Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

YouTube

2009-10-28T20:09:06Z

Mrx: /* Pro-Science/Atheist */ Thunderf00t the most subscribed creationist on YouTube!?

There are many videos on YouTube dealing with Evolution, Creation, atheism and God.

== Channels==
=== Pro-Science/Atheist ===
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t Thunderf00t]
:Creator of the ''[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D Why do people laugh at creationists?]'' series of videos, various science/astronomy videos, along with videos documenting his humiliation of VenomFangX.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet richarddawkinsdotnet]
:The Richard Dawkins Foundation. Lectures, documentaries and interviews by Richard Dawkins.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell patcondell]
:Stand-up comedian [[Pat Condell]], with almost 84.000 followers (as of June 2009).
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/FFreeThinker FFreeThinker]
:Various atheist and science videos, including more than hundred (as of June 2009) excerpts from [[The Atheist Experience]].
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/MrEvilution777 MrEvilution777]
:Brett Keane, very active creator of various atheist videos, often calling pastors and churches asking tough questions in a civil manner.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss ZOMGitsCriss]
:Romanian atheist woman with 40+ videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa AronRa]
:Creator of the ''[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC Foundational Falsehood of Creationism]'' series of videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 Potholer54]
:Creator of the ''[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB From Big Bang to Us – Made Easy]'' series of videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent Edward Current]
:Creates parodies of creationist videos which are sometimes mistaken for the real thing - see [[Poe's law]].
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsBettyBowers MrsBettyBowers]
:"Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's best Christian." Christian satire.
;[http://www.youtube.com/ExtantDodo ExtantDodo]
:Goes through creationist videos, such as those of [[Kent Hovind]], and debunks their claims step by step.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 cdk007]
:Many pro-evolution videos and creationist criticism.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/FightingAtheist FightingAtheist]
:19 self-produced good videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Nick+Gisburne+&search_type=&aq=f Nick Gisburne]
:Believers tried to ban him from You Tube but he got back.

=== Skeptic ===
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesRandiFoundation JamesRandiFoundation]
:The [[James Randi Educational Foundation]]. Videos where [[James Randi|James "The Amazing" Randi]] talks about various topics related to skepticism and critical thinking + debunks various forms of superstition.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFriendlySkeptic TheFriendlySkeptic]
:Many videos from various sources related to skepticism.

=== Pro-Creation ===
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangArchive VenomFangArchive]
:Archive with all videos made by the infamous creationist [[VenomFangX]]. All these videos were removed from the [http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX VenomFangX channel] when he left YouTube.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/thewayofthemaster thewayofthemaster]
:[[Ray Comfort]] & [[Kirk Cameron]] of [[The Way of the Master]] ministries. Perhaps best known for the video [[Banana argument|Bananas - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare]].

==See also==
* [[Atheist podcasts]]

== External links ==
[http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube website]

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Web sites]]

How did the sun evolve to put itself at just the right distance from the Earth for life?

2009-10-28T20:04:46Z

Mrx:

<blockquote style="border: 1px dashed #abc; background-color: #def; padding: 0.5em;">
If there was no sun, there would be no life. It’s amazing how it evolved to where it is now. Sitting there in the sky, 93 million miles away from us. If it was a little closer, we would all die. If it was further away, we would all die; along with everything else. How did it evolve to position itself in just the right place? It's amazing. 
''Ray Comfort - [http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/02/amazing-evolution.html Amazing Evolution]''
</blockquote>

== Responses ==

#The suns distance from the Earth (and the other planets) is random. In our solar system 2 planets are too close to the sun for life, and 5 planets are too far away from the sun for life. Other solar systems in the universe will have 0 planets at the right distance from their star for life. But with so many stars and planets in the universe some planets will by chance be positioned just right. Think of playing the lottery — the chance that you will win the lottery is very low, however, because so many people play the lottery the chance that someone, somewhere will win is very high.
#The sun does not “evolve” the same way that life evolves; its “evolution” is not covered by the Theory of Evolution. The use of the word evolution in the context of the sun or galaxies simply means development, formation or growth.
#Remember, life will always find itself on a planet that can support life. Planets that ''can’t support life'', '''can’t support life''' and therefore will have no life on them.

Arguments atheists should not use

2009-10-27T13:59:04Z

Mrx: Can only think of 1 right now.

A list of arguments atheists should not use.
* [[Biblical value of pi|The Bible claims the value of pi is 3]].

Template:Wayofthemaster

2009-10-27T13:52:56Z

Mrx:

{| class="toccolours" align="center" style="margin: 0 1em; text-align: center"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
! style="background: #d6d6ff;" | <big>'''''[[The Way of the Master]]'''''</big>
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| '''Season One Episodes:'''
1. [[The Firefighter (Way of the Master)|The Firefighter]]  
2. The Mirror of the Ten Commandments  
3. The Motive of the Sinner  
4. The Summary of Salvation  
5. Practice What You Preach  
6. Idolatry—The Darling Sin of Humanity  
7. [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]  
8. WDJD?  
9. Blasphemy, Sabbath, Parents  
10. Murder  
11. Adultery  
12. Theft  
13. Lie and Covet
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| '''Season Two Episodes:'''
1. God's Wonderful Plan  
2. Conscience  
3. Alcatraz, Al Capone, Alcohol  
4. True and False Conversion  
5. When Things Go Wrong  
6. [[The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)|The Satanic Influence]]  
7. How to Witness to Someone Who's Homosexual/Gay  
8. [[Evolution (Way of the Master)|Evolution]]  
9. How to Witness to a Loved One  
10. The Fear of God  
11. Ice Breakers—Gospel Tracts  
12. The Greatest Gamble 
13. How to Get on Fire for God
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| '''Season Three Episodes:'''
1. Islam  
2. Mormonism  
3. Witchcraft  
4. Buddhism  
5. Roman Catholicism  
6. What Hollywood Believes  
7. New Age  
8. Humanism  
9. What America Believes  
10. Jehovah's Witness  
11. Judaism  
12. Spiritual Battle  
13. Hinduism
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
! style="background: #d6d6ff;" | Cast
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| [[Ray Comfort]] — [[Kirk Cameron]]
|}<noinclude>

; Purpose
: [[Project:Navigational template|Navigational template]] for the series ''[[The Way of the Master]]''.

; Usage
: {{t|Wayofthemaster}}

[[Category:Templates|Wayofthemaster]]
[[Category:Box templates|Wayofthemaster]]
[[Category:Navigational templates|Wayofthemaster]]
</noinclude>

The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)

2009-10-27T13:51:49Z

Mrx:

'''The Satanic Influence''' is the 6th episode of the second season of ''[[Way of the Master]]''.
[[Image:20024_medium160.jpg|thumb|300px|right|]]
==Episode Synopsis==

This episode addresses the "dark influence" that [[Satan]] is exerting on the world that manifests itself as rock music, pornography, violent video games, and more. It contains interviews from Ozzfest, clips from concerts and lyrics of musicians who supposedly worship the Devil, [[Ray Comfort|Ray]]'s discussion with a member of the [[Satanism|Church of Satan]] and Ray and [[Kirk Cameron|Kirk]]'s criticism of modern preacher's who don't preach "true repentance."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Though Ray and Kirk make repeated claims that Satan is a real tangible being who can directly influence the world, they provide no evidence for this beyond metaphorical lines from Anton LeVey and cryptic song lyrics from Slayer. Similar to their God, skeptics are expected to take the existence of Satan on faith. This episode does the following:
*Seriously misrepresents the [[Humanism|humanistic]] philosophy of Satanism.
*Relies heavily on anecdotal [[evidence]] from the supposed Satan worshippers themselves to prove Satan's existence
*Takes quotes by Aleister Crowley and Anton LeVey completely out of context
*Demonizes those who disagree with [[Christianity]].}}

==Episode walkthrough==

==Introduction==

==About this episode==
(00:00-00:31)
:*As the camera pans over Ray and Kirk seated in a dimly lit alleyway with a spooky torch in the background to set the mood, Kirk greets the viewers and says, "Today we're going to talk about something that most people don't even think about, unless you happen to see a grisly murder scene with Satanic symbols at the scene of the crime. We're talking about Satanism... and not just the obvious and blatant work of humanity's greatest enemy, but also the most subtle of Satanic deceptions.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Right off the bat, Kirk incorrectly associates Satan worship with Satanism. Satanism, also known as the [[Church of Satan]], was founded in the 1960's by Anton LeVey with "Satan" representing the carnal part of man and it's opposition to religions that deny the self; it's a metaphor not meant to be taken literally. Two of my close friends are Satanists and I can assure you, they don't worship Satan or any other supernatural being. Secondly, I've never heard of or seen a murder scene with "Satanic symbols" scrawled in blood above a corpse. As always, Ray and Kirk are big on assertions and short on evidence.}}
(00:31-1:01)
:*Opening Credits

==Rock and Roll is the Devil's Music==
(1:02-2:02)
:* An Ozzfest attendee answers the question, "Do you think there's any Satanic influence behind rock and roll music?" with..
:: "Hell no! And if you let music guide you in life, the way people do and blame it, use it as an excuse, that's f---ing stupid as can be."
:* A clip is shown of a performer who yells loudly into a microphone, "We will no longer be oppressed by the fascism of Christianity!" and his fans reacting with wild cheers.
:* Another fan is shown who rejects the premise that Satan influences rock and roll, claiming instead that "It's all a show, that's all it is."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= While the footage is intended to show how ignorant these two concert goers are, all it really does is show that one rock star doesn't like Christianity. But to Ray and Kirk, the rejection of Christianity and supposed allegiance with the Lord of Hell are one and the same; in the words of Jesus, "he who is not with me is against me."}}

(2:02-2:24)
:* A box with a quote from Frank Zappa appears that reads, "I'm the devil's advocate. We have our own worshipper's who are called groupies. Girls will give their bodies to musicians as you would give a sacrifice to a god."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= I could not find where this quote came from. However, please note that the "devil's advocate" is a well-known term for a person who argues a side just for the sake of the argument that was supposedly created by the Catholic Church for canonization hearings. And, even if girls are offering up their bodies as living sacrifices, this only proves that the girls are worshipping the musicians, not Satan.}}

(2:24-2:50)
:* More interviews with people who reject the notion that Satan has some influence on rock music, instead chalking up rock and roll's popularity to "Kid's care about what's cool and what isn't" and "People listen to what they want to listen to."

(2:50-3:06)
:* Clips from Insane Clown Posse concerts show, including one in which a white faced man announces, "And I'm influencing your children..."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Though Insane Clown Posse can look a bit freaky, band member Violent J stated in an interview with the Metro Times, "I believe in God" and insisted, "We're just telling scary stories." This aside, the implication from Ray and Kirk is that if something looks scary or confusing, it must be from the Devil.}}

(3:06-4:14)
:* Ray interviews a shirtless man who claims "There is no message in rock music that has anything to do with Satan or the Devil" which our dynamic duo counter with lines from Slayer's song "Alter of Sacrifice" which reads...
:: "Waiting the hour, destined to die, here on the table of Hell. High preist awaiting, dagger in hand, spilling the pure virgin blood."
:* Another red block comes up on screen with an uncredited quote from one of "''two'' Slayer fans who murdered a 15 year old girl" that reads "I'm embarrassed I allowed Slayer's music to influence me."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Though the shirtless man is clearly wrong, this still does not prove that Slayer has any connection with the Devil... unless one takes their word for it, which seems odd for Ray and Kirk to want when they reject all other religions that say "Take our word for it." As for the murder case, I found several articles: one had a quote from one of the ''three'' boys involved in murdering the girl (the fact that the quote on Way of the Master got the number of boys wrong makes me even more skeptical of it's veracity.) According to Joseph Fiorella, one of the murderers, "The fact is that Slayer music didn't have anything to do with the murder. The police went into my house and saw some Slayer posters and records and they made up a motive that it's this devil thing. They don't have a motive -- so they make up their own." Another article reported that the supposed confession was "unrecorded." See "Facing the music" and "Are Slayer to blame for teen's murder?" on www.ew.com}}

==Aleister Crowley and Black Sabbath==
(4:14-5:37)
:* Kirk Cameron says, "Aleister Crowley who died in 1947 is known as the father of modern Satanism. Here's Ozzy Ozbourne singing a tribute to this Satanic High Preist."
:: "Mr. Crowley, what went on in your head?
:: Mr. Crowley, did you talk to the dead?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= This is hardly the kind of praise one would expect for a revered "high preist," with the first line questioning Crowley's sanity. The song goes on to say "Your lifestyle to me seems so tragic, with the thrill of it all. You fooled all the people with magic, yeah you waited on Satan's call..." Despite the fact that Ozzy incorrectly states that Crowley worships Satan, he sounds like he's mocking Crowley rather than praising him. And besides this, Crowley died 13 years before the Church of Satan was established, so he couldn't be a "Satanic high preist."}}
:* Kirk goes on to state that, "In (Crowley's) publication '''The Book of the Law''' he summed up the essence of Satanism, it is...
:: "Do as thou wilt, that shall be the whole of the law."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= The Book of the Law is the central holy book of the religion of Thelema, not Satanism. The Book of the Law makes mention of numerous Egyptian gods and goddesses like Horus and Ma'at but oddly enough, no Satan, the Devil, or Lucifer. Kirk practically had to use this quote because it's about the only coherent thing Crowley wrote; beside cryptic metaphors and incomprehensible gibberish, the Book has a section that is literally random numbers and letters with Crowley insisting, "Someone will come after me and interpret this." Um... sure.}}
:* A quote flashes across the scene from a member of Black Sabbath that reads...
:: "Black Sabbath was launched in the U.S. with a party in San Francisco with head of the Church of Satan, Anton LeVey, presiding... all of sudden, Sabbath were Satan's right hand men."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= We're beginning to see a pattern in which Ray and Kirk want the viewer to draw the conclusion that, "Because people say that they worship Satan, he actually exists and they really do worship him." Let's try this again with slighty different words: "Because Hindus worship Lord Brahma and the Hindu pantheon of gods, the gods really exist and they really do worship them." As for the quote, I don't have the album handy, but there's several ways one can interpret this.
One: because Black Sabbath had Anton LeVey as a guest, people thought they were associated with Satan worship.
Two: just like Christians (but possibly tongue-in-cheek) Black Sabbath is attributing their success to Satan; but again, just because someone says something doesn't make it true.}}

==Interview with a member of the Church of Satan==
(5:37-11:34)
:* Ray begins his interview of "Warlock" Jack Malebranche (a member of the Church of Satan) by asking for some background on the Church. Malebranche replies, "Well, the Church of Satan was founded in 1966 by Anton LeVey, who was kind of an interesting character. He had, uh, an interest in the occult and had been an organ player at different circuses around the country... eventually, in 1969 he published the Satanic Bible..."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= So far, so good. Supposedly, LeVey saw the same people at risque circus shows as he did at tent revival meetings and this gave him a cynical outlook on religion, especially Christianity.}}
:* Ray asks Malebranche, "If you could summarize the message of the Satanic bible, what would it be?"
:* Malebranche responds, "Live life in the here and now."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Jeesh, and I thought it was going to be "Kill all the Christians." Also note that he didn't say, "Worship Satan" or "Try to trick people into going to Hell."}}
:* Ray continues and asks, "What would annoy the average Satanist about the average Christian?"
:*Malebranche responds, "I think Satanist's are generally very annoyed by everyone; we're a very misanthropic bunch. We have very small groups of friends who don't annoy us. I mean, uh... basically if a Christian preached to us we would find that annoying, because we just want to be left alone to go about our own business and follow our own interests. A lot of us are readers, and we kinda like to do our own thing."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Wow, this is one evil dude Rays got on his hands! He likes to read!? And to be left alone!? Gosh, I bet he's so wicked that he enjoys fresh air and rainbows! But, to be serious, what Malebranche is talking about is the real basis of Satanism: each person is their own "god," in the sense that each individual Satanist is the only one who makes decisions for his or her life.}}
:* A clip is shown right after Malebranche states that joining the church means "throwing your lot in with Satan... and taking up that archetype" of a "high ranking member" of the Church of Satan who says, "Satan represents the power of force in nature, and we feel that a cleansing of the idiot religion of the palette of Christ is in order... we're doing this through the venue of aesthetic terrorism, which we're doing through the use of art, music, writing; effectively what we call propaganda, the dissemination of information to influence what we call "iron youth"..."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Again, despite the creepy sculptures and drawings, this man is only advocating a non-violent way of spreading ideas. The part where the viewer is supposed to gasp is when he mentions directing information at kids; as we all know, only Christians are allowed to target children! (using venues such as Vacation Bible School, "Jesus camps," Youth group activities, etc. How many Satanist kid's camps do you know of?)}}
:*Ray asks, "I understand that Marilyn Manson joined the Church of Satan, how did that affect things?"
:* Malebranche responds, "Well, Marilyn Manson is a very big public figure, but he's also attracted a lot of young kids to the Church of Satan, and a lot of young kids aren't really Satanists. So, while we respect him and the things that he does" (an "interjection clip" is shown of Manson tearing pages out of a Bible and throwing them off the stage, as if to say "How could someone respect such actions?") "we find that we have to kind of go through (the people he attracts.)
:* Ray presses him to expound and says, "When you say they're not Satanists, do you mean they're not doubting enough?"
:* Malebranche laughs and replies, "No, they're more interested in shocking their parents. They want to put on the make up like he does... they're followers, and we want leaders in the Church of Satan."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= I don't think this interview is going the way Ray intended. Besides the fact that Malebranche has still not said, "We worship Satan," he also has said that the Church of Satan is choosey about who they allow in; for the "drag lots of people down to Hell" group that Ray and Kirk claim it is, you'd think they'd accept anyone with open arms. Note, too, that Malebranche states explicitly that the Church of Satan is not really all that interested in young kids, which directly contradicts what the last clip tried to make the viewer believe.}}
:* Malebranche continues explaining the philosophy behind Satanism and says, "On a certain level, Satan is a part of ourselves that we tap into. When we say, "Hail Satan!" to a certain extent, I'm saying, "Hail me!"
:* Ray: "You're on the throne? So it's a self church?"
:* Malebranche: "Yes."
:* Ray: "But that would not that hold the shock value that the Church of Satan does, right?"
:* Malebranche: "Certainly... we want people who are not interested in what other people are going to think."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Well, I'm glad we've got that cleared up; now that Ray's discovered that Satanism is actually a self based philosophy, we can just forget about the whole first part of the episode.}}
:* A clip is shown of Anton LeVey, who says: "All religions are coming around to Satanism. We're in the throes of a new Satanic age." The screen then ominously fades to black.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Since we already understand what Satanism is really about, what LeVey is saying in context is, "People within religions are moving away from worshipping God/gods and beginning to follow their own will." As expected, Ray hasn't learned a thing from this discussion.}}

==What Christians think about Satan==
(11:35-13:05)

:* We're back with Ray and Kirk in the alley, and Kirk jumps right in. "The Bible says that Satan is the god of this world and that he will blind the minds of the unbelievers. Jesus called him "the Prince of this world" and "the Father of Lies." The Bible warns us, as Christians, to be ready to stand against the wiles of the Devil!"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= The issue of [[Satan]] in the Bible is a bit fuzzy. Though he is featured as a prominent bad guy in the Book of Revelations and makes a few appearances in the gospels (such as tempting Jesus in the desert,) he comes out of nowhere and is mentioned only 3 times in the Hebrew scriptures. In two of his old testament book appearances (Chronicles and [[Job]]) he's clearly an angel who works for God. Christians also typically interpret Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 38 to be about Satan to give him a little back story.}}
:* Kirk: "Has Satan snuck in? Is there any deception within the church? Has he decieved you, or me?
:* Ray backs his co-host up. "Despite what the Bible says about Satan, that he's real, that he's a deciever... look at what's happened!"
:* Grafitti on a brick wall reads: "In 2004, 50% of those who claim to be born again actually deny Satan's existence"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Ray and Kirk are apparently trying to use this to show that people are being tricked by Satan, which is a form of [[begging the question]].
Query: "How do we know that Satan exists?"
Answer: "Because he's deceived so many people into believing he doesn't!"}}
:* Kirk: "Even though the Bible says that Satan is real, 50% of professing Christians deny that he even exists! And that's a very scary thing to do, cause when you deny that Satan exists, you let your guard down, and that's when he can move in and bring deception to the church. It's kinda like, um, denying that terrorists exist. You let your guard down when you don't believe in them, and then they can move in!" (A clip is shown of a plane crashing into one of the already burning World Trade Center buildings.)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= This is a terrible analogy that fails immediately. A terrorist is simply a title for a person that creates/causes terror, and we have ample evidence of people who like to do that. Unfortunately for Ray and Kirk, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest the existence of an evil immortal being who goes by the name of Satan. Their argument is basically an [[appeal to emotion]] which is intended to scare the listener into acting irrationally before he/she can actually take the time to consider whether or not Satan is real.}}

==The Prodigal Son and the Unsaved==
(13:06-16:36)

:* Ray proceeds to tell the story of the Prodigal Son, which he claims is a type of metaphor for non-Christians and what they ought to do to get back in God's good graces. The basic jist of the story is this: a man's son demands his inheritance ahead of time, then runs off and blows it on partying and prostitutes, eventually losing all of it. He decides to get a job feeding pigs, but the work is so disgusting that he chooses instead to return home and beg for his father's mercy. His father is overjoyed to have him back and gives him new clothes and a feast, because "My son was dead and now he is alive!
:* Kirk: "The story of the prodigal son is a picture of every person before they come to Christ. You and I had turned away from God to serve the Devil and the pleasure's of sin.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Ray and Kirk are presenting a [[false dichotomy]] that the only possible choice is serving God or serving the Devil (not to mention that they're assuming that the default position for a human being is worshipping the Judeo Christian God.) There are many atheists, agnostics and nontheists who live life for themselves rather than for a supernatural being; of course, our dynamic duo would simply argue that such people are deceived and are actually serving Satan.}}
:* Kirk: "The Bible teaches us that unsaved people live in spiritual darkness. It's as simple as this: if you're serving sin, you're serving Satan. You see, our natural appetites are unclean; we desire pig food!"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= One wonders why the supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe would create people with these wicked desires and then punish us for having them. And a desire is not the same as an action; Ray and Kirk are essentially advocating a [[thought crime]] in which simply wanting to have sex with someone is as "bad" as actually having sex with that person.}}
:* Kirk keeps at it: "And if you don't believe me, just think about what people crave. Think about what's in your average soap opera or prime time television show. It's filled with things like adultery, jealousy, lust, fornication, rape, gossip, greed. Or popular movies today, with all of it's violence, filthy language, explicit sex and graphic murder!"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Kirk's argument is a type of [[argumentum ad populum]] that assumes because many people seem to approve of the listed actions that everyone (besides Christians, of course) must approve of them. Nonetheless, Kirk isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him that these things are sinful; Atheists tend to see things as wrong that cause damage to a person or to society, and the majority of these things don't do that. Thus, he'd get our agreement that murder and rape are wrong, but we wouldn't see any inherent problem with gossip, jealousy, greed, etc.}}
:* He continues: "Look at the cover's at magazines that you can find at any book store; these used to be considered "soft core pornography" and hidden from young people's eyes. Think of the video games that kids crave; they're extremely violent and sexually perverted. Think of most rock music, with it's explicit sexuality, blasphemy and dark Satanic side. Consider the internet's multi-billion dollar hardcore porn industry, or how the average person uses filthy words and blasphemy in every day speech. Life in the pigsty is normal, natural, and totally acceptable."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Yet again, none of the actions that Kirk mentioned cause inherent harm. Frankly, I think most people would agree that it's better that pornography exists as a harmless way for people to relieve their sexual urges rather than do so in worse ways, like rape. Also, blasphemy means nothing to a person who doesn't believe in Ray and Kirk's god, just like the "sinfulness" of saying "Allah damn it!" would seem trivial to a Christian.}}

==Satan in the church==
(16:36-19:19)

:* Ray begins a segment in which he asserts that Satan has not only begun to influence "the world" but that he has moved into "the churches" as well.
:* Ray: "Most people believe that the Devil is the darkest of figures, but the Bible tells us that he can present himself as an angel of light. Listen to what the Bible says about Satan's workers within the church:
:: "For such men are false apostles, (counterfeits,) deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles and special messenger's of Christ... And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as ministers of righteousness."
:: 2nd Corinthians 11:13-15
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Ray and Kirk have really upped the paranoia with this Bible verse. That's right, Christians: be careful when you're in church, because there's bad guys who have nothing better to do with their time then sneak in and trick you so that you're not really worshipping God. Come on, no one does this! And this over-the-top suspicious attitudes towards friends and strangers alike is what that led to things like the Red Scare, the Salem Witch Trials, etc.}}
:* Kirk: "Satan is extremely subtle. The Bible says that he will even use professing men of God, ministers of righteousness, pastors, and teachers, to deceive the church!"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= More fear mongering from the terrible twosome. Don't trust your friends, don't trust your neighbor, don't even trust your pastor... they're all out to get you.}}
:* Kirk: "The most effective way for Satan to penetrate the church is at the point of entry; to poison the evangelistic message... and that's exactly what's happened: Satan has contaminated the biblical method of bringing people to Christ... (Popular preachers/pastors) refuse to use the moral law, the Ten Commandments, to bring the knowledge of sin, like Jesus did."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Ray and Kirk are [[cherry picking]] the old testament; in the verses immediately after the [[Ten Commandments]] the reader will find commands to stone gay people, unruly children, and promiscuous daughters, as well as instructions for how to properly conduct slavery and genocide. You can't have it both ways: either we accept that the commands given by God in the old testament are still just and fair in our modern day and age, or else Ray and Kirk are suffering from [[moral relativism]], a claim that they repeatedly throw at nontheists.}}
:* Kirk continues his slam against preachers who refuse to use the Way of the Master materi- err, the Moral Law.
:* "But remember what the Apostle Paul said: "I would not have known what sin was if not for the law."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= This is a complete reversal from Ray and Kirk's usual argument that everyone knows that God is real but atheists/nontheists just pretend that they don't (using Romans chapter 1.) It also raises the question of how just a God these two serve; a God who would damn everyone to Hell for breaking the law without revealing to them that they'd done anything in the first place is not a diety that I want to be groveling in front of.}}
:* Kirk: "Today's church has become the last day's Laodicean church!"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Kirk is referring to the Book of Revelation, which is a letter to seven churches in Asia as well as a recording of a vision seen by a man named John from Patmos. The Seven Churches are never referred to as being chronological indicators of what the church would be like as time went on, nor does the author ever call the Laodicean church the "church of the last days." Plus, as always, even if we accept the Seven Churches as prophetic, they're vague prophecy
::"Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it and repent." The Church of Sardis (5th)
::"Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer." The Church of Smyrna (2nd)
You could apply this to any church at any time, because there's plenty of Christians who think other Christians are being "worldly" and plenty more who scream, "Persecution!" at every imagined slight.}}

==This is your wake up call==
(19:19-

{{wayofthemaster}}

Talk:20th century atrocities

2009-09-21T21:44:58Z

Mrx: Reorder - new discussion goes at the BOTTOM of the page

Perhaps a mention could be made of the lives saved by technology, for example without the advances in agriculture by the non-religious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug the world would probably have about a billion people less, paling the deaths of any regime.
[[User:BelgianAtheist|BelgianAtheist]] 09:36, 21 August 2008 (CDT)

== secular dogma ==

There is ambiguous reference to Stalin, which many people might find incredibly annoying. Here is the list of things you might want consider for accuracy
# Killings and communist crimes in USSR did not start with Stalin, nor the ended with his death. Examples are Red terror of 1918 and Prague 1968
# if you want to find number of people killed in USSR good reference would be http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. You mention 3 million however in some estimates it is as high as 60 millions.
# The reference to Stalin NEVER mentions that very rarely(hardly ever) people were prosecuted for their theistic believe. In fact most people were prosecuted for questioning official dogma . "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda" article 58.x(http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk-rsfsr.html) later became article 70 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Nx0gnXpMbnsC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=soviet+criminal+code+article+70&source=bl&ots=HjmU_-AKK8&sig=MGHDxadvPWrT5uWYpk-jGH_wGB4&hl=en&ei=GuWnSrueLYSCMqbR0JIC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=soviet%20criminal%20code%20article%2070&f=false)
# As a follow up to #3 you might want to mention that official state DOGMA of communism was written as article #6 of USSS constitution of 1977 http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/constitution/const-ussr1977.html

Sorry for my english, but all the references to Stalin as atheist are invalid in my opinion since he was a profet(saint or whatever) of a new religion of communism which is dogmatic, unscientific (not testable, not verifiable) and quite irrational in my personal opinion.

== Christopher Hitchens' counter-argument ==

Christopher Hitchens has an original counter-argument for this as presented in a debate with Reverend Al Sharpton, which can be found here, seven minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWt8a1aMkZ4
[[User:Gordon|Gordon]] 03:41, 22 September 2009 (GMT+10:00)

Template talk:Arguments For the Existence of God

2009-09-17T13:16:06Z

Mrx:

This template creates a rather long sidebar. Would it be better as a full-width box at the bottom of articles? That's how Wikipedia often does it (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Religion_topics Template:Religion topics]). --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 23:44, 16 September 2009 (CDT)

'''Yes''' it would. [[User:Mrx|mrx]] 08:16, 17 September 2009 (CDT)

A Brief History of Time

2009-09-16T01:57:12Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''''A Brief History of Time''''' is a book by [[Stephen Hawking]], first published in 1989, in which he discusses the nature of time and space, gravity, [[black hole]]s, and the [[big bang]].

[[Category:Books]]

Black hole

2009-09-16T01:57:06Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
A '''black hole''' is a region of space in which the gravitational forces are so great that even light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, except in certain special cases) cannot escape its pull. The existence of black holes were predicted theoretically from [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[theory of relativity]] before any observations were made confirming their existence.

==Religious implications==
''to be written...''

[[Category:Science]]

Goddess

2009-09-16T01:56:58Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
A '''goddess''' is a female [[god]]. A goddess may be characterized as the [[mother]] of all of humanity, or of all life on [[Earth]], or of all of [[creation]]. Often a goddess is a member of a larger [[pantheon]] containing gods of both genders (and sometimes of mixed or ambiguous genders).

==See also==
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Wicca]]

[[Category:Miscellaneous terminology]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Epistemology

2009-09-16T01:56:46Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{philosophy-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''[[Epistemology]]''' is the philosophical study of [[knowledge]], including its nature, origins, and limitations. To this end, it attempts to define and distinguish the notions of ''knowledge'', ''[[truth]]'' and ''[[belief]]''.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology|*]]

Christological argument

2009-09-16T01:56:36Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{Arguments For the Existence of God}}
A '''Christological argument''' is one which makes the case that [[Christianity]] is the "one true [[religion]]" based on the [[Biblical record]] of [[Jesus]]. While some of these arguments attempt to build an [[empirical]] case to demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible's account of the life of Jesus ([[Josh McDowell]]'s book ''[[Evidence That Demands a Verdict]]'', for example), other arguments simply assume the [[historicity]] of Jesus and the accuracy of the Bible, and build an argument based on the words and actions attributed to Jesus.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Christological arguments|*]]

Pope

2009-09-16T01:56:26Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{Stub}}
{{wikipedia}}

The '''Pope''' is the leader of the [[Catholic church]], and is thought by his followers to be [[infallible]] when speaking ''[[ex cathedra]]'' — that is, when giving an official pronouncement on a matter of [[doctrine]].

The current pope, elected on April 19, 2005, is '''[[Pope Benedict XVI]]''', formerly [[Cardinal]] [[Joseph Ratzinger]].

==Recent popes==
{{wikipedia|List of popes}}
Popes who reigned in the 20th century include:
* [[Pope Pius X]] (4 August 1903 - 20 August 1914)
* [[Pope Benedict XV]] (3 September 1914 - 22 January 1922)
* [[Pope Pius XI]] (6 February 1922 - 10 February 1939)
* [[Pope Pius XII]] (2 March 1939 - 9 October 1958)
* [[Pope John XXIII]] (28 October 1958 - 3 June 1963)
* [[Pope Paul VI]] (21 June 1963 - 6 August 1978)
* [[Pope John Paul I]] (26 August 1978 - 28 September 1978)
* [[Pope John Paul II]] (16 October 1978 - 2 April 2005)
* [[Pope Benedict XVI]] (19 April 2005 - present)

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Catholics]]

Bertrand Russell

2009-09-16T01:56:15Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{atheist-stub}}
[[Image:Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg|thumb|Bertrand Russell]]
{{wikipedia}}
'''Bertrand William Russell''' (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, [[logic]]ian, and mathematician, working mostly in the 20th century. A prolific writer, Russell was a strong advocate of the creative and [[rational]] life, and he spoke passionately about his many controversial positions, including [[atheism]].

Russell's views on [[religion]] can be found in his popular book, ''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]] and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects''.

*''“My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.”''
::—Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?"

== External links ==
* [http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/brs.html The Bertrand Russell Society]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/bertrand_russell/ Archive of some of Russell's atheistic/skeptical writings]

[[Category:People|Russell, Bertrand]]
[[Category:Atheists|Russell, Bertrand]]
[[Category:Philosophers|Russell, Bertrand]]

Mere Christianity

2009-09-16T01:55:41Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
A book written by [[C.S. Lewis]] and published in 1952 that comprises Lewis ideas about a basic Christian philosophy that everyone can agree upon. The ideas for the book came from a series of radio talks he gave during WWII. These talks were subsequently published in books ''Broadcast Talks'' (1942), ''Christian Behavior'' (1943), ''Beyond Personality'' (1944). ''Mere Christianity'' compiled those ideas into one book that Lewis edited the content to better reflect his later understanding of Christian doctrine.

''Mere Christianity'' is divided into four book sections and then into chapters. The arguments are broken up into the same structure for easy reference.

== Lewis's Motives for Writing the Book ==
* Lewis wanted to stop divisive discussion about "high Theology or even ecclesiastical history" with non-Christians because "the discussions of those disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold" (Mere Christianity, Preface viii).
* Lewis made an analogy of equating Christianity to a building: "['Mere' Christianity] is more lake a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. [...] The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms [...] is, I think, preferable" (Preface xv).

== Definitions ==
* Mere Christianity -- core values and teachings of Christianity that all denominations can agree upon
* Law of (Human) Nature -- "decent behaviour", which people have a freedom to obey or disobey. This law is created by God. ''(editor's note: Lewis struggles to explain this concept)''

== Book 1 - Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe ==
=== Chapter 1 - The Law of Human Nature ===
Law of Human Nature encompasses human behavior and moral codes. Lewis identifies that people have freewill to obey or disobey this "law." Also, Lewis identifies a "standard of behavior that everyone expects one another to follow.

=== Chapter 2 - Some Objections ===
In Chapter 1, Lewis describes the Law of Human Nature. Sometimes, he refers to it as the Law of Nature, which can make the first chapter confusing. Some people believe Lewis is talking about scientific laws such as Physics and Biology. This chapter is his rebuttal.

::"I conclude then, that though the differences between people's ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did-if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house."

We learn that if we believe something, the Natural Law of Behaviour supports us to take action on those beliefs. If we believe that witches exist, we have a right to give them the death penalty. We don't execute witches, anymore, because we don't believe they exist. By this philosophy, if we believe someone (or some group) was the anti-Christ, we would be justified in giving them the death penalty.

Another example if you think all Muslims are terrorists, you have a right to execute them by this moral philosophy. If you don't think all Muslims are terrorists, you don't have that right.

Witch hunts still happen in modern times in South Africa and India (see Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Modern_witch-hunts Witch-hunt]"). Lewis's philosophy may justify these actions.

Lewis is advocating Christians to examine history from a perspective that if they believed the enemy is a horrible being, they have a right to put that enemy to death. Also, Lewis is advocating that we do not re-examine history from present moral philosophy.

On this point, Lewis's moral philosophy is flawed.

=== Chapter 3 - The Reality of the Law ===
=== Chapter 4 - What Lies Behind the Law ===
=== Chapter 5 - We have cause to be Uneasy ===
From the arguments presented, Lewis concludes there is a creator. Lewis emphasises, "[w]e have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity."

== Book 2 - What Christians Believe ==
=== Chapter 1 - The Rival Conceptions Of God ===
=== Chapter 2 - The Invasion ===
=== Chapter 3 - The Shocking Alternative ===
Lewis presents the most famous argument of the book, the [[Liar, Lunatic or Lord]] "trilemma" located at the end of the chapter.

=== Chapter 4 - The Perfect Penitent ===
=== Chapter 5 - The Practical Conclusion ===

== Book 3 - Christian Behavior ==
== Book 4 - Beyond Personality: or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity ==

== External Links ==
* [http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt Mere Christianity etext]
* [http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=assertions Mere Assertions]: A response by [[Dan Barker]]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gaunilo2/mere.html Review of ''Mere Christianity''] at [[Internet Infidels]]

[[Category: Apologetic literature]]
[[Category: Books]]

Unmoved mover

2009-09-16T01:55:18Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{argument-stub}}
{{Arguments For the Existence of God}}

As formulated by [[Thomas Aquinas]], the '''unmoved mover''' argument is stated as follows:
: "Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is [[God]]. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God."

==Counter-apologetics==

Many of the responses to the "[[uncaused cause]]" argument also apply to this one:
# If ''nothing'' moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is [[unsound]], or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is [[invalid]]. In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly [[self-contradictory]].
# [[Who created God?]]
# The word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random [[quantum]] fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be very misleading.
# Pairs of [[virtual particle]]s are created (and annihilated) all of the time, out of literally nothing. These particles affect each other's motion, thus disproving Aquinas's premise.
# More exotically, if time were circular (i.e., if time repeated every so often, so that the year 1 were also the year ten trillion and one), then every motion could have a prior cause without infinite regress. This does not seem to be the case, though.
# Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of [[infinity]], but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Cosmological arguments]]

Uncaused cause

2009-09-16T01:55:12Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{argument-stub}}
{{Arguments For the Existence of God}}

As formulated by [[Thomas Aquinas]], the '''uncaused cause''' argument is stated as follows:

:"Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call [[God]]."

==Counter-apologetics==
Many of the responses to the [[Unmoved mover]] argument also apply to this one:

===Self-contradiction===
One can argue that the conclusion "God is the first cause" contradicts the premise "everything has a cause", and that the first cause argument is therefore self-contradictory.

It can, however, be restated as a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'', to make the contradiction a desirable feature:
# Premise: every event has a cause.
# Premise: there can be no [[infinite]] regress.
# Premise: there exists some event e0.
# From (1) and (3), it follows that e0 has a cause e1, which in turn has a cause e2, and so on, in an infinite regress.
# From (2) we know that there can be no infinite regress, which contradicts (4).
# Therefore, at least one of the premises must be false.

If we reject premise 1, that every event has a cause, then there must be at least one uncaused cause, which can be called "God".

===Why call it God?===
Even if we accept the argument from first cause, the conclusion is still problematic: the word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random vacuum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be misleading. It also can be noted that if for some reason there did have to be a first cause, we don't know what it was or enough about it to give it attributes other than being the first cause, which would make calling it and assuming it is God an argument from incredulity or the "[[God of the gaps]]" idea.

===Argument from incredulity===
To say that because we currently observe cause and effect relationships occuring in space-time, the universe itself must have had a first cause is assuming something that no one knows. Before the big bang time could not be said to exist at least in the way that we perceive it, and so to make assumptions about the behavior of matter prior to time is pure speculation. Simply because one cannot conceive of something happening without a cause, does not mean that we can assume everything needs a cause. The logic fails as soon as we attempt to preceed the planck time, after which nothing can accurately be said about the relationship of cause and effect. It is much the same as saying that order and design must mean there was a designer, just because as far as you can tell this is the case with things that humans design. You are saying you cannot fathom a natural process that would explain what you are trying to explain and so you assume that nature must abide by your narrow understanding of order and design. One's narrow understanding of cause and effect based on their current concept of time does not mean that before time was as it is today their narrow views still apply.

===Other counterarguments===
#[[Who created God?]]
# Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, in vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. This contradicts Aquinas's premise.
# Even if there is an infinite regess of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.

[[Category: Cosmological arguments]]
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]

Politics

2009-09-16T01:55:03Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Politics''' is the process by which groups of people work together, or in opposition, to make decisions. Generally, politics refers to behavior within civil government.

==Religion and US politics==
The United States Constitution defines a [[secular]] government, [[First Amendment|prohibited]] from interfering in the affairs of religious organizations. Despite this, fundamentalists continually try to interfere in US goverment.

==See Also==
* [[Theocracy]]

[[Category:Society]]

Sikhism

2009-09-16T01:54:55Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Sikhism''' is the fifth-largest world [[religion]]. One of the [[Wikipedia:Dharmic religion|Dharmic religion]]s, it was founded by Guru [[Nanak Dev]] in 16th-century India.

[[Category:Religions]]

Afterlife

2009-09-16T01:54:49Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
The notion of an '''afterlife''' involves the belief that some aspect of the individual, such as ones [[mind]] or [[soul]], continues to exist after [[death]].

==See also==
*[[heaven]]
*[[hell]]
*[[reincarnation]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Authoritarianism

2009-09-16T01:54:41Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Authoritarianism''' is a form of [[social control]] characterized by strict obedience to the [[authority]] of a state, organization, or individual; the central authority figure often maintains and enforces control through the use of oppressive measures.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism]

Common examples of authoritarianism include:
# Authoritarian family structure: children submissive to their parents, with the wife submissive to her husband (or sometimes the husband submissive to his wife)
#* Note that the former arrangement (wife submissive to husband) is commonly what is meant when a family structure is described as "traditional". This is family structure most often
# Authoritarian state (or form of government): the people submissive to their leaders, with lower-level officials submissive to a strong central committee or individual.

A related concept is the so-called [[authoritarian personality]] (or character), a set of characteristics purported to predict antidemocratic or [[fascist]] leanings.

There are two types of authoritarian followers, right-wing and left-wing:
* ''Right-wing'' followers advocate submission to traditional authorities, such as [[church]]es or other [[religious]] institutions, and the [[government]].
* ''Left-wing'' followers are submissive to a radical leaders who seek to overthrow the status quo.

[[Category:Society]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Psychological projection

2009-09-16T01:54:31Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Psychological projection''' is a so-called [[wikipedia:defense mechanism|defense mechanism]] in which a person attributes to others his or her own undesirable thoughts, [[belief]]s, intentions or feelings. The result is often blatant [[hypocrisy]], but the concept is more subtle than simply hiding one's own faults while attacking those of others.

[[Category:Psychology]]

Polytheism

2009-09-16T01:54:25Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{Religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}

'''Polytheism''' is [[belief]] in and/or [[worship]] of multiple [[god]]s or of multiple gods and [[goddess]]es.

==Confusion==

Some [[religion]]s could be considered polytheism in disguise, like [[Catholicism]]. The Catholic encyclopedia states:
{{Quote|In the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, these three persons being truly distinct from one another. Thus in the words of the Athanisian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy spirit is God'.}}

It however, then goes on to say that this does not mean there are three Gods, and does not bother to explain this.

Also, religions like [[Hinduism]] are actually examples of [[monotheism]] since there is only one god. Lord Brahma the creator, Lord Shiva the destroyer, Goddess Laxmi, Lord Ganesh and all the hundreds of others are all just different incarnation of the one god.

==Monotheism and polytheism==
[[Christian]]s like to see themselves as monotheists though as stated above it is not clear that they are. Westerners also like to claim that monotheism is in some unclear way a higher form of religion than polytheism. Alternatively it appears to be a historical accident that the three Abramic religions, Christianity, [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] came to dominate in the West. The Japanese are technically advanced and Japanese [[Shinto]] belief is polytheistic.

==See also==
* [[Henotheism]]
* [[Pantheon]]
* [[Religion]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Transubstantiation

2009-09-16T01:54:16Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
The [[Catholic]] doctrine which states that the wafers and wine one ingests as part of the ritual of [[communion]] is actually the body and blood of [[Jesus Christ]]. Transustantiation holds that the material used in the communion ritual is not merely a symbol for the body and blood of Christ, but that it literally becomes such upon ingestion.

[[Category: Catholic doctrine]]

Reincarnation

2009-09-16T01:54:07Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{religion-stub}}
'''Reincarnation''' is a belief that after death you are going to be born again as either another human being or an otherwise conscious creature.

== Counter-apologetics ==
The first type of this claim clearly fails to take in mind the population growth but can be rescued if one assumes that the conscious beings born as humans may have been intelligent [[alien]]s in their previous life. The population of the universe as a whole may be steady.

[[Category:Religion]]

Golden Rule

2009-09-16T01:53:59Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{philosophy-stub}}
{{wikipedia|Ethic of reciprocity}}

The '''Golden Rule''' is often stated, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or more simply, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." Also known as the '''ethic of reciprocity''', the same concept has been the basis of social [[morality]] in many cultures throughout history. Although the Golden Rule is often attributed to [[Jesus]], many forms of the ethical principle long predate him. Jesus himself, in {{Bible|Matthew 7:12}}, describes it as the "sum of the law and the Prophets."

==Golden Rules in the Bible==

Several passages in the Bible can be interpreted as being different forms of the "true" Golden Rule:

* {{Bible|Leviticus 19:18}}
{{Bible-verse|18|Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.}}

* {{Bible|Matthew 7:12}}
{{Bible-verse|12|Therefore 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.}}

* {{Bible|Luke 6:31}}
{{Bible-verse|31|And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.}}

* {{Bible|Romans 13:9}}
{{Bible-verse|9|For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.}}

==Non-Golden Rules==
Sometimes the Golden Rule is misinterpreted as, "Do unto others as they would do unto you," or, in an even more problematic formulation, "Do unto others as they have done unto you." Both versions tend to encourage a kind of "tit-for-tat" ethics. The latter version in particular suggests retaliation and [[revenge]], not unlike the "[[eye for an eye]]" style of "justice" promulgated in several places in the [[Old Testament]]:

* {{Bible|Exodus 21:23-25}}
{{Bible-verse|23|And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,}}
{{Bible-verse|24|Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,}}
{{Bible-verse|25|Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.}}

* {{Bible|Leviticus 24:17-22}}
{{Bible-verse|17|And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.}}
{{Bible-verse|18|And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.}}
{{Bible-verse|19|And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;}}
{{Bible-verse|20|Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.}}
{{Bible-verse|21|And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.}}
{{Bible-verse|22|Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.}}

*{{Bible|Deuteronomy 19:19-21}}
{{Bible-verse|19|Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.}}
{{Bible-verse|20|And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.}}
{{Bible-verse|21|And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.}}

==Criticism==
Some apologists make the argument:
* "If I didn't know Jesus, I would want someone to teach me about him so I could be saved. Therefore, I should witness to non-Christians wherever I discover them"
With this argument, minor but significant flaws of the Golden Rule become apparent. Where people's needs differ significantly, a strict interpretation of the Golden Rule can tend to strain relationships rather than smooth them.

An alternative (sometimes known as the Platinum Rule) can be stated:
* Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
Treat people how they actually want to be treated, rather than how you assume they would want to be treated. The needs of others are considered more important than the individual's assumption on how the other should be treated. With this alternative, one cannot instill his own values on another without the other's consent.

==External link==
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Murder

2009-09-16T01:53:49Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Murder''' is the unlawful [[killing]] of a human being with "malice aforethought." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder] Cases involving multiple murders may be known as any of the following:
* mass murder
* serial murder (or, more informally, killing sprees)
* [[genocide]]

==Murder in the Bible==
The supposed "first murder" occurs in {{Bible|Genesis 4}}, in which [[Cain]] slays his brother [[Abel]] and is cursed by [[God]] for doing so.

Believers tend not to ascribe the term ''murder'' to the many killings committed '''by''' God in the Bible.

==External link==
* [http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html Who has killed more - Satan or God?] - The atheist blog ''Dwindling in Unbelief'' analyzes the numbers of deaths attributed to both God and Satan in the Bible, and finds that God comes out way on top: 2,270,365 to 10. (The point spread is really much wider, however, since Satan had God's help for his 10, and mass deaths with no reported numbers, such as the Great Flood, are not factored in.)

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

Wicca

2009-09-16T01:53:34Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Wicca''' is a modern [[religion]] supposedly based on older traditions of [[witchcraft]] and, ultimately, pre-[[Christian]] [[pagan]] religions of Europe. It was popularized in the 1950s by retired British civil servant Gerald Gardner.

[[Category:Religions]]

Moral relativism

2009-09-16T01:53:20Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{philosophy-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Moral relativism''' is the philosophical position that [[moral]] or [[ethical]] propositions do not reflect objective or universal moral [[truth]]s, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Society]]

Killing

2009-09-16T01:53:00Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Killing''' involves the termination of [[life]] by an outside force or agent. When it is brought about by the action (or inaction) of a human being, it may be considered [[law]]ful or unlawful. It may also be considered [[ethical]] or unethical, or [[moral]] or immoral.

==Killing of humans by other humans==

Lawful forms of human killings may include:
* justifiable homicide, including killing in self-defense
* [[execution]] by the state
* (legally sanctioned) [[war]]
* killing sanctioned by religious authority

Unlawful human killings involving "malice aforethought" constitute [[murder]]. Unlawful human killings not involving "malice" may be termed manslaughter or homicide.

The killing of oneself is called [[suicide]]. Helping another person to commit suicide is considered unlawful in most modern societies, but not always unethical or even immoral; see the Wikipedia article on [[Wikipedia:Euthanasia|euthanasia]].

The intentional killing of an unborn human fetus is called [[abortion]]. It is a very controversial subject raising many philosophical and legal issues.

==Killing of non-humans==

The killing of a non-human animal is almost always considered less objectionable (e.g., is more often lawful) than the killing of a human under similar circumstances. In addition, typically the "less human-like" the animal is, the more likely its killing would be lawful and not considered unethical or immoral. For example, the killing of a dog might be unlawful if it involves [[cruelty]], while the killing of an insect or worm might be considered lawful regardless of the method used.

Killings of non-animal life are almost always lawful and considered ethically and morally neutral, except insofar as they have a negative effect on humans (e.g., damage to property, destruction of food supplies, etc.).

==External link==
* [http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html Who has killed more - Satan or God?] - The atheist blog ''Dwindling in Unbelief'' analyzes the numbers of deaths attributed to both God and Satan in the Bible, and finds that God comes out way on top: 2,270,365 to 10. (The point spread is really much wider, however, since Satan had God's help for his 10, and mass deaths with no reported numbers, such as the Great Flood, are not factored in.)

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Society]]
[[Category:Law]]

Biblical contradictions

2009-09-16T01:52:29Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
One counter-argument to the doctrine of the Bible's divine inspiration is to point out the many logical inconsistencies within the text. Examining contradictions is also a useful tool to argue against Biblical literalism and the belief that every word of the Bible is equally true. When the Bible can be shown to be in contradiction with itself, it casts doubt upon the idea that it is entirely true.

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]

==External links==

* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html A List of Biblical Contradictions], by Jim Merritt. Library, [[Infidels.org]]
* [http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html Biblical Contradictions], [[American Atheists]] website.
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?], by Donald Morgan. Library, [[Infidels.org]]
* [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html Contradictions in the Bible], [[Skeptic's Annotated Bible]] website.
* [[Wikipedia:Internal consistency of the Bible|Internal consistency of the Bible]], Wikipedia
* [http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm Biblical Contradictions], [[Evil Bible]]

[[Category:Biblical criticism]]

Gay marriage

2009-09-16T01:51:54Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia|Same-sex marriage}}

'''Gay marriage''' refers to [[marriage]] between two people of the same [[sex]]. This is currently a controversial political issue in the United States and elsewhere. Gay marriage is currently legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and the US state of Massachusetts.

== Arguments for gay marriage ==
In July 2007, Austin Cline ran a poll on his weblog asking whether [[atheist]]s should be allowed to marry.[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/121240.htm] Respondents overwhelmingly said that marriage is a [[civil]] institution, not a [[religious]] one (it should be kept in mind that this poll was posted on an atheist weblog, and therefore the distribution of respondents was certainly skewed).

Cline then draws the obvious conclusion:
{{Quote|If religion isn't a good reason to prevent atheists from getting married, how can it be a good reason to prevent gays from getting married?}}

== Arguments against gay marriage ==
Both religious and [[secular]] arguments have been presented against gay marriage. It is notable, however, that most of the opponents of gay marriage—certainly the most vocal ones—present religious arguments, either alone or in addition to secular arguments. Rarely, if ever, does anyone present secular arguments alone. This leads to the conclusion that opposition to gay marriage is primarily rooted in religious beliefs. Arguments from religious beliefs fail as arguments since there is no evidence to suggest any [[holy book]] is [[true]], and places like the United States have [[separation of church and state]].

Another argument used against gay marriage is the view that [[homosexual]]s, through [[faith]] in [[God]] and [[reparative therapy]] can change their [[sexual orientation]]. For instance, [[Christian]]s believe that homosexuals can change based on passages in {{bible|1 Corinthians 6, 9-11}}. This view is false, because the [[scientific]] literature suggests that changing sexual orientation is either incredibly unlikely or impossible.

See [[Wikipedia:Same-sex marriage]] for information about secular arguments against gay marriage, which are largely outside of the scope of this wiki.

== External link ==
* [http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage]

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

Skepticism

2009-09-16T01:51:31Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{philosophy-stub}}

{{wikipedia}}
'''Skepticism''' is the tendency to doubt the truth of claims until presented with sufficient evidence; one who has such a tendency may be called a '''skeptic'''. Note that this is a stronger position than simply ''not believing'' a claim until presented with evidence.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Crucifixion

2009-09-16T01:51:13Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}

'''Crucifixion''' was a particularly painful form of [[capital punishment]], used widely in the Roman Empire but also by some ancient cultures before them, in which the victim was ''fixed'' to a ''[[cross]]'' (hence the name) or tree, post, etc. Typically, the hands were tied or nailed up over the head or laterally, with arms outstretched. In either case, as the victim weakened, more of the victim's body weight was supported by the upper limbs, which made breathing more difficult and eventually caused suffocation. [[Jesus]] is said to have been executed in this manner.

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Exegesis

2009-09-16T01:50:35Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{wiktionary|exegesis}}
'''Exegesis''' is the formal, critical interpretation of a text, especially [[religious]] [[scripture]]. '''An exegesis''' is such a work of exposition.

[[Category:Miscellaneous terminology]]

Empiricism

2009-09-16T01:50:20Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{philosophy-stub}}

{{wikipedia}}
'''Empiricism''' is a [[philosophical]] approach to [[knowledge]] that emphasizes reliance on [[evidence]] gained through the senses, as opposed to [[intuition]] or purely [[theoretical]] considerations. Something described as '''empirical''' is generally based on direct observation or experience.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Psalms

2009-09-16T01:49:41Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}
The '''Book of Psalms''' in the [[Bible]] contains [[psalm]]s: songs of praise of [[God]]. Many of them are attributed to [[David]].

==Psalm 14:1==
Verse 1 (and sometimes just the first sentence) of {{Bible|Psalm 14}} is commonly quoted by Christians when talking about or to nonbelievers. The text of the verse is as follows:
: 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

There are many easy responses to this. One might point to the clear good works of various atheists--Bill Gates' charity work, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's crusade for women's rights, Marie Curie's co-discovery of Radium, etc.--to refute the latter claim. One might also note that it is a [[non sequitur]], since one's belief in deities and one's ability to do good deeds have little (if anything) to do with one another.

The first sentence is not so much a claim as a way to deflect criticism. Christians can justify ignoring the claims and arguments of atheists by derisively calling anyone who disbelieves in God a "fool." This is [[ad hominem]] at its most blatant, regardless of whether or not the words have the ring of divine authority.

==Psalm 137==
{{Bible|Psalm 137}}, which begins with "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion" is a beautiful song, expressing sadness over the Hebrews' exile in [[Babylon]] and the loss of their homeland.

{{Bible|Psalm 137:8-9|Its last two lines}} are often omitted, however:
: 8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

==See also==
* [[Psalm 151]], an [[apocrypha]]l psalm

Numbers

2009-09-16T01:49:12Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia|Book of Numbers}}
{{Books of the Bible}}
The '''Book of Numbers''' is the fourth book of the [[Bible]]. It continues the story of [[Moses]]. The book is called Numbers because it contains information on the censuses supposedly carried out at the time.

==Origins of the book==
The book most likely did not have one author, but several. [[Christian]]s and [[Jew]]s claim that [[Moses]] wrote Leviticus together with the other five so-called [[Books of Moses]] though this is unlikely. In the 18th Century [[Thomas Pain]] could see this.

<blockquote>But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself in the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and absurd:--for example, Numbers xii. 3: "Now the man Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of the earth." If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may now take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment.
[http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part2.html]</blockquote>

==See also==
* [[Pentateuch]]

[[Category:Bible]]

Ecclesiastes

2009-09-16T01:48:55Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}
The '''Book of Ecclesiates''' is one of the books contained in the Wisdom literature of the [[Old Testament]]. It is a philosophical book, containing reflections on the meaning of life and the meaning of wisdom and folly.

[[Category:Bible]]

Evidence That Demands a Verdict

2009-09-16T01:48:24Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{book-stub}}

'''''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''''' is a work of [[Christian]] [[apologetics]] written by [[Josh McDowell]].

== Reference ==
* McDowell, Josh (2004). ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. United Kingdom: Authentic Lifestyle, 816. ISBN 1-850-78552-X

== External link ==
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/ The Jury Is In] — Internet Infidels response to the book

[[Category:Books]]

Qur'an science

2009-09-16T01:48:03Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{Stub}}
'''Qur'an science''' is a defence of the origins of the [[Qur'an]] often cited by [[Muslim]]s. Many Muslims believe that the Qur'an gives scientific information that it was impossible to get from other means than [[Allah]]. There are many claims that are made, such that the Qur'an predicted the [[Big Bang]] and the speed of light.

== Origins of the universe and the Big Bang ==

== Orbits of the planets ==

"God hints at such orbit in the Quran: 'GOD is the ONE who created the night, the day, the sun, and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion' (21:33). Here an essential scientific fact is clearly stated, namely, the existence of the earth's, sun'so and moon's orbits; besides, a reference is made to the travelling of these celestial bodies in space with their own motion! A new concept had therefore been established in the Quran, hundreds of years before it was discovered by modern science." —[http://www.islamicity.com/Science/960703A.SHTML Islami City Science Article]

* The verse says the Sun and Moon have orbits but says nothing of the Earth having one. This is consistent with geocentrism. This verse did not introduce a new cosmological idea.

== Speed of light ==

Chapter 32 verse 5 of the Qur'an reads: "GOD rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels, to Him(i.e.,through the whole universe) in one day, where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning." Using some mathematics, some Muslims conclude that this verse predicts the speed of light and thus the Qur'an is true and inspired by Allah (such as Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby in his article "[http://www.islamicity.com/Science/960703A.SHTML A New Astronomical Quranic Method for The Determination Of The Greatest Speed C]"). However, there are many problems with this argument.

* The verse is not unique to the Qur'an. One can find the same idea in Psalms 90:4.
* The mathematics use modern measurements rather than the slightly different measurements contemporary to the Qur'an. That is an unstated assumption in the mathematics that the author would be using modern, more-accurate, data rather than the data available to him. One could say that's [[begging the question]].
* Some of the mathematics are invalid because an improvising, [[ad hoc]], number was inserted so the calculation gave the desired result.
* Even if the Qur'an predicted the speed of light accurately, the conclusion "Allah inspired the verse" is a [[non sequitur]] because Satan, aliens, Atlanteans, and so on could've inspired it.

== Embyrology ==

== Scientific inaccuracies and absurdities in the Qur'an ==

==External links==

* [http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=168 Richard Carrier on "The Koran Predicts the Speed of Light"]
* [http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/c_in_quran.txt Dr. Arnold Neumater's rebuttal of the "Koran predicts the Speed of Light" argument]

Hebrew

2009-09-16T01:47:38Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}

{{wikipedia}}

'''Hebrew''' is a [[Wikipedia:Semitic language|Semitic language]] spoken primarily by [[Jew]]s in [[Israel]] and other Jewish communities around the world.

[[Category:Miscellaneous terminology]]

Freedom From Religion Foundation

2009-09-16T01:46:44Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is a nonprofit educational organization devoted to maintaining the separation of Church and state, and educating the public about nontheists.

The organization was founded in 1976 by [[Annie Laurie Gaylor]] and her mother [[Anne Nicol Gaylor]].

[[Dan Barker]] and Annie Gaylor act as co-presidents of the organization.

The organization's newsletter is ''Freethought Today'', which publishes 10 issues annually.

==Legal Cases==
FFRF has filed numerous lawsuits against violations of church-state separation. Cases include removing the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property, challenging [[Faith-based initiatives]], and stopping government funding of a religious school. [http://www.ffrf.org/legal/legal3.php]

==External links==
* [http://www.ffrf.org/index2.php FFRF Official site]

[[Category:Atheist groups]]
[[Category:Separation of church and state]]

Consciousness

2009-09-16T01:46:27Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{Wikipedia|Consciousness}}
'''Consciousness''' is a term used in psychology and [[philosophy]] of mind to refer to a number of different phenomena. It can refer to attentiveness or self-awareness, but the sense that has attracted the most interest in recent years is the sense of subjective experience. This sense is sometimes illustrated through such questions as "what is it like to be a bat?"

The most basic debate over consciousness in this sense is whether it can be explained in physical terms, or is in principle inexplicable in physical terms. David Chalmers, a leading advocate of the second view, defends his position primarily by appealing to the possibility of a physical duplicate of a person without any of that person's subjective experiences (the zombie argument) or the possibility of a super-scientist who knows everything about the physical aspects of perception but doesn't know what it's like to have a particular experience (the knowledge argument, or "Mary" argument for the name commonly given to the hypothetical super-scientist). John Searle has accused proponents of the physical view of consciousness of simply ignoring our conscious experiences. In response, [[Daniel Dennett]] has argued that the anti-physicalist position makes consciousness something utterly mysterious, which our scientific investigations into the brain have inexplicably failed to detect. Against the accusation that he is denying something obvious which we could not be mistaken about, Dennet has said "this is a mysterious doctrine (at least as mysterious as papal infallibility)." In order to make their views comfortable with modern science, many proponents of physically irreducible consciousness endorse a view known as [[epiphenomenalism]], which says that conscious states are caused by the brain but do not themselves cause anything physical. In the view of critics like Dennett, however, this simply contributes to the mysteriousness of the view.

==Neurological Background Information==

The organ by which we come about perceiving our world and make sense of it is the [[brain]].

The center of [[cognition]] in the human brain is the frontal lobe, which is in addition used for executive function - i.e. pulling together information and deciding what to do with it.

Sensory [[perception]] is located in the parietal and temporal lobes; disorders which afflict this particular area include [[temporal lobe epilepsy]], a noted subject of [[neurotheology]] (for more information, read the works of neurotheologists [[Richard Davidson]] and [[Robert Persinger]]).

The limbic system, especially the hypothalamus and amygdala, pull together and react to this information to send it to the frontal lobes. Swedish neuroscientist Bjorn Merker has in addition postulated that the brain stem produces a rudimentary consciousness which includes perception, integration, decision, and action on external stimuli. This perception and cognition and the action of executive function and the hypothalamus combine to create thought.

==The Argument to God==

Many [[theism|theistic]] [[apologetics|apologists]] have claimed that the existence of non-physical consciousness proves the existence of [[God]]. However, this is by no means obvious. In contemporary philosophy, the most prominent defenders of non-physical consciousness are atheists. This is true of both John Searle and David Chalmers. Other examples of nontheistic philosophers who reject the physicalist view of consciousness are Thomas Nagel and Paul Draper. At the popular level this view has been promoted by Sam Harris.

What theists need is an argument that consciousness is evidence for the existence of God, but they rarely bother to try to give such an argument. Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro have claimed to present such an argument, but they seem to be stuck in the same confusions as other theists. For example, they talk about "restrict[ing] ourselves... to the explanatory framework of an ideal physics with mass and energy," which misses the point, because this is not the approach taken by philosophers such as Chalmers. Rather, Chalmers postulates something apart something from the physical world connected to it by laws broadly similar to the laws of physics.

More broadly, unless one takes the view that the mental could only be related to the physical by constant divine intervention (a position which has not been historically popular), it seems theists and atheists are in the same situation with respect to explaining consciousness. What's needed is an account of how consciousness works, and it doesn't matter if the system was set up by God or is a brute fact about the universe. Assertions that the "brute fact" response is unacceptable will ultimately fall back on the reasoning behind the [[cosmological argument|cosmological]] and [[Argument from design|design]] arguments. If these arguments fail, there is no reason to think the argument from consciousness would do any better, and even if they succeeded, there is no reason to think consciousness would reinforce them.

==References==
*Daniel C. Dennett, ''Consciousness Explained''
*David Chalmers, ''The Conscious Mind''
*John Searle, ''The Mystery of Consciousness''

==External Links==
*[http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm Quining Qualia] by Daniel C. Dennett
*[http://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/great-debate.html God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence] by Paul Draper

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]

Panda Trial

2009-09-16T01:45:55Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia|Dover Panda Trial}}

==Dover Panda Trial==

The "Dover Panda Trial" is the term that has come to be popularly used (ala. "Scopes Monkey Trial") when referring to the 2005 ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' [[Intelligent Design]] case.

==The Trial==
===Background===

On October 18, 2004, the Dover Board of Education voted 6-3 to compel science teachers to inform students that [[evolution]] was "just a theory" and that resources containing alternate views on the development of life (including [[Intelligent Design]]) were available in the school library. The three board members who voted against the measure resigned in protest. Science teachers refused to comply, citing the Pennsylvania Code of Education which restricts teachers from teaching information they believe to be false. School administrators eventually fulfilled the School Board's requirement by reading the following statement:

<blockquote>The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about [[Darwin]]'s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.</blockquote>

The school board claimed that it did not teach Intelligent Design, it only made students aware of it as an alternative to the theory of Evolution, which the board members believed to be flawed. The board further stated that Intelligent Design was not "religion in disguise." Despite it's insistence that its decision was not religiously motivated, the board was represented in court by the [[Thomas More Law Center]], a not-for-profit Christian law center that is the self proclaimed "...sword and shield of people of faith."

==Transcripts==
Transcripts of the court proceedings may be found on the James Randi Educational Foundation website.

[http://forums.randi.org/index.php?pageid=dover JREF]

[[Category:Creationism]]

DNA

2009-09-16T01:45:36Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}

'''DNA''', short for [[wikipedia:deoxyribonucleic acid|deoxyribonucleic acid]], is the very large [[wikipedia:macromolecule|molecule]] responsible for carrying [[wikipedia:gene|genetic information]] from one generation to the next. [[Wikipedia:Mutation|Mutation]]s in DNA provide one of the main mechanisms underlying [[evolution]].

[[Category:Science]]

Reality

2009-09-16T01:45:20Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{philosophy-stub}}

'''Reality''' is that part of the world that doesn't go away when you stop [[Belief|believing]] in it.

==See also==
* [[Gnosticism]]
* [[Solipsism]]
* [[Reality-based community]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Missing link

2009-09-16T01:45:09Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}

A '''missing link''' is a proposed, but as-yet undiscovered, intermediate form between two similar [[species]], commonly used to refer to a form between man and a common ape-like ancestor.

==Apologetics==
[[Creationists]] frequently cite "Missing Links" as evidence that evolution is fallacious. Darwin called this issue "...the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..." and attributed the perceived lack of transitional fossils to imperfections in the geologic record.

Another Creationist [[strawman]] is to argue that evolution demands a transitional form between every creature. [[Kirk Cameron]], for instance, frequently demands evidence for a "Crocoduck" - a creature with the physical traits of both a crocodile and a duck.

==Counter-Apologetics==
First, the theory of evolution suggests that ALL life forms are "transitional forms". All fossils, then, are transitional fossils. Referring just to the line that lead to modern humanity, geologists have discovered hundreds of distinct, progressing variations.

Second, the nature of evolution suggests that the massive variation we find in life forms today are the direct descendants of a much less diverse group of life forms, possibly as small as a single individual form. While ducks and crocodiles do have common ancestors, their lines diverged long ago, and each line evolved independently from the other. Discovery of a "crocoduck" would be far more damaging to the theory of evolution than the absence of such a creature.

There are no atheists

2009-09-16T01:44:39Z

Mrx: formatting

{{argument-stub}}
Some apologists apparently believe that everyone really believes in [[God]], and anyone who claims not to believe is simply lying, or [[angry at God]]. They may claim that [[atheism]] is a form of rebellion, or that God is so indelibly written on everyone's heart that no one can deny belief. God can't be indelibly written because people who have never heard the [[Gospel]] do not automatically become Christians unless they are taught.

The argument is frequently supported by the claim that it is impossible to know definitively that there is no God, therefore an atheist must be an [[agnostic]]. This argument is fallacious as it incorrectly assumes that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. It is also ironic, since it is just as impossible to know definitively that there ''is'' a God. Therefore, theists also must be [[agnostic]].
But this isn't the only problem with this criticism.

== A Lack of Evidence ==

This claim has a lack of evidence, and seems to be based on pure speculative assumption.
How do we know that theists and religious people aren't really just atheistic nonreligious people who are just lying and merely angry at reality?
The reason it is known they really do believe this stuff is because of how far they are willing to go to defend it. From Muslims who blow themselves up, to Christians, Hindus, and other such people who donate their life savings to clergy in the hopes of reaching eternal life, Nirvana, etc.
By contrast, most atheists don't even care to even call themselves atheists.
According to the Pew forum Survey, even though about 1.6% US Americans self identify as Atheists (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations). However, 5% of the USA population in 2007 didn't believe there was a god, while 3%, weren't sure (http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#)
Both are qualifications for being atheist--lack of a belief in a deity, or deities. This implies that as many as 8% of US Americans are technically atheists, yet don't even know, or care enough to call themselves atheists.
They could also be afraid of persecution from the Christian Majority, However.
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God

2009-09-16T01:43:55Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{book-stub}}
: ''For the widely circulated e-mail, see [[50 reasons to believe in God]].''
[[Image:50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.jpg|thumb|Book cover.]]
'''''50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God''''' is a book by [[Guy P. Harrison]].

==Outline==
The following list comes from the table of contents:
# My god is obvious.
# Almost everybody on Earth is religious.
# Faith is a good thing.
# Archaeological discoveries prove that my god exists.
# Only my god can make me feel significant.
# Atheism is just another religion.
# Evolution is bad.
# Our world is too beautiful to be an accident.
# My god created the universe.
# Believing in my god makes me happy.
# Better safe than sorry.
# A sacred book proves my god is real.
# Divine justice proves my god is real.
# My god answers prayers.
# I would rather worship my god than the devil.
# My god heals sick people.
# Anything is better than being an atheist.
# My god made the human body.
# My god sacrificed his only son for me.
# Atheists are jerks who think they know everything.
# I don't lose anything by believing in my god.
# I didn't come from a monkey.
# I don't want to go to hell.
# I feel my god when I pray.
# I need my god to protect me.
# I want eternal life.
# Without my god we would have no sense of right and wrong.
# My god makes me feel like I am part of something bigger than myself.
# My religion makes more sense than all the others.
# My god changes lives.
# Intelligent design proves my god is real.
# Millions of people can't be wrong about my religion.
# Miracles prove my god is real.
# Religion is beautiful.
# Some very smart people believe in my god.
# Ancient prophecies prove my god exists.
# No one has ever disproved the existence of my god.
# People have gone to heaven and returned.
# Religion brings people together.
# My god inspires people.
# Science can't explain everything.
# Society would fall apart without religion.
# My religion is so old, it must be true.
# Someone I trust told me that my god is real.
# Atheism is a negative and empty philosophy.
# Believing in a god doesn't hurt anyone.
# The earth is perfectly tuned to support life.
# Believing is natural so my god must be real.
# The end is near.
# I am afraid of not believing.

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Atheist books]]

Guy P. Harrison

2009-09-15T23:55:31Z

Mrx: stub template reordering

{{atheist-stub}}
'''Guy P. Harrison''' is the author of the book ''[[50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God]]''.

He was a guest on [[Point of Inquiry]] on August 1, 2008, and on [[The Non-Prophets]] on October 4, 2008.

[[Category:People|Harrison, Guy P.]]
[[Category:Atheists|Harrison, Guy P.]]