finally, God realizes that Adam might also eat the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. To prevent this, he banishes the two humans from the garden and places a guard to prevent them reentering it.

Adam and Eve proceed to have children and become the ancestors of all humans.

==Commentary==
This story is the origin of the phrase "forbidden fruit".

Although the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is often depicted as an apple, this is never specified in the text.

Although it is common to associate the serpent with [[Satan]], the text says no such thing.

Contrary to popular belief, the serpent in the story never lies: Adam and Eve do not die from eating the fruit, as God had said: Adam is said to live 930 years ({{Bible|Genesis 5:5}}). And just as the serpent said, they learn what good and evil are, thus becoming a little bit more like God.

{{Bible|Genesis 2:22-24}} makes it clear that Adam and Eve are not banished for disobeying God, but rather because God fears that Adam might become immortal.

In {{Bible|Genesis 2:22}}, God says that Adam has become "as one of ''us''", rather than "like me". This may be a remnant of an earlier version of the story, in which God was one member of a [[pantheon]] of gods.

It seems unjust for God to punish Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit: before they learned what good and evil were, how were they to know that disobeying God was wrong?

If God is all-knowing then he knew before he even created the garden that it would fail. He also knew before creating the serpent that it would cause Adam and Eve to sin, yet he created both. This combined with the previously stated fact that before eating the apple Adam and Eve had no concept of right and wrong shows that the blame lies not with them for falling for the trap, but with God for setting it.

Although Adam us said to have been created from the dust of the ground, and Eve from his rib, they are for the most part depicted with [[wikipedia:navel|navel]]s ("belly buttons"), which would imply that they were born with umbilical cords.

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

Talk:Kissing Hank's Ass

2007-06-20T05:25:40Z

LtCmd.Lore:

Is there any particular reason not to include the dialogue in the main article?
I vote we include the story as part of the article, and place a link to the censored version at the bottom. (Or vice-versa.)
[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 21:22, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
: It's generally considered bad form to repost the entirety of someone else's work in another place. Two reasons. First, it discourages people from visiting the original site, which is just rude. Second, you are creating another copy that is outside of the other person's control. If they want to go and make changes at a later date, they have to go through the hassle of finding all the other copies on the web and contacting the people responsible to let them know there was an update. I say it's fine if you want to post a representative excerpt, but not the whole thing. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:56, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Well that makes sense. Thanks. --[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 00:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Kissing Hank's Ass

2007-06-19T02:22:28Z

LtCmd.Lore: Why not include dialogue?

Prayer

2007-06-17T22:13:01Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Objections to prayer */ speling end grammir,

{{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]], either mentally or out loud, to profess loyalty or ask for favors.

==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.

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.

==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").
# "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 millionth 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 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)

[[Category:Religion]]

Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages

2007-06-16T01:57:33Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* General */ apocryphal texts

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.

==Religious nut bios==
* [[James Dobson]]
* [[Roy Moore]]
* [[Fred Phelps]]
* [[Ralph Reed]]
* [[Carl Baugh]]

==Wacky Bible stories==
* [[Biblical laws]] (You know... stoning unruly kids to death, selling your daughter into slavery, not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics...)

==Philosophy==
* [[Ethics]]

==Politics==
* [[School prayer]]
* [[Gay marriage]]
* [[Faith-based initiatives]]

==Supernatural things==
* [[Demon]]
* [[Angels]]
* [[Spirit]]

==Science==
* [[Naturalism]] (should probably link to sub articles on [[metaphysical naturalism]], [[methodological naturalism]], etc)

* [[Virtual Particles]] (I don't know much about them, but they have been mentioned as another possible way for the universe to come into existence without god.)

I think a page on Koran Science needs to be started. I can not tell you how may times I have listened to a muslim defend the origins of the Koran with the argument that it provides scientific information that an illiterate man could never have know. There are so many ridiculous claims though that this would be a very lengthy project.

==Books==
* ''[[Losing Faith in Faith]]'' by [[Dan Barker]]

==General==
* [[Apocryphal Texts]] some of the books that were rejected from the Bible.
* [[Common sense]] You know, people put a lot of emphasis on common sense, I think a page about examples where common sense lies to us would be nice.
* [[Consciousness]] There's a need to define it
* [[Saint]]
* [[Dead Sea scrolls]]
* [[:Category:Stubs|Stub articles]] which ought to be expanded.

[[Category:Iron Chariots|Requested pages]]

Biblical laws

2007-06-13T03:13:04Z

LtCmd.Lore: Lack of laws

The [[Bible]] contains many laws, and since they were theoretically created by an [[omnibenevolent]] being they should be perfectly just.

While it obviously contains many good laws: Do not murder, do not steal, etc. It also contains quite a few laws that would be considered ubsurd, unjust, unrealistic, and just plain nasty.

The Bible is also strangly silent on some topics such as pedophilia and public nudity.

==Good laws==
{{Bible|Exodus 20:12-16}} ''" 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
"''

==Bad laws==
In the Bible, God openly condones [[slavery]], and gives various laws on how slavery should be conducted, for example in the chapter immediately following the Ten Commandments. {{bible|Exodus 21:7-8}}: ''And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.''

God required [[genocide]], sometimes with the specific command to show no mercy. He also allowed the [[Israelites]] to take the [[virgins]] from the nations they conquered, and use them as sex slaves.

One law stated that if a man raped a woman, he would be killed if she was married or engaged... sounds good enough. But if she wasn't married or engaged, a virgin, she would have to marry him! {{bible|Deuteronomy 22:28-29}}: ''If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.''

So with such a lax law on rape, you'd think the death penalty would be all but non-existant. However another law stated that disobediant children should be stoned to death. {{bible|Exodus 21:15-17}}.
And people who commit adultery should also be stoned. ''{{bible|Leviticus 20:10}} "And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."''
So adultery and disobediance to parents is worse than the rape of a virgin.

Disobediance to parents can theoretically include anything from refusing to clean your room to becoming an atheist. Or punching your abusive father.

What the priests say is law, anyone who disagrees with the preists is stoned. {{bible|Deuteronomy 17:12}}

According to {{bible|Exodus 21:20-21}} Not only is slavery okay, but it's also okay to beat your slaves... even to death! If a man beats his slave to the point that he dies, he will be punished. But if he beats his slave and the slave survives for a day or two before dying, the owner gets off scott free. (Well not quite, he loses a slave.)

==Ruined laws==
One law that, although it sounds good, turned out horribly would be the [[Sabbath]]: it states that every seventh day should be a day of rest and [[worship]].
But the punishment for not observing this law ruined it. It held the death penalty, so even if you did something simple like for instance: you forget to stack wood before the sabbath, so instead of letting your family freeze you decide to pick up some sticks to burn... that would deserve death according to the law. ({{Bible|Numbers 15:32-36}})

Later [[Jesus]] condemned the [[Pharisees]] for being so strict about the sabbath law. So some might think that god never intended for the rules to be so hard to follow. But that is not supported by the account of the man who was gathering wood, since god specifically told [[Moses]] to kill the man.
Plus if God didn't want them to be so strict, why did he wait so long to inform them?

==Weird laws==
{{Bible|Exodus 20:26}} says that the altar to God should not have steps; otherwise, people might look up the clothes of the person ahead of them.

In {{Bible|Exodus 28:42-43}}, God says that priests must wear special undergarments when they approach the altar, lest they die of guilt.

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 23:1}}, says that if you are wounded in the testicles, or your penis has been cut off you can not get into the congregation of the Lord.

{{Bible|Leviticus 18:7-18}} commands you to not uncover the nakedness of various family members.

{{Bible|Leviticus 18:22}} states that man shall not lay with mankind as he lays with womankind, leaving god to watch some hot lesbian action.

{{Bible|Leviticus 19:19}} says it is not allowed to plant different crops on the same field, let different cattle graze together, or wear cloths made of more the one fabric.

{{Bible|Leviticus 19:27}} says don't cut your hair or or shave your beard.

{{Bible|Leviticus 21:17-18}} makes it impossible for People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, to go to an alter of god.

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 13:6-10}} tells you to kill anyone who suggests worshiping a different religion, even your family.

{{Bible|Leviticus 3:17}}, you are never to eat blood or fat.

{{Bible|Leviticus 15:19-30}} says that a woman on her period is unclean and not to be touched. The only cure for this sin of uncleanness is burning a turtle or a young pigeon.

{{Bible|1 Kings 16:11}} makes sure that no one pees on a wall.

==Apologists' defence==
===But that's the old Bible===
When confronted with the unjust laws, which are found mostly in the Hebrew scriptures, Christians will sometimes say that they only accept the Christian Greek scripture. Which contains more wholesome principles like the [[golden rule]] or 'forgiving your brother up to 77 times'.
But one still has to wonder why it took god over four thousand years before he introduced the good laws. Or why he made bad laws to begin with.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Biblical laws

2007-06-07T16:35:32Z

LtCmd.Lore: Absent Laws

Should the 10th commandment really be listed under good laws?
It's a law againsts thoughts and desires. While that might be a good concept to follow personally, it definately wouldn't make a good ''law''.
Maybe I'm just being picky, but if this commandment were enforced it would be a pretty bad thing:

''“You must not desire your fellowman’s house. You must not desire your fellowman’s wife, nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his ass nor anything that belongs to your fellowman.”''

In fact, this is something that some religions use to label masterbation and porn wrong.
They say that in order to masterbate you have to be thinking about taking something that doesn't belong to you, and that is covetousness.

IMO no thought should be illegal.

[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 16:07, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Holy crap! I'm the one who added it! I have shamed myself.
Removing...
[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 20:06, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

== Which translation? ==

The bit from {{Bible|Exodus 20}} says:
: “You must not testify falsely as a witness against your fellowman. 17 “You must not desire your fellowman’s house. You must not desire your fellowman’s wife, nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his ass nor anything that belongs to your fellowman.”
The "fellowman" bit looks odd. Which translation is this? Is it copyrighted? Can it be freely quoted like this? Is there any reason to choose this one rather than one which will be more familiar to Bible readers?
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:58, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

All links are automatically from the King James Version

--[[User:Logix|Logix]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, that was me. It's from the "New World Translation" It's the Jehovahs Witness bible, it's the only one I had handy, and I wasn't aware of BibleGateway at the time. I'll fix that at the same time I remove the 10th commandment.
[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 20:06, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Also my mistake, all my links were automatically kjv, sorry.

--[[User:Logix|Logix]] 21:47, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

==Absent Laws==
Does the Bible NOT contain any laws against pedophilia? I couldn't find any... If that's the case, I think it's worth mentioning.
[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 11:35, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Homosexuality

2007-06-03T20:35:38Z

LtCmd.Lore: Counter argument

{{wikipedia}}
'''Homosexuality''' is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one's own gender. The rights of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is a contentious [[political issue]] in much of the world, due in part to [[religious]] views on the perceived [[moral]] incorrectness of homosexuality. One particularly fierce debate at the time of this writing is the legality of [[gay marriage]].

Many conservative [[Christian]]s, [[Jew]]s, [[Muslim]]s and [[Sikh]]s prefer to continue current restrictions against gays, lesbians and bisexuals — including prohibition of same-sex marriage. Some advocate the restoration of [[law]]s which once criminalized same-sex behavior. Many oppose the extension of existing [[Wikipedia:Hate crime|hate-crime laws]] to include sexual orientation.

==The Bible on homosexuality==

* In {{bible|Genesis 19}}, [[God]] destroys the cities of [[Sodom and Gomorrah]]; some say that widespread practice of homosexuality was the main reason.
* {{bible|Leviticus 18:22}}: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
* {{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."
* [[Deuteronomy]] and [[Kings]] state that there shall be no sodomites allowed in [[Israel]].
* {{bible|Romans 1:26-27}}: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
* {{bible|1 Corinthians 6:9-10}}: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, '''nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind''', Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
* {{bible|1 Timothy 1:9-10}}: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, '''for them that defile themselves with mankind''', for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

==Counter Arguments to the Bible's Stance==

* Genesis 19, while commonly held to describe the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for the "sin" of homosexuality, more likely describes their destruction because of wickedness in general rather than just for homosexuality. They wanted to rape the angels, it makes sense that the sin was in fact rape, not consenting homosexuality.
* There is also '''no''' indication that homosexuality is somehow a more severe sin than [[fornication]]. So ''at worst'' homosexuals should be treated the same as anyone else who has sex outside of [[marriage]]. Have you ever seen an angry mob opposing unmarried couples?
* {{bible|Romans 1:26-27}} describes clearly how God '''himself''' made people homosexual.

==Arguments for the Naturalness of Homosexuality==

* The discovery of homosexuality in many other species, such as goats and penguins, has shown that homosexuality most likely isn't a choice, but rather something a person is born with.

==External links==
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm Homosexuality articles] at [[Religious Tolerance]]

[[Category:Social issues]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Bible]]

School prayer

2007-06-02T03:52:45Z

LtCmd.Lore: Still needs work... would like to see a section about the condition of the current debate.

Prior to 1962-63 in America, public schools would generally open with a [[prayer]]. These prayers would be led by the teacher, and the students would be . For example schools in New York sometimes opened with the prayer: ''"Almighty [[God]], we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy [[blessings]] upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."'' Obviously this would be offensive to [[atheists]], since they do not depend on God, nor do they want it's blessings.

Even after 1963, when required school prayer was ruled unconstitutional, it has continued to be an issue.

==Arguments against school prayer==

#'''School prayer is unconstitutional.''' The [[first ammendment]] states that government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Public schools are funded by the government, so if prayer is part of the schools schedule it's the same as being required by the government.
#'''Schools are for education, not worship.''' Prayer serves no educational purpose.
#'''It's unnecessary.''' Students are perfectly capable of worshiping god elsewhere, they can pray at home or at church. Plus students are still allowed to pray at school all they want, they can even read the bible at school. So there is no reason to make it part of the formal schedule.
#'''It can lead to intolerance.''' Students may not want their peers to know they are atheists. So by not participating in the prayer they could be setting theirselves up for prejudist. School prayer puts atheistic/agnostic students in an uncomfortable position, one that the school should not force on them.
#'''School prayer is coercive''' If it's led by the teacher, part of the school routine, and engaged in by the vast majority of peers, it would be extremely difficult to not conform. So either the student will convert, lie, or be an outcast.

==Arguments for school prayer==

''''under construction''''

===counter arguments===

Arguments for school prayer generally rely on the concept that the founding fathers intended America to be a religious nation.
See [[America is a christian nation]].

Exodus

2007-05-17T16:59:29Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Plague Grand Finale 10) Death of all Egyptian Firstborn */ Hammering the dead animals point. ;p

{{Books of the Bible}}
'''The Book of Exodus''' is the second book of the [[Old Testament]] of [[the Bible]], and deals with the Jews' enslavement in Egypt, their escape, and their wandering in the desert.

The key character of this story is [[Moses]]. After Pharoh gave the order to kill all young male Jews in Egypt, his mother put him in a sealed basket, and sent him down the river. The Pharoh's daughter found the basket with Moses inside, and took him as her own.

When Moses was grown, he was contacted by [[God]], who appeard in the form of a burning bush, and commanded him and his brother to "ask" Pharoh to let his people go.

After of few magic tricks, and a slaughter, Pharoh agrees to let the Jews go, and they begin wandering the desert for 40 years.

==Theological Objections==

"And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." (4:21, KJV)

As the above shows, God intentionally made the Pharoh stubborn, seemingly so that he would have an excuse to effectively destroy a population. This apparent evil flatly contradicts the Christian idea of an [[omnibenevolent]] god.

God calls down a series of plagues, strifes, and evils on the population (who, incidentally, had nothing much to do with the Jews' enslavement).

=== Plague 1) Rivers of Blood===
and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river... (7:20-21)

The first plague that Yahweh calls on the people of Egypt is to turn all of the waters into blood. The fish die, and the people of Egypt cannot drink.

=== Plague 2) Frogs===
And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people... (8:3)

God fills the land of Egypt with frogs. The frogs fill the ovens, and kneeding pots, and bedrooms, and clamber onto the people, and just do a generally good job at making everything very annoying.

=== Plague 3) Lice===
"Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt." (8:16)

God calls all manner of insects forth to bite the populace and the livestock.

=== Plague 4) Flies===

Else, if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are. (8:21)

God fills all the houses with flies, making life extremely icky.

Pharoh, momentarily, decides that he should let them go, and grants them three days in the wilderness to pray, and make scarifices to Jahweh.

On the morning that the Jews were supposed to leave, Pharoh cuts them off and makes them stay.

=== Plague 5) Death of Livestock===

And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. (9:6)

When Pharoh did not let them leave the city, Jahweh smites all of the Egyptian cattle. But still, Pharoh did not let the Jews go.

Since when do slaves have their own livestock? No wonder they later said they were better off as slaves.

=== Plague 6) Boils===

...and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt. (9:9)

Painful boils break out all over the people of egypt and their livestock (which are already dead?) Pharoh still refuses to let them go.

=== Plague 7) Hail and Fire===

And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt. (9:23)

Hail and Fire rip through the land of Egypt, killing man and beast (those beasts are sure taking a beating!), and destroying all crops and trees.

Pharoh, getting the message, allows the Jews to leave the city. As soon as the Jews are outside the walls, Moses stops the hail. As soon as the hail ceases, Pharoh rounds them up again, and still won't let them leave!

=== Plague 8) Locusts===

...tomorrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast: And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field... (10:4-5)

God sends locusts, so that they cover the face of the earth, and essentially eat anything left over by the hail storm.

Pharoh agrees to let them go, but as soon as Moses clears up the locusts, Pharoh's heart is hardened again, and he keeps them locked up.

=== Plague 9) Darkness ===

Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt. (10:21)

God calls darkness over the land. It was so dark, that the Egyptians couldn't see.

Once again, Pharoh agrees to let them go, but as soon as the darkness is gone, Pharoh locks the Jews up again.

=== Plague Grand Finale 10) Death of all Egyptian Firstborn ===

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. (12:29)

Every first-born of Egypt is smitten by God. Pharaoh, after seeing his own son dead, finally breaks,and agrees to let the Jews go (once and for all... I guess...)

The Jews plunder the homes of the Egyptians, take up their belongings, and flee into the wilderness, towards the Red Sea.

The Pharaoh (who, once again, decides that it was a bad idea to let the Hebrews go) chases after them with an army of horse drawn chariots. When the Jews are trapped up against the Red Sea, Moses parts the Sea, and the Hebrews escape across to the other side. When all the Jews are ashore, Moses closes the passage, and drowns the Egyptians who are chasing them, along with their twice-dead-sick-starving-zombie horses.

== Historical Objections ==

There is no historical or archaeological reference to Moses or his Brother, Aaron, a mass exodus, or Egyptian armies being destroyed, or mass plagues destroying the populace. In the case of the ten plagues, these alone would've been enough to completely cripple Egypt economically for decades, if not centuries. Considering that all the fish would be dead due to the rivers changing to blood, all the cattle died, ''(Then got sick and then died again with the firstborns.)'' all their crops were eaten by locusts, the army was killed and most of the children died. No meat, no crops, no army and no leader. The fact that there are no historical records outside of the Bible of such devastation is quite telling.

== Apologetics ==

Apologists will say that the reason there is no historical evidence for this is because the Egyptians did not record defeats, especially one of this magnitude.

And how did they cross the Red Sea? Will, they didn't. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, which is shallow enough that the hebrews could have waded accross, but the chariots of the Egyptians will have been bogged down, and could not follow.

== Counter Apologetics==

Egyptians did record defeats, even when it came to Hebrews. And if they didn't record defeats, then other people were there to do it for them. The earliest mention of the Hebrews in Egyptology is in the "Victory Stele" (or the Mernapta Stele), in which it is recorded that Egypt laid claim to the land of Israel (dated around 1200BCE). It is recorded that soon the Israelites broke the yoke of Egyptian rule.

And as for the Sea of Reeds story: If that's true, then there is no divine power of God involved. It's just some lucky Hebrews who stumbled accross a thin strip of water during low tide. The magic of the story is therefore lost.

[[Category:Bible]]

Exodus

2007-05-17T16:51:18Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Plague 5) Death of Livestock */ The slaves had livestock?

{{Books of the Bible}}
'''The Book of Exodus''' is the second book of the [[Old Testament]] of [[the Bible]], and deals with the Jews' enslavement in Egypt, their escape, and their wandering in the desert.

The key character of this story is [[Moses]]. After Pharoh gave the order to kill all young male Jews in Egypt, his mother put him in a sealed basket, and sent him down the river. The Pharoh's daughter found the basket with Moses inside, and took him as her own.

When Moses was grown, he was contacted by [[God]], who appeard in the form of a burning bush, and commanded him and his brother to "ask" Pharoh to let his people go.

After of few magic tricks, and a slaughter, Pharoh agrees to let the Jews go, and they begin wandering the desert for 40 years.

==Theological Objections==

"And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." (4:21, KJV)

As the above shows, God intentionally made the Pharoh stubborn, seemingly so that he would have an excuse to effectively destroy a population. This apparent evil flatly contradicts the Christian idea of an [[omnibenevolent]] god.

God calls down a series of plagues, strifes, and evils on the population (who, incidentally, had nothing much to do with the Jews' enslavement).

=== Plague 1) Rivers of Blood===
and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river... (7:20-21)

The first plague that Yahweh calls on the people of Egypt is to turn all of the waters into blood. The fish die, and the people of Egypt cannot drink.

=== Plague 2) Frogs===
And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people... (8:3)

God fills the land of Egypt with frogs. The frogs fill the ovens, and kneeding pots, and bedrooms, and clamber onto the people, and just do a generally good job at making everything very annoying.

=== Plague 3) Lice===
"Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt." (8:16)

God calls all manner of insects forth to bite the populace and the livestock.

=== Plague 4) Flies===

Else, if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are. (8:21)

God fills all the houses with flies, making life extremely icky.

Pharoh, momentarily, decides that he should let them go, and grants them three days in the wilderness to pray, and make scarifices to Jahweh.

On the morning that the Jews were supposed to leave, Pharoh cuts them off and makes them stay.

=== Plague 5) Death of Livestock===

And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. (9:6)

When Pharoh did not let them leave the city, Jahweh smites all of the Egyptian cattle. But still, Pharoh did not let the Jews go.

Since when do slaves have their own livestock? No wonder they later said they were better off as slaves.

=== Plague 6) Boils===

...and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt. (9:9)

Painful boils break out all over the people of egypt and their livestock (which are already dead?) Pharoh still refuses to let them go.

=== Plague 7) Hail and Fire===

And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt. (9:23)

Hail and Fire rip through the land of Egypt, killing man and beast (those beasts are sure taking a beating!), and destroying all crops and trees.

Pharoh, getting the message, allows the Jews to leave the city. As soon as the Jews are outside the walls, Moses stops the hail. As soon as the hail ceases, Pharoh rounds them up again, and still won't let them leave!

=== Plague 8) Locusts===

...tomorrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast: And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field... (10:4-5)

God sends locusts, so that they cover the face of the earth, and essentially eat anything left over by the hail storm.

Pharoh agrees to let them go, but as soon as Moses clears up the locusts, Pharoh's heart is hardened again, and he keeps them locked up.

=== Plague 9) Darkness ===

Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt. (10:21)

God calls darkness over the land. It was so dark, that the Egyptians couldn't see.

Once again, Pharoh agrees to let them go, but as soon as the darkness is gone, Pharoh locks the Jews up again.

=== Plague Grand Finale 10) Death of all Egyptian Firstborn ===

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. (12:29)

Every first-born of Egypt is smitten by God. Pharaoh, after seeing his own son dead, finally breaks,and agrees to let the Jews go (once and for all... I guess...)

The Jews plunder the homes of the Egyptians, take up their belongings, and flee into the wilderness, towards the Red Sea.

The Pharaoh (who, once again, decides that it was a bad idea to let the Hebrews go) chases after them with an army. When the Jews are trapped up against the Red Sea, Moses parts the Sea, and the Hebrews escape across to the other side. When all the Jews are ashore, Moses closes the passage, and drowns the Egyptians who are chasing them.

== Historical Objections ==

There is no historical or archaeological reference to Moses or his Brother, Aaron, a mass exodus, or Egyptian armies being destroyed, or mass plagues destroying the populace. In the case of the ten plagues, these alone would've been enough to completely cripple Egypt economically for decades, if not centuries. Considering that all the fish would be dead due to the rivers changing to blood, all the cattle died, ''(Then got sick and then died again with the firstborns.)'' all their crops were eaten by locusts, the army was killed and most of the children died. No meat, no crops, no army and no leader. The fact that there are no historical records outside of the Bible of such devastation is quite telling.

== Apologetics ==

Apologists will say that the reason there is no historical evidence for this is because the Egyptians did not record defeats, especially one of this magnitude.

And how did they cross the Red Sea? Will, they didn't. They crossed the Sea of Reeds, which is shallow enough that the hebrews could have waded accross, but the chariots of the Egyptians will have been bogged down, and could not follow.

== Counter Apologetics==

Egyptians did record defeats, even when it came to Hebrews. And if they didn't record defeats, then other people were there to do it for them. The earliest mention of the Hebrews in Egyptology is in the "Victory Stele" (or the Mernapta Stele), in which it is recorded that Egypt laid claim to the land of Israel (dated around 1200BCE). It is recorded that soon the Israelites broke the yoke of Egyptian rule.

And as for the Sea of Reeds story: If that's true, then there is no divine power of God involved. It's just some lucky Hebrews who stumbled accross a thin strip of water during low tide. The magic of the story is therefore lost.

[[Category:Bible]]

Jesus fulfilled prophecy

2007-05-17T16:46:26Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* About his birth */ Spelling, and elaborating a bit.

{{religion-stub}}
This page is intended to contain a list of claims of fulfilled prophecy and responses.

There are literally hundreds of claimed instances where Jesus fulfilled prophecies. It would take forever to list all the responses. But the vast majority of them can be disregarded as non-evidence simply due to their very nature.

For example one prophecy says that the messiah existed before the rest of creation. This would obviously be impossible to prove or disprove and so it doesn't count. You would first have to prove that Jesus pre-existed everything in order to assert that he fulfilled this prophecy.

Also, most of these require us to exept what the Bible says at face value. So therefore they would only be convincing if you ALREADY accepted the Bible as true. This is an example of circular reasoning.

We know the Bible is true because the prophecies in it were fulfilled.
We know the prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled because it says they were.

==Outstanding examples==
Here are some of the more convincing, and less easily nullified 'prophecies'.
===About his birth===
{{Bible|Genesis 3:15}} Supposedly means that the [[messiah]] would be born of a human woman.
However the only alternatives are that he would be born of a man, some form of animal, or simply poofed into existence on earth. All of which would have been much more amazing. It would take a miracle for this one NOT to have come true.

{{Bible|Isaiah 7:14}} ''14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'' It is said that this verse is prophesying that the messiah would be born of a virgin.
But whether his mother was actually a virgin at the time cannot be proven. After all she was dating at the time. We are just supposed to believe that she was actually a virgin because the Bible, or more specifically, Matthew says so.
Plus nobody called Jesus 'Immanuel' except one time when Matthew was referencing this very scripture, almost like an afterthought.

{{Bible|Genesis 22:18 }} In this verse god is promising Abraham that ''in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.'' Apologists claim that this means that the messiah would be one of Abraham's decendants.
That's not what god said. And even if it is, then it's not true anyway. The genealogies recorded in Matthew and Luke are based on his fathers line. If Mary was really a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, then Jesus was not Joseph's son.
So if that's what god meant when talking to Abraham, then we have to believe that the genealogies recorded in the gospels are accurate, even though they both conflict with each other.

{{Bible|Micah 5:2}} ''2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'' Apologists say that this means that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, which according to the Gospel is where Jesus was born.

But Jesus did not become the ruler of Israel. Plus that's hardly a convincing prophecy anyway. It's more like a requirement then a prediction, since nobody from anywhere else would have been considered.

{{Bible|Jeremiah 31:15}}''15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.'' According to Matthew, this was actually a prophecy about king Herod killing the children of Bethlehem.

But taken in context this scripture is nothing like a prophecy. It's a documentation of events that already happened to Rahel, followed by comfort because her children will return. Plus Ramah is over 20 miles from Bethlehem.
It's worth mentioning, that Matthew is the ''only record'' of this slaughter even taking place. If all the young children in that area were murdered by the king, you'd think there would be a whole bunch of poems, songs, stories and records of that event. Not to mention the angry mobs demanding revenge.

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

Probability

2007-05-16T19:40:07Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Correctly interpreting conditional probabilities */ athiest=atheist

{{wikipedia}}
'''Probability''' is a concept that is generally easy to understand intuitively, but can be difficult to define rigorously. When it ''is'' defined and studied carefully, it can lead to counter-intuitive results. Even elementary ideas of probability can be widely misunderstood, making it a good way to dishonestly bolster a weak argument.

When properly used, probability and its more "applied" cousin, [[statistics]], can be powerful tools for discerning [[empirical]] [[truth]]. Indeed, essentially every field of modern [[science]] relies heavily on statistical analysis of data, which in turn relies on probability.

In the area of [[apologetics]], ideas of probability lie at the heart of some [[:Category:arguments for the existence of God|arguments for the existence of God]], especially the [[tornado argument]] and, to varying degrees, various [[:Category:cosmological arguments|cosmological arguments]].

==Definitions of probability==

There are two main interpretations of probability, each of which leads to a different ''definition'' of probability:
; Relative frequency : The ''long-run relative frequency'' of occurrence of a [[random]] event (the fraction of the time it happens in a long run of repeated "trials") can be defined as the ''probability'' of the event.
:* ''Example:'' "A 'fair' coin has a 50% probability of coming up 'heads'."
:* ''More information:'' [[Wikipedia:Frequency probability]]
; Degree of belief (a.k.a., personal probability): The ''degree to which one believes'' a statement to be true can be defined as the ''probability'' of that statement.
:* ''Example:'' "I'd say there's about a 20% probability that the human race will end up nuking itself out of existence."
:* ''More information:'' [[Wikipedia:Bayesian probability]], [[Wikipedia:Probability interpretations]]

Although the degree-of-belief "definition" might seem quite weak, it can be made rigorous by carefully considering, for example, how much one would be willing to bet in a game where one would gain a certain amount of money if the statement turns out to be true. It can be shown that any internally consistent method of choosing one's wager must obey the laws of probability (see [[Wikipedia:Probability theory]]).

==Conditional probability==
{{wikipedia|Conditional probability}}

One of the most widely misunderstood concepts in probability has to do with '''conditional probability''', the probability of one thing happening (or being true) ''given'' that something else definitely happens (or is true).

; Example : The probability that a king has been drawn from a well-shuffled deck of [[wikipedia:Playing card#Playing cards today|playing cards]], ''given that you know it's a face card'', is one-third.

This is because once you know a face card has been drawn, 4 out of the 12 face cards are kings, giving a probability of 4/12, or 1/3 that the card was a king.

If one cannot intuitively compute the conditional probability so easily, the following formula can be used:
: "Probability of A given B" = P(A|B) = P(A and B) / P(B)
Or, equivalently, when it is possible to count equally-likely outcomes:
: P(A|B) = (Number of things that are A and B) / (Number of things that are B)
Using the formula(s) on the playing card example, we see that:
: P(king | face card) = P(king and face card) / P(face card)
:   = (number of "king-and-face" cards) / (number of face cards)
:   = 4/12
:   = 1/3

===Correctly interpreting conditional probabilities===

Conditional probabilities are often the result of narrowing the population of interest. In the above example, the set of face cards served as a new, smaller population of interest for which we wanted the probability of choosing a king. To state it in terms of a percent, about 33.3% of face cards are kings. This is quite different from the percent of ''all'' playing cards that are kings (just over 7.5%, being 4 out of 52), and certainly different from the percent of kings that are face cards (100%). This illustrates how crucial the population of interest is to a conditional probability statement, and why conditional probabilities are easily misinterpreted.

For a more extensive example, consider the following two statements (using made-up figures):
# "10% of convicted criminals are atheists."
# "Only 5% of theists have ever been convicted of a crime."

Given this information, does it look like atheists are more likely to be criminals than theists? Maybe twice as likely? On first glance, it might seem so. However, notice that the two percentages treat criminal conviction quite differently. In the first statement, the ''population of interest'' is convicted criminals and we are looking at what fraction of that population are atheists. In the second statement, the population of interest is theists and we are looking at what fraction of that population ''have the characteristic'' of being convicted criminals. In other words, each percent is calculated as a fraction of a population having a certain characteristic, but neither the population nor the characteristic is the same in both statements. This means the figures are not directly comparable.

Now consider the additional statement:
* "90% of convicted criminals are theists."
You can compare this figure directly with statement #1 above, because they are using the same population: convicted criminals. But the comparison is not very informative because the two statements give ''exactly the same information'' (if 10% of criminals are atheists, then 90% must be non-atheists, or what we're calling "theists" for convenience sake). So we still don't know whether atheism or theism is associated with criminal conviction (i.e., whether you're more likely to be a convicted criminal if you're an atheist or if you're a theist).

To get an accurate impression of what's going on, the question we really need to ask is:
* What percent of atheists are convicted criminals?
If we can answer that, then we can directly compare the probability of an atheist being a criminal with the probability of a theist being a criminal. Those probabilities (percents) will be calculated for two different populations (and thus need not add to 100%), but they will reflect the prevalence of the ''same characteristic'' in those two populations.

Unfortunately, we need one more piece of information to answer the latter question. This piece of information can be the answer to ''any'' of the following:
* What percent of the population are convicted criminals?
* What percent of the population are not convicted criminals?
* What percent of the population are atheists?
* What percent of the population are theists?
Once any one of these percentages are known, we can calculate the others using elementary laws of probability and the information in statements #1 and #2 above.

Let's say the answer to the first question, which is also being pulled out of thin air for the purpose of this example, is:
:3.  "5% of the population are convicted criminals."

Here's a table that matches all the information we've been given. All percents are calculated ''out of the total population''.

{| class="wikitable"
|  
! Non-criminal
! Criminal
! Total
|- style="text-align:right"
! Theist
| 85.5%
| 4.5%
| 90.0%
|- style="text-align:right"
! Atheist
| 9.5%
| 0.5%
| 10.0%
|- style="text-align:right"
! Total
| 95.0%
| 5.0%
| 100.0%
|}

Statement #3 is obviously true by looking at the last row of the table. To verify statements #1 and #2, we calculate:
* Fraction of convicted criminals who are atheists = 0.5% / 5.0% = 0.5/5 = 1/10 = 10%
* Fraction of theists who are convicted criminals = 4.5% / 90.0% = 4.5/90 = 1/20 = 5%
And finally:
* Fraction of atheists who are convicted criminals = 0.5% / 10.0% = 0.5/10 = 1/20 = 5%

The last two percents are exactly the same (and thus necessarily the same as the percent in statment #3), so being an atheist does ''not'' make it more likely you're a convicted criminal (nor less likely). There's no association at all (probabilistically speaking) between criminality and atheism.

See also the Wikipedia article on [[Wikipedia:Bayes' theorem|Bayes' theorem]] for a case in which careful analysis of conditional probabilities leads to counter-intuitive results (the drug-testing example).

[[Category:Philosophical issues]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Argumentation]]

Jesus died for your sins

2007-05-16T02:23:10Z

LtCmd.Lore: Link to Logically Critical podcast.

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

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

==Counter-apologetics==

* The way the story of [[Adam and Eve]] is written, [[God]] apparently created people knowing that they were likely to sin, and then engineered the circumstances in which they would commit sin. Is it reasonable to blame people for acting in the way that God created them?
* Why a sacrifice at all? Surely if an [[omnipotent]] being did not want to eternally punish people, he would simply not eternally punish them. How exactly does God sacrificing himself to himself change the situation?
* For an eternal being, dying for three days is not much of a sacrifice. Jesus was [[Crucifixion|crucified]] by people who didn't agree with his contemporary [[blasphemy]], knowing that he was a god, was taken off the cross just a few hours later, supposedly died, rose from the dead and is now in [[heaven]]. Plenty of people have suffered worse tortures throughout history, and have not gotten to become God in the bargain. Perhaps if Jesus had truly died and was suffering in [[hell]] right now and for the rest of eternity, that would be a ''real'' sacrifice for us.
* Why wait so long? If Jesus truly is the only path to salvation, then people lived and died for thousands of years with no chance to escape hell.

==External media==
* [http://www.logicallycritical.net/podcast/06%20Jesus%20Empty%20Gesture.mp3 Jesus' Empty Gesture]: Podcast.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

Biblical laws

2007-05-13T04:38:49Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Bad laws */ Added slave beatings, and linkified scriptures

The [[Bible]] contains many laws, and since they were theoretically created by an [[omnibenevolent]] being they should be perfectly just.

While it obviously contains many good laws: Do not murder, do not steal, etc. It also contains quite a few laws that would be considered ubsurd, unjust, unrealistic, and just plain nasty.

==Good laws==
{{Bible|Exodus 20:12-16}} ''" 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
"''

==Bad laws==
The bible openly condones [[slavery]]. God required [[genocide]], sometimes with the specific command to show no mercy. He also allowed the [[Israelites]] to take the [[virgins]] from the nations they conquered, and use them as sex slaves.

One law stated that if a man raped a woman, he would be killed if she was married or engaged... sounds good enough. But if she wasn't married or engaged, a virgin, she would have to marry him! {{bible|Deuteronomy 22:28-29}}: ''If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.''

So with such a lax law on rape, you'd think the death penalty would be all but non-existant. However another law stated that disobediant children should be stoned to death. {{bible|Exodus 21:15-17}}.
And people who commit adultery should also be stoned. ''{{bible|Leviticus 20:10}} "And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."''
So adultery and disobediance to parents is worse than the rape of a virgin.

Disobediance to parents can theoretically include anything from refusing to clean your room to becoming an atheist. Or punching your abusive father.

What the priests say is law, anyone who disagrees with the preists is stoned. {{bible|Deuteronomy 17:12}}

According to {{bible|Exodus 21:20-21}} Not only is slavery okay, but it's also okay to beat your slaves... even to death! If a man beats his slave to the point that he dies, he will be punished. But if he beats his slave and the slave survives for a day or two before dying, the owner gets off scott free. (Well not quite, he loses a slave.)

==Ruined laws==
One law that, although it sounds good, turned out horribly would be the [[Sabbath]]: it states that every seventh day should be a day of rest and [[worship]].
But the punishment for not observing this law ruined it. It held the death penalty, so even if you did something simple like for instance: you forget to stack wood before the sabbath, so instead of letting your family freeze you decide to pick up some sticks to burn... that would deserve death according to the law. ({{Bible|Numbers 15:32-36}})

Later [[Jesus]] condemned the [[Pharisees]] for being so strict about the sabbath law. So some might think that god never intended for the rules to be so hard to follow. But that is not supported by the account of the man who was gathering wood, since god specifically told [[Moses]] to kill the man.
Plus if God didn't want them to be so strict, why did he wait so long to inform them?

==Weird laws==
{{Bible|Exodus 20:26}} says that the altar to God should not have steps; otherwise, people might look up the clothes of the person ahead of them.

In {{Bible|Exodus 28:42-43}}, God says that priests must wear special undergarments when they approach the altar, lest they die of guilt.

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 23:1}}, says that if you are wounded in the testicles, or your penis has been cut off you can not get into the congregation of the Lord.

{{Bible|Leviticus 18:7-18}} commands you to not uncover the nakedness of various family members.

{{Bible|Leviticus 18:22}} states that man shall not lay with mankind as he lays with womankind, leaving god to watch some hot lesbian action.

{{Bible|Leviticus 19:19}} says it is not allowed to plant different crops on the same field, let different cattle graze together, or wear cloths made of more the one fabric.

{{Bible|Leviticus 19:27}} says don't cut your hair or or shave your beard.

{{Bible|Leviticus 21:17-18}} makes it impossible for People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, to go to an alter of god.

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 13:6-10}} tells you to kill anyone who suggests worshiping a different religion, even your family.

{{Bible|Leviticus 3:17}}, you are never to eat blood or fat.

{{Bible|Leviticus 15:19-30}} says that a woman on her period is unclean and not to be touched. The only cure for this sin of uncleanness is burning a turtle or a young pigeon.

{{Bible|1 Kings 16:11}} makes sure that no one pees on a wall.

==Apologists' defence==
===But that's the old Bible===
When confronted with the unjust laws, which are found mostly in the Hebrew scriptures, Christians will sometimes say that they only accept the Christian Greek scripture. Which contains more wholesome principles like the [[golden rule]] or 'forgiving your brother up to 77 times'.
But one still has to wonder why it took god over four thousand years before he introduced the good laws. Or why he made bad laws to begin with.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Law]]

Kent Hovind

2007-05-03T18:40:53Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* $250,000 challenge */ Gravity analogy.

{{apologist-stub}}
'''Kent Hovind''' is a [[young earth creationist]] preacher based in Pensacola, FL.

Many of the arguments he uses to "disprove" evolution are so bad that even other young earth creationists have distanced themselves from him. He is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion.

==Creation seminar==
The centerpiece of Hovind's work is his seminar, in seven parts:
# The Age of the Earth
# The [[Garden of Eden]]
# [[Dinosaurs]] and the [[Bible]]
# Lies in the Textbooks
# The Dangers of [[Evolution]]
# The Hovind Theory
# Questions and Answers

While the contents of the seminar change from time to time (e.g., in 1999 he claimed that a shadowy "New World Order" group wanted to reduce the population to half a billion people by May 5, 2000), the seminar has remained roughly the same over the years.

==$250,000 challenge==
For several years, Kent Hovind has attempted to imitate the [[James Randi]] [[Million dollar paranormal challenge]] by purportedly offering $250,000 to anyone who can "prove evolution." Hovind's challenge is riddled with flaws, for example:
# Even the wording of the challenge strongly indicated that Hovind has an unusually poor understanding of evolution.
# Hovind's standards of "proof" are higher than any proof that could reasonably be expected from any scientific discipline. For instance, he says "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." There is not a single scientific theory, no matter how well-confirmed, which is regarded as the only ''possible'' explanation for any phenomenon.

Someone could make a similar challenge asking people to prove that the theory of gravity is the ''only possible way'' the observed phenomena could take place, and nobody would ever be able to claim the money.
No matter how widely accepted ''any'' theory is, somebody could still say: "God just makes it seem that way."
# The judges of this challenge are anonymous and secret, to be hand-picked by Hovind. It is virtually inconceivable that Hovind would pick judges who are not sympathetic to his beliefs.

==Legal troubles==
Hovind has had several run-ins with the law (see [[Wikipedia:Kent Hovind|Wikipedia's article about him]] for details). While this does not directly affect the quality of his arguments on [[creationism]] ("Kent Hovind is a crook, and therefore is wrong about [[evolution]]" would be an [[ad hominem]] fallacy), it does raise questions about his character. In particular, if he is found to be willing to lie about the taxes he owes, he may also be willing to lie about evolution, especially if he believes that a lie will be more effective than the truth in bringing people to [[Jesus]].

On July 13, 2006, Kent Hovind and his wife Jo were arrested on 58 counts of tax evasion. The case went to trial Oct. 17. On Nov. 2, 2006, they were found guilty. On Jan. 19, 2007, Kent Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

==External links==
* [http://www.cseblogs.com/ Kent Hovind's Blog]
* [http://www.drdino.com/ Creation Science Evangelism]
* [http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php Hovind's Creation Seminar]
* [http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ Dinosaur Adventure Land]

===Sites critical of Hovind===
* [http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html 300 Lies of Kent Hovind]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer] at [[Talk Origins]]
* [http://www.kent-hovind.com/ Analysis of Kent Hovind]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm Kent Hovind's challenge to evolutionists, and other links] at [[No Answers in Genesis]]
* [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read] at No Answers in Genesis
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20011217095048/www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind]
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20020217021622/www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/vlaard/index.html Dr. Dino's "Challenge" is a Fraud?]

Biblical laws

2007-05-02T01:12:43Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Good laws */ Different translation, and one less rule... fixed my boo boos.

The [[Bible]] contains many laws, and since they were theoretically created by an [[omnibenevolent]] being they should be perfectly just.

While it obviously contains many good laws: Do not murder, do not steal, etc. It also contains quite a few laws that would be considered ubsurd, unjust, unrealistic, and just plain nasty.

==Good laws==
{{Bible|Exodus 20:12-16}} ''" 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
"''

==Bad laws==
The bible openly condones [[slavery]]. God required [[genocide]], sometimes with the specific command to show no mercy. He also allowed the [[Israelites]] to take the [[virgins]] from the nations they conquered, and use them as sex slaves.

One law stated that if a man raped a woman, he would be killed if she was married or engaged... sounds good enough. But if she wasn't married or engaged, a virgin, she would have to marry him! Deuteronomy 22:28-29: ''If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.''

So with such a lax law on rape, you'd think the death penalty would be all but non-existant. However another law stated that disobediant children should be stoned to death. Exodus 21:15-17.
And people who commit adultery should also be stoned. ''Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."''
So adultery and disobediance to parents is worse than the rape of a virgin.

Disobediance to parents can theoretically include anything from refusing to clean your room to becoming an atheist. Or punching your abusive father.

What the priests say is law, anyone who disagrees with the preists is stoned. Deuteronomy 17:12

==Ruined laws==
One law that, although it sounds good, turned out horribly would be the [[Sabbath]]: it states that every seventh day should be a day of rest and [[worship]].
But the punishment for not observing this law ruined it. It held the death penalty, so even if you did something simple like for instance: you forget to stack wood before the sabbath, so instead of letting your family freeze you decide to pick up some sticks to burn... that would deserve death according to the law. ({{Bible|Numbers 15:32-36}})

Later [[Jesus]] condemned the [[Pharisees]] for being so strict about the sabbath law. So some might think that god never intended for the rules to be so hard to follow. But that is not supported by the account of the man who was gathering wood, since god specifically told [[Moses]] to kill the man.
Plus if God didn't want them to be so strict, why did he wait so long to inform them?

==Weird laws==
{{Bible|Exodus 20:26}} says that the altar to God should not have steps; otherwise, people might look up the clothes of the person ahead of them.

In {{Bible|Exodus 28:42-43}}, God says that priests must wear special undergarments when they approach the altar, lest they die of guilt.

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 23:1}}, says that if you are wounded in the testicles, or your penis has been cut off you can not get into the congregation of the Lord.

{{Bible|Leviticus 18:7-18}} commands you to not uncover the nakedness of various family members.

{{Bible|Leviticus 18:22}} states that man shall not lay with mankind as he lays with womankind, leaving god to watch some hot lesbian action.

{{Bible|Leviticus 19:19}} says it is not allowed to plant different crops on the same field, let different cattle graze together, or wear cloths made of more the one fabric.

{{Bible|Leviticus 19:27}} says don't cut your hair or or shave your beard.

{{Bible|Leviticus 21:17-18}} makes it impossible for People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, to go to an alter of god.

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 13:6-10}} tells you to kill anyone who suggests worshiping a different religion, even your family.

{{Bible|Leviticus 3:17}}, you are never to eat blood or fat.

{{Bible|Leviticus 15:19-30}} says that a woman on her period is unclean and not to be touched. The only cure for this sin of uncleanness is burning a turtle or a young pigeon.

{{Bible|1 Kings 16:11}} makes sure that no one pees on a wall.

==Apologists' defence==
===But that's the old Bible===
When confronted with the unjust laws, which are found mostly in the Hebrew scriptures, Christians will sometimes say that they only accept the Christian Greek scripture. Which contains more wholesome principles like the [[golden rule]] or 'forgiving your brother up to 77 times'.
But one still has to wonder why it took god over four thousand years before he introduced the good laws. Or why he made bad laws to begin with.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Biblical laws

2007-05-02T01:06:27Z

LtCmd.Lore: Answered myself and others...

Biblical laws

2007-04-30T21:28:32Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Bad laws */ More bad laws, stoning of children and adulterers.

Talk:Biblical laws

2007-04-30T21:07:47Z

LtCmd.Lore: The 10th commandment

Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages

2007-04-30T18:31:26Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* General */

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.

==Religious nut bios==
* [[James Dobson]]
* [[Roy Moore]]
* [[Fred Phelps]]
* [[Ralph Reed]]
* [[Carl Baugh]]

==Wacky Bible stories==
* [[Biblical laws]] (You know... stoning unruly kids to death, selling your daughter into slavery, not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics...)

==Philosophy==
* [[Ethics]]

==Politics==
* [[School prayer]]
* [[Gay marriage]]
* [[Faith-based initiatives]]

==Supernatural things==
* [[Demon]]
* [[Angels]]
* [[Spirit]]

==Science==
* [[Naturalism]] (should probably link to sub articles on [[metaphysical naturalism]], [[methodological naturalism]], etc)

* [[Virtual Particles]] (I don't know much about them, but they have been mentioned as another possible way for the universe to come into existence without god.)

==Logical fallacies==
* [[Red herring]]

==Books==
* ''[[Losing Faith in Faith]]'' by [[Dan Barker]]

==General==
* [[Common sense]] You know, people put a lot of emphasis on common sense, I think a page about examples where common sense lies to us would be nice.
* [[Saint]]
* [[Dead Sea scrolls]]
* [[:Category:Stubs|Stub articles]] which ought to be expanded.

[[Category:Iron Chariots|Requested pages]]

Noah's ark

2007-04-29T19:57:43Z

LtCmd.Lore: Spelling. And wife.

In the [[Bible]], this is the story of how [[God]] drowned every person on earth with a great flood, sparing only a man named Noah and his family of seven. [[Fundamentalist]]s believe that the story is literally true, and there have been many claims to have found the ark on which Noah and his family sailed.

==The story==

The story of Noah's ark is told in {{bible|Genesis 6:11-8:22}}. God sees that the world has become full of evil, and decides to kill everyone on Earth, with the exception of Noah, Noahs unnamed wife, his three sons, and their respective unnamed wives.

God explains to Noah that he is going to flood the earth, and tells him to build a vessel, an ark. God gives instructions on how to build the ark, what its dimensions should be, and so forth. He also tells Noah to bring representative samples of all living creatures: either one pair of each animal ({{bible|Genesis 6:19-20}}) or seven of each clean animal (or seven pairs) and two of each unclean animal ({{bible|Genesis 7:2-3}}).

After the animals have been loaded onto the ark, god sends rain and opens up the "fountains of the great deep" for forty days and forty nights, until the earth is covered with water and every living being has died, except for those on the ark. The floodwaters start subsiding, and a year later the ark rests on "the mountains of Ararat".

Noah releases a raven through the window of the ark, but it can't find any dry land, and keeps flying around until the water subsides. Noah sends out a dove, but it returns, not having found any dry land. A week later, Noah releases the dove again, and this time it returns with an olive leaf in its beak, indicating that the water level is getting low. A week later, he releases the dove again, but it fails to return, and Noah looks out to see that the world has dried out.

==Counter-arguments==

# There are millions of known animal species in the world; it would take an impossibly large ship to hold representatives of all species, not to mention food for at least a year.
# Assuming that Noah did not take two of each species, but two of each "[[Kind#Biblical_.22Kinds.22|kind]]", that still requires an awfully rapid [[evolution]] explosion to account for the biological diversity today. If all creatures on earth were destroyed some five thousand years ago in the Great Flood, it would require incredibly fast evolution to cause, for instance, the dog "kind" to produce both dire wolves and Chihuahuas. If we take a very conservative estimate of 1 million species that descended from creatures on Noah's ark, and assume that 16,000 "kinds" of animal were on the ark, each "kind" would have had to evolve into over 62 species in the 4000 years since Noah's flood.
# The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how did marsupials wind up in Australia, and only in Australia?
# The story of Noah is not the first Middle Eastern deluge story. The story told by [[Utnapishtim]] in "The Epic of [[Gilgamesh]]", in which the god [[Enlil]] and other deities drown the world to rid it of evil, is referred to as far back as 2000 B.C.E. Its most complete version comes from tablets dated between 669 and 633 B.C.E. The modern book of [[Genesis]] was not compiled for another 200 years.
# The Deluge would have meant the resetting of DNA lines for nearly every living thing on earth. All DNA lines should curiously and rapidly narrow to small breeding populations located in the Middle East. Ignoring every other creature on earth, we can say with some confidence, that human DNA lines appear to originate in Africa. Most lines do not appear to have stopped in the middle east 4000 to 5000 years ago.
# The Deluge, according to available timelines, occurred between 2348 B.C.E. and 2150 B.C.E. It should have represented a clear historical breaking point for every civilization around the world. No such break point exists. The river of history appears to have continued flowing uninterrupted through the Great Flood.
# Once the animals got off the ark, they would have nothing to eat. All the plants would have died in the flood, so the herbivores would have nothing to eat. The carnivores would wipe them out anyway, and then they would die too.
# Creationists often claim that there were only babies of each species and only seeds of each plant on the ark, but then this would require a time for them to grow. For every ten units of mass on one level of the food chain, only one unit of mass can be created on the next level. That means for a lion, which weighs over 400 pounds, to become fully grown, he needs to eat 4,000 pounds of meat, and that animal would have to eat 40,000 pounds of plant to get that much weight. It is therefore absurd to think that Noah could have taken babies on the ark.

'''Counter Arguments'''

# Wood is a bad ship building material. While the ark is supposed to be roughly 450 feet long, modern shipwrights can build a wooden ship about 300 feet long, that require steel braces to keep it from breaking.
# All of the animals could not have gotten there. Is a polar bear going to swim from the north pole just to get on a boat? Is a sloth going to walk there?
# Special habitats: Did the ark have special habitat chambers for the animals that required special temperatures or humidity levels?
# No one knows what a "kind" is. If someone says that all the modern dogs came from the dog kind, then that person acknowledges that evolution happens.
# Some arguments state that the ark took only infants. The bible says there was a pair. A male and his '''mate'''. The word mate implies sexual maturity.
# There isn't enough room to house all of the animals in adult form, food, corridors, bracing, and all other necessities, without overloading the ark.
# Contrary to a "Doctor's" beliefs, moonpools will snap the boat in half, and drogue stones will cause the ark to go in a direction with the waves that will capsize it.
# Disposing of waste from all the animals with 8 people, from three decks, at least one of which waste will have to be carried up, is a daunting task at best.

===Counter Arguments to the Flood itself===

Counters to the origin of the water

===Vapor canopy===

-Model in which the water was suspended above the Earth until the 40 days of rain. In the form of water, ice, or vapor.

# Water: A canopy holding more then 40 feet of water would cause atmospheric pressure to skyrocket to 64 times higher then standard pressures. Pressure this high would raise Nitrogen and Oxygen to toxic levels causing the bends world wide.
# If the water was in gas form, (water needs to be at 100°C to be in a gas form), the atmosphere would be superheated and the ark would have been cooked.
# If the water began as ice the gravitational potential energy would cause similar temperatures, as well as blocking out the sun.
# Any water orbiting the Earth would be broken apart by the UV radiation.
# Friction caused by this much water falling through the atmosphere may have ignited the atmosphere, and at the very least would have made it inhospitable for life.

===Hydro Plate===

-Model in which a layer of water was contained roughly ten miles down and was released by ruptures in the Earth's crust. (Fountains of the deep)

# As the a majority of the Earth's Crust is not made of pumice, it doesn't float. As a result, the water would have been forced the the surface long before the flood.
# Even a mile down, the water would have been boiling. Since it was under high pressure, it would have been unable to vaporize. When released, the heat would have dispersed into the atmosphere and cooked the ark.
# Escaping waters would have left huge gashes in the Earth crust. Such huge formations would be obviously visible, but we see none.

===Comet===

-Model in which the flood waters came from a comet or comets that hit the Earth.

# Any comet large enough to provide sufficient water to cover the highest mountains would have pulverized the Earth when it impacted.
# Any comet burning up in the atmosphere would have had all of its water vaporized, and it would have been steam.

===Where did the water go?===

-Most models have the water draining into basins which are our present day oceans. During the flood there was much global reconstruction. Mountains were pushed up and the oceans were lowered.

# The amount of heat required to make the crust malleable enough to cause such drastic change so quickly would have been disastrous to life.
# If water had drained off the continents and into the new basins, we would expect to see sediment patterns such as those found in the Mediterranean Sea after the Straits of Gibraltar broke open, or in Washington when an ice dam broke. We see no such patterns.
# Most sediments are carried with the water until the water slows or stops moving. We would expect most sediments to be in the ocean, where the water slowed down. Instead, we see most sediments on land.
# Global reconstruction of the Earth's surface squeezed into such a short time would have cause tsunamis large enough to circle the globe, and the aftershocks of the earthquakes would have been devastating for years.

===Geological Evidence===

# If most mountains were formed at the same time, why do we see large variation in the erosion levels of the Rockies and the Appalachians. They should have eroded at the same rate.
# If all fossil bearing strata were laid down during the flood, why didn't one dinosaur make up to the higher levels?
# The polar ice caps would have floated and broken apart. They would not have regrown this fast. Greenland's wouldn't have regrown at all.
# Why don't any modern plants or animals appear in the lower layers?
# Small organisms dominate the lower strata layers, fluid dynamics states they should sink slower and as a result should be higher up.
# No human artifacts are found in any layer except the uppermost layers.
# For the flood timeline to be true, some formation were formed by 15 meters of sediment settled per day. Despite this, there are significant differences in the chemical properties from centimeter to centimeter. i.e., carbonate level changes would have to take place on a minute to minute basis.
# Chalk is made of tiny plankton bodies 700-1000 angstroms(100×10−12 meter). Objects like this settle at a rate of 0.0000154 millimeters/Second. During the flood they would have settled about half a meter.

===Biological evidence===

# Tree rings date back 10,000 years. Ice core samples in Greenland date back 40,000 years. Neither of these show any sign of any kind of global flood.
# Most plants would have been killed not only by being underwater for so long, but because at their depth there would have been little to no sunlight to photosynthesize.
# Noah must have taken vast quantities of seeds with him on the ark in order to repopulate the plants of the world.
# Most seeds would be under miles of sediment, preventing sprouting.
# Many plants require humus and other organic matter to grow in. Such soils would have been stripped by the flood.
# Some plants only germinate after a fire. Fires would have been rare after the flood for obvious reasons.
# Even if Noah did bring all the seeds with him, many can't survive a year without germinating. There must have been a large greenhouse on the ark as well.
# Fish require different habitats: some need salt water, some need fresh water, some need submerged logs, different oxygen levels and other factors, the flood would have disrupted and destroyed many on these habitats.
# Many corals need shallow water. The sediments from the flood and the flood water itself would kill the shallow coral that we see today.
# Many diseases can only survive in non-resistant human population for a few weeks before the population becomes resistant. Diseases such as typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, and syphilis should have gone extinct during he flood.
# Species such as mayflies would have died in a few days, and the larva need fresh, shallow running water, a rare condition during the flood.
# The animals traveled impossible journeys to reach there current homes from Mount Ararat. Polar bears to the Arctic, Penguins, Koalas, Kangaroos, etc.
# There hasn't been sufficient time for all the different body shapes, body structures, skin colors, facial structures to have evolved from just Noah's family.

===God's stupidity===

# God could have just killed what we wanted to, and left the rest alone.
# The whole point of the flood was to rid the world of evil and wickedness. Did it work?

==External Links==
===Logical Inconsistencies===
* [http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bad0d3c8a5fb8d8b?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Torpedo Ye Arke], by Pat James
* [http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html The Skeptic's Dictionary]

===Biblical Timelines===
* [http://atheism.about.com/library/chronologies/blchron_ot1.htm About.com Religious Timelines]
* [http://www.andrews.edu/SEM/bket/BKET%20OT%20Time%20Line.htm The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Timeline]
* [http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm Word Sight's Bible Time-line]

===Historical Timelines===
* [http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/03/wam/ht03wam.htm The Metropolitan Museum of Art historical timeline]
* [http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/3rdmill.htm Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago historical timeline]
* [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001198.html Infoplease.com Ancient history timeline]

===Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim===
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim Wikipedia Entry: Utnapishtim]
* [http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/ The Epic of Gilgamesh]

===DNA and Mapping Human Migration===
* [https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html National Geographic and the Genographic Project]

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

Talk:Noah's ark

2007-04-29T19:44:53Z

LtCmd.Lore: Biblical contradictions

Most of this article really ought to be heavily edited for style and content. Some of the counterarguments are good, others not (e.g., it doesn't seem right to say that "wood is a bad ship building material." It may not be suitable for building a battleship, but that doesn't mean it's bad for all types of ship).

A lot of the rhetorical questions come across as snarky or arrogant, e.g.:
: Is a polar bear going to swim from the north pole just to get on a boat? Is a sloth going to walk there?
Better to rewrite these as statements, perhaps along the lines of
: A polar bear could not have survived in a temperate or subtropical climate long enough to make the trip to the Middle East. At its maximum rate of travel of X mph, a three-toed sloth could not have traveled the Y miles from its native habitat in South America to the ark in the 100 years that the Bible allows, even assuming that there was a land bridge that allowed it to travel in a straight line.

Some of these counterarguments require more than one paragraph to explain properly, so perhaps a bullet list isn't the best format.

==Biblical contradictions==
Would it be worth mentioning the apparent contradictions in the Bible, that disprove the flood?
For example: [Bible| Genesis 2:10-14] says that there was a river going through the garden of Eden, that split off into four sections, including the Tigris and Euphrates... Now with all the mountains being formed, the oceans lowering, and all that. It seems pretty unlikely that those rivers would have survived.
[[User:LtCmd.Lore|LtCmd.Lore]] 14:44, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Jesus fulfilled prophecy

2007-04-29T01:48:08Z

LtCmd.Lore: Started it, still neads lots of work. Probably neads lots of cleanup. I just couldn't leave it empty.

{{religion-stub}}
This page is intended to contain a list of claims of fulfilled prophecy and responses.

There are literally hundreds of claimed instances where Jesus fulfilled prophecies. It would take forever to list all the responses. But the vast majority of them can be disregarded as non-evidence simply due to their very nature.

For example one prophecy says that the messiah existed before the rest of creation. This would obviously be impossible to prove or disprove and so it doesn't count. You would first have to prove that Jesus pre-existed everything in order to assert that he fulfilled this prophecy.

Also, most of these require us to exept what the Bible says at face value. So therefore they would only be convincing if you ALREADY accepted the Bible as true. This is an example of circular reasoning.

We know the Bible is true because the prophecies in it were fulfilled.
We know the prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled because it says they were.

==Outstanding examples==
Here are some of the more convincing, and less easily nullified 'prophecies'.
===About his birth===
{{Bible|Genesis 3:15}} Supposedly means that the [[messiah]] would be born of a human woman.
However the only alternatives are that he would be born of a man, some form of animal, or simply poofed into existence on earth. Both of which would have been much more amazing. It would take a miracle for this one NOT to have come true.

{{Bible|Isaiah 7:14}} ''14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'' It is said that this verse is prophecying that the messiah would be born of a virgin.
But whether his mother was acctually a virgin at the time cannot be proven. After all she was dating at the time. We are just supposed to believe that she was acctually a virgin because the Bible, or more specifically, Matthew says so.
Plus nobody called Jesus 'Immanuel' except one time when Matthew was refferencing this very scripture, almost like an afterthought.

{{Bible|Genesis 22:18 }} In this verse god is promising Abraham that ''in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.'' Apologists claim that this meens that the messiah would be one of Abraham's decendants.
That's not what god said. And even if it is, then it's not true anyway. The geneologies recorded in Matthew and Luke are based on his fathers line. If Mary was really a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, then Jesus was not Joseph's son.
So if that's what god meant when talking to Abraham, then we have to believe that the geneologies recorded in the gospels are accurate, even though they both conflict.

{{Bible|Micah 5:2}} ''2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'' Apologists say that this means that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, which according to the Gospel is where Jesus was born.

But Jesus did not become the ruler of Israel. Plus that's hardly a convincing prophecy anyway. It's more like a requirement then a prediction, since nobody from anywhere else would have been considered.

{{Bible|Jeremiah 31:15}}''15Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.'' According to Matthew, this was actually a prophecy about king Herod killing the children of Bethlehem.

But taken in context this scripture is nothing like a prophecy. It's a documentation of events that already happened to Rahel, followed by comfort because her children will return. Plus Ramah is over 20 miles from Bethlehem.
It's worth mentioning, that Matthew is the ''only record'' of this slaughter even taking place. If all the young children in that area were murdured by the king, you'd think there would be a whole bunch of poems, songs, stories and records of that. Not to mention the angry mobs demanding revenge.

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

Talk:Jesus fulfilled prophecy

2007-04-25T03:24:54Z

LtCmd.Lore: list of asserted fulfillments to shoot down.

==Suggestions==
I don't want to cramp anyone's style by putting these on the article page, but thought I'd throw up a few prophecies as I think of them. Feel free to add to or delete from this list.

* {{Bible|Matthew 1:22-23}} says, quoting {{Bible|Isaiah 7:14}}, that a virgin will have a son named Immanuel. No one calls Jesus "Immanuel", not even Matthew.
* {{Bible|Matthew 16:28}}, {{Bible|Mark 9:1}}, {{Bible|Luke 9:27}} all say that Jesus will come to power within the lifetime of some in the audience.

==Claimed fulfillments==
Here is a list of claimed prophecies and fulfillments that was sent at me by a theist I was talking too. It's really long and most of them are unverifiable:

''Concerning his birth Prophesied Fulfilled:

1. Born of the seed of woman
Gen 3:15
Gal 4:4

2. Born of a virgin
Isa 7:14
Mt 1:18-25

3. Seed of Abraham
Gen 22:18
Mt 1:1

4. Seed of Isaac
Gen 21:12
Lk 3:23+34

5. Seed of Jacob
Num 24:17
Lk 3:34

6. Seed of David
Jer 23:5
Lk 3:31

7. Tribe of Judah
Gen 49:10
Rev 5:5

8. Family line of Jesse
Isa 11:1
Lk 3:32

9. Born in Bethlehem
Mic 5:2
Mt 2:1-6

10. Herod kills the children
Jer 31:15
Mt 2:16-18

Concerning his nature Prophesied Fulfilled

11. He pre-existed creation
Mic 5:2
1 Pet 1:20

12. He shall be called Lord
Ps 110:1
Acts 2:36

13. Called Immanuel (God with us)
Isa 7:14
Mt 1:22-23

14. Prophet
Deut 18:18-19
Acts 3:18-25

15. Priest
Ps 110:4
Heb 5:5-6

16. Judge
Isa 33:22
Jn 5:22-23

17. King
Ps 2:6
Jn 18:33-37

18. Anointed by the Spirit
Isa 11:2
Mt 3:16-17

19. His zeal for God
Ps 69:9
Jn 2:15-17

Concerning his ministry Prophesied Fulfilled:

20. Preceded by a messenger
Isa 40:3
Mt 3:1-3

21. To begin in Galilee
Isa 9:1-2
Mt 4:12-17

22. Ministry of Miracles
Isa 35:5-6
Mt 9:35;11:4

23. Teacher of parables
Ps 78:1-4
Mt 13:34-35

24. He was to enter the temple
Mal 3:1
Mt 21:10-12

25. Enter Jerusalem on donkey
Zech 9:9
Mt 21:1-7

26. Stone of stumbling to Jews
Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22
1 Pet 2:6-8

27. Light to Gentiles
Isa 49:6
Acts 13:46-48

The day Jesus was crucified Prophesied Fulfilled:

28. Betrayed by a friend
Ps 41:9
Jn 13:18-27

29. Sold for 30 pieces of silver
Zech 11:12
Mt 26:14-15

30. 30 pieces thrown in Temple
Zech 11:13
Mt 27:3-5

31. 30 pieces buys potters field
Zech 11:13
Mt 27:6-10

32. Forsaken by His disciples
Zech 13:7
Mk 14:27+50

33. Accused by false witnesses
Ps 35:11+20-21
Mt 26:59-61

34. Silent before accusers
Isa 53:7
Mt 27:12-14

35. Wounded and bruised
Isa 53:4-6
1 Pet 2:21-25

36. Beaten and spit upon
Isa 50:6
Mt 26:67-68

37. Mocked
Ps 22:6-8
Mt 27:27-31

38. Fell under the cross
Ps 109:24-25
Jn 19:17; Lk23:26

39. Hands and feet pierced
Ps 22:16
Jn 20:24-28

40. Crucified with thieves
Isa 53:12
Mt 27:38

41. Prayed for enemies
Isa 53:12
Lk 23:34

42. Rejected by His own people
Isa 53:3
Jn 19:14-15

43. Hated without cause
Ps 69:4
Jn 15:25

44. Friends stood aloof
Ps 38:11
Lk22:54;23:49

45. People wag their heads
Ps 22:7;109:25
Mt 27:39

46. People stared at Him
Ps 22:17
Lk 23:35

47. Cloths divided and gambled for
Ps 22:18
Jn 19:23-24

48. Became very thirsty
Ps 22:15
Jn 19:28

49. Gall and vinegar offered Him
Ps 69:21
Mt 27:34

50. His forsaken cry
Ps 22:1
Mt 27:46

51. Committed Himself to God
Ps 31:5

Lk 23:46
52. Bones not broken
Ps 34:20
Jn 19:32-36

53. Heart broken
Ps 69:20;22:14
Jn 19:34

54. His side pierced
Zech 12:10
Jn 19:34+37

55. Darkness over the land
Amos 8:9
Lk 23:44-45

56. Buried in rich man's tomb
Isa 53:9
Mt 27:57-60

His Resurrection & Ascension Prophesied Fulfilled:

57. Raised from the dead
Ps 16:8-11
Acts 2:24-31

58. Begotten as Son of God
Ps 2:7
Acts 13:32-35

59. Ascended to God
Ps 68:18
Eph 2:8-10

60. Seated beside God
Ps 110:1
Heb 1:3+13 ''

Ebon Musings

2007-04-06T23:19:21Z

LtCmd.Lore: Created article about atheist website: EbonMusings

'''Ebon Musings''' is a web site dedicated to discussing the ethics, and philosophy of atheism. Along with responses to common [[apologetic]] arguemnents and questions, and uses homour and satire to make its point. It also includes experiences and submissions from other atheists.

==External Links==
* [http://www.ebonmusings.org Official site]

[[Category: Atheist web sites]]

Demon

2007-04-05T19:23:51Z

LtCmd.Lore: Why can demons possess humans and animals?

{{stub}}
In [[Christian]] mythology, a '''demon''' is an angel who has fallen from [[grace]] along with [[Satan]]. Demons are inherently [[evil]] and frequently plague humanity under the command of [[the Devil]].

==Demonic possession==
Demons are supposedly able to enter and take control of a human or animal in a process called ''possession''. The [[Catholic Church]] uses the ritual of [[exorcism]] to expel demons from the victims they possess.

Demon possession used to be a common explanation for those who suffer from neurological disorders such as [[epilepsy]] or [[schizophrenia]].

The reason god would create angels with the ability to invade human bodies and control them is not explained in the [[Bible]].

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

User:LtCmd.Lore

2007-03-30T02:53:45Z

LtCmd.Lore: duh, put my profile in the correct section.

I am a male atheist, born in 1989. I was raised in the Jehovahs Witness religion. (Which could very well be considered a cult.)
==Favorite counter-apologetic methods==
I like to be armed with short and to-the-point logical statements against the existence of god. Just enough to make them think, but obvious enough to avoid a full-fledged arguement.

I also like to use flaws in their beliefs about the Bible, like pointing out errors, inhumane laws, doctrinal differences, and scientific impossiblities.
Because if they are not willing to change their mind about things in their own bible, then there's very little point in discussing anything else with them.
==Interests==
I'm a computer geek. I currently know HTML, Javascript, C++. (and binary just for the fun of it)
I'm currently learning Perl. All of which are easier than English.
I like video games, mostly Nintendo and Sony. Specifically adventure and strategy games, like Pikmin, Mario, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy etc.
I also like driving, whether it's a car, ATV, boat, whatever.

I'd like a career in video game design.

User talk:LtCmd.Lore

2007-03-30T02:52:57Z

LtCmd.Lore: duh, moving my profile to the proper section. :p

Soul

2007-03-28T02:34:59Z

LtCmd.Lore: What does the soul do? Why have a brain?

The soul is an immmaterial [[spirit]] that many religions claim reside in a human's body. The soul is responsible for the [[consciousness]]. In [[Christianity]] the soul goes to [[heaven]] or [[hell]] after you die.

==Counter-apologetics==

# Nobody knows how the soul interacts with the body. Since it's immaterial, physical things cannot influence it, yet it somehow communicates with the brain and vice versa.
# The idea of a soul raises many questions about relativity. If the soul doesn't occupy our universe, then it shouldn't experience time. Since we do feel time, it cannot be immaterial. Since it occupies our universe, this raises many questions about what it's made of. Is it made up of the basic particles that all matter is made of? If it's an entirely different type of particle, what's its mass? Is it influenced by the four fundamental forces? What's its charge? How does it manage to hold your consciousness? None of these questions have ever been answered, so to use the soul to explain something, you are using a term that isn't defined.
# Just what information does the soul contain? Science has proven that certain parts of our physical brain are used for emotions, other parts are used for memory, logical thinking, breathing and heartbeat. Damage to a certain part of the brain can drastically effect the personality, memory, or thought process. And if the soul contains our memories, then what is the point of our memories being stored in our physical brain as well? Is alzheimers or amnesia a problem with the brain? Or a problem with the soul?

[[Category:Metaphysics]]

User talk:LtCmd.Lore

2007-03-22T18:21:06Z

LtCmd.Lore: Added stuff about my likes

Thermodynamics

2007-03-22T01:13:07Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Counter-apologetics */ Probably needs correction, but better than nothing.

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Thermodynamics''' is the study of the transfer of heat energy. There are three main laws of thermodynamics, the second being frequently brought into arguments against [[evolution]].

==Laws==

===First===
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.

===Second===
There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.

===Third===
As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant.

==Alternative descriptions==

The laws of thermodynamics have also been described in a tongue-in-cheek way as:
#You can't win.
#You can't break even.
#And you can't get out of the game.

==Apologetics==
[[Creationist]]s claim that evolution is impossible because the second law of thermodynamics does not allow an unguided increase in complexity.

==Counter-apologetics==
The most common definition of the second law is: "''The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.''"
The second law of thermodynamics uses the word ''entropy'', which is what causes the confusion (Or allows the lies, depending on how you look at it.)
The meaning of the word ''entropy'' that is used in the second law is: "''For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.''"
Using that correct definition the second law of thermodynamics obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. It never did, it's just about thermel energy. (As should be evident by it's very name.)

But the definition that the apologists use is: "''A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.''"
And using that definition, the second law of thermodynamics would mean: ''The random disorderliness of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.''
However, this is not only an incorrect use of the second law. It is also untrue, some closed systems will tend to fall into disorder, while some will become more orderly.
Examples: Disorderly dust clouds in space eventualy gravitate towards a central/denser point, forming a star.

So in summary, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution, the beginings of life, star formation, or anything at all other than the movement and/or effects of energy.

==External links==
* [http://www.secondlaw.com/ secondlaw.com] explains the second law of thermodynamics.
* [http://www.2ndlaw.com/ 2ndlaw.com] fields questions generated by the previous site, including issues with evolution.
* [http://members.aol.com/darrwin/thermo.htm Thermodynamics for Two, Please] by R. J. Riggins

[[Category:Science]]

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-03-21T20:20:32Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* The Deity */

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

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

==The Deity==

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

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

FSM lore includes a [[creation myth]], and a graph showing an inverse relationship between global temperature and the number of pirates in the world, which serves to illustrate the flaw in assuming that just because figures corrolate they must be intertwined. Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are known as "Pastafarians."

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

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

[[Category: Fictional deities]]
[[Category: Humorous web sites]]

The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)

2007-03-14T21:57:04Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Absolute Proof of God */

[[Image:Raybanana.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Ray Comfort]] presents the [[banana argument]]]][[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit-Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit-Atheism]] is the title of the seventh episode from season one of [[Way of the Master]].

==Episode Synopsis==
This episode specifically addresses [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]], providing sample tactics [[Christians]] can use when witnessing to non-believers. [[Ray Comfort|Ray]] and [[Kirk Cameron|Kirk]] discuss Kirk's claim that he was once a "devout" atheist, provide several [[arguments from design]] and demonstrate the "atheist test" in action.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray and Kirk use a narrow, incomplete definition of atheism to argue that there are no atheists, only "professed atheists" who are actually agnostics. This idea, echoed in Ray's book ''"God doesn't believe in atheists"'' demonstrates a gross conceptual error regarding philosophical positions like atheism and agnosticism and serves as nothing more than a straw man. Completely avoiding epistemological questions of belief and knowledge, they rely on a number of hidden premises to prop up analogies which support intelligent design. This episode:
* contains numerous, insulting claims about atheism and intellectualism
* completely misrepresents, by way of analogy, evolutionary theory
* presents several, anecdotal, arguments from design to support "common sense" conclusions over empirical evidence
* encourages the use of "emotional" arguments over "intellectual" arguments
* misquotes and misrepresents famous figures }}

==Episode Walkthrough==
===Introduction===
====About this Episode====
(00:00 - 00:40)
:* Kirk begins by asking, ''"Who do you know who isn't saved?"'' After inserting possible answers, including close relatives, he asks the viewer to ''"think of their terrible fate if they die, without Christ"''. Convinced that the viewer really wants to share their faith with these non-believers, he explains that the purpose of this episode is to provide them with the tools they need to overcome fear and know exactly what to say.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk begins with an [[appeal to emotion]]. The concepts of damnation and [[salvation]] are simply asserted, without justification, and the viewer feels compelled to learn these "tools" in order to prevent the damnation of someone they care about. While this isn't a true [[logical fallacy]] (because the viewer is likely to accept this premise, a priori) it does represent the tendency to obscure the questionable nature of the premises by "tugging on the heart strings" of the audience.}}
(00:40 - 01:10)
:* Opening Titles

====About Atheism====
(01:10 - 01:35)
:* A non-believer responds to the question, "Do you believe in God?" with...
:: ''"My next question would be, or my next concern would be, um, whether you believe in God or not. And the fact that someone tells me he's there and I can't see him, can't smell him, can't touch him, can't feel him ever, I mean, how are you supposed to believe that and base your life around that if you don't have that belief."''
(01:36 - 01:56)
:* Ray begins by stating, ''"If you get a dictionary and look up the word atheism, you'll find it says it's the belief that there's no God." ''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Depending on the dictionary you grab, you might also find an entry declaring that atheism is synonymous with immorality. Dictionary definitions are useful, but when considering complex, philosophical topics, they often portray an over-simplified explanation.

If you get a dictionary and look up the word atheism, you're also likely to find an entry defining it as the 'lack' of belief in a god/gods/God. Ray selects a particular definition, representing one possible take on [[strong atheism]] and uses a distortion of this definition as a [[straw man]] attack on atheism.}}
:* Ray continues with, ''"According to TV Guide, a number of years ago, 96% of Americans actually believe in God's existence. Which means there's 4% that don't, which equates to something like 10 million atheists in the United States."''

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray has opted to use an outdated, unscholarly survey in order to unjustly inflate the significance of his position. More current statistics, from more reputable sources (see: http://adherents.com/rel_USA.html) show that nearly 14% of Americans identify as non-religious or secular.

Additionally, this is a veiled example of the [[argumentum ad populum]]. Ray doesn't actually assert that the fact that so many people believe in the existence of a God is evidence that he exists, but the implication is there.}}

====Kirk as a former atheist====
(01:56 - 02:28)
:* Ray asks Kirk, ''"Didn't you used to be an atheist?"''
:* Kirk responds, ''"Yeah, I did. I used to be a devout atheist and that sounds a little strange but I was committed to my belief that God didn't exist. And this really wasn't based on anything other than what I had learned in school. I thought that evolution was responsible for everything that's around and that God was something that people just invented in their minds as an emotional crutch or as some sort of an answer to the questions that they couldn't figure out themselves. And I've since learned that when you really look at the evidence, the truth is, it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God, you've really gotta ignore the facts."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk, essentially, admits that his atheism was without basis. Rather than holding rational views supported by evidence and questioning views which lack evidentiary support, he made assumptions based on a limited understanding of evolution and religion. In an interview with Ray Comfort on the [[Hellbound Alleee]] program, Ray stated that Kirk's epiphany was "what if I'm wrong". A simplified version of [[Pascal's Wager]], which is an argument for belief when "real" evidence is insufficient, this "epiphany" demonstrates that Kirk's current belief is just as unfounded as his previous one.

Kirk sets himself up as a living straw man in order to support his claim that it takes it takes more [[faith]] to be an [[atheist]] than it does to believe in god(see: [[Atheism is based on faith]]). Asserting that one must really "ignore the facts", he lays the groundwork for Ray's claim that belief in God is more intellectual than disbelief.}}
(02:28 - 02:34)
:* Ray says, ''"It's funny how we equate the word atheism with intellectual when it's the exact opposite."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is one of many appeals to emotion or vanity, designed to make the believer feel intellectually superior for recognizing the "ultimate truth". It's a subtle attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]], at least in the mind of the believer, setting up their beliefs as truths which must be disproved instead of claims which must be proven.}}

===Arguments===
====The Soda Can====
(02:35 - 03:29)
[[Image:soda1.jpg|thumb|right|Created in his image?]]
:* Ray says, ''"Kirk, I have an intellectually stimulating theory. It's my theory of where the soda can may have come from. Billions of years ago, there was a big bang in space. Nobody knows what caused the big bang, it just happened. And from this bang issued this huge rock, on top of the rock was found a sweet, brown bubbly substance. And over millions of years, aluminum crept up the side, formed itself with a can and a lid and then a tab. And then millions of years later, red paint, blue paint, white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words '12 fluid ounces - Do not litter'."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|rmargin=225px|text=Ray's analogy fails on many levels. His "intellectually stimulating theory" isn't a [[theory]] at all; it's an [[hypothesis]]. Unlike Ray's example, scientists don't just "dream up" an explanation and run with it. The scientific path from hypothesis to theory includes observations, testing, [[falsification]] and [[peer review]]. Additionally, his analogy is a combined theory of [[cosmology]], [[abiogenesis]], and [[evolution]], which is not directly analogous to the current state of the scientific theories he's challenging.

While Ray may not recognize the various faults of his analogy, he does recognize that it's absurd and immediately points this out. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to recognize why it's absurd and why this is an incredibly weak objection to evolutionary theory.}}
:* Continuing, ''"You're saying, 'What are you doing, you're insulting my intellect' - and so I am. Because we know, if the can is made there must be a maker. If it's designed there must be a designer. To believe the soda can happened by chance is to move into an intellectual-free zone... is to have an echo when you think... is to have brain liposuction."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|rmargin=225px|text=Ray is correct to point out that designed things must have a designer. However, this is a [[tautology]]. He's making a circular [[argument from design]] by asserting that human beings (by analogy to a soda can) must have a designer because they ''appear'' designed. While his argument is incomplete, the implications are riddled with hidden premises about the nature of design and potential designers. He uses this "common sense" argument as a foundation for his belief that humans were designed by God.

The argument fails to recognize that the ''appearance'' of design doesn't necessarily require an intelligent designer. Additionally, his argument rests on a misrepresentation of "chance" as it relates to evolutionary theory. While random mutations are essential to evolutionary theory, the governing "designer" of evolution is [[natural selection]] which is about as far removed from "blind chance" as possible.

Finally, Ray makes some insulting appeals to vanity by implying that acceptance of evolutionary theory is somehow an exercise which requires one to turn off their brain. While belief in Ray's example of a soda can forming by blind chance may require "brain-liposuction", his example is a [[straw man]] which doesn't accurately represent evolutionary theory.}}

====The Banana Argument====
(03:31 - 04:34)
:* Ray holds up a banana and continues with, ''"Behold, the atheists' nightmare. Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find, on the far side, there are 3 ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves, on the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made, one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents - green, too early - yellow, just right - black, too late. Now if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda can makers have placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find a wrapper which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice it has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth. It's chewy, easy to digest and its even curved toward the face to make the whole process so much easier. Seriously, Kirk, the whole of creation testifies to the genius of God's creation."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument drew so much attention (and ridicule) that an entire entry has been devoted to the [[banana argument]].}}

====The Human Eye====
(04:35 - 04:50)
:* Kirk uses the common example of the complexity of the human eye to support the idea of an intelligent designer.
====Charles Darwin====
(04:51 - 05:11)
:* Kirk says, ''"...even Charles Darwin, himself, said"''
:: ''"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."''
:: -Charles Darwin
:* Kirk's assessment of this Darwin quote is, ''"Even the, uh, creator of the theory of evolution says it just goes against my common sense and logic."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a prime example of [[quote mining]]. The quotation from Darwin is incomplete and the entire section reads...

:''"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; '''but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God "), as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."'''''

Darwin, after admitting that the idea contradicts common sense, points out that common sense is not a reliable foil within the scope of scientific investigation and that if we can demonstrate gradual changes from a simple eye to a complex eye, his theory holds despite objections from "common sense". Darwin goes on to provide examples of the variety of eyes which exist in nature. Beginning with simple, light-sensitive cells and advancing through creatures with primitive lenses, irises he marches through a series of examples demonstrating the exact sort of gradations he hypothesized.}}
====Albert Einstein====
(05:12 - 05:27)
:* Ray, ''"And some of these guys that we think were atheists weren't actually atheists. I mean, Einstein wasn't an atheist, he, he objected when atheists used him to, to say that atheism was a genuine thing. I mean, Einstein believed in the existence of God and even Darwin did."''

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=IronChariots has been unable to find any reference of [[Albert Einstein]] objecting to any atheistic reference to him or his work. Ray's comment that Einstein believed in God is more than a little dishonest. For specific quotes on Einstein's religion, visit [[Albert Einstein|his page]].

Einstein's stated beliefs, while they do include ''some'' concept of God, hardly represent the sort of god-concept that Ray Comfort is implying. If anything, his opinions are more in line with the deists and freethinkers of the 19th century.

With regard to [[Charles Darwin]], we're presented with a very similar situation. Darwin's autobiography clearly demonstrates his rejection of Christianity as well as the specific arguments and evidence which lead him to identify himself as an agnostic.

Ray, quickly tries to imply that Einstein and Darwin were believers as an [[argument from authority]], yet their own quotes clearly show that if they maintained any notion of God, it was vastly different from the sort of God being argued for in this series. As with any fallacious argument from authority, the personal beliefs of Einstein, Darwin or any other person has no bearing on the truth of the situation and carries no weight outside of their recognized fields.

This blatant misrepresentation of Darwin, the second in the past few minutes, demonstrates either a lack of scholarship or intentional dishonesty. Neither Einstein's nor Darwin's ideas about God mesh with Ray's "intelligent designer"-god and claiming that Darwin, the "creator of the theory of evolution" (as Kirk phrased it) would support Ray's notions about God is laughable.}}

===Proving God Exists===
(5:27 - 7:58)
Ray and Kirk promise to teach the user how to "prove the existence of god" and "make an atheist backslide." They go on to provide several versions of the same argument from design:
====Building/Builder====
:*Ray, ''"When I look at a building, how can I know there was a builder? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can I know there was a builder? Well, the building is absolute proof there was a builder. I couldn't want better proof that there was a builder than to have the building as evidence."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As is the case with nearly all of Ray's examples, this analogy fails for a number of reasons. In reality, we understand that a building had a builder because we have a mountain of evidence that supports the notion that buildings are designed and built by intelligent human beings and absolutely no evidence that they occur naturally. This distinction between "naturally occurring" and "intelligently designed", or "How do we recognize design?"/"How do we distinguish between design and the appearance of design?" is the true question that Ray continually avoids.

In the case of living things, we have an enormous amount of evidence that they are natural occurring and absolutely no evidence that living things were intelligently designed. The appearance of design is adequately explained by the filter of natural selection acting on slight modifications over long periods. Each of Ray's arguments '''assumes''', in the premise, the very thing he's trying to prove. This sort of [[circular reasoning]] is a logical fallacy which cripples each of his examples.}}
:*Ray, ''"I don't need faith to believe in a builder, all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Yet another example of Ray's implication that only a moron or fool would fail to recognize the obvious truth of his claims.}}
====Painting/Painter====
:*Ray, ''"Now the same deep, rich, scientific principle works with paintings and painters."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This "deep, rich, scientific" principle is none of the above. It is a tautology which explains nothing and serves as rhetoric to support a particular position. Saying that a painting requires a painter is like saying that a gift must be free. It's true by definition and in the case of all of Ray's examples (build-ing/er, paint-ing/er, Creat-ion/or), obvious by examining root words.}}
:*Ray continues by repeating the building argument for paintings.
====Creation/Creator====
:*Ray, ''"...and the same principle works with God. When I look at Creation how can I know there was a creator? Well, creation is absolute proof there was a creator."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, we're not talking about "Creation", we're talking about existence, the universe, nature, the cosmos, everything or any of a number of terms which don't make the circular mistake of including a claim about their reason for existing in their name. By labeling everything as "Creation", he is, again, assuming in the premise the very thing he's trying to prove. This argument is another tautology and the hidden premise renders it logically unsound.}}
:*Ray, ''"I don't need faith to believe in a creator, all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray's 'if you're not stupid, you'll believe this'-mantra continues.}}
:*Ray attempts to justify his position with a passage from the [[Bible]]:
::* ''"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse."'' - Romans 1:20
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray's position, and his claim that you'd have to be a moron not to recognize the truth of it, are supported by this passage. Unfortunately, for Ray, a tautology and insult from the Bible isn't going to carry any more weight or be any more logically sound to a critical thinker than when Ray says it himself.}}

====Well-made Car====
:*Kirk, ''"It's obvious that a building can't build itself, it has to have a builder. A painting can't paint itself, it has to have a painter and the same with a car..."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk adds a slightly new twist to the discussion, adding a [[false dichotomy]] to the analogies. His implication is that there are only two options: an intelligent designer or spontaneous, self-creation. This completely ignores or misrepresents evolutionary theory and relies on the common sense rejection of "self creation" to prop-up his implications about an intelligent designer.}}
:*Kirk continues his explanation, by demonstrating the properties of a "well-made automobile": nice body, steering wheel, horn, windshield, windshield wipers, and "squirters" (to wash the bugs off the windshield).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It's worth noting that many cars which might not be considered "well-made" also have those features. However, the important objection to this argument is that, like all of the other examples, it isn't the features or complexity of the automobile which convince us that it had a designer. We're convinced that this car was designed because we have vast quantities of reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that the car was designed and absolutely no examples of "naturally occurring" cars.

We can investigate and discover the manufacturer of that car, the designer, the history of this car, the history of similar cars, the variety of designs, how various features were invented, the successes and failures of the design process...it's this mass of evidence in conjunction with the lack of incidents of "spontaneous car generation" which assure us that this car was not only designed, but designed by an intelligent, human mind.}}

====Human Body====
:*Kirk extends his car analogy to the human body, ''"...think of the well-made human being. We have a body. Our mind and our will is like a steering wheel. We have windshields [cornea], we have windshield wipers [eyelids], we even have squirters [tear ducts] to lubricate the eye. Think of it! Everything about us has been made with purpose in mind."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The appearance of design is a natural conclusion from our interpretation of purpose. Kirk transposes cause and effect in comparing the human body to a car and in commenting on the purpose of our features in relation to design.

Humans and the natural world have, obviously, been around much longer than cars. It should come as little surprise that the inventors of the features of a car drew inspiration from the world around them - that's what inventors do, they try to improve on nature...to come up with new and better solutions to common problems.

Those common problems also control and define the process of natural selection. Consider the common problem of finding food. A creature who can sense its prey, by sight - even simple cells that only detect variations in light - has a distinct advantage to solving this problem compared to one who is blind. The same is true for other senses and features. Those with the slight benefit have an advantage which can translate into more opportunities to pass on this trait to offspring. Each of these developed features has a benefit which can be viewed as a "purpose" but it's not a true purpose as there's no evidence to imply that these were the result of conscious forethought (creatures don't "will" themselves to develop eyes).}}
:*Kirk continues with, ''"Is it really intelligent to say that this car has no maker, that it just 'happened'? How much less intelligent is it to say that the human body has no maker and there is no designer?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk's analogy, again, misrepresents evolutionary theory and here we have yet another example of how "smart" you'd be to accept these arguments and how foolish and unintelligent you must be to reject them. Curiously, the bulk of their arguments ''for'' the existence of God are actually arguments ''against'' their inaccurate view of evolutionary theory. In addition to this program, they have an entire episode devoted to evolution. }}
====Order equals Design====
(8:00 - 9:00)
Ray relates a story about an avocado tree in his back yard which continually dropped leaves.
:*Ray, ''"I looked down and I saw that there were seven leaves on the ground, so I bent down and I put them in a straight line, went into my office and sat down and waited for my wife to come in and say what I thought she'd say. It was very predictable. She walked in, sat down and said, "Why did you put those leaves like that, for?" See, there was no way her reasoning mind could believe that seven leaves fell off the avocado tree and fell into a [sound effect] straight line of seven leaves. She knew that that an intelligent mind, mine, had put them there."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is reasonable, given the example, for his wife to presume that he placed those leaves in a straight line, but Ray's implication is that order necessarily indicates [[intelligent design]], and this simply isn't true. It's possible, though unlikely, that those leaves could have fallen and been arranged in a straight line by [[natural laws]]. Our assumption that their pattern was the result of intelligence is based on our experience with similar situations and an understanding of the [[laws of physics]].

What if we were to find a large, nearly circular void in an area filled with leaves? Is this the result of some intelligence which intentionally formed the circle or could it be the result of a helicopter taking off from that location? Only by analyzing the available evidence can we determine what the most reasonable explanation is - though we may never be certain.

Our minds are very good at spotting patterns. So good, in fact, that we often see patterns where none exist. It's very common to confuse correlation with causation, transpose cause and effect or confuse apparent design with actual design. One fine example of this confusion and our ability to see an apparent design and overlay an intelligent cause or purpose is the [[Face on Mars]].}}

:*Ray continues, ''"And when you look at creation, we see order throughout the whole of creation. From the atom through the universe, the flowers, the birds, the trees, the sun, the moon, the stars, everything has order to it."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Order does not always require an intelligence behind it. In caves stalagmites may apear very orderly, or designed, but they are known to be nothing more than the natural effect of mineral rich water dripping from the ceiling leaving behind debris. There is no reason to believe that sculpter is the cause of the beautifull rock formations.

One aspect of our ability to be confused by the appearance of design involves our rather anthropocentric world view. It's relatively easy to look at the universe as if it were designed ''for'' humans, yet this presupposes an intended purpose...the very thing these claims seek to prove. Viewing the universe objectively, in the light of scientific investigation, it becomes clear that everything that exists is the logical result of natural laws. In other words, the universe wasn't made to "fit" humans, humans "fit" into the universe.

This view can be uncomfortable for those who wish to believe that humans are the central reason for the existence of the universe. However, the vast majority of scientific evidence backs up this view. Currently, we know of only one planet which is capable of sustaining human life and it wasn't always capable of doing this. Most (99.999...%) or the universe appears to be inhospitable or deadly to humans. Ray's statement, though vague, is an example of the [[anthropic principle]], as it pertains to the [[cosmological argument]].}}

===Disproving Atheism===
(9:00 - 12:18)
====Omniscience====
:*Kirk, ''"Let's look at it from a different angle. If I say to you, "There is no god", that's called an absolute statement. In order for me to make an absolute statement, and be right, I have to have absolute knowledge. I have to know everything about that subject."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk is correct, if we accept that a claim of [[knowledge]] requires absolute certainty. However, we often make claims of knowledge that don't require absolute certainty. Within [[epistemology]] there is a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief", which stems from the realization that certainty is unattainable outside of the knowledge that we are able to think.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Let me give you an example of another absolute statement. If I say to you, "There is no gold in China"...in order for that to be true, I have to know everything about China. I have to know what's under every rock, I have to know what's inside of every rock, inside every jewelry store and what's inside every Chinese person's mouth to see if there's any gold in there. In a filling. In a stone. In a ring. I have to have all knowledge of China to make that absolute statement that there's no gold."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk is, again, correct - if we accept his definitions. However, he's building a case that is, essentially, a straw man. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or the belief that there is no god, it isn't a claim of absolute knowledge that no god exists. A more accurate analogy than "There is no gold in China" would be "The claim that there is gold in china is unproven." It is still an emotionally misleading analogy, however, since even without specific knowledge of an example of gold in China, we can be pretty certain there is some. A fairer analogy might be phrased, e.g., to claim "there is no coelocanth in China," or "there is no living Tyrannosaurus rex in China," using things that are physically possible to exist in China, but for which there is no evidence.}}
:*Kirk, ''"However, if I want to make the statement, "There is gold in China", I don't have to have all knowledge of China, I just have to have a little knowledge. I just need to see one person's gold filling. I have to see one piece of gold and I can say, with confidence, "There is gold in China." So, for a person to say there is no god, to make that absolute statement, they have to have all knowledge or be omniscient...and nobody is."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In this quote, Kirk's argument about absolute knowledge begins to take shape as an analogy that atheism is irrational and theism is rational. All of his examples of knowledge which would be sufficient to prove that gold exists in China are fine, yet when we transfer this analogy to "There is a god", we find that the evidence which supports this claim is still missing. Where is the "absolute proof" of the existence of god which would support his claim? And, if such clear, absolute proof existed, would there be any debate?}}
=====Thomas Edison=====
:*Kirk, ''"Even the brilliant scientist, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=For more on [[Thomas Edison]], including his views on religion, visit [[Thomas Edison|his page]]}}
=====The Atheist Test=====
Ray introduces us to the "atheist test" which begins with two questions:
#"Could you please tell me how many pieces of sand are on the combined islands of Hawaii?"
#"Could you please tell me how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown, male Tibetan yak?"
:*Ray, ''"Now these are necessary, these questions, because there are some people who think they know everything. God used a similar principle with Job. He asked Job seventy questions, one after the other, until, in essence, Job laid his hand upon his mouth and said, "Boy I hardly know anything."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray continues Kirk's argument which misrepresents atheism as an untenable position which requires omniscience.}}
:*Ray, ''"So, here is the test. Let's say this circle'' [circle graphic appears on screen] ''represents all the knowledge in the known universe. Someone who is omniscient, who has all knowledge, knows everything about everything. They know how many hairs are on every head, every thought of every heart, every atom is splayed before them, all history is before their eyes. They know all about the secret love life of the fleas on the back of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat. They're omniscient, they know everything."''
:*Ray, ''"Let's say, mister professing atheist, that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Is it possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that god exists?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While Ray and Kirk have, on many occasions, insulted atheists by implying that one must be unintelligent to hold such a position, they've now progressed to implicitly asserting that atheists don't exist. By referring to atheists as "professing atheists", they're implying that atheists are lying or mistaken about their position. Fortunately, Ray and Kirk aren't definitional authorities on atheism and agnosticism and their continued misrepresentations of both positions demonstrate that they lack sufficient understanding to be producing an entire program which addresses those positions.}}
:*Ray claims the reasonable atheist is forced to say, ''"Well, it is possible that, in the knowledge I haven't yet come across, there's ample evidence to prove that god does exist."'' and ''"With the limited knowledge I have, at present, I've come to the conclusion there's no god, but I really don't know."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray is correct, and this is a much better representation of the atheist's position. By continually arguing against an inaccurate, straw man, representation of strong atheism, they've built a case which has no basis in reality.

It's worth noting that the conclusions Ray asserts one must logically reach with regard to god, also apply to any similar claim. It's possible that there's ample evidence to prove god, or fairies, or unicorns, or aliens, or ghosts, or ESP, or any number of other claims. Ray conveniently ignores this fact, hoping that one won't notice that his argument for god is hollow.

The real question isn't "Is this possible?" it's "Is this true?" or "Is there sufficient evidence to justify belief?" If we simply believed things because there's a possibility that evidence might exist, we'd believe nearly anything. For those who prefer to hold justifiable beliefs which are as near to "certainly true" as possible, mere possibility is grossly insufficient.}}
:*Kirk, ''"That's right, he's not technically an atheist, he's an agnostic."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The terms are not mutually exclusive. Kirk sets up a [[false dilemma]] which is addressed in the article: [[Atheist vs. agnostic]].}}
:*Kirk, ''"He's like the person who looks at a building and says, "I don't know if there's a builder".''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Kirk attempts to link the various tautologies about design and a designer to show that agnosticism (using his definition) is absurdly unintelligent.}}

===Street Interviews===
(12:19 - 12:49)
:*Ray, ''"We're now going to go to a clip of a real-live atheist, we found one, Kirk."''
:*Kirk, ''"You did?!"''
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, yeah, so watch what happens. There's three things to look for. One, watch for the fact that he changes his mind about the existence of god when we reason with him. Two, watch for that deliberate swing to address his conscience, where we say, "Do you consider yourself to be a good person?" And then three, watch where the Ten Commandments, the law does its work in pressing against his conscience and causes him to begin to justify himself once he realizes he's done wrong."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We'll look for those moments in the interview, but Ray's tactic here is to pick an "atheist on the street" and use them as a representative of the atheist's position. Not every atheist is able to eloquently justify their position, especially when plucked off of the street, nor do all atheists have the same justifications for their lack of belief. For those inexperienced in debating philosophical issues with theists, identifying logical fallacies and critically examining claims, Ray's questions can appear to have an impact. In reality, and in keeping with their theme for this program, these interviews are a form of straw man attack on atheism.

These interviews are, in part, the reason IronChariots decided to do such a detailed rebuttal to this episode - to demonstrate that while a given individual may not have sound responses at the ready, that doesn't mean that Ray's arguments hold water.}}
====Interview 1====
(12:50 - 19:14)
:* Ray, ''"Why are you an atheist?"''
:* Chris, ''"Um..., my, uh, my beliefs..I, I look at things, uh, very practically speaking, I guess. Uh..., uh, I like to have proof that..., that things are the way they are. So, it's hard for me to just take some information that someone tells me and believe that it's true unless, unless I have proof."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We've included the pauses and "uh"s in the transcription in order to demonstrate how awkward this sort of situation can be and we do not wish to embarrass the individual at all - we completely sympathize. Having your day in the park interrupted by someone shoving a camera and microphone in your face, followed by requests that you provide justification for your beliefs is not a situation most people would be comfortable with and we commend this individual for doing his best.

The key point to note is that this individual effectively stated that he requires "proof" to substantiate claims before he'll accept them.}}
:*Ray, ''"Do you have a car?"''
:*Chris, ''"Yeah"''
:*Ray, ''"What make is it?"''
:*Chris, ''"Ford"''
:*Ray, ''"Ford made it?"''
:*Chris, [confused] ''"Ford made it?"''
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, did they make your car? They're the maker?"''
:*Chris, ''"Right."''
:*Ray, ''"Do you believe your car happened by accident? Could you believe that, that no one made the car?"''
:*Chris, ''"No, I don't believe that."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray skips the important question - "Why do you believe your car had a manufacturer?" The answer, as noted with all of the flawed examples of the argument from design, is not "Because it's complex" or "Because it is orderly" or "Because it appears designed"...the answer is that we know it had a manufacturer because we have considerable, empirical evidence to support the notion that it was designed and absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the car "happened by accident."}}
:*Ray, ''"So, obviously, everything made, like a car, has a maker. When you look at creation, don't you think to yourself there must be a creator? There's flowers, birds, trees, sun, moon, stars, the seasons, the human eye, the mind, everything has intricacies and it's uh, wonderfully made and it has order from atoms right up through the universe. Don't you think someone who said, "No one made the car" would be lacking in brainery? For someone to say, "No one created creation"...this doesn't make sense, it's not logical. Do you think that's a fair argument?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Actually, it's not a fair argument because Ray has used tautological examples which are not directly analogous to evolutionary theory. Additionally, he continues to ignore the foundational question about how we recognize design, trusting that we're all so used to accepting and recognizing design via common sense, that we won't think about how this process occurs.}}
:*Chris, ''"Yeah, I think there's a point where you have to step back and just say, "Well, ok, maybe someone did create uh, all of the elements around us, but I think that, uh..I believe that evolution did take place. And uh, I think you can always step back before evolution and say, "Well someone put all those elements in order evolution to take place."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here's the point where Ray claims the individual changes his mind about the existence of God. In truth, this individual states that he accepts evolution and admits that a creator god is a possibility as a sort of first cause.

This doesn't directly represent a change in the person's position on the existence of God. Ray has spent considerable time building up a false picture of the atheism as some sort of absolute position that any acknowledgment of the possibility of a God appears to be "backsliding". It's also possible that this person, like many people, was simply trying to avoid an argument, trying to avoid appearing rude toward other's beliefs (on camera) or wasn't prepared to deal with deep theological questions.}}
:*Ray, ''"Would you consider yourself to be a good person?"''
:*Chris, ''"Yes"''
:*Ray, ''"Can I ask you a few questions to see if it's true?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here's the "deliberate swing" where Ray attempts to address the conscience of the individual, rather than the intellect. His first question, "Would you consider yourself to be a good person?" is presented as claim to be challenged. However, the question is asking the individual to assess his own character on his own criteria or a generalized criteria. In the following questions, Ray analyzes the man's claim from an entirely different set of criteria - and replaces "good" with something which could better be defined as "perfect", by using any violation of the Ten Commandments as "not good".}}
:*Ray, ''"Have you ever told a lie?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
:*Ray, ''"Ok, what does that make you?"''
:*Chris, ''"A liar."''
:*Ray, ''"Have you ever stolen something?"''
:*Chris, ''"Uh, as a kid."''
:*Ray, ''"What does that make you?"''
:*Chris, ''"I guess, uh, a thief."''
:*Ray, ''"Uh huh. Have you ever used God's name in vain?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
:*Ray, ''"That's using God's name as a cuss word, it's called blasphemy. And the final question, as, in this respect, Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman and lusts after her has already committed adultery already with her in his heart", have you ever looked at a woman with lust?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
:*Ray, ''"Ok, Chris, by your own admission, you're a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart and you've gotta face..."''
:*Chris, ''"Those are just words."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=One very short rebuttal to this line, made famous on the Hellbound Alleee show is, "Have you ever told the truth?", "What does that make you?". Ray's argument isn't a judgment of whether or not one is a good person, it's a judgment on whether or not one is perfect - and perfect by criteria which weren't included in the initial question.}}
:*Ray, ''"You've gotta face God on Judgment Day, whether you believe in him or not, and here's a big "if", If God judges you by the Ten Commandments on the day of judgment, would you be innocent or guilty, if he did?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray asserts, as true, that we're all going to meet God on judgment day, whether we believe in him or not. Where's the evidence to support this? It's a thinly veiled version of Pascal's Wager or the fear of the threat of hell, to encourage belief.}}
:*Chris, ''"Well, if all that's true, I'm guilty."''
:*Ray, ''"Would you go to heaven or hell?"''
:*Chris, ''"I guess if you believe in all that and it's all true, I'm going to hell."''
:*Ray, ''"Now, does that concern you?"''
:*Chris, ''"No, because I don't believe any of that's true."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Clearly, Chris hasn't changed his mind about Ray's concept of God. Even though he didn't directly challenge Ray's assertions and arguments, he's clear that he doesn't believe the things Ray believes.}}
:*Ray, ''"If I stepped off a 6 story building and said, to you, I don't believe in gravity, I just don't believe in it. Do you think it's going to change reality?"''
:*Chris, ''"That's real though."''
:*Ray, ''"How do you know, you can't see gravity?"''
:*Chris, ''"But you can test it."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Chris really shines, with a great answer - an answer which Ray promptly ignores. Direct empirical evidence, falsifiability, testability...these are the things that determine reality. Ray's implication that God, by virtue of not being seen, is somehow the rational equivalent of gravity, as it is also unseen, is preposterous. Perhaps, even without the ability to actually test gravity, the ubiquitous and uniform experience of gravity would be sufficient to justify belief. The god concept, in addition to being untestable, lacks this ubiquitous nature.}}
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, and you're testing the law of sin and death. If you die in your sins, the Bible says you'll have to face a holy creator, who's seen your full life, who gave you a conscience, and he's gonna judge you by the secret sins you've committed in darkness that nobody's seen because he's a god of justice. You know what god did, so you wouldn't have to go to hell? Any idea?"''
:*Chris, ''"Just whatever the Bible says, I suppose."''
:*Ray, ''"What do you think he did for you? It's something really wonderful"''
:*Chris, ''"He died for me?"''
:*Ray, ''"Jesus died on the cross for you, taking your punishment. That's what the Bible teaches. It's called the gospel and it means 'good news' that Jesus paid your fines so you wouldn't have to come under God's wrath."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This isn't an argument, it's an assertion. Citing the Bible as an authority doesn't make it so. Additionally, the idea that God would come to earth, take physical form and sacrifice himself, to himself, as a loophole for laws he created, in order to save us from his wrath - that defines a schizophrenic deity, not a benevolent one. The notion that god had to jump through hoops instead of simply changing the law is patently absurd. Consider a similar dilemma in the movie "Coming to America", where James Earl Jones, as king, is explaining his objections about his son's non-traditional choice of a bride, to his wife. "It's tradition" he says, "and who am I to change tradition?" His wife poignantly responds, "I thought you were king."}}
:*Ray, ''"Chris, he defeated your greatest enemy...your greatest fear, death itself and all you have to do to see if it's true is obey the gospel. Repent, don't just confess your sins to god, turn from them. And trust in Jesus like you'd trust a parachute. Put your faith in it. And the moment you do that, God says he'll forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life and you'll pass out of death into life and you'll come to know the god that you just didn't know existed."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here we have an argument from blind faith. Ray is no longer interested in evidence or intellect, the key is just to accept that this is true and you'll get the pay off...but only after you've died. That tends to make this claim rather untestable. Much like trusting that parachute, if it works, great...if it doesn't, you're been misled, you've wasted time mired in false beliefs and you're dead - with no benefit from that faith.}}
:*Chris, ''"Wouldn't we all be sinners, though, if I'm a sinner? And wouldn't we all be going to hell, just like I am? Cause, I mean, really I, I've never committed crimes where I've ended up in a jail, or I've never had to go to a court, I've never been tried by anybody..."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is the point where Ray claims that the Ten Commandments have convinced Chris that he's wrong and he tries to justify himself. In truth, Chris doesn't appear to be phased by the Ten Commandments, he doesn't appear to feel guilty, he appears to be offering an alternate philosophical position to counter Ray's claims about the Bible's ultimate morality.}}
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, but Chris..."''
:*Chris, ''"So, I'm a good person, I think. I have a family and I've been married for seventeen years, I have four kids, I, ya know, work hard, I, I uh, make my own way through life and I, I'm friendly and courteous and truthful to people and.."''
:*Ray, ''"That's true Chris..."''
:*Chris, ''"So, now, so, how bad...or how good do you have to be to uh, to not be a sinner?"''
:*Ray, ''"You have to be perfect in thought, word and deed."''
:*Chris, ''"So, how many of us are perfect?"''
:*Ray, ''"None of us. There's only one that was perfect, the son of God."''
:*Chris, ''"See, so.."''
:*Ray, ''"So we all need the Saviour, we all need to repent. There's not a righteous man on the face of the Earth. And Chris, you said you're a good person and by man's standard that's true, there are plenty of people worse than you, but God's not gonna judge you by man's standard, which is very low, he's gonna judge you by holiness, justice, truth and righteousness. And you '''are''' in a prison and you're facing capital punishment. You're waiting to die. We've got a big blue roof here with good air conditioning and good lighting, but you're waiting to die. You're on death's row. One day, death will seize upon you and that's because God's proclaimed upon you the death sentence. The soul that sins, it shall die. And God offers you a reprieve..and your wife...and your children. If you love them, open your heart and say, "God, I need to know the truth, because I don't want to wait until I'm burying a loved one before I open my heart to you and ask the things, about the things that really matter." So, think of your family and how you should lead them into the knowledge of everlasting life..and your wife. And if you've got all these blessings you should be abounding with thanksgiving to the God that gave you life and not denying his existence. You should be saying, "God, I'm so sorry I've delivered my back to you, you've lavished your goodness upon me. My brain, my eyes, my wife, my children, my health, this wonderful free country we've got. God I yield my life back to you." And he'll transform you on the inside and make you a new person and give you a new heart with new desires."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray cuts Chris off with a small sermon which continues to make emotional appeals. Chris is encouraged to think about his family and possibly burying one of them. He's berated for turning his back on God and encouraged to plead with God for forgiveness, if he loves his family. Ray even manages to use patriotism by thanking God for this "wonderful free country." He also switches from acknowledging Chris' disbelief to an accusation that he is "denying" God.

All of this emotional appeal fails to acknowledge the questionable nature of a God who would pass a death sentence on every one of his creations and then offer an escape to those who take a leap of faith which appears wholly unjustified.

The interview ends here, and we have no idea how Chris responded, though it seems reasonable to presume that any reaction that favored Ray's case would have been shown.}}

====Moving from intellect to Conscience====
(19:15 - 20:05)
:*Kirk, ''"So now that we've given you some ways to make an atheist backslide or, how to prove that the atheist doesn't exist, in other words, he's really not an atheist, he's an agnostic, someone who doesn't know if there's a god, we wanna emphasize the principle of swinging from the intellect, straight to the conscience. It's so important to know that by doing this, you're not side-stepping the questions of the atheist, but you have to learn that it's not wise to stay in the intellect and wrestle with someone intellectually, because it's gonna take you down a rabbit trail and waste all your time."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ironically, after repeatedly claiming that belief in God is the only intellectually sound conclusion and insulting the intelligence of anyone who dares to question or demand sound, logical arguments and reliable, empirical evidence; Ray and Kirk now argue that it's best to avoid intellectual arguments as anything more than "bait" which leads to the emotional "hook" of the Ten Commandments. Despite Kirk's claim, this tactic does, in fact, side-step the questions of the atheist. It's a direct attempt to avoid intellectual debate and they freely admit it.

Evidently, reason and evidence are no competition for a good guilt trip. Unfortunately, even their guilt trip is flawed...}}
:*Kirk, ''"You've eventually got to get to the heart. A surgeon's not gonna spend all his time working on your dandruff when he knows he needs to cut into the heart and get to where the real problem is. And that's what we do when we ask a person if they consider themselves to be a good person. We just deliberately make that turn, and go for the conscience."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In any real debate, this bait-and-switch tactic - the deliberate avoidance of issues in order to make appeals to emotion - would immediately disqualify them from continuing. While they may be honest by admitting to it, admitting that you've been repeatedly dishonest hardly seems worthy of respect.}}

====Interview 2====
(20:06 - 22:32)
The person interviewed (Travis) explains his view that there is no spiritual afterlife and that death is the end. The interviewer asks if he believes in god...
:*Travis, ''"No, of course not."'' [cut] ''"Why would you take a religious book and say,'Oh yeah, these have gotta be true, this makes sense' when the people who wrote that book, thousands of years ago, they were just superstitious and they didn't know how the world really worked?"
:*Interviewer, ''"Would you consider yourself to be a good person?"''
:*Travis, ''"Yeah, of course I'm a good person."''
:*Interviewer, ''"Have you ever told a lie?"''
:*Travis, ''"No, I've never told a lie. Um, yeah, I mean, who hasn't?"''
:*Interviewer, ''"What would that make you?"''
:*Travis, ''"It would make me...'' [laughs] ''It would make me a human being."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Travis agrees to play along with the rest of the test, supplying the expected answers based on the obvious intent of the interviewer. It's clear, however, that he's unconvinced by this painfully obvious attempt to tug at his conscience as he continues to hold that unproven assertions about Biblical morality aren't convincing. He addresses the lack of proof for the interviewers' claims by stating that he does research for papers and doesn't simply explain away data anomalies with ''ad hoc'' explanations.}}
:*Interviewer, ''"And that's what I'm telling you today. If you research the Bible, the way you do a research paper, and you study the claims that I've given you today, um, you'll find that they're true. '' [cut to a list of specific claims] ''I'm saying that Jesus Christ came, two thousand years ago, he paid the fine, the penalty, it's clear, being a liar, thief and blasphemer, that you've broken god's law and the only way that we can have a relationship with god, now, is through the blood of Christ, through his death and resurrection."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again, we don't get to see Travis' final response but it seems reasonable to presume that he was not convinced. The Interviewer claimed that research will demonstrate his claims, let's consider them:

# Jesus Christ came, two thousand years ago
# He paid the fine for sins
# We needed him to pay this fine
# His death and resurrection are required to have a relationship with God

The first claim remains unproven. The historicity of Jesus isn't beyond question and even among those who do believe in an historical figure, not all accept that he was the Christ or that a messiah-figure could ever exist. Those foundational claims are assertions which have not been proven and may not be provable.

The final 3 claims are theological assertions that no amount of research can support. Apart from personal revelation or some sort of unambiguous, global revelation, the truth of those claims cannot be supported by evidence.}}

====Interview 3====
(22:33 - 24:43)
Kirk interviews a young lady...

:*Girl, ''"We have science that proves that we didn't need that sort of thing to create the Earth. We didn't need, um, a being to come down and touch his finger on the Earth and all these trees sprouted up everywhere and, you know what I'm saying? We have theories, scientific theories, that prove that the Earth came together because of this big cosmos of chemicals and, um, different environments coming together and creating this place. And, over time, it got to the state that it's in now."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While cosmologists might cringe at that explanation, it's not bad considering this is an unprepared street interview with a layperson. The critical point at the core of her explanation is that we have scientific explanations which demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is not required. Whether her explanation, or any other, is the correct explanation of what actually happened is far less important than the fact the we can have probable, naturalistic explanations of origins.

In the unlikely event that evolutionary theory and big bang cosmology were proven to be completely wrong, that still wouldn't be evidence for the claim that "god did it". That claim requires its own evidentiary support.

Though the interview is spliced together, Kirk's responses indicate that the girl was giving good answers and addressing critical flaws in his claims...though we don't get to see all of them.}}
:*Kirk, ''"I hear just what you're saying and I used to think that way for so long..and..like, just my common sense, really does have to say, "Wait a minute, that building is pretty well designed", but when I look at you... or I look at the, the, the eyeball of my little baby, and I say, "Look at how well and beautifully designed a human being is." I mean, you can, you can walk, you can talk, you can think, you can come up with these answers all on the fly...the most complicated computers in the world can't do what your eyes can do..in, in two seconds would take it hours to do."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk demonstrates the failings of common sense in the light of critical examination. His continued reliance on the flawed design/designer arguments seem to carry no weight with this girl and he attempts to appeal to her vanity by mentioning how smart she seems and implying that this, somehow, is evidence that she was beautifully designed by an intelligence.}}
:*Girl, ''"I believe everything on this earth was accidental or created by man, so..."'' [shrugs]
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While this, like the first answer, may not be the technically preferred explanation (natural selection isn't random or accidental) it's clear that this girl wasn't swayed by Kirk's arguments from design or an appeal to her conscience. Kirk's rather flustered response is priceless...}}
:*Kirk, ''"Well, yeah, I, I know. I, '''I''' think that you were made with a purpose and for an important reason and that, um, we're having this conversation not just by accident and that's what I personally think. And you're a '''really''' nice girl and I appreciate you talking with us and, um, Oh, man, my, my, my heart's, my heart breaks because I want you to know that there's a God and I want you to know that he sent Christ to die for you. And the fact that you want to live...I don't want to die either and the Bible says that Jesus Christ has abolished and destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light, through the Gospel. And so, I so want you to just, try to be honest and open with God and just surrender your life to him and see what happens."''
:*Girl, ''"I will definitely think about it."''
:*Kirk, ''"Yeah, think about it.."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk's "tools" seem to have failed. A little flattery and one last group of emotional appeals and he's forced to just request that she think about it. He also uses questionable definitions of "abolish" and "destroy," since in normal usage, he would be saying that there is no longer any death, for anyone. The request that she be "honest" with God is rather insulting; clearly, he's implying that she's being dishonest about her beliefs. Despite this insult, and being so unconvinced as to break our host's heart, she politely agrees to think about it.}}

===Absolute Proof of God===
(24:44 - 26:07)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Finally, the big payoff. After contradictory claims about the intellectual veracity of Christianity, Kirk has agreed to provide us with absolute proof of the existence of God.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Sometimes a '''professing''' atheist seems to be so stubborn they just don't want to believe in God. They want absolute proof."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Starting off with a double insult probably isn't the best way to convince someone, but what Kirk's really saying is that some folks simply won't believe based on blind faith.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Well, mister or misses atheist, there '''is''' absolute proof. God says that he will show himself to you personally, if you'll do one thing. Listen to what Jesus said, in the Bible, "He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me and he that loves me shall be loved by my father and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." So here Jesus is saying he will manifest or reveal himself to you, if you will obey his commandments."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk switches theological viewpoints once or twice during this description of the "absolute proof". First of all, the instructions are to "keep the commandments"...something which the Bible tells us is impossible for anyone other than Jesus. So the direct Biblical method for this "absolute proof" is impossible via self-contradiction.}}
:*Kirk, ''" Now, does that mean Jesus will, um, appear before your eyes or you'll hear his voice? No. Jesus means that he will demonstrate his reality and his power by changing your heart, if you will obey the gospel."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here we get a redefinition of "manifest". You won't actually get any empirical evidence of God's existence, you'll just "feel" that it's true or even "know" that it's true, by divine revelation. This hardly qualifies as "absolute proof" in anything more than an esoteric sense.}}
:*Kirk, ''" Now what does that mean? It means to stop thinking you know everything there is to know and admit that you could be wrong about god."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again this insulting implication about thinking one knows everything. Atheists don't think they know everything, they're simply convinced that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Additionally, the verse Kirk read doesn't say anything about claims of ultimate knowledge. This seems to simply be an appeal to ignorance, a request that we stop thinking critically. Finally, most atheists would, and do, admit the possibility of a God, although the likelihood gets increasingly smaller as we learn more about the world. There are some logical disproofs of certain claims about certain gods, but no reasonable atheist holds the view that their own omniscience demonstrates that no god exists.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Listen to your conscience and say, "God, if you're there, I know I've sinned against you, please forgive me. Change my heart, make me the person that you want me to be, and this day I commit to trust and obey Jesus Christ, who died to save me." If you'll do that, God promises to show himself to you. Now, either that's true or it isn't. "''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Agreed. Unfortunately, many atheists are former Christians. Many others have sincerely and earnestly attempted this prayer and not achieved the sort of "absolute proof" Kirk promises. Objections like these are met with ad hoc hypotheses like, "You weren't really serious" or other claims which place the source of the failure on the individual - because God can't possibly be at fault. However that means his 'evidence' basicaly boils down too, 'If you believe with your whole heart that god exists, then god will make you believe in your heart that he exists.' Additionally the [[Argument from inconsistent revelations]] holds that vastly divergent and contradictory claims of revealed knowledge about god, demonstrate that none of these claims can be considered reliable.

Revelation, as Thomas Paine pointed out, ''"... is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."''}}

===Conclusion===
(26:09 - 26:37)
:*Kirk, ''"So, in conclusion, we've been talking about how to share your faith with an atheist...and you do it the same way you'd share your faith with anyone else. Remember, the atheist is your friend, not your enemy. Don't argue with him, simply help him to see that he's really an agnostic, a person who doesn't know if there's a god...and then, help him, by showing him that in his heart, he knows that he's done wrong, that he needs God's forgiveness and you do that by swinging to the conscience with the Ten Commandments."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again we have this fundamental misperception about atheism and agnosticism and the implication that neither position is "true", as the atheist, deep-down, knows that he's a sinner who needs to be forgiven. We have a final instruction to avoid intellectual discussions and opt for emotional appeals, despite their initial claim that atheism is counter-intellectual and requires more faith than belief in a god.

After watching the entire program, however, there wasn't a single piece of evidence presented on the core subject: the knowledge that we are sinners who definitely need salvation.

They've offered flawed arguments from design in an attempt to prove that God exists, but even if those arguments were valid and did demonstrate that a God exists, it doesn't mean that the God they're talking about exists. There was no evidence to support the idea that the Christian God is the true god and no evidence that the concepts of [[sin]], [[hell]], [[heaven]] or [[salvation]] are true.}}
====Apologetics are bait====
(26:38 - 26:54)
:*Ray, ''"Apologetics are like bait. Now if you go fishing with bait and no hook, you're not going to get any fish. You may get some fat, happy fish that get away, but if you want to be effective you use the bait to disguise the hook. When the fish come around, you pull the hook in. The bait is apologetical argument, you use different bait for different people, or different fish..."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here they again admit to intentional dishonesty and clearly admit that the intellectual arguments are only there to draw the "fish" in so that you can make an emotional appeal.}}
====10 Commandments are the hook====
(26:55 - 27:10)
:*Ray, ''"The hook is God's law, that is the Ten Commandments."''
:*Kirk, ''"That's right, because everybody '''knows''', when you bring out those commandments, that they've, that they've violated them, that they've broken them and that they're going to need God's forgiveness on the day of judgment. And it's a good, strong hook that we should never fail to use when we're sharing our faith."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This emotional "hook" is simply an unfounded assertion. While everyone will likely admit to violating some of the Ten Commandments, only those who recognize the authority of the Bible would agree with the concepts of "needing forgiveness" and "day of judgment." These premises are simply assumed throughout the program and never supported as anything other than an [[a priori]] truth.

The truth shouldn't require a bait-and-switch tactic. The truth shouldn't require dishonesty, emotional appeals and guilt trips. The truth shouldn't be immune from critical examination, it should be '''revealed''' by it. Ray and Kirk have presented an impassioned appeal based on poor definitions, false assumptions, unproven premises, flawed arguments, dishonesty and misconceptions about atheism, agnosticism and evolutionary theory.

While this episode may appeal to its intended audience (evangelical believers), the methods and "tools" presented are no more convincing than they were during the first two-thousand years. In the end, this entire episode amounts to; "Believe in Jesus or you're going to hell when you die."}}

====Stuff to buy====
(27:11 - 27:45)
This episode concludes with information on how to purchase various books and training tools from their ministry.

==External Links==
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878&q=way+of+the+master Google Video]

{{wayofthemaster}}

[[Category: Christian shows]]

The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)

2007-03-14T21:27:33Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Order equals Design */

[[Image:Raybanana.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Ray Comfort]] presents the [[banana argument]]]][[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit-Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit-Atheism]] is the title of the seventh episode from season one of [[Way of the Master]].

==Episode Synopsis==
This episode specifically addresses [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]], providing sample tactics [[Christians]] can use when witnessing to non-believers. [[Ray Comfort|Ray]] and [[Kirk Cameron|Kirk]] discuss Kirk's claim that he was once a "devout" atheist, provide several [[arguments from design]] and demonstrate the "atheist test" in action.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray and Kirk use a narrow, incomplete definition of atheism to argue that there are no atheists, only "professed atheists" who are actually agnostics. This idea, echoed in Ray's book ''"God doesn't believe in atheists"'' demonstrates a gross conceptual error regarding philosophical positions like atheism and agnosticism and serves as nothing more than a straw man. Completely avoiding epistemological questions of belief and knowledge, they rely on a number of hidden premises to prop up analogies which support intelligent design. This episode:
* contains numerous, insulting claims about atheism and intellectualism
* completely misrepresents, by way of analogy, evolutionary theory
* presents several, anecdotal, arguments from design to support "common sense" conclusions over empirical evidence
* encourages the use of "emotional" arguments over "intellectual" arguments
* misquotes and misrepresents famous figures }}

==Episode Walkthrough==
===Introduction===
====About this Episode====
(00:00 - 00:40)
:* Kirk begins by asking, ''"Who do you know who isn't saved?"'' After inserting possible answers, including close relatives, he asks the viewer to ''"think of their terrible fate if they die, without Christ"''. Convinced that the viewer really wants to share their faith with these non-believers, he explains that the purpose of this episode is to provide them with the tools they need to overcome fear and know exactly what to say.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk begins with an [[appeal to emotion]]. The concepts of damnation and [[salvation]] are simply asserted, without justification, and the viewer feels compelled to learn these "tools" in order to prevent the damnation of someone they care about. While this isn't a true [[logical fallacy]] (because the viewer is likely to accept this premise, a priori) it does represent the tendency to obscure the questionable nature of the premises by "tugging on the heart strings" of the audience.}}
(00:40 - 01:10)
:* Opening Titles

====About Atheism====
(01:10 - 01:35)
:* A non-believer responds to the question, "Do you believe in God?" with...
:: ''"My next question would be, or my next concern would be, um, whether you believe in God or not. And the fact that someone tells me he's there and I can't see him, can't smell him, can't touch him, can't feel him ever, I mean, how are you supposed to believe that and base your life around that if you don't have that belief."''
(01:36 - 01:56)
:* Ray begins by stating, ''"If you get a dictionary and look up the word atheism, you'll find it says it's the belief that there's no God." ''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Depending on the dictionary you grab, you might also find an entry declaring that atheism is synonymous with immorality. Dictionary definitions are useful, but when considering complex, philosophical topics, they often portray an over-simplified explanation.

If you get a dictionary and look up the word atheism, you're also likely to find an entry defining it as the 'lack' of belief in a god/gods/God. Ray selects a particular definition, representing one possible take on [[strong atheism]] and uses a distortion of this definition as a [[straw man]] attack on atheism.}}
:* Ray continues with, ''"According to TV Guide, a number of years ago, 96% of Americans actually believe in God's existence. Which means there's 4% that don't, which equates to something like 10 million atheists in the United States."''

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray has opted to use an outdated, unscholarly survey in order to unjustly inflate the significance of his position. More current statistics, from more reputable sources (see: http://adherents.com/rel_USA.html) show that nearly 14% of Americans identify as non-religious or secular.

Additionally, this is a veiled example of the [[argumentum ad populum]]. Ray doesn't actually assert that the fact that so many people believe in the existence of a God is evidence that he exists, but the implication is there.}}

====Kirk as a former atheist====
(01:56 - 02:28)
:* Ray asks Kirk, ''"Didn't you used to be an atheist?"''
:* Kirk responds, ''"Yeah, I did. I used to be a devout atheist and that sounds a little strange but I was committed to my belief that God didn't exist. And this really wasn't based on anything other than what I had learned in school. I thought that evolution was responsible for everything that's around and that God was something that people just invented in their minds as an emotional crutch or as some sort of an answer to the questions that they couldn't figure out themselves. And I've since learned that when you really look at the evidence, the truth is, it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God, you've really gotta ignore the facts."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk, essentially, admits that his atheism was without basis. Rather than holding rational views supported by evidence and questioning views which lack evidentiary support, he made assumptions based on a limited understanding of evolution and religion. In an interview with Ray Comfort on the [[Hellbound Alleee]] program, Ray stated that Kirk's epiphany was "what if I'm wrong". A simplified version of [[Pascal's Wager]], which is an argument for belief when "real" evidence is insufficient, this "epiphany" demonstrates that Kirk's current belief is just as unfounded as his previous one.

Kirk sets himself up as a living straw man in order to support his claim that it takes it takes more [[faith]] to be an [[atheist]] than it does to believe in god(see: [[Atheism is based on faith]]). Asserting that one must really "ignore the facts", he lays the groundwork for Ray's claim that belief in God is more intellectual than disbelief.}}
(02:28 - 02:34)
:* Ray says, ''"It's funny how we equate the word atheism with intellectual when it's the exact opposite."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is one of many appeals to emotion or vanity, designed to make the believer feel intellectually superior for recognizing the "ultimate truth". It's a subtle attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]], at least in the mind of the believer, setting up their beliefs as truths which must be disproved instead of claims which must be proven.}}

===Arguments===
====The Soda Can====
(02:35 - 03:29)
[[Image:soda1.jpg|thumb|right|Created in his image?]]
:* Ray says, ''"Kirk, I have an intellectually stimulating theory. It's my theory of where the soda can may have come from. Billions of years ago, there was a big bang in space. Nobody knows what caused the big bang, it just happened. And from this bang issued this huge rock, on top of the rock was found a sweet, brown bubbly substance. And over millions of years, aluminum crept up the side, formed itself with a can and a lid and then a tab. And then millions of years later, red paint, blue paint, white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words '12 fluid ounces - Do not litter'."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|rmargin=225px|text=Ray's analogy fails on many levels. His "intellectually stimulating theory" isn't a [[theory]] at all; it's an [[hypothesis]]. Unlike Ray's example, scientists don't just "dream up" an explanation and run with it. The scientific path from hypothesis to theory includes observations, testing, [[falsification]] and [[peer review]]. Additionally, his analogy is a combined theory of [[cosmology]], [[abiogenesis]], and [[evolution]], which is not directly analogous to the current state of the scientific theories he's challenging.

While Ray may not recognize the various faults of his analogy, he does recognize that it's absurd and immediately points this out. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to recognize why it's absurd and why this is an incredibly weak objection to evolutionary theory.}}
:* Continuing, ''"You're saying, 'What are you doing, you're insulting my intellect' - and so I am. Because we know, if the can is made there must be a maker. If it's designed there must be a designer. To believe the soda can happened by chance is to move into an intellectual-free zone... is to have an echo when you think... is to have brain liposuction."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|rmargin=225px|text=Ray is correct to point out that designed things must have a designer. However, this is a [[tautology]]. He's making a circular [[argument from design]] by asserting that human beings (by analogy to a soda can) must have a designer because they ''appear'' designed. While his argument is incomplete, the implications are riddled with hidden premises about the nature of design and potential designers. He uses this "common sense" argument as a foundation for his belief that humans were designed by God.

The argument fails to recognize that the ''appearance'' of design doesn't necessarily require an intelligent designer. Additionally, his argument rests on a misrepresentation of "chance" as it relates to evolutionary theory. While random mutations are essential to evolutionary theory, the governing "designer" of evolution is [[natural selection]] which is about as far removed from "blind chance" as possible.

Finally, Ray makes some insulting appeals to vanity by implying that acceptance of evolutionary theory is somehow an exercise which requires one to turn off their brain. While belief in Ray's example of a soda can forming by blind chance may require "brain-liposuction", his example is a [[straw man]] which doesn't accurately represent evolutionary theory.}}

====The Banana Argument====
(03:31 - 04:34)
:* Ray holds up a banana and continues with, ''"Behold, the atheists' nightmare. Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find, on the far side, there are 3 ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves, on the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made, one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents - green, too early - yellow, just right - black, too late. Now if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda can makers have placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find a wrapper which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice it has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth. It's chewy, easy to digest and its even curved toward the face to make the whole process so much easier. Seriously, Kirk, the whole of creation testifies to the genius of God's creation."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This argument drew so much attention (and ridicule) that an entire entry has been devoted to the [[banana argument]].}}

====The Human Eye====
(04:35 - 04:50)
:* Kirk uses the common example of the complexity of the human eye to support the idea of an intelligent designer.
====Charles Darwin====
(04:51 - 05:11)
:* Kirk says, ''"...even Charles Darwin, himself, said"''
:: ''"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."''
:: -Charles Darwin
:* Kirk's assessment of this Darwin quote is, ''"Even the, uh, creator of the theory of evolution says it just goes against my common sense and logic."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is a prime example of [[quote mining]]. The quotation from Darwin is incomplete and the entire section reads...

:''"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; '''but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God "), as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."'''''

Darwin, after admitting that the idea contradicts common sense, points out that common sense is not a reliable foil within the scope of scientific investigation and that if we can demonstrate gradual changes from a simple eye to a complex eye, his theory holds despite objections from "common sense". Darwin goes on to provide examples of the variety of eyes which exist in nature. Beginning with simple, light-sensitive cells and advancing through creatures with primitive lenses, irises he marches through a series of examples demonstrating the exact sort of gradations he hypothesized.}}
====Albert Einstein====
(05:12 - 05:27)
:* Ray, ''"And some of these guys that we think were atheists weren't actually atheists. I mean, Einstein wasn't an atheist, he, he objected when atheists used him to, to say that atheism was a genuine thing. I mean, Einstein believed in the existence of God and even Darwin did."''

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=IronChariots has been unable to find any reference of [[Albert Einstein]] objecting to any atheistic reference to him or his work. Ray's comment that Einstein believed in God is more than a little dishonest. For specific quotes on Einstein's religion, visit [[Albert Einstein|his page]].

Einstein's stated beliefs, while they do include ''some'' concept of God, hardly represent the sort of god-concept that Ray Comfort is implying. If anything, his opinions are more in line with the deists and freethinkers of the 19th century.

With regard to [[Charles Darwin]], we're presented with a very similar situation. Darwin's autobiography clearly demonstrates his rejection of Christianity as well as the specific arguments and evidence which lead him to identify himself as an agnostic.

Ray, quickly tries to imply that Einstein and Darwin were believers as an [[argument from authority]], yet their own quotes clearly show that if they maintained any notion of God, it was vastly different from the sort of God being argued for in this series. As with any fallacious argument from authority, the personal beliefs of Einstein, Darwin or any other person has no bearing on the truth of the situation and carries no weight outside of their recognized fields.

This blatant misrepresentation of Darwin, the second in the past few minutes, demonstrates either a lack of scholarship or intentional dishonesty. Neither Einstein's nor Darwin's ideas about God mesh with Ray's "intelligent designer"-god and claiming that Darwin, the "creator of the theory of evolution" (as Kirk phrased it) would support Ray's notions about God is laughable.}}

===Proving God Exists===
(5:27 - 7:58)
Ray and Kirk promise to teach the user how to "prove the existence of god" and "make an atheist backslide." They go on to provide several versions of the same argument from design:
====Building/Builder====
:*Ray, ''"When I look at a building, how can I know there was a builder? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can I know there was a builder? Well, the building is absolute proof there was a builder. I couldn't want better proof that there was a builder than to have the building as evidence."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As is the case with nearly all of Ray's examples, this analogy fails for a number of reasons. In reality, we understand that a building had a builder because we have a mountain of evidence that supports the notion that buildings are designed and built by intelligent human beings and absolutely no evidence that they occur naturally. This distinction between "naturally occurring" and "intelligently designed", or "How do we recognize design?"/"How do we distinguish between design and the appearance of design?" is the true question that Ray continually avoids.

In the case of living things, we have an enormous amount of evidence that they are natural occurring and absolutely no evidence that living things were intelligently designed. The appearance of design is adequately explained by the filter of natural selection acting on slight modifications over long periods. Each of Ray's arguments '''assumes''', in the premise, the very thing he's trying to prove. This sort of [[circular reasoning]] is a logical fallacy which cripples each of his examples.}}
:*Ray, ''"I don't need faith to believe in a builder, all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Yet another example of Ray's implication that only a moron or fool would fail to recognize the obvious truth of his claims.}}
====Painting/Painter====
:*Ray, ''"Now the same deep, rich, scientific principle works with paintings and painters."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This "deep, rich, scientific" principle is none of the above. It is a tautology which explains nothing and serves as rhetoric to support a particular position. Saying that a painting requires a painter is like saying that a gift must be free. It's true by definition and in the case of all of Ray's examples (build-ing/er, paint-ing/er, Creat-ion/or), obvious by examining root words.}}
:*Ray continues by repeating the building argument for paintings.
====Creation/Creator====
:*Ray, ''"...and the same principle works with God. When I look at Creation how can I know there was a creator? Well, creation is absolute proof there was a creator."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, we're not talking about "Creation", we're talking about existence, the universe, nature, the cosmos, everything or any of a number of terms which don't make the circular mistake of including a claim about their reason for existing in their name. By labeling everything as "Creation", he is, again, assuming in the premise the very thing he's trying to prove. This argument is another tautology and the hidden premise renders it logically unsound.}}
:*Ray, ''"I don't need faith to believe in a creator, all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray's 'if you're not stupid, you'll believe this'-mantra continues.}}
:*Ray attempts to justify his position with a passage from the [[Bible]]:
::* ''"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse."'' - Romans 1:20
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray's position, and his claim that you'd have to be a moron not to recognize the truth of it, are supported by this passage. Unfortunately, for Ray, a tautology and insult from the Bible isn't going to carry any more weight or be any more logically sound to a critical thinker than when Ray says it himself.}}

====Well-made Car====
:*Kirk, ''"It's obvious that a building can't build itself, it has to have a builder. A painting can't paint itself, it has to have a painter and the same with a car..."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk adds a slightly new twist to the discussion, adding a [[false dichotomy]] to the analogies. His implication is that there are only two options: an intelligent designer or spontaneous, self-creation. This completely ignores or misrepresents evolutionary theory and relies on the common sense rejection of "self creation" to prop-up his implications about an intelligent designer.}}
:*Kirk continues his explanation, by demonstrating the properties of a "well-made automobile": nice body, steering wheel, horn, windshield, windshield wipers, and "squirters" (to wash the bugs off the windshield).
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It's worth noting that many cars which might not be considered "well-made" also have those features. However, the important objection to this argument is that, like all of the other examples, it isn't the features or complexity of the automobile which convince us that it had a designer. We're convinced that this car was designed because we have vast quantities of reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that the car was designed and absolutely no examples of "naturally occurring" cars.

We can investigate and discover the manufacturer of that car, the designer, the history of this car, the history of similar cars, the variety of designs, how various features were invented, the successes and failures of the design process...it's this mass of evidence in conjunction with the lack of incidents of "spontaneous car generation" which assure us that this car was not only designed, but designed by an intelligent, human mind.}}

====Human Body====
:*Kirk extends his car analogy to the human body, ''"...think of the well-made human being. We have a body. Our mind and our will is like a steering wheel. We have windshields [cornea], we have windshield wipers [eyelids], we even have squirters [tear ducts] to lubricate the eye. Think of it! Everything about us has been made with purpose in mind."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The appearance of design is a natural conclusion from our interpretation of purpose. Kirk transposes cause and effect in comparing the human body to a car and in commenting on the purpose of our features in relation to design.

Humans and the natural world have, obviously, been around much longer than cars. It should come as little surprise that the inventors of the features of a car drew inspiration from the world around them - that's what inventors do, they try to improve on nature...to come up with new and better solutions to common problems.

Those common problems also control and define the process of natural selection. Consider the common problem of finding food. A creature who can sense its prey, by sight - even simple cells that only detect variations in light - has a distinct advantage to solving this problem compared to one who is blind. The same is true for other senses and features. Those with the slight benefit have an advantage which can translate into more opportunities to pass on this trait to offspring. Each of these developed features has a benefit which can be viewed as a "purpose" but it's not a true purpose as there's no evidence to imply that these were the result of conscious forethought (creatures don't "will" themselves to develop eyes).}}
:*Kirk continues with, ''"Is it really intelligent to say that this car has no maker, that it just 'happened'? How much less intelligent is it to say that the human body has no maker and there is no designer?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk's analogy, again, misrepresents evolutionary theory and here we have yet another example of how "smart" you'd be to accept these arguments and how foolish and unintelligent you must be to reject them. Curiously, the bulk of their arguments ''for'' the existence of God are actually arguments ''against'' their inaccurate view of evolutionary theory. In addition to this program, they have an entire episode devoted to evolution. }}
====Order equals Design====
(8:00 - 9:00)
Ray relates a story about an avocado tree in his back yard which continually dropped leaves.
:*Ray, ''"I looked down and I saw that there were seven leaves on the ground, so I bent down and I put them in a straight line, went into my office and sat down and waited for my wife to come in and say what I thought she'd say. It was very predictable. She walked in, sat down and said, "Why did you put those leaves like that, for?" See, there was no way her reasoning mind could believe that seven leaves fell off the avocado tree and fell into a [sound effect] straight line of seven leaves. She knew that that an intelligent mind, mine, had put them there."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is reasonable, given the example, for his wife to presume that he placed those leaves in a straight line, but Ray's implication is that order necessarily indicates [[intelligent design]], and this simply isn't true. It's possible, though unlikely, that those leaves could have fallen and been arranged in a straight line by [[natural laws]]. Our assumption that their pattern was the result of intelligence is based on our experience with similar situations and an understanding of the [[laws of physics]].

What if we were to find a large, nearly circular void in an area filled with leaves? Is this the result of some intelligence which intentionally formed the circle or could it be the result of a helicopter taking off from that location? Only by analyzing the available evidence can we determine what the most reasonable explanation is - though we may never be certain.

Our minds are very good at spotting patterns. So good, in fact, that we often see patterns where none exist. It's very common to confuse correlation with causation, transpose cause and effect or confuse apparent design with actual design. One fine example of this confusion and our ability to see an apparent design and overlay an intelligent cause or purpose is the [[Face on Mars]].}}

:*Ray continues, ''"And when you look at creation, we see order throughout the whole of creation. From the atom through the universe, the flowers, the birds, the trees, the sun, the moon, the stars, everything has order to it."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Order does not always require an intelligence behind it. In caves stalagmites may apear very orderly, or designed, but they are known to be nothing more than the natural effect of mineral rich water dripping from the ceiling leaving behind debris. There is no reason to believe that sculpter is the cause of the beautifull rock formations.

One aspect of our ability to be confused by the appearance of design involves our rather anthropocentric world view. It's relatively easy to look at the universe as if it were designed ''for'' humans, yet this presupposes an intended purpose...the very thing these claims seek to prove. Viewing the universe objectively, in the light of scientific investigation, it becomes clear that everything that exists is the logical result of natural laws. In other words, the universe wasn't made to "fit" humans, humans "fit" into the universe.

This view can be uncomfortable for those who wish to believe that humans are the central reason for the existence of the universe. However, the vast majority of scientific evidence backs up this view. Currently, we know of only one planet which is capable of sustaining human life and it wasn't always capable of doing this. Most (99.999...%) or the universe appears to be inhospitable or deadly to humans. Ray's statement, though vague, is an example of the [[anthropic principle]], as it pertains to the [[cosmological argument]].}}

===Disproving Atheism===
(9:00 - 12:18)
====Omniscience====
:*Kirk, ''"Let's look at it from a different angle. If I say to you, "There is no god", that's called an absolute statement. In order for me to make an absolute statement, and be right, I have to have absolute knowledge. I have to know everything about that subject."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk is correct, if we accept that a claim of [[knowledge]] requires absolute certainty. However, we often make claims of knowledge that don't require absolute certainty. Within [[epistemology]] there is a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief", which stems from the realization that certainty is unattainable outside of the knowledge that we are able to think.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Let me give you an example of another absolute statement. If I say to you, "There is no gold in China"...in order for that to be true, I have to know everything about China. I have to know what's under every rock, I have to know what's inside of every rock, inside every jewelry store and what's inside every Chinese person's mouth to see if there's any gold in there. In a filling. In a stone. In a ring. I have to have all knowledge of China to make that absolute statement that there's no gold."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk is, again, correct - if we accept his definitions. However, he's building a case that is, essentially, a straw man. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or the belief that there is no god, it isn't a claim of absolute knowledge that no god exists. A more accurate analogy than "There is no gold in China" would be "The claim that there is gold in china is unproven." It is still an emotionally misleading analogy, however, since even without specific knowledge of an example of gold in China, we can be pretty certain there is some. A fairer analogy might be phrased, e.g., to claim "there is no coelocanth in China," or "there is no living Tyrannosaurus rex in China," using things that are physically possible to exist in China, but for which there is no evidence.}}
:*Kirk, ''"However, if I want to make the statement, "There is gold in China", I don't have to have all knowledge of China, I just have to have a little knowledge. I just need to see one person's gold filling. I have to see one piece of gold and I can say, with confidence, "There is gold in China." So, for a person to say there is no god, to make that absolute statement, they have to have all knowledge or be omniscient...and nobody is."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In this quote, Kirk's argument about absolute knowledge begins to take shape as an analogy that atheism is irrational and theism is rational. All of his examples of knowledge which would be sufficient to prove that gold exists in China are fine, yet when we transfer this analogy to "There is a god", we find that the evidence which supports this claim is still missing. Where is the "absolute proof" of the existence of god which would support his claim? And, if such clear, absolute proof existed, would there be any debate?}}
=====Thomas Edison=====
:*Kirk, ''"Even the brilliant scientist, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=For more on [[Thomas Edison]], including his views on religion, visit [[Thomas Edison|his page]]}}
=====The Atheist Test=====
Ray introduces us to the "atheist test" which begins with two questions:
#"Could you please tell me how many pieces of sand are on the combined islands of Hawaii?"
#"Could you please tell me how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown, male Tibetan yak?"
:*Ray, ''"Now these are necessary, these questions, because there are some people who think they know everything. God used a similar principle with Job. He asked Job seventy questions, one after the other, until, in essence, Job laid his hand upon his mouth and said, "Boy I hardly know anything."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray continues Kirk's argument which misrepresents atheism as an untenable position which requires omniscience.}}
:*Ray, ''"So, here is the test. Let's say this circle'' [circle graphic appears on screen] ''represents all the knowledge in the known universe. Someone who is omniscient, who has all knowledge, knows everything about everything. They know how many hairs are on every head, every thought of every heart, every atom is splayed before them, all history is before their eyes. They know all about the secret love life of the fleas on the back of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat. They're omniscient, they know everything."''
:*Ray, ''"Let's say, mister professing atheist, that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Is it possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that god exists?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While Ray and Kirk have, on many occasions, insulted atheists by implying that one must be unintelligent to hold such a position, they've now progressed to implicitly asserting that atheists don't exist. By referring to atheists as "professing atheists", they're implying that atheists are lying or mistaken about their position. Fortunately, Ray and Kirk aren't definitional authorities on atheism and agnosticism and their continued misrepresentations of both positions demonstrate that they lack sufficient understanding to be producing an entire program which addresses those positions.}}
:*Ray claims the reasonable atheist is forced to say, ''"Well, it is possible that, in the knowledge I haven't yet come across, there's ample evidence to prove that god does exist."'' and ''"With the limited knowledge I have, at present, I've come to the conclusion there's no god, but I really don't know."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray is correct, and this is a much better representation of the atheist's position. By continually arguing against an inaccurate, straw man, representation of strong atheism, they've built a case which has no basis in reality.

It's worth noting that the conclusions Ray asserts one must logically reach with regard to god, also apply to any similar claim. It's possible that there's ample evidence to prove god, or fairies, or unicorns, or aliens, or ghosts, or ESP, or any number of other claims. Ray conveniently ignores this fact, hoping that one won't notice that his argument for god is hollow.

The real question isn't "Is this possible?" it's "Is this true?" or "Is there sufficient evidence to justify belief?" If we simply believed things because there's a possibility that evidence might exist, we'd believe nearly anything. For those who prefer to hold justifiable beliefs which are as near to "certainly true" as possible, mere possibility is grossly insufficient.}}
:*Kirk, ''"That's right, he's not technically an atheist, he's an agnostic."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The terms are not mutually exclusive. Kirk sets up a [[false dilemma]] which is addressed in the article: [[Atheist vs. agnostic]].}}
:*Kirk, ''"He's like the person who looks at a building and says, "I don't know if there's a builder".''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Kirk attempts to link the various tautologies about design and a designer to show that agnosticism (using his definition) is absurdly unintelligent.}}

===Street Interviews===
(12:19 - 12:49)
:*Ray, ''"We're now going to go to a clip of a real-live atheist, we found one, Kirk."''
:*Kirk, ''"You did?!"''
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, yeah, so watch what happens. There's three things to look for. One, watch for the fact that he changes his mind about the existence of god when we reason with him. Two, watch for that deliberate swing to address his conscience, where we say, "Do you consider yourself to be a good person?" And then three, watch where the Ten Commandments, the law does its work in pressing against his conscience and causes him to begin to justify himself once he realizes he's done wrong."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We'll look for those moments in the interview, but Ray's tactic here is to pick an "atheist on the street" and use them as a representative of the atheist's position. Not every atheist is able to eloquently justify their position, especially when plucked off of the street, nor do all atheists have the same justifications for their lack of belief. For those inexperienced in debating philosophical issues with theists, identifying logical fallacies and critically examining claims, Ray's questions can appear to have an impact. In reality, and in keeping with their theme for this program, these interviews are a form of straw man attack on atheism.

These interviews are, in part, the reason IronChariots decided to do such a detailed rebuttal to this episode - to demonstrate that while a given individual may not have sound responses at the ready, that doesn't mean that Ray's arguments hold water.}}
====Interview 1====
(12:50 - 19:14)
:* Ray, ''"Why are you an atheist?"''
:* Chris, ''"Um..., my, uh, my beliefs..I, I look at things, uh, very practically speaking, I guess. Uh..., uh, I like to have proof that..., that things are the way they are. So, it's hard for me to just take some information that someone tells me and believe that it's true unless, unless I have proof."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=We've included the pauses and "uh"s in the transcription in order to demonstrate how awkward this sort of situation can be and we do not wish to embarrass the individual at all - we completely sympathize. Having your day in the park interrupted by someone shoving a camera and microphone in your face, followed by requests that you provide justification for your beliefs is not a situation most people would be comfortable with and we commend this individual for doing his best.

The key point to note is that this individual effectively stated that he requires "proof" to substantiate claims before he'll accept them.}}
:*Ray, ''"Do you have a car?"''
:*Chris, ''"Yeah"''
:*Ray, ''"What make is it?"''
:*Chris, ''"Ford"''
:*Ray, ''"Ford made it?"''
:*Chris, [confused] ''"Ford made it?"''
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, did they make your car? They're the maker?"''
:*Chris, ''"Right."''
:*Ray, ''"Do you believe your car happened by accident? Could you believe that, that no one made the car?"''
:*Chris, ''"No, I don't believe that."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray skips the important question - "Why do you believe your car had a manufacturer?" The answer, as noted with all of the flawed examples of the argument from design, is not "Because it's complex" or "Because it is orderly" or "Because it appears designed"...the answer is that we know it had a manufacturer because we have considerable, empirical evidence to support the notion that it was designed and absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the car "happened by accident."}}
:*Ray, ''"So, obviously, everything made, like a car, has a maker. When you look at creation, don't you think to yourself there must be a creator? There's flowers, birds, trees, sun, moon, stars, the seasons, the human eye, the mind, everything has intricacies and it's uh, wonderfully made and it has order from atoms right up through the universe. Don't you think someone who said, "No one made the car" would be lacking in brainery? For someone to say, "No one created creation"...this doesn't make sense, it's not logical. Do you think that's a fair argument?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Actually, it's not a fair argument because Ray has used tautological examples which are not directly analogous to evolutionary theory. Additionally, he continues to ignore the foundational question about how we recognize design, trusting that we're all so used to accepting and recognizing design via common sense, that we won't think about how this process occurs.}}
:*Chris, ''"Yeah, I think there's a point where you have to step back and just say, "Well, ok, maybe someone did create uh, all of the elements around us, but I think that, uh..I believe that evolution did take place. And uh, I think you can always step back before evolution and say, "Well someone put all those elements in order evolution to take place."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here's the point where Ray claims the individual changes his mind about the existence of God. In truth, this individual states that he accepts evolution and admits that a creator god is a possibility as a sort of first cause.

This doesn't directly represent a change in the person's position on the existence of God. Ray has spent considerable time building up a false picture of the atheism as some sort of absolute position that any acknowledgment of the possibility of a God appears to be "backsliding". It's also possible that this person, like many people, was simply trying to avoid an argument, trying to avoid appearing rude toward other's beliefs (on camera) or wasn't prepared to deal with deep theological questions.}}
:*Ray, ''"Would you consider yourself to be a good person?"''
:*Chris, ''"Yes"''
:*Ray, ''"Can I ask you a few questions to see if it's true?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here's the "deliberate swing" where Ray attempts to address the conscience of the individual, rather than the intellect. His first question, "Would you consider yourself to be a good person?" is presented as claim to be challenged. However, the question is asking the individual to assess his own character on his own criteria or a generalized criteria. In the following questions, Ray analyzes the man's claim from an entirely different set of criteria - and replaces "good" with something which could better be defined as "perfect", by using any violation of the Ten Commandments as "not good".}}
:*Ray, ''"Have you ever told a lie?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
:*Ray, ''"Ok, what does that make you?"''
:*Chris, ''"A liar."''
:*Ray, ''"Have you ever stolen something?"''
:*Chris, ''"Uh, as a kid."''
:*Ray, ''"What does that make you?"''
:*Chris, ''"I guess, uh, a thief."''
:*Ray, ''"Uh huh. Have you ever used God's name in vain?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
:*Ray, ''"That's using God's name as a cuss word, it's called blasphemy. And the final question, as, in this respect, Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman and lusts after her has already committed adultery already with her in his heart", have you ever looked at a woman with lust?"''
:*Chris, ''"Sure."''
:*Ray, ''"Ok, Chris, by your own admission, you're a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart and you've gotta face..."''
:*Chris, ''"Those are just words."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=One very short rebuttal to this line, made famous on the Hellbound Alleee show is, "Have you ever told the truth?", "What does that make you?". Ray's argument isn't a judgment of whether or not one is a good person, it's a judgment on whether or not one is perfect - and perfect by criteria which weren't included in the initial question.}}
:*Ray, ''"You've gotta face God on Judgment Day, whether you believe in him or not, and here's a big "if", If God judges you by the Ten Commandments on the day of judgment, would you be innocent or guilty, if he did?"''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray asserts, as true, that we're all going to meet God on judgment day, whether we believe in him or not. Where's the evidence to support this? It's a thinly veiled version of Pascal's Wager or the fear of the threat of hell, to encourage belief.}}
:*Chris, ''"Well, if all that's true, I'm guilty."''
:*Ray, ''"Would you go to heaven or hell?"''
:*Chris, ''"I guess if you believe in all that and it's all true, I'm going to hell."''
:*Ray, ''"Now, does that concern you?"''
:*Chris, ''"No, because I don't believe any of that's true."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Clearly, Chris hasn't changed his mind about Ray's concept of God. Even though he didn't directly challenge Ray's assertions and arguments, he's clear that he doesn't believe the things Ray believes.}}
:*Ray, ''"If I stepped off a 6 story building and said, to you, I don't believe in gravity, I just don't believe in it. Do you think it's going to change reality?"''
:*Chris, ''"That's real though."''
:*Ray, ''"How do you know, you can't see gravity?"''
:*Chris, ''"But you can test it."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here Chris really shines, with a great answer - an answer which Ray promptly ignores. Direct empirical evidence, falsifiability, testability...these are the things that determine reality. Ray's implication that God, by virtue of not being seen, is somehow the rational equivalent of gravity, as it is also unseen, is preposterous. Perhaps, even without the ability to actually test gravity, the ubiquitous and uniform experience of gravity would be sufficient to justify belief. The god concept, in addition to being untestable, lacks this ubiquitous nature.}}
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, and you're testing the law of sin and death. If you die in your sins, the Bible says you'll have to face a holy creator, who's seen your full life, who gave you a conscience, and he's gonna judge you by the secret sins you've committed in darkness that nobody's seen because he's a god of justice. You know what god did, so you wouldn't have to go to hell? Any idea?"''
:*Chris, ''"Just whatever the Bible says, I suppose."''
:*Ray, ''"What do you think he did for you? It's something really wonderful"''
:*Chris, ''"He died for me?"''
:*Ray, ''"Jesus died on the cross for you, taking your punishment. That's what the Bible teaches. It's called the gospel and it means 'good news' that Jesus paid your fines so you wouldn't have to come under God's wrath."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This isn't an argument, it's an assertion. Citing the Bible as an authority doesn't make it so. Additionally, the idea that God would come to earth, take physical form and sacrifice himself, to himself, as a loophole for laws he created, in order to save us from his wrath - that defines a schizophrenic deity, not a benevolent one. The notion that god had to jump through hoops instead of simply changing the law is patently absurd. Consider a similar dilemma in the movie "Coming to America", where James Earl Jones, as king, is explaining his objections about his son's non-traditional choice of a bride, to his wife. "It's tradition" he says, "and who am I to change tradition?" His wife poignantly responds, "I thought you were king."}}
:*Ray, ''"Chris, he defeated your greatest enemy...your greatest fear, death itself and all you have to do to see if it's true is obey the gospel. Repent, don't just confess your sins to god, turn from them. And trust in Jesus like you'd trust a parachute. Put your faith in it. And the moment you do that, God says he'll forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life and you'll pass out of death into life and you'll come to know the god that you just didn't know existed."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here we have an argument from blind faith. Ray is no longer interested in evidence or intellect, the key is just to accept that this is true and you'll get the pay off...but only after you've died. That tends to make this claim rather untestable. Much like trusting that parachute, if it works, great...if it doesn't, you're been misled, you've wasted time mired in false beliefs and you're dead - with no benefit from that faith.}}
:*Chris, ''"Wouldn't we all be sinners, though, if I'm a sinner? And wouldn't we all be going to hell, just like I am? Cause, I mean, really I, I've never committed crimes where I've ended up in a jail, or I've never had to go to a court, I've never been tried by anybody..."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is the point where Ray claims that the Ten Commandments have convinced Chris that he's wrong and he tries to justify himself. In truth, Chris doesn't appear to be phased by the Ten Commandments, he doesn't appear to feel guilty, he appears to be offering an alternate philosophical position to counter Ray's claims about the Bible's ultimate morality.}}
:*Ray, ''"Yeah, but Chris..."''
:*Chris, ''"So, I'm a good person, I think. I have a family and I've been married for seventeen years, I have four kids, I, ya know, work hard, I, I uh, make my own way through life and I, I'm friendly and courteous and truthful to people and.."''
:*Ray, ''"That's true Chris..."''
:*Chris, ''"So, now, so, how bad...or how good do you have to be to uh, to not be a sinner?"''
:*Ray, ''"You have to be perfect in thought, word and deed."''
:*Chris, ''"So, how many of us are perfect?"''
:*Ray, ''"None of us. There's only one that was perfect, the son of God."''
:*Chris, ''"See, so.."''
:*Ray, ''"So we all need the Saviour, we all need to repent. There's not a righteous man on the face of the Earth. And Chris, you said you're a good person and by man's standard that's true, there are plenty of people worse than you, but God's not gonna judge you by man's standard, which is very low, he's gonna judge you by holiness, justice, truth and righteousness. And you '''are''' in a prison and you're facing capital punishment. You're waiting to die. We've got a big blue roof here with good air conditioning and good lighting, but you're waiting to die. You're on death's row. One day, death will seize upon you and that's because God's proclaimed upon you the death sentence. The soul that sins, it shall die. And God offers you a reprieve..and your wife...and your children. If you love them, open your heart and say, "God, I need to know the truth, because I don't want to wait until I'm burying a loved one before I open my heart to you and ask the things, about the things that really matter." So, think of your family and how you should lead them into the knowledge of everlasting life..and your wife. And if you've got all these blessings you should be abounding with thanksgiving to the God that gave you life and not denying his existence. You should be saying, "God, I'm so sorry I've delivered my back to you, you've lavished your goodness upon me. My brain, my eyes, my wife, my children, my health, this wonderful free country we've got. God I yield my life back to you." And he'll transform you on the inside and make you a new person and give you a new heart with new desires."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray cuts Chris off with a small sermon which continues to make emotional appeals. Chris is encouraged to think about his family and possibly burying one of them. He's berated for turning his back on God and encouraged to plead with God for forgiveness, if he loves his family. Ray even manages to use patriotism by thanking God for this "wonderful free country." He also switches from acknowledging Chris' disbelief to an accusation that he is "denying" God.

All of this emotional appeal fails to acknowledge the questionable nature of a God who would pass a death sentence on every one of his creations and then offer an escape to those who take a leap of faith which appears wholly unjustified.

The interview ends here, and we have no idea how Chris responded, though it seems reasonable to presume that any reaction that favored Ray's case would have been shown.}}

====Moving from intellect to Conscience====
(19:15 - 20:05)
:*Kirk, ''"So now that we've given you some ways to make an atheist backslide or, how to prove that the atheist doesn't exist, in other words, he's really not an atheist, he's an agnostic, someone who doesn't know if there's a god, we wanna emphasize the principle of swinging from the intellect, straight to the conscience. It's so important to know that by doing this, you're not side-stepping the questions of the atheist, but you have to learn that it's not wise to stay in the intellect and wrestle with someone intellectually, because it's gonna take you down a rabbit trail and waste all your time."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ironically, after repeatedly claiming that belief in God is the only intellectually sound conclusion and insulting the intelligence of anyone who dares to question or demand sound, logical arguments and reliable, empirical evidence; Ray and Kirk now argue that it's best to avoid intellectual arguments as anything more than "bait" which leads to the emotional "hook" of the Ten Commandments. Despite Kirk's claim, this tactic does, in fact, side-step the questions of the atheist. It's a direct attempt to avoid intellectual debate and they freely admit it.

Evidently, reason and evidence are no competition for a good guilt trip. Unfortunately, even their guilt trip is flawed...}}
:*Kirk, ''"You've eventually got to get to the heart. A surgeon's not gonna spend all his time working on your dandruff when he knows he needs to cut into the heart and get to where the real problem is. And that's what we do when we ask a person if they consider themselves to be a good person. We just deliberately make that turn, and go for the conscience."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In any real debate, this bait-and-switch tactic - the deliberate avoidance of issues in order to make appeals to emotion - would immediately disqualify them from continuing. While they may be honest by admitting to it, admitting that you've been repeatedly dishonest hardly seems worthy of respect.}}

====Interview 2====
(20:06 - 22:32)
The person interviewed (Travis) explains his view that there is no spiritual afterlife and that death is the end. The interviewer asks if he believes in god...
:*Travis, ''"No, of course not."'' [cut] ''"Why would you take a religious book and say,'Oh yeah, these have gotta be true, this makes sense' when the people who wrote that book, thousands of years ago, they were just superstitious and they didn't know how the world really worked?"
:*Interviewer, ''"Would you consider yourself to be a good person?"''
:*Travis, ''"Yeah, of course I'm a good person."''
:*Interviewer, ''"Have you ever told a lie?"''
:*Travis, ''"No, I've never told a lie. Um, yeah, I mean, who hasn't?"''
:*Interviewer, ''"What would that make you?"''
:*Travis, ''"It would make me...'' [laughs] ''It would make me a human being."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Travis agrees to play along with the rest of the test, supplying the expected answers based on the obvious intent of the interviewer. It's clear, however, that he's unconvinced by this painfully obvious attempt to tug at his conscience as he continues to hold that unproven assertions about Biblical morality aren't convincing. He addresses the lack of proof for the interviewers' claims by stating that he does research for papers and doesn't simply explain away data anomalies with ''ad hoc'' explanations.}}
:*Interviewer, ''"And that's what I'm telling you today. If you research the Bible, the way you do a research paper, and you study the claims that I've given you today, um, you'll find that they're true. '' [cut to a list of specific claims] ''I'm saying that Jesus Christ came, two thousand years ago, he paid the fine, the penalty, it's clear, being a liar, thief and blasphemer, that you've broken god's law and the only way that we can have a relationship with god, now, is through the blood of Christ, through his death and resurrection."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again, we don't get to see Travis' final response but it seems reasonable to presume that he was not convinced. The Interviewer claimed that research will demonstrate his claims, let's consider them:

# Jesus Christ came, two thousand years ago
# He paid the fine for sins
# We needed him to pay this fine
# His death and resurrection are required to have a relationship with God

The first claim remains unproven. The historicity of Jesus isn't beyond question and even among those who do believe in an historical figure, not all accept that he was the Christ or that a messiah-figure could ever exist. Those foundational claims are assertions which have not been proven and may not be provable.

The final 3 claims are theological assertions that no amount of research can support. Apart from personal revelation or some sort of unambiguous, global revelation, the truth of those claims cannot be supported by evidence.}}

====Interview 3====
(22:33 - 24:43)
Kirk interviews a young lady...

:*Girl, ''"We have science that proves that we didn't need that sort of thing to create the Earth. We didn't need, um, a being to come down and touch his finger on the Earth and all these trees sprouted up everywhere and, you know what I'm saying? We have theories, scientific theories, that prove that the Earth came together because of this big cosmos of chemicals and, um, different environments coming together and creating this place. And, over time, it got to the state that it's in now."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While cosmologists might cringe at that explanation, it's not bad considering this is an unprepared street interview with a layperson. The critical point at the core of her explanation is that we have scientific explanations which demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is not required. Whether her explanation, or any other, is the correct explanation of what actually happened is far less important than the fact the we can have probable, naturalistic explanations of origins.

In the unlikely event that evolutionary theory and big bang cosmology were proven to be completely wrong, that still wouldn't be evidence for the claim that "god did it". That claim requires its own evidentiary support.

Though the interview is spliced together, Kirk's responses indicate that the girl was giving good answers and addressing critical flaws in his claims...though we don't get to see all of them.}}
:*Kirk, ''"I hear just what you're saying and I used to think that way for so long..and..like, just my common sense, really does have to say, "Wait a minute, that building is pretty well designed", but when I look at you... or I look at the, the, the eyeball of my little baby, and I say, "Look at how well and beautifully designed a human being is." I mean, you can, you can walk, you can talk, you can think, you can come up with these answers all on the fly...the most complicated computers in the world can't do what your eyes can do..in, in two seconds would take it hours to do."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk demonstrates the failings of common sense in the light of critical examination. His continued reliance on the flawed design/designer arguments seem to carry no weight with this girl and he attempts to appeal to her vanity by mentioning how smart she seems and implying that this, somehow, is evidence that she was beautifully designed by an intelligence.}}
:*Girl, ''"I believe everything on this earth was accidental or created by man, so..."'' [shrugs]
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=While this, like the first answer, may not be the technically preferred explanation (natural selection isn't random or accidental) it's clear that this girl wasn't swayed by Kirk's arguments from design or an appeal to her conscience. Kirk's rather flustered response is priceless...}}
:*Kirk, ''"Well, yeah, I, I know. I, '''I''' think that you were made with a purpose and for an important reason and that, um, we're having this conversation not just by accident and that's what I personally think. And you're a '''really''' nice girl and I appreciate you talking with us and, um, Oh, man, my, my, my heart's, my heart breaks because I want you to know that there's a God and I want you to know that he sent Christ to die for you. And the fact that you want to live...I don't want to die either and the Bible says that Jesus Christ has abolished and destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light, through the Gospel. And so, I so want you to just, try to be honest and open with God and just surrender your life to him and see what happens."''
:*Girl, ''"I will definitely think about it."''
:*Kirk, ''"Yeah, think about it.."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk's "tools" seem to have failed. A little flattery and one last group of emotional appeals and he's forced to just request that she think about it. He also uses questionable definitions of "abolish" and "destroy," since in normal usage, he would be saying that there is no longer any death, for anyone. The request that she be "honest" with God is rather insulting; clearly, he's implying that she's being dishonest about her beliefs. Despite this insult, and being so unconvinced as to break our host's heart, she politely agrees to think about it.}}

===Absolute Proof of God===
(24:44 - 26:07)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Finally, the big payoff. After contradictory claims about the intellectual veracity of Christianity, Kirk has agreed to provide us with absolute proof of the existence of God.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Sometimes a '''professing''' atheist seems to be so stubborn they just don't want to believe in God. They want absolute proof."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Starting off with a double insult probably isn't the best way to convince someone, but what Kirk's really saying is that some folks simply won't believe based on blind faith.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Well, mister or misses atheist, there '''is''' absolute proof. God says that he will show himself to you personally, if you'll do one thing. Listen to what Jesus said, in the Bible, "He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me and he that loves me shall be loved by my father and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." So here Jesus is saying he will manifest or reveal himself to you, if you will obey his commandments."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Kirk switches theological viewpoints once or twice during this description of the "absolute proof". First of all, the instructions are to "keep the commandments"...something which the Bible tells us is impossible for anyone other than Jesus. So the direct Biblical method for this "absolute proof" is impossible via self-contradiction.}}
:*Kirk, ''" Now, does that mean Jesus will, um, appear before your eyes or you'll hear his voice? No. Jesus means that he will demonstrate his reality and his power by changing your heart, if you will obey the gospel."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here we get a redefinition of "manifest". You won't actually get any empirical evidence of God's existence, you'll just "feel" that it's true or even "know" that it's true, by divine revelation. This hardly qualifies as "absolute proof" in anything more than an esoteric sense.}}
:*Kirk, ''" Now what does that mean? It means to stop thinking you know everything there is to know and admit that you could be wrong about god."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again this insulting implication about thinking one knows everything. Atheists don't think they know everything, they're simply convinced that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Additionally, the verse Kirk read doesn't say anything about claims of ultimate knowledge. This seems to simply be an appeal to ignorance, a request that we stop thinking critically. Finally, most atheists would, and do, admit the possibility of a God, although the likelihood gets increasingly smaller as we learn more about the world. There are some logical disproofs of certain claims about certain gods, but no reasonable atheist holds the view that their own omniscience demonstrates that no god exists.}}
:*Kirk, ''"Listen to your conscience and say, "God, if you're there, I know I've sinned against you, please forgive me. Change my heart, make me the person that you want me to be, and this day I commit to trust and obey Jesus Christ, who died to save me." If you'll do that, God promises to show himself to you. Now, either that's true or it isn't. "''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Agreed. Unfortunately, many atheists are former Christians. Many others have sincerely and earnestly attempted this prayer and not achieved the sort of "absolute proof" Kirk promises. Objections like these are met with ad hoc hypotheses like, "You weren't really serious" or other claims which place the source of the failure on the individual - because God can't possibly be at fault. Additionally the [[Argument from inconsistent revelations]] holds that vastly divergent and contradictory claims of revealed knowledge about god, demonstrate that none of these claims can be considered reliable.

Revelation, as Thomas Paine pointed out, ''"... is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."''}}

===Conclusion===
(26:09 - 26:37)
:*Kirk, ''"So, in conclusion, we've been talking about how to share your faith with an atheist...and you do it the same way you'd share your faith with anyone else. Remember, the atheist is your friend, not your enemy. Don't argue with him, simply help him to see that he's really an agnostic, a person who doesn't know if there's a god...and then, help him, by showing him that in his heart, he knows that he's done wrong, that he needs God's forgiveness and you do that by swinging to the conscience with the Ten Commandments."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Again we have this fundamental misperception about atheism and agnosticism and the implication that neither position is "true", as the atheist, deep-down, knows that he's a sinner who needs to be forgiven. We have a final instruction to avoid intellectual discussions and opt for emotional appeals, despite their initial claim that atheism is counter-intellectual and requires more faith than belief in a god.

After watching the entire program, however, there wasn't a single piece of evidence presented on the core subject: the knowledge that we are sinners who definitely need salvation.

They've offered flawed arguments from design in an attempt to prove that God exists, but even if those arguments were valid and did demonstrate that a God exists, it doesn't mean that the God they're talking about exists. There was no evidence to support the idea that the Christian God is the true god and no evidence that the concepts of [[sin]], [[hell]], [[heaven]] or [[salvation]] are true.}}
====Apologetics are bait====
(26:38 - 26:54)
:*Ray, ''"Apologetics are like bait. Now if you go fishing with bait and no hook, you're not going to get any fish. You may get some fat, happy fish that get away, but if you want to be effective you use the bait to disguise the hook. When the fish come around, you pull the hook in. The bait is apologetical argument, you use different bait for different people, or different fish..."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here they again admit to intentional dishonesty and clearly admit that the intellectual arguments are only there to draw the "fish" in so that you can make an emotional appeal.}}
====10 Commandments are the hook====
(26:55 - 27:10)
:*Ray, ''"The hook is God's law, that is the Ten Commandments."''
:*Kirk, ''"That's right, because everybody '''knows''', when you bring out those commandments, that they've, that they've violated them, that they've broken them and that they're going to need God's forgiveness on the day of judgment. And it's a good, strong hook that we should never fail to use when we're sharing our faith."''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This emotional "hook" is simply an unfounded assertion. While everyone will likely admit to violating some of the Ten Commandments, only those who recognize the authority of the Bible would agree with the concepts of "needing forgiveness" and "day of judgment." These premises are simply assumed throughout the program and never supported as anything other than an [[a priori]] truth.

The truth shouldn't require a bait-and-switch tactic. The truth shouldn't require dishonesty, emotional appeals and guilt trips. The truth shouldn't be immune from critical examination, it should be '''revealed''' by it. Ray and Kirk have presented an impassioned appeal based on poor definitions, false assumptions, unproven premises, flawed arguments, dishonesty and misconceptions about atheism, agnosticism and evolutionary theory.

While this episode may appeal to its intended audience (evangelical believers), the methods and "tools" presented are no more convincing than they were during the first two-thousand years. In the end, this entire episode amounts to; "Believe in Jesus or you're going to hell when you die."}}

====Stuff to buy====
(27:11 - 27:45)
This episode concludes with information on how to purchase various books and training tools from their ministry.

==External Links==
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878&q=way+of+the+master Google Video]

{{wayofthemaster}}

[[Category: Christian shows]]

Iron Chariots Wiki:Requested pages

2007-03-14T04:20:29Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Science */

Sermon on the Mount

2007-03-09T03:46:09Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Do Not Worry */

{{Workinprogress}}
{|style="float: right;"
|-
|[[Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg|thumb|300px|'''The Sermon on the Mount''' by Carl Heinrich Bloch.]]
|-
|}
[[Sermon on the Mount|The Sermon on the Mount]] is the popular name for a sermon attributed to [[Jesus]], as written in {{Bible|Matthew 5-7}}. Many [[Christians]] 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|Q]] document.

The sermon begins with the beatitudes (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 site 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 moral 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. The '''Detailed Commentary''' section is a verse-by-verse look at the message in this sermon.

==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.

Matthew 5
===The 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 life 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 council" - 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 reenforce 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 it's 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 - 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.}}
::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 adultress (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 crimes 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 proscribed for murder as well as working on the sabbath or being an unruly child. It is expanded upon in the [[New Testament]] where infite punishment is proscribed 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 firey 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 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 more rare 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 chauvenistic. "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 parishiners 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.

It is also strange that god would first create the eye for an eye mentality, and then change his mind and condemn it. (Or send his son to condemn it.) {{Bible|Leviticus 24:19-21}}}}
::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 recongize this. Do we love Osama, or Hitler? Some might, but it isn't common and there's no reason to think that its 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 encoruaging 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. ad nauseum.

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 susceptable 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. Definitely 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!

===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.

===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? 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? 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 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=While this may theoretically reduce stress, it is very bad advice. Evidently Jesus was not aware that flowers are naked, and birds eat bugs.(And they work ''very'' hard at it too.)
This might be good advice if god acctualy came through with his promise. But thousands of people starve to death every day, christian or not.
In fact, it's thinking like this that may lead to the distruction of the human species. If nobody worries about the future, pollution will eventualy destroy us, starving countries will only get worse, and society as a whole would collapse.
They may end up just like the flowers and the birds, cold naked and living off of bugs.}}

===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. 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.

===Ask, Seek, Knock===
:{{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. 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.

===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.

===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. 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.

===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.

==External Links==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgSn7VG5Odc&NR Comedic look at a portion of the sermon]

Sermon on the Mount

2007-03-09T03:30:31Z

LtCmd.Lore: /* Eye for an Eye */

{{Workinprogress}}
{|style="float: right;"
|-
|[[Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg|thumb|300px|'''The Sermon on the Mount''' by Carl Heinrich Bloch.]]
|-
|}
[[Sermon on the Mount|The Sermon on the Mount]] is the popular name for a sermon attributed to [[Jesus]], as written in {{Bible|Matthew 5-7}}. Many [[Christians]] 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|Q]] document.

The sermon begins with the beatitudes (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 site 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 moral 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. The '''Detailed Commentary''' section is a verse-by-verse look at the message in this sermon.

==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.

Matthew 5
===The 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 life 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 council" - 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 reenforce 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 it's 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 - 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.}}
::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 adultress (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 crimes 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 proscribed for murder as well as working on the sabbath or being an unruly child. It is expanded upon in the [[New Testament]] where infite punishment is proscribed 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 firey 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 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 more rare 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 chauvenistic. "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 parishiners 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.

It is also strange that god would first create the eye for an eye mentality, and then change his mind and condemn it. (Or send his son to condemn it.) {{Bible|Leviticus 24:19-21}}}}
::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 recongize this. Do we love Osama, or Hitler? Some might, but it isn't common and there's no reason to think that its 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 encoruaging 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. ad nauseum.

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 susceptable 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. Definitely 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!

===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.

===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? 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? 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 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.

===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. 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.

===Ask, Seek, Knock===
:{{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. 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.

===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.

===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. 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.

===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.

==External Links==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgSn7VG5Odc&NR Comedic look at a portion of the sermon]

Biblical laws

2007-03-07T01:46:33Z

LtCmd.Lore: Added an Apologists Defence section.

Biblical laws

2007-03-07T00:44:40Z

LtCmd.Lore: Started the page, added four sections, still needs work.