Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Proxima Centauri

2011-10-15T06:22:05Z

Sans Deity:

I’m lonely here as nobody has spoken to me yet. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:03, 24 July 2009 (CDT)
:Awww. There, there. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:46, 31 July 2009 (CDT)
::<irony>Thanks for being so understanding. </irony> [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:04, 1 August 2009 (CDT)
:Glad to see there are some folks who actually use the chat functions on these wiki pages. I mostly just edit, but I guess I'll have to check them. Off hand, you wouldn't happen to know if there's any way to encode formal logic on this page, would you? The standard wiki form doesn't work. - JStein (8:49, 9/13/2011)

I see you started a WOTM program review. *Big hugs* I have made multiple requests for help on RW, YouTube, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL]. You are the first person to give a helping hand. Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:25, 6 October 2011 (CDT)

Any chance that we could not use the '''Multiverse''' "theory" here? It's currently an untestable claim that has no evidence to support it, not a scientific theory. I certainly agree that it's ''possible'', but until we have a way of detecting other universes, it's an irrational claim and not suitable for use in counter-apologetics. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 09:36, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

:[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam&curid=2213&diff=18138&oldid=18111&rcid=17057 I think the mustiverse theory prevents God being proved]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:10, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

::It does no such thing. The multiverse ''concept'' (please provide scientific evidence for the claim or stop calling it a theory) simply moves the problem up one level; a theist just has to claim that "God caused the multiverse to exist" and you're back where you started, plus you've added another unprovable claim to the mix. If anything, the concept of parallel universes could potentially be used to explain the conflicts between omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 20:54, 7 October 2011 (CDT)

I’ve taken it out as the issue is not worth so much trouble and I risk getting behind with refuting [[Ray Comfort]]. In my opinion the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]] is valid against [[Kalam]] because Kalam explicitly states, “Everything that '''starts to exist''' needs a cause and the Multiverse didn’t necessarily , '''start to exist'''. I agree the Multiverse does not work against general first cause arguments. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:35, 8 October 2011 (CDT)

== Spam/vandalism ==

Lol, when I tried saving one of those marked as spam, I was told you had just deleted it. <impolite>Don't you have a life either?</impolite>

Is there no way we can upgrade the MediaWiki software? The latest version should make user-management, and thus spam-prevention, within easier reach. Sure, it will add some bureaucracy to new user creation, but won't it be worth it?

:You could try asking, [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], he's the site owner. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:24, 8 October 2011 (CDT)

::I see he's probably too busy. Especially as an upgrade, apparently ANY upgrade beyond the current version, would require an upgrade of PHP. Which looks like it would involve the ISP...
::Something tells me that the most effective solution would be to find a new ISP, export and import, and then transfer the domain name to the new site. All of course without stealing the domain from Sans Deity.
::Isn't this interesting? I didn't even know there was a forum. How much more work would that involve?
::I can feel myself giving up here. --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:53, 9 October 2011 (CDT)
Bother... I think I'll leave you to it. I'll stick to fixing typos... --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:31, 10 October 2011 (CDT)

I think the computer must have delayed before you found out I'd deleted that stuff. While I'm checking regularly I don't need delete templates but if ever I can't check for any reason delete templates will be very useful. Any admin who gets to delete just needs to go to [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] and find a bunch of articles all together ready to delete. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:12, 10 October 2011 (CDT)

== Clean up ==

I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:22, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

User talk:Feredir28

2011-10-15T06:21:49Z

Sans Deity:

== Template question ==

[[User talk:Dcljr#Template question|You asked]] about "''how to leave a link to the Way of the Master Template at the bottom of [the [[Conscience (Way of the Master)]] article].''" I'm not sure what you mean, since the template is there already. If you mean how do you link to your new article '''from''' the template, I [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Template:Wayofthemaster&diff=15033&oldid=11581 changed it] to do that. It doesn't show up as a link on [[Conscience (Way of the Master)#External links|the article itself]] (such self-links come out as bold text), but you can see the link at [[Template:Wayofthemaster|the template page]] and [[The Firefighter %28Way of the Master%29#External link|on other articles]] that contain that template. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:45, 15 January 2011 (CST)

Thank you mate. Sorry about wording my question like that, but you did what I asked. I wanted my article to be linked from the template. I have several more rebuttals to Way of the Master episodes coming later. Thanks. Have a good one. --[[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 11:45, 16 January 2011 (CST)Feredir28

== RationalWiki ==

What you're writing here and at RationalWiki on [[Ray Comfort]] is very good, at RatWiki short [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy Joke Blocks] are an enjoyable game. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:38, 15 September 2011 (CDT)
:Thank you very much for that. I do not fully get the game, it seems to me like a tag game. Whatever it is, I appreciate it but I think I will stick to what I do best. Also, a quick question, maybe you can help. Over the years, I have heard from many Christians that their religion is responsible for creating many things (reason, science, democracy, morality, ect.) and I am sure we have heard some form of it once. For this, I recently created the article [[Christianity invented science]] and explained why it is wrong. I chose this one because it is growing in the conservative academia and Christian apologetic literature. However, there is just one more topic I want to address, the delusion that Christianity invented secularism. I would not bother with this unless it was no growing as well, but I see it very frequently. Anyway, I know we already have a article on separation of church and state, but I wanted to know if I should create an entirely new article refuting the stance that secularism is a Christian idea and separation of church and state was invented to keep government out of religion and not the other way around. What should I do? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:01, 15 September 2011 (CDT)
::If you feel you can write well on any topic please do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:47, 28 September 2011 (CDT)

== Ray Comfort again ==

Google puts our article on [[Ray Comfort]] on its first page, can you help improve it still further? [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:48, 28 September 2011 (CDT)
:Really!? That's exciting! You can count on me to improve it. Oh, this is going to be fun. I just have to work on two of the programs, but don't worry, I will get around to it quickly. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 12:07, 28 September 2011 (CDT)

== Christian morality ==

I've had it up to here with Christians calling us immoral. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:47, 11 October 2011 (CDT)
:You and me both. Im sick of the excuse, if there is no God, everything is allowed. Even my own mother totally accepts this. I plan to extend secular morality real soon, and a bit more on christian morality. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:26, 11 October 2011 (CDT)

:I'm also thinking of starting an article or something addressing the problems of Christian absolute morality. What do you think? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:39, 11 October 2011 (CDT)

:You don't need to ask me before you write anything. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:44, 12 October 2011 (CDT)

== Clean up ==

I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:21, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

Ray Comfort

2011-10-15T06:16:03Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Feredir28 (Talk); changed back to last version by Proxima Centauri

{{Ray Comfort}}
'''Ray Comfort''' is a [[Christian]] [[apologist]] from New Zealand who co-hosts ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' radio show alongside his partner [[Kirk Cameron]]. The name, "Ray Comfort" may lead people to expect a ray of comfort but they get nothing like that. What Ray Comfort brings is constant struggle to live up to moral standards that no human being can reach. Then there is loss of self respect, fear and panic about [[hell]] over all inevitable failures.

==Way of the Master==
Together with his life mate, [[Kirk Cameron]], Ray produces the Way of the Master series of TV, radio, and internet articles. Unlike [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Sexual_hypocrisy some others] of the [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Religious_Right Religious right] evidence has not turned up that either is anything other than heterosexual. These peddle the concept that the way to convert people is not with intellectual arguments or clever rhetoric, but to lay a massive guilt trip on them the way the "master" Jebus would have done. Neither Comfort or Cameron has a theological degree and both have no formal training.

To see a list and refutations of these series, see the Way of the Master Template below.

==Atheist Central==
Most of his arguments against evolution and atheism really aren't worth the time and effort to debunk; he'll just keep coming back with more (or maybe even the same ones). This however hasn't stopped many atheists from flocking to his blog for a laugh. Comfort got so many of these types of readers that he renamed his blog Atheist Central.

==Beliefs==
Ray Comfort is an evangelical Christian and a [[Young-Earth creationism|young earth creationist]]. Ray is a [[Biblical literalism|Bible literalist]] and does not accept [[evolution]] or the proper [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html age of the universe].

Ray Comfort cannot make up his mind to preach one single message without contradiction and those who follow him either fail to notice or do not mind the contradiction. These contradictory messages happen because the [[Bible]] itself is not clear and free from contradiction. If there were a god who loves us and [[Omnibenevolence|does not want us to go to hell]] the very least that god could do would be to give us a clear and unambiguous message about how we can be saved. The Skeptics Annotated Bible gives a list of contradictory Bible accounts trying to answer the question, '''[http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html Is Salvation by faith alone?]'''

===Salvation by faith===
Ray believes that once someone is born-again God forgives them for all their sins. The following is his words exactly:
<blockquote>"once and for all and the moment you trust in him [Jesus Christ] you are completely justified and made right with God, you are made perfect by God's grace. That has nothing to do with living a good life, pleasing God because you can't because you a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart. The only thing you can do is repent and trust in him. The minute you do, in a heartbeat God justifies you. Cleanses you of your sin and you are born again. God gives you a new heart with a new set of desires and you know you are going to escape death and damnation." </blockquote>
Listen carefully to Ray's last comment. For the moment he admitted that any person can be saved and clean of sin the second that you repent, making Christianity a "Get out of Jail Free Card." Hitler, murderers, rapists, or anyone can be just as wicked as they want their whole life to their last minute. In that last minute, all they have to do is become 'born-again" and God forgives them. Ray believes at least part of the time that the Bible says that we are saved by grace alone and not by works. He quotes Titus and Ephesians 2:8-9, which says that not by works of righteousness, but according to God's mercy. However, if we are saved by grace, then that means that all we have to do to be saved is to convert and repent, no matter what kind of evil we have committed. Murderers, rapists, child molesters can be saved if they repent. Does the Bible say that salvation is by grace alone and not by works? Should we be baptized? Psalm 62:12 says "For you render to each one according to his works." See [[Bible contradictions]].

Jeremiah 17:10 says "I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."

Matthew 5:20 says "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Btw, the Pharisees followed over 613 laws.

Matthew 16:27 spells it out nicely "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

Philippians 2:12 says "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

James 2:14 asks "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" Later on in James 2:17 it says "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Near the end, James 2:21-25 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

1 Peter 1:17 says "The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work."

Revelation 2:23 says "I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

It seems Ray (and Kirk) part of the time cherry-picked one side of the discrepancies to make other branches of Christianity appear foolish to give his faith more credibility. Other branches of Christianity believe that both works and faith is required, some believe God has already predetermined where you end up in the afterlife.

For what Ray says at other times see the next section.

===Salvation by works===
Other times Comfort insists that in order to be saved a person must stop sinning.
<blockquote> Merely being sorry for your sins, or confessing them to God won't help you. You must turn from sin (repent), [http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=81&Itemid=229] </blockquote>
This has turned other Christian fundamentalists against Ray Comfort and made them call Comfort a dammable heretic. Below is Ray Comfort quoted by two opposing websites.
<blockquote> These are perhaps the most frightening verses in the Bible. Vast multitudes of professing Christians fit into the category spoken of here. They call Jesus 'Lord,' but they practice lawlessness. They profess faith in Jesus, but have no regard for the divine law. They tell 'fibs' or 'white' lies, take things that belong to others, have a roaming eye for the opposite sex, etc. They are liars, thieves, and adulterers at heart, who will be cast from the gates of heaven into the jaws of hell. [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/ray_comfort.htm] [http://www.soulwinning.info/fd/lordship_salvation/hard_to_believe.htm] </blockquote>

== Harm Ray Comfort causes==
Ray Comfort tells his followers to accept increased suffering in this life in order he hopes to avoid greater pain after death. Below is just one example of the type of message he gives.
<blockquote>But there is no Biblical precedent for a message of life improvement upon conversion. None. In fact the Bible says you will have trails, tribulations temptation, persecution. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RidZHDO8SMgC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=there+will+be+trials+and+hardships%2Bray+comfort&source=bl&ots=-Eu5V73XOu&sig=Fg0Z-R8iYbOwY9rVxOhurqCu960&hl=en&ei=AI2QTuGoOYW98gOKuIgP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false] </blockquote>
Christians of the Comfort type are made to feel guilty and to fear [[Hell]] if they glance at another person and think “Isn’t he/she attractive?” According to Comfort looking at another person with lust is equivalent to adultery and that is just one example of how his followers are guilt tripped. Comfort tells his followers to bring their children up to the same unnatural guilt ridden life that the parents endure. Unsurprisingly those who want people to be happy in this life oppose Ray Comfort’s teachings and he calls that persecution.

==View towards Atheists==
Ray Comfort makes no attempt to hide his grudge against atheists and atheism, which is evident through his extensive work focused on opposing atheism. According to Ray "An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will deny that through gritted teeth, because it is an intellectual embarrassment. But if he says of his Toyota that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks that nothing made it (it just happened), which is a scientific impossibility. So, to remain credible, he falls back on something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what that something was. So he’s not an atheist–he believes in an initial cause." Ray Comfort encourages all Christians to not be intimidated by atheists because "they're not intelligent, the bible says they're fools." [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/14.html]

Of course Comfort got the definition of atheism wrong and this whole thing is set up to make atheists seem like idiots. He uses the false objection to atheism "[[so you believe in nothing?]]" This is blatantly false, since an atheist is somebody who does not believe in any gods. Atheism is not a belief system. Even if this first sentence wasn’t meant as a definition, it is factually wrong because Comfort makes the mistake of all atheists share more than just a disbelief in gods. In the academia, the real "intellectual embarrassment" are proponents of creationism, which is Ray Comforts position. Ray's comment about atheists and the origin of the car (or any other man-made objection) is a rework of the [[argument from design]]. Not all atheists share the same beliefs, and he makes it seem so evil to admit "he just doesn’t know what that something was." If not enough evidence is provided, it is intellectually honest to say 'I don't know' and Ray falsely believes that response alone makes his position win by default. On the last point, an atheist only needs to lack a belief in god(s), and his/her position on causes of anything are a separate issue. If atheists are not intelligent, then how is it that Comfort's [[Banana argument]] got intellectually obliterated to the point Comfort denied he ever made it? So it looks more likely that the Bible was wrong and that many atheists are in no way fools.

*Note regarding Ray's remark that an atheist believes nothing made everything, which is a popular theist view about atheism, is demonstrably wrong. When physicists say "nothing" it is not what most people think they are talking about. As NASA astronomer Dr. Sten Odenwald puts it, " when physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty. Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed from the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight."

==Favorite arguments==
Ray Comfort has appeared on many [[freethinking]] radio shows. Some arguments come up time and time again (see our articles about these arguments for relevant counter-arguments) in his books, episodes, debates, street preaching, and such. Ray constantly uses a bushful of fallacies, such as [[appeal to emotion]], [[argument from ignorance]], [[false dichotomy]], [[straw man]], [[equivocation]], [[ad hominem]], and many more. Ray is also known to [[lie for Jesus]].

Ray believes there are three "irrefutable" evidences for God.
*1) Creation: Using a coca-cola can as an example, Ray "theorizes" the origin of the can came from billions of years ago, when there was an unexplainable massive explosion in space, and from it came a rock and on the rock was a brown bubbling pool where after millions of years, aluminum came forth and created itself a tab on the top. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed the words on the coca-cola can. Ray says nobody would believe that, because we know the coca-cola can had a maker. He then says we also know that the [[banana argument|banana]] must have a maker. Ray Comfort claims that if you find something that was created, there must be a creator. He claims that a building must have a builder and a painting must have a painter, even though you cannot see, touch, smell, hear, or taste him. This to Comfort is scientific proof of a creator and does not require faith to believe in a creator. According to Ray, all you need is eyes that can see and a brain works. Ray asks himself "can we scientifically prove that a painting had a painter?" He replies if we put a dozen scientists in a room with a painting, they will all answer that it indeed had a painter. Ray includes nothing more. He then says the human body is a very complex machine and the eye is perfect so there must be a designer. He then addresses those who are not convinced by his arguments as people who put themselves on an "intellectual pedestal."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ray simply does not understand the word "theory," misleading people. His argument is of course a logical fallacy: anything that exists, simply because it exists, must have been deliberately created by an intelligent being for an intended purpose. By his logic, does lightning have a lightning maker? Is Vulcan just o' hammerin' away in his forge and tossing thunderbolts to Zeus??? Ray's argument also includes an argument from design fallacy. We see design and beauty in snowflakes and crystals, but we also know they form under natural causes without invoking the supernatural. The thing is, we can actually test if a painting had a painter and we could verify who it is and how they did it, we can also veryfy information about factories where coca-cola is made. We cannot verify information similarly with God and that is where Ray fails, when he claimed that he would be able to prove the existence of God scientifically. Also, Ray builds an absurd [[straw man]] of the [[Big Bang]] Theory, [[abiogenesis]], and evolution and falsely thinks that disproving them makes creation win by default. He also tries to mock the intellect and present an [[ad hominem]] towards those who don't believe in God by implying that their eyes and brains must not be functional. He insults skeptics as putting themselves on a pedestal, basically Ray's arguments are so feeble that they are simply comical and do not require a lot of thought to see through it, and that is why Ray attacks the intellectual and is trying to prevent the audience from thinking to deeply into things.}}

*2) Conscience: According to Ray, God put within each of us conscience when God made us in his image. This separates us from the other animals since we have the ability to know right from wrong. But, according to Ray, our conscience has "lost its life on the outside" and each of us are "self-admitted blaspheming, lying, thieving, adulterers at heart" and could only be restored by the Ten Commandments. He then goes on using his old tactic of "are you a good person?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In this speech, Ray very briefly tells the gospel is the greatest evidence for God anyone could have. The Godspel is typical of the type of [[Mythology]] that appeared during the Roman Empire. Ray Comfort is for once fairly close to the truth, there is no better evidence for Christianity than the gospels. The argument about the conscience is of course is based on ignorance of science (zoology, sociology, evolution).
All societal species (including humans) have a sense of compassion and community amongst their kinsmen, friends and fellows which - in many species - leads to acts of devotion, defense, and even self-sacrifice on their behalf.}}

*3) Conversion: According to Ray, if you believe in God and seek him out, you will find him. "That is the ultimate proof."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=What Comfort failed to understand was the same result can be achieved for those who seek out ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, or any deity "with their whole heart", meaning they have already assumed these things exist without question or prior evidence that they exist in the first place.}}

===The Watchmaker Argument===
He will usually say something along the lines of "If I see a watch, it must have been made by a watchmaker, a loaf of bread by a baker, a building by an engineer, a creation by a creator." He will also say "Creation is 100% Scientific proof there was a creator."

This is the '''[[argument from design]]'''.

:*Ray, ''"When you look at a painting, how do you know there was a painter? The painting exists, get it?" ... "And creation proves there's a creator."''
This is an example of [[begging the question]], as the point which he's attempting to prove is contained in his premise. Anything created must have a creator, but he hasn't demonstrated that what he means by "creation" (the universe, everything, humans, etc.) is actually a creation. The appearance of design, purpose or complexity alone is not sufficient to posit an intelligent creator. If Comfort could prove a creator -which he cannot- there would be no proof that the creator is the the God of [[Protestant]] Christianity.
There could be a creator that is like the God of a different branch of Christianity, like the God of [[Judaism]], or like [[Allah]] of the [[Koran]]. There are any number of different [[Creation story|creation myths]] and Ray Comfort gives no logical reason for prefering his version of creation to other versions or to scientific explanations of existence.

When he asks questions like, "When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder?", his answer is "The building is absolute proof of the builder." This avoids the important question about how we recognize design. He's relying on common sense and a lack of critical thinking, to support the idea that this is a natural, obvious and reliable assumption.

In truth, we recognize that the building is designed because we have an abundance of evidence that supports that conclusion and no evidence to support the idea that buildings are naturally occurring. We possess, or can attain by research, empirical evidence about the history of a given building; who designed it, who built it, what methods they used, etc. We can also learn about the general history of buildings and other structures, throughout recorded history. All of this evidence, and more, in conjunction with a lack of evidence supporting the idea that buildings occur naturally, lead us to the reliably supported conclusion that a given building had a builder. We're not always consciously aware of this process, as we've come to trust our intuition without constantly analyzing why this trust is deserved.

Considering a human, for example. We know that humans are the result of a natural process (sexual reproduction). Science has proven to be the most reliable method for explaining reality and its reliability supports the position that, until evidence to the contrary is presented, natural explanations exist for all phenomena. Ray, and others, aver that the natural world must have a supernatural, intelligent creator...a position wholly unsupported by evidence.

Additionally, when humans create things, they use pre-existing material. To compare the creation of the universe by a god to the creation of objects by humans is to imply that this god used pre-existing matter to do it. This, of course, still leads one to ask, "where did this matter come from?"
:*Ray, ''"I mean, you can prove god Biblically, scientifically, without even pointing to scriptures, without even mentioning faith. We're going to teach people how to do that so we no longer need to feel intimidated by so-called intellectualism."''
Despite this claim, neither Ray, nor anyone else, has presented a "scientific" proof of the existence of God. This accomplishment, which may be definitionally impossible, would be the most significant scientific accomplishment in human history. It would be front-page news and the subject of considerable media coverage.

===The Banana Argument===
The '''[[banana argument]]''', in which Comfort points out several features of bananas that indicate they were designed for human use, was presented as evidence of a creator in the ''[[Way of the Master]]'' episode entitled "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]". Although he called it "the atheist's worst nightmare" in the episode, he later conceded the weakness of the argument on the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show. Comfort still uses it, however, and promotes it in his [http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=231 Atheist Test] tract.

A response to "The Atheist's Nightmare", by Nick Gisburne, can be found [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74 here.]

===Are you a good person?===
: ''Main article: [[Are you a good person?]]''

This argument uses the [[appeal to emotion]] and cherry-picking a version of the [[Ten Commandments]]. Comfort asks the unbeliever a set of questions. A nutshell version of the argument is as follows:
* Are you a good person? Are you sure?
* Have you ever lied in your life? Yes? Then you're a liar.
* God hates lies. You deserve to go to [[hell]].
* Luckily, you have Jesus. Hope you'll accept him.

Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?" Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank.

===Parachute Analogy===
''Imagine you are on a plane, and suddenly it is going down. You fear for your life and want to be saved. Someone hands you the Mona Lisa, you push it away. Someone offers you keys to a Ferrari, you reject it. Someone offers you a million dollars, you reject it too. Suddenly someone offers you a parachute that can save you. This parachute provided to you from Ray Comfort is faith in Jesus Christ that will save you from a terrible fate.''

This however, is an flawed argument known as [[Pascal's Wager]]. Ray Comfort says his parachute (provided by his invisible friend) is safe and harmless, but suddenly another passenger tells you "Don't use his parachute, it has holes in it. Use mine provided by my invisible friend." Then a third passenger announces "Only my parachute on this plane works, but my invisible friends demands you pray five times a day for it to work." A fourth passenger announces "My invisible friend slashed all the parachutes on board. He takes care of his chosen people, and as none of you were born into the correct lineage, it’s too bad for you." Some people refuse parachutes and urge others to do the same, because it would interfere with the master plan of the father of their invisible friend (these are the same people who refuse medical care in favor of prayer and faith healing). A fifth person gets up and says "Do not worry if you jump off the plane or die, if you were good in your life you will come back and have a wonderful life" -basically reincarnation. The drama goes on with the rest of the passengers, until you demand to actually see proof of a doomed plane and which parachute does work. Some say you must not demand for evidence and just have faith. Regardless, you inspect the plane and the parachutes. The plane is operating just fine in every way and each parachute has holes in them big enough you can fit your head through them. Some of the parachutes terribly constrict people, harming them. Some parachutes are very old and terribly worn out and could not possibly withstand two seconds the heavy winds. The plane reaches its destination safely, but the drama continues through the terminal, security, all the way out beyond the airport. You learn from airports around the world that many people have harmed many others and themselves due to their faith in their parachute provided by their particular invisible friend.

Regarding the Reincarnation part, Ray and Kirk addressed that belief (and several others) in their episode [[Why Christianity? (Way of the Master)|Why Christianity?]] They said it is basically a person jumping out of the plane and then being sucked back into the plane. They go on to say Reincarnation will not help you with your sin against God and the reality of Hell. They clearly portray their biased views without proof of sin or Hell, plus their analogy is wrong. If you lived a good life and jump out the plane, you will not get sucked back it, you may turn into an eagle and fly away. Even if you did get sucked back into the plane, you just keep repeating the process over and over. If you are good or not depends which class you get to sit in or what plane you fly (or perhaps what you get served to fulfill your pleasures). While there is no evidence of Reincarnation, there is no proof of Heaven or Hell, and both Ray and Kirk constantly fail to show or present is why their beliefs are more valid than that of a Hindu.

Sometimes Ray uses this analogy but does not reveal the whole scenario that the person is on a plane and will have to jump out soon. When the person answers either the car, money or Mona Lisa, Ray suddenly says "I forgot to tell you, you are in a plane and it's going down, so you have to jump." Basically, he switches the scenario of the analogy all of the sudden, forcing them to choose the parachute. Notice Comfort changes the scenario but keeps the gifts the same. It is easy to change the scenario to force a person to pick the gift you ''want'' them to choose. Here is an example: "you are offered the original Mona Lisa, keys to a new Ferrari, a parachute, or ten million dollars. Before you choose, you must get to an important meeting to make ten billion dollars and you need a ride fast." You may pick the keys to the car and drive off. How about this analogy: "same gifts are presented, but you are not on a plane or need to get to a meeting, instead you are in the streets homeless and hungry and you need money to sustain yourself or you will starve." You will probably decide to take the cash. See, it is not hard.

How about if we keep the plane scenario, but we change the gifts. You are in a plane that going down, and someone offers you four gifts, but which one do you choose? You are offered a parachute, a time machine (T.A.R.D.I.S. from Dr. Who), a glider (or if you prefer: a jet pack or hovercraft), or the Iron Man suit (you are practically invincible and Jarvis will help you fly it). All of them will save you from the falling plane. You even have the option to have a skilled pilot who could land the plane safely in a body of water, like the Hudson River. That option works just fine. Or, if you are a Star Trek fan, you can have the pilot radio in for help and have you and all the passengers transported off the plane (but then why would we have planes?). And as long as we are involving Iron Man, you may replace that gift with Batman wings. These are already being tested by the military to be dropped from 30,000 feet (compared to Ray's analogy of 10,000 feet) and can glide up to 120 miles. It is true that the time machine and transporter is not present to us (remember this is just an analogy), but the others gifts are theoretically possible (such as the Iron Man suit or Batman wings) or are already available (like the jet pack or glider). We do have gliders and jet packs that can work. But what about the parachute, we already know it can be efficient in saving us? True, but bear in mind parachutes are not always reliable. Some parachutes do not open, some don't inflate properly, or malfunction. This [http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ site] shows the statistics of parachute related fatalities. So basically, even when Ray Comfort "puts on the Lord Jesus Christ" he still runs a risk of being demonstrably wrong. There is no guarantee that a parachute will always work and save you.

Rays Parachute argument can also be re-written as the following,
:''You're on an airplane and you're trying to convince someone to put on a parachute because you know they're going to have to jump out of the plane and fall 25,000 feet. First, you try to convince him that the plane was made by Boeing. Now, this is relevant because you're convinced that Boeing is going to force everyone to jump out of the plane, parachute or not. So you point to the carefully woven fabric on the seat in front of you and claim that it has Boeing's name written all over it. He points out that it doesn't say "Boeing" anywhere on the seat. You reply that it doesn't 'literally' say Boeing, but only Boeing orders fabric like that. He's unconvinced, as he's seen similar fabric before. You then explain that this plane wasn't manufactured like other planes, it was secretly modified to cause seatbelts to malfunction and the side of the plane is rigged to explode at 25,000 feet. He's convinced this is, most likely, an airplane like any other. You say you have evidence, he asks to see it. You pull out the emergency card, and show him Boeing's name, a description of the imminent calamity and instructions for putting on the parachute. He points out that there are mistakes on the card and that other people have different emergency cards with names other than Boeing, some of which don't mention parachutes or calamities. You claim that those are fakes and you have the 'real' emergency card. He's skeptical and asks how you know yours is true. You point out that the emergency card says it's true. He looks under the seat for a parachute and doesn't find one. You explain that he has go up to the cockpit and ask for a parachute by saying the secret phrase, 'I've been a bad boy and need a spanking.' He tries this and is met with blank stares and confusion. You tell him that he didn't try hard enough...He asks the flight attendant if he can move to another seat.''

==Gospel Tracks==
Ray Comfort and Way of the Master produce many gospel tracks, all of which produce similar or exactly the same repeated argument presented by Ray Comfort in his books and Way of the master episodes. Ray tries to make the tracts appear appealing and desirable, tricking the public to take them and read them later. for instance, Ray prints gospel tracts on optical illusions, fake million dollar bills, penny presses, and such.

*''[http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=81&Itemid=229 Saving Yourself Some Pain]'' a gospel tract by Ray Comfort, presented to new Christians as well as non-Christians.
**Interestingly, Ray includes in Part 8 that a Christian should be baptized. This is important, since Ray constantly says all salvation requires is repentance and saved by grace, not be works. But right here, he shows that Christians should be baptized.
*''[http://www.livingwaters.com/tracts/523/Scientific_Facts.pdf Scientific Facts of the Bible]'' which is basically a shortened version of Ray's book [[Scientific Facts in the Bible (book) |Scientific Facts in the Bible]].
*''[http://tinyurl.com/3l274d9 Something To Think About]'' is a track to get people to think about their mortality and going down the [[are you a good person?]] routine. It starts off with two questions:
:1. What is the most common food that people choke to death on in American restaurants?
:2. What is the Number One killer in the U.S.?
:The most common food that people choke to death on in American restaurants is hard-boiled egg yolk, and the Number One killer in the U.S. is death. There is a lot of it around.
{{Response|First and obvious thing to point out: DEATH IS NOT A KILLER. Ray seems to personify a non-human entity. By definition, killing is causing physical and fatal action upon a living thing. Death does not think nor does it go out of its way to eliminate people. Death for humans is simply the end of the metabolic process in the brains. The bottom line is, death does not kill, rather it is the end result after life expiration. It would be like claiming steam coming from a pot of boiling water is the cause of the breakage of bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. Wrong, steam did not cause the destruction of the water molecules, rather steam is simply the after result of process.

And just for the record, according to the CDC, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. If only Comfort bothered to take a moment of research, he could have figured this out in less than 30 seconds.}}
*[http://tinyurl.com/dhnsu7 The Atheist Test] - Ray Comfort likes to brag that over a million of these have been printed. The booklet contains the following arguments: the coca-cola can/creation argument from above; as well as the [[Banana argument]]; the eye seems designed; the Charles Darwin on the eye quote mine; a quote from George Gallup and Albert Einstein - each hinting that they detect intelligent design in the body or universe; creation requires a creator; would randomly dropped fruit line up in order and organized?; order in the universe points to an intelligent mind/designer; saying "there is no God" is a absolute statement that requires absolute knowledge; since man knows less than 1% of everything, is it possible exists in the 99% we don't know?; the television and radio wave analogy; the [[are you a good person?]] tactic; finally, Jesus came to save us, so repent and hit your knees.
{{Response|Believe it or not, this is Ray Comfort's favorite hand to play. Just about every piece is repeated in every debate, book, show, and such. Whether known or not to Ray Comfort, each of these arguments have been utterly refuted a thousand times for many many years. For instance, is it possible that God exists in the 99% we don't know? Is it possible that God does ''not'' exist in the 99% we don't know? Theoretically, an infinite number of deities of many versions could exist in the 99% we don't know. Fortunately, what we DO KNOW gives us plenty of reason to dismiss nonsensical belief in god. As for Ray, and many other theists, who use this argument, their position holds no more weight than a crazy lunatic rambling on top a soap box.

Also, does saying "there is no god" require absolute knowledge? Well, Ray Comfort shamelessly states that he knows there IS a God, and yet for many years has failed terribly to provide any verifiable proof for his God. By definition, knowledge is demonstrative, so if you cannot show it then you do not know it. This is why Ray is often told to put up or shut up, but everything he brings nothing new to the table, despite all his arguments being long refuted while simultaneously ignoring all evidence that contradicts and refutes his position and views.}}

==180, the Movie==
Coming September 26, 2011 Ray plans to release a 33 minute video aimed to "reverse" people who hold a pro-choice stance to become staunch anti-abortionists. The video appears to be dozens of instances of Ray Comfort randomly interviewing public strangers and convincing them that abortion is bad. Ray Comfort argues that this "reverse" of views can be done in an argument that takes about 33 seconds on average. The actual argument is not included in the trailers, but spoilers say that the argument goes something like this: Hitler killed Jews. Abortion is like the Holocaust. Therefore abortion is bad.

Ray plans to release this video online for all to view, as well as distributing 200,000 DVD copies freely on 100 university campuses across the United States. However, as PZ Meyers noted, this is more than just another "Creation Intro to Origin of Species" stunt, but this video is a "begging video."[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/29/ray-comfort-is-a-fraud/] It appears that Ray Comfort is asking for mass donations to help spread this video first before trying to save the babies.

===Movie walk through===
The movie starts off with Ray Comfort, only telling the audience that he is Jewish, and trying to remind people of the history of the Holocaust. Ray says that in Germany, it is illegal to give the Nazi salute and in Austria it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. Ray says that in both countries, they have a mandatory history of the Holocaust so its children can learn from the past and not be doomed to repeat it.
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Why does Ray say he is Jewish? Sympathy? Does he consider himself a Jew for Jesus, or a born-again Christian? He constantly say that he is a born-again Christian, so why call himself Jewish? Does he think being Jewish is a race? Does he fast and not eat pork? Is he circumcised? Nowhere in any of his material does he say that he follows any of these things. It is most likely Ray has no idea what it means to be Jewish.}}

Ray then goes around asking over a dozen of lay people who Adolf Hitler was, and none of them have a clue. Finally, in Huntington Beach, Ray encounters a neo-Nazi named Steve who hates Jews and blacks, and believes that Christianity is a Jewish lie. (Ray tricks him with the "Spell the word shop. What do you do at a green light?" trick.) Steve does not believe Hitler killed as much people as reported, but regardless he does not think Hitler was evil.

Next, Ray asks several people who Hitler was, they get it generally right, until finally back in Huntington Beach, Ray meets a German man who denies the Holocaust and admires ''Mein Kampf'', as well as thinks Jews run America.

Ray then asks several people one of his favorite question: ''it's 1939, you have a high-powered rifle and Adolf Hilter is in your sights Do you take him out?'' They show two people, both answer yes. Next question ''It is about 30 years earlier, Hitler's mother is pregnant with Adolf, would you take her out?'' Only two people are shown, both answer yes.

Next show several pictures of piles of dead people from the Holocaust. Ray then comes in and says "Adolf Hilter hated Christianity, he called it a disease and one point said 'the heaviest blow which ever stuck humanity was Christianity' and adding 'it was the invention of the Jew.' He killed and imprisoned genuine pastors and replaced them with his own Nazi pastors. He also replaced the Cross with swastika. Printed over a thousand copies of his own twisted Bible. He rewrote the Ten Commandments and then created his own Aryan anti-Sematic non-Jewish Jesus. But most importantly, all this sprung from the fact that Hitler had created his own image of God, or as what the Bible calls an idolater. He had another God before the God of the Bible. Like Judas Iscariot, he professed to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, but his motive was for his own evil agenda. And that agenda was very clear, he said 'he alone who owns the youth gains the future.' Adolf Hitler deceived the youth of Germany, he deceived many within the traditional church, but most of all he deceived the millions of Germans who believed his lie of the supremacy of the German race." (Quoting Hitler; "The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being made in the image of God..." -Adolf Hitler, May 1923 speech, Munich). "History tells us that one man who is present when the Nazis killed 16,000 Jews on April 6, 1942. he witnessed them being shot and then buried alive." Quote from Michael Berrenhaum from ''The World Must Know''
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Adolf Hitler adopted Christianity, he was a baptized Roman Catholic and remained so to his last day. ray does not give any source for Hitler calling Christianity a "disease" or "blow to humanity." Hitler closely followed the words of Martin Luther, a famous Protestant Christian who hated the Jews.

Hitler imprisoned anyone for criticizing his agenda for global dominance and genocide, this included pastors, scientists, teachers, lawyers, everybody. Hitler did not imprison pastors just because they were Christian, rather he did so because they were obstacles.

''"He also replaced the Cross with swastika."'' This is complete and utter nonsense and an outright lie. Hitler posted the Cross all over his armies uniforms, merits and awards ([http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm proof posted here]). Hitler and the Nazi party buried their dead and posted crosses on their graves. The Leo Schlageter memorial, a martyr for the German cause, was towered by a huge cross to commemorate him.

When and where did Hitler EVER re-write the Ten Commandments? Where? Did he display his own version of the Ten Commandments in public squares? Or did Ray just pull that out of his ass?}}

Ray then ask his other favorite question: ''Its 1937, and you have a German officer with a machine pointed at you, and he orders you to get into the bulldozer and bury a bunch of Jews in a pit (some are still alive). You know that if you say no, the German officer will shoot you and some else will do the burial. Would you do what he says?'' Ray asks several people, some say they don't know, some say no, and some say yes. To the people who said yes, Ray asks them ''If the German officer gave you his gun (with many other Nazi soldiers pointing their guns at you) and the German officer does not want you to bury the Jews, but rather shoot them all down. Would you do it?'' Some say no, they could not do that - to which Ray points out that shooting them is more merciful, but they are willing to bury them alive?

Based on all this, Ray asks the people if they value human life? Right after they say yes, Ray asks them how they feel about abortion. Some say they are pro-choice, its a tricky subject, even one person who said she was pro-life but understood that opinions and views change until you are in the situation.

Ray then addresses the "is it a human?" question. Ray shows a picture of a baby in the womb 6 weeks and 6 days old - showing the babies eyes, hands and heartbeat. Ray then asks people if they think it is a baby in the womb? When they say yes, Ray asks them to finish the sentence "its okay to kill a baby in the women when..." On the issue of when does life start, Ray puts himself in a scenario "I'm a construction worker and i am going to blow that building up. I don't know if there is life in there, but I am going to blow it up anyway. What would you say to me?"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Why only show a baby at 6 weeks old? If you are going to address the "is it human" question, why start near the end instead of the beginning?

Ray preys on the person's subjective opinions on when a fetus is a baby - if they consider it a baby at all - and then those who do think it is a baby he puts them in a scenario. Rather than ask a doctor or a any expert, he merely relies on the feelings of lay people. Typical. And why only ask "it is okay to kill a baby in the womb..." as if in all scenarios, no matter how old or developed it is, it is always a baby as if it is is ready to come out.

As Ray said himself in his program [[The Greatest Gamble (Way of the Master)]], a person's priorities change depending on the situation. This means morality is not absolute as Ray likes to believe it is, rather it is flexible and depends on the situation. Since Ray knows that priorities change, he also must know that what he is selling is also bogus.}}

After Ray takes people through the killing Jews and burying them question, and when they say they would refuse to cooperate, Ray then tells them and yet they won't speak up against abortion. Ray brings up the Commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" and Hitler declared Jews as non-humans, as well as arguing that saying life begins at three months is "subjective." Ray says Christians should be very "dogmatic against abortion."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=If saying life begins a t x amount of time is "subjective" then who is Ray Comfort to come along and insert that his ''subjective'' views are accurate?

Btw, the Commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" is pretty pointless when it comes to Christians and Christianity. God is well known for killing women and children, and women bearing children. Jesus encouraged men to become eunuchs, with eliminates life just as effectively as abortion (and yes, many of the earliest church fathers did castrate themselves).}}

Ray says that a Holocaust is being committed in America that is sanctioned by the government. Women with the freedom of choice are killing babies and doing it so legally, similar to how Hitler killed Jews legally. Ray says adoption is a "wonderful option."

After Ray asks several people if their stances on abortion changed, when they say yes, he then asks are they going to vote accordingly? They say yes.

After interviewing people, asking them if they could think of a situation when killing an unborn baby is justified, they could not think of one. Following that, the video displays the following: Unborn babies killed in the American Holocaust in the first 37 years after ''Roe v. Wade'': 53,310,843. (Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute, 1973-2008, with estimates of 1,212,400 for 2009-2010.)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=There are about 4.4 million confirmed miscarriages every year in America. [http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm] Based on the stats, since 1973 there have been 167.2 million miscarriages, practically three times as many abortions. And yet, these are abortions that happen spontaneously. Miscarriages are abortions by definition.

Is God against abortion? Is God pro-life? Certain passages in the Bible say not at all, but lets look at some statistics '''and then apply some logic.''' God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving (and Ray says God cannot lie) and yet God is supposedly in control of everything. If God does have a great divine plan and knows everything, plus the Bible says ''"you saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before began to breathe. Everyday was recorded in your book. (Psalm 139:16)"'', so God planned your exact time of birth and death. So according to Christianity, regardless of who your parents are, God had a plan in creating you. God plans everything. '''''This means God plans all abortions.''''' God planned "before you were born" eons ago and then selected in advance exactly when you would die. This means the mother who has an abortion is blameless, the doctor who performs the abortion is blameless, and Christians who are are fighting abortions (like Ray Comfort) are attempting thwart God's plan.}}

Ray says "Adolf Hitler hated the Ten Commandments and wanted to free people from them. He called the ten Commandments the 'curse of Mt. Sinai' and said the God of the Bible is a 'tyrant' who order people to do the things we don't want to to. Clearly, Hitler did not like the thought of You Shall Not Kill because it did not fit into his hate-filled worldview. (Scene shows Steve) Although he is an extreme example, it is common practice to have a low moral standard when we free ourselves from the Ten Commandments or when we are unaware of their true meaning. (Playing soft piano music) It's encouraging to realize that people are willing to change their minds about abortion. When people see things from a different perspective, they are able to think clearly and make honest and intelligent choices. As I spoke to people about abortion, our conversation often lead to the issue of morals. Where morals came from, and ultimately, the issue of the afterlife."
(The movie showed the full quote as: "history will recognize our movement as a great battle for humanity's liberation, a liberation from the curse of Mt. Sinai...[God is] a tyrant who orders one to do the very things one doesn't like." Source taken from ''The Ten Commandments: Ten Short Novels of Hitler's War Against the Moral Code'' by Armin L.. Robinson (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1943), xiii.)
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The piece where Ray says Hitler hated the Ten Commandments and sought to destroy the "curse of Mt. Sinai" comes straight from Herman Rauschning, a ex-Nazi who claims to have recorded several conversations he had with Hitler. So rather than Ray actually using words from Hitler himself, he realies on the testimonies of other people who later sought to demonize the Nazi party. Also, many critical historians also hold that many of his works are fakes.

''"...it is common practice to have a low moral standard when we free ourselves from the Ten Commandments"'' any sane person calls bullshit here. America only follows two of the SECULAR commandments, that's it. Most nations follow similar laws, but these are not divine laws they are simply laws made to ensure the survival and stability of a nation.

''"When people see things from a different perspective, they are able to think clearly and make honest and intelligent choices."'' this coming from the guy who refused to look at Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam from a different (or neutral) perspective to make honest and intelligent choices. Rather he always looked at them through the presumption that Christianity is true. He does the same thing for everything, no matter what it is. Never once does he look at any issue from a rational perspective.}}

Scene switches to Ray asking people if they think there is an afterlife? Some people say yes or no, but right afterwards Ray takes them down (you knew this was coming).. the [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Are_you_a_good_person%3F are you a good person?] tactic. Ray tells some of them why they deny God, because when Ray finds them guilty he states that they don't want to be held morally accountable so they deny God's existence. Afterward Ray sells the snake oil. He says to the guilty they can be saved if they accept Jesus.

The movie ends with Ray and a speech "Shortly after the war ended, the American military made those living near the concentration camps go through them. They wanted them to see first-hand what caused the smoke to billow through the chimneys of those camps and witness what they had allowed in the power to have done. Notice their light-hearten in demeanor as they enter the camp, obviously unaware of the horror taken place in their own backyard. And look on the change of their faces as they had realized what had actually taken place. No doubt there is an abortion clinic near you. Perhaps you should pay them a visit to see actually takes place behind their walls so you can witness firsthand what is happening in your own backyard. (Scene shows the various prices of an abortion clinic, then switch back to the picture of a 6 week old baby in the womb). Over 50 million babies have been murdered in America's Holocaust, sanctioned by political leaders who have been put into power by the American people. Please, never ever give your vote to any politician who advocates the murder of a child in the womb." Ray then tells the viewer to go to www.heartchanger.com for details and to help spread the video around. The video ends stating this was all based on Ray Comfort's new book ''"Hitler, God & the Bible"'' along with a message: "We strongly condemn the use of violence in connection with protesting abortion. Please consider purchasing this video in bulk and giving it to others."

===Comments on movie===
Basically, this is one big emotion-appealing, rational-free propaganda piece built on the foundation of false-equivocation. Not once did anyone (not even the lay people) bring up the issue of ectopic pregnancy, which is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity. Usually, a fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube, heading for the uterus. In about one in 50 pregnancies, the tube is damaged or blocked enough that the egg can't progress, leading it to implant elsewhere. Usually implantation happens in the tube itself. This leads to ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are critically dangerous to the mother, and just one of the many conditions that can lead to the danger of the death of the mother. '''Ectopic pregnancies cannot be saved.''' For the mother's safety, it must be ended. If not caught or treated, the ectopic pregnancy will progress with the embryo growing until the tube ruptures. Severe abdominal pain and bleeding will result and can cause permanent damage to the tube, which may be lost. If not treated, the mother will die.

Is Ray Comfort seriously saying that in certain circumstances such as this, nothing should be done and let both the child and mother be left to die? On the Way of the Master radio, Ray Comfort agreed with cohost Mark Spence that the best option for ectopic pregnancies was to get three different professional opinions, and even when they all agree it is an ectopic pregnancy, they say to wait it out.[http://youtu.be/1Ig_oeDJXuQ] Spence says this happen to his wfe, and even after 3 doctors told himit was an ectopic pregnancy, he made the decision himself to wait (his wife obeyed him), and later the doctr cme back and said that the x-rays misread the situation, and the pregnancy took place and they had their child. Basically, risk your wife's life to the very end to when it may be too late to save her. If she dies, it was not the husband's fault, God willed it to be so. In a separate show, they asked the question why does God kill babies in the form of miscarriages?[http://youtu.be/F2SG6FAJiTo] They answered, God kills babies because he does whatever he wants. Seriously, that was their answer. They basically use the old cop-out 'God is mysterious' and 'God's reason is infinitely greater than ours.'

Also, in the movie, on the issue if the mother was raped and wants to get rid of it, Ray says the following: ''"Why punish the child for the sins of the father?"'' IS ANYBODY HOME!!!!! God punishes humanity for the sake of Adam (the supposed father of us all). Why should we be punished before w are even born or took our first breath of air? We did nothing wrong, we did not elect Adam, in God's eyes the child should be punished for the sins of the father.

Speaking of the Bible, where was it in this movie? Ray Comfort only focused on accomplishing making people feel like hypocrites, but excludes the Bible from the reasoning. Ray only brings up one Commandment, but how about the bible as a whole? Ray does not explain why the 6th Commandments is objectively right, rather he argues from reason that excludes Scripture. While the Commandments says not to kill, the word kill implies when a life is taken, and for life to be taken there has to be life present. What has not been established in the movie is when the fetus is considered "alive" in the womb. Ray only shows a picture of a fetus as 6 weeks old, but nothing before that. If Ray thinks that just the first one or two developing cells of the fetus are "alive" then by that logic every time Ray scratches his nose he commits a Holocaust of killing cells. We know that for a person to be alive they need a brain, but a fetus does not start off with a brain at all. While it may live off its mother, but so does a woman's kidneys. They are both brainless and thus not completely alive, and no one gets upset when a person chooses to donate a kidney.

Ray focuses on making his argument based on the "feelings" of people, but when people speak their "feelings" about God and what he his or what he wants, Ray says "Your feelings don't matter. God's word is his word." When Ray asked if the person being interviewed if they would shoot Hitler's mother while she was pregnant with Adolf, and when they say yes he does not stop to say "HOLD ON! Are you saying you would kill an innocent woman? Hitler killed all those people, not his mother." Is Ray saying killing pregnant German women alright? This is why Ray's argument fails, he is using people situational ethic on Hitler and the Nazis, but not the same for abortion. This demonstrates a sever inconsistency on Ray's part. Plus, if a person walks away and has a different view of abortion based on their feelings, then their feelings can easily change 180 degrees back when they finally find themselves in a bad situation and they choose abortion.

==Criticism of Evolution==
Ray Comfort strongly opposes the theory of evolution. Ray calls evolution many things, from a "fairy tale for grown ups" to evolution being a farce; intellectual-free zone; bogus science; and many more slanderous words without any support for his claims. The majority of Comfort's arguments are the typical creationist arguments that have been refuted a thousand times. However, some of his arguments against evolution have been incredibly feeble and so outright ridiculous, some have speculated that perhaps he does not believe what he actually says.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8] Perhaps Ray is just saying it because his followers want evolution to be false so badly and they will flock to any person who finds an argument against it, subscribe to him, and even pay him to lie to them. Whether or not he really believes his own arguments is irrelevant: false information is false information. If Ray knows that he is deliberately being dishonest, shame on him - especially when he goes around the world accusing the public and total strangers of being filthy liars who deserve eternal torment. If truth cannot help a person like Ray Comfort become an honest decent person, then neither will Jesus Christ (so already most of us can ignore the empty promises tossed around by people like Comfort that Jesus will make us a better person if we accept him).

Ray has made many attempts to refute his perspective of evolution in his books, videos, programs and constantly on his blog [http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ Atheist Central]. Of course Ray does not have a slight general understanding of evolution, nor does he make any attempts to properly learn it correctly. At one point, Ray compared evolution to the Cinderella story of a pumpkin turning into a chariot. To this day, he falsely links the [[Big Bang]] theory and [[abiogenesis]] with evolution as if they are one in whole or they are dependent on the other, but the fact is they are separate fields and do not require the others to stand on their own. Ray Comfort has made multiple arguments that are pro-creation, such as the [[argument from design]] and "Creation requires a creator," however this section will only address his worst anti-evolution arguments. A large portion of his objections against evolution are [[argument from ignorance]], [[god of the gaps]] and [[argument from incredulity]] -where Ray tries to ask chicken or egg questions to combat evolution. One example: "as blood began to evolve, it couldn't get around the body, so he evolved a heart to pump it around. The heart would take a long time to evolve, and it also needed a complex system of blood vessels to evolve. So survival was impossible for the first pre-human primitive life form. But that doesn’t matter to an atheist. It just happened. Evolution-did-it." Here Ray just shamelessly pulls things like this out of thin air. It is obvious that he did zero research of the earliest living organisms and how did blood first flow. Some animals and organisms are alive without blood, such as the jellyfish and plants. Some animals have blood but no heart. But keep this in mind, blood has to change too. Not all blood has ever been the same as human blood. How did the blood transfer through the body without a heart? Every organism has some muscle-like functions to spread things inside the body, such as digestion. The first veins may not be as veins as we picture them, but as some form of muscle that would assist in blood flow. After many generations when the species grow in size, it makes sense that a device that would help move the flow of blood (like the heart) would be very advantageous so those without it would tend not to compete well.

Ray repeats a lot of common dishonest creationist arguments, such as "there are no transitional fossils at all" and the constantly uses the word "kind." On his blog, Ray describes "kind" as,
<blockquote>
"Kind," in creationist jargon, generally refers these days to groups larger than a species but still thought to be related by common descent, such as entire genera or families (e.g. the "cat kind"). There are "species-to-species" transitions in the fossil record (e.g. Stephen Gould described a sequence of transitional fossils between two species of the snail genus Cerion), but presumably if you bothered to consider that rather than simply regurgitate your standard list of slogans, you dismiss this example as "they're still snails" (which of course is on some other creationist's list of standard slogans). Since "kind" is undefined, it's difficult to find a good example of a "kind-to-kind" transitional series....The fault isn’t with the definition of the word "kind." It hasn't changed in the slightest. One more time; here’s the definition: dog-kind, cat-kind, horse-kind, snail-kind, human-kind, etc. The atheist's difficulty is with the so-called evidence for evolution. There isn't any."[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/04/genesis-on-trial_26.html]
</blockquote>
In this quote, Ray admits transitional fossils do exist (contradicting himself) but he is either ignorant or wilfully ignorant of the transitional fossils between two distinct animals such as land animals and whales. There are numerous transitional fossils between genera's and families, however, Ray Comfort's faith demands that he willingly dismiss them outright. Although, if Ray accepts that transitional fossils exist between snails, but still calls them snails, then he must accept that transnationals exist amongst apes and he should call humans apes. No matter how much Ray will deny it, the fact is human beings are apes just as tigers are cats.

However, Ray has build an extensive list of ridiculous arguments on his own. At the top of Ray's ridiculous arguments against evolution is the [[banana argument|banana]]. Another favorite of his is trying to disprove evolution with mating seasons. He used the dog as an example on Pat Robertson's show: ''there is a big bang, life forms, and after millions of years a dog evolves. It is the first dog. He has got legs, tail, teeth, eyes - and it's good he has good he has eyes because he has to look for a female, he has been blind for millions of years but now he can see. He has got to find a female. She has got to be evolved at the right place at the right time with all the reproductive organs and a desire to mate. Because without a female, he is a dead dog.'' Is that how Darwin described it? Is that how '''any''' evolutionary scientist ever described it? Absolutely not. What Ray fails to understand to this day is that the female (not the male) is the foundation of the species and animals certainly do not live for millions of years and then suddenly grow features along with a mate that comes from nowhere. And yet Ray is perfectly fine to believe that the wives of Cain and Seth just appeared out of nowhere and certain biblical figures (like Adam and Noah) lived for several hundred to thousands of years.

==Debate with the Rational Response Squad==
: ''For more information, see an entire article on RationalWiki that provides a walkthrough and point-by-point rebuttal to WOTM: [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master]
On May 5, 2007, RRS co-founder Brian Sapient and RRS member Kelly O'Connor participated in a live debate aired on Nightline with [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]]. Comfort and Cameron claimed they were able to show the existence of their god without the use of the [[Bible]] and [[faith]] (spoiler: they were wrong).

==Appearance on ''The Atheist Experience''==
: ''For more information, see an entire article on RationalWiki that provides a walkthrough and point-by-point rebuttal to WOTM: [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Atheist_Experience_debates_Ray_Comfort The Atheist Experience debates Ray Comfort]
On 27 March 2011, Ray Comfort was a call-in guest on [[The Atheist Experience]], with hosts [[Matt Dillahunty]] and [[Russell Glasser]].

==Books==
Ray Comfort has written many Christian books including:
*''[[Nothing Created Everything (book)|Nothing Created Everything]]: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution''
*''[[You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think]]: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics''
*''[[How to Know God Exists (book)|How to Know God Exists]]: Scientific Proof of God''
*''[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Fairy_Tale_for_Grownups Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups]''
*''[[God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (book)|God Doesn't Believe in Atheists]]: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist''
*''Hell's Best Kept Secret''
*''[[Scientific Facts in the Bible (book) |Scientific Facts in the Bible]]: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin''
*''[[The Evidence Bible (book)|The Evidence Bible]]: Irrefutable Evidence for the Thinking Mind ''
*''[[Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions (book) |Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions]]
*''The School Of Biblical Evangelism''
*''[[Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution (book)|Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution]]: Letters to an Atheist''
*''How to Bring Your Children to Christ..& Keep Them There: Avoiding the Tragedy of False Conversion''
*''Out of the Comfort Zone''
*''Overcoming Panic Attacks ''
*''The World's Greatest Preachers''
*''Wesley Gold''
*''What Did Jesus Do? : A Call to Return to the Biblical Gospel''
*''How to Live Forever Without Being Religious''
*''What Hollywood Believes: An Intimate Look at the Faith of the Famous''
*''Thanks a Million!''
*''Hollywood Be Thy Name''
*''Russia Will Attack Israel''

==Ray Comfort is gonna die==
Apparently Ray Comfort fantasises about his own death from time to time and imagines his last words will be badgering everyone else about Jesus the way he has during so much of his life. As [[PZ Myers]] explains people on the point of death are generally more involved in struggling for breath than in telling everyone else how to run their lives. [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/ray_comfort_is_gonna_die.php]

==Leather==
Earlier in his life Comfort worked with leather for a living and has recently taken to making leather jackets for his atheist readers. He even made one for [[Richard Dawkins]], see [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvitmq7KkPE Ray Comfort makes a Leather Jacket for Richard Dawkins]. He also signed a wastecoat for a lady he came across, and as far as we know he made it. [http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/05/01/ray-comforts-leather-vest/]

'''Advice for atheists offered these jackets''' 
It may at first be a problem for a prominent atheist when Ray Comfort suddenly offers a jacket that is uncalled-for and quite possibly not in a style that the atheist likes to wear. The chances are the jacket does not fit either, after all Ray has not taken measurements. If the atheist refuses the jacket Comfort probably hopes to make money selling it on E-Bay.

The person targeted could try accepting the jacket and having a [[Darwin fish]] or other atheist message tooled into the leather, alternatively a talented artist could paint atheist material onto the jacket with indelible ink. Prominent atheists of the type targeted by Comfort have plenty of contacts and should easily find other atheists with the necessary skills. A jacket by Ray Comfort but with an atheist message is ''really cool'', so the fortunate recipient now has the choice between keeping it and showing people or selling the jacket at atheist conferences, on B-Bay, wherever.

This leather working should be encouraged as, unlike his other work, here Ray is actually contributing to society.

==External links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzT9AJlwrwI WOTM: Where does the Money Go, Ray? Investigating R. Comfort] Video suggesting Ray Comfort might be in it for the money
*"[http://raytractors.blogspot.com/ The Raytractors]" now at "[http://www.wearesmrt.com/ WeAreSMRT]", Ray Comfort's Detractors, a community of atheists and theists who critique and respond to Ray and the Way of the Master.
*[http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lsCFUTv6F3UJ:chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ray_comfort_wrong.pdf+ray+comfort&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgvenDr13hoFmUdanm638UDZRScEC8D0DXMF7Yxdc0aZeVBzaOky9xHC4rNzlAdbvM8RqJWg5dJzXzuBQD_9j8KRklvb3E6gdba5dJRRQotDJZYUP5u9KagH84J191v9UCep7cd&sig=AHIEtbQBRB8MIupKBajlT3PD5t_MN_OpWw Why Ray Comfort is Wrong]
*''[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ Atheist Central]'', Ray Comfort's weblog (former title: ''Comfort Food'').
*[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/29/ray-comfort-is-a-fraud/ Ray Comfort is a fraud] (Pharyngula)

{{wayofthemaster}}

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

User talk:Sans Deity

2011-09-06T17:49:01Z

Sans Deity: /* CAPTCHA */

== Comments/Requests ==
Is there a way to fix the dates when looking at the recent changes/history of things? The server seems to be several days off (close to two weeks). I suspect the server that this wiki is on might have the date and time wrong. Im not sure who hosts the server or whos in charge of stuff like that. [[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 13:15, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

:: When I last looked, it wasn't possible to add these due to limitations of my hosting service. I'll try to dig into this issue again, but (as I'm sure everyone has noticed) I really haven't had the time to focus on the wiki. I'll need to set aside a block of time to do this, but I'm not only spread to thin, I now have to start looking for a new job (Sept. 1 is my last day). I'll try to make time before then. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::: "''limitations of my hosting service''" — Because of their version of PHP? I'd say, if that's the reason, you need to start complaining to your hosting service. (The current stable release of MediaWiki doesn't even ''support'' PHP4 anymore.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:10, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

That seems to have done the trick for now. Good job, Matt! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

: I've also tried to start using the "[[WikimediaMeta:Help:Patrolled edit|Mark as patrolled]]" feature a bit more. When you select a "diff" from the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page (not from a page's history, though), you can mark the edit as "patrolled" (if it hasn't already been done), meaning it was a legitimate edit. Unpatrolled edits are marked with a red exclamation point (!) on the Recent changes page. Only admins can mark edits as patrolled. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:01, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Interestingly, admins can even patrol their own edits. I guess if you're an admin you can be trusted not to abuse this feature.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:49, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

== Another extension ==

In addition to the '''Cite.php''' extension I requested [[#Cite.php for ref's|above]], I've come across another extension it would be nice to have: '''[[WikimediaMeta:Help:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]]''' (which requires >= MediaWiki 1.6.8). This would make it possible to simply copy over any Wikipedia (for example) templates that use '''#if''' and the like, without needing to translate them to use our [[Template:If]]. For example, [[Template:Cite journal|this one]], which a user has already [[Talk:Hares chew their cud|tried to use]] in an article here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

== Interwiki requests ==

Please see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (requests)]] — the request list is getting kind of long (full disclosure: most are my requests :). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:05, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

== Translating to portuguese ==

Hello,

[[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] has adviced me to talk to you about allowing this wiki to be translated to (brazilian) portuguese. I don't know exactly how to do this and think the admins have to enable the translated wikis here. As [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] suggested me, I started to translation some topics at my user page and am sure I can bring more people to help.

Regards,

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 15:26, 22 April 2009 (CDT)

== User Falseprophet ==

I just wanted to make sure you had read what the changes were by Falseprophet and weren't going by my change summary alone. He seems to have been doing legitimate updates, so a permaban I'm not sure is the way to go. The change he made was "Capitalism is the basis for the U.S. economy." to "Corporatism is the basis for the U.S. economy." Just want to make sure this isn't due entirely to half-second though summary write-up and that you had already gone over this.

-It's still a perma-ban. I have no way of knowing if the account was compromised or if they were trying to build a reputation before vandalizing or if they were just having a bad day. Vandalism = perma-ban. They can contact me to have it restored, or make another one. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 18:17, 18 November 2009 (CST

::Yup, I understand; just figured I'd follow up to be sure.--[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 20:06, 18 November 2009 (CST)

== Wissam. Clearing the air ==

//You're about two comments from being blocked and I'd really rather not do that, so let's clear a few things up.//

We obviously started on the wrong foot. I don't think blocking me is necessary; the reason I almost started ranting was that I felt underappreciated and you kind of killed my motivation in editing this site although I have alot to offer.
_Wissam

Also, thank you for the advice and I realize you are busy. Yes, you are right. The kalam argument for atheists is not very impressive but it should be mentioned and i didn't mean it to be necessary- it's a counter-argument at least.
_wissam

== Forum? ==

Is anyone approving new users on the forum? Been a week since my request... [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 22:52, 9 April 2010 (CDT)

== Delete my account ==

I want my account deleted as soon as possible. Thank you.
{{unsigned|Wissam hemadeh|11 September 2010}}
: Please note that a user's account cannot be completely removed because of licensing issues (all contributions by the user would have to be removed at the same time, which is impractical). Since all contributions to this wiki are submitted under the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5)] license, the user has already granted permission "to copy, distribute and transmit" and "to adapt" all of his contributions, presumably in perpetuity. See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted]] for a discussion of the issues. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:51, 15 January 2011 (CST)

== How To Win Every Argument ==

Hi,

All very well and fine your deleting my comment, but what's wrong with the actual article? And how does it get fixed? -- [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 23:50, 30 December 2010 (CST)

== CAPTCHA ==
I note that you have a serious problem with spam, a similar problem at [http://www.palaeos.org/Main_Page Palaeos] was solved with a [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:01, 18 August 2011 (CDT)

If you make me a sysop I will be happy to help delete spam, I will check the wiki daily. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:16, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
- Done. Thanks!

Moral argument

2011-05-02T15:21:36Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by WizOz (Talk); changed back to last version by Nightvidcole

[[Image:Jesus_and_Mo_-_sense.jpg|thumb|''Jesus and Mo'' lampoons one of the problems with the moral argument.]]
The simplest form of the '''moral argument''' is as follows:

# If [[God]] does not exist, [[morality]] does not exist.
# Morality exists.
# Therefore, God exists.

This is a deductively valid argument, which is to say if its premises are true its conclusion cannot be false. The key question is whether or not the premises are true.

The first premise is by far the most often-disputed premise in the argument. While many religious believers take the first premise for granted, the reasons for thinking it true are not clear, and there are some serious objections to it.

==Arguments for the first premise==

===Famous atheists rejected morality===

Though this line of argumentation is popular among religious apologists, it clearly commits the fallacy of appealing to authority, and that is not its only problem. Many nontheists who have rejected conventional views of morality have done so on grounds independent of their views on the existence of God. Also, it requires selectively quoting authorities, because many nontheists--indeed, many theists--have rejected the first premise of the moral argument. Finally, it is trivially easy to construct a similar argument against theism, for example: "John Calvin did not believe in free will, therefore 'If God exists, free will does not exist,' but free will does exist, therefore God does not exist." Even if Calvin had good arguments for his stance on free will being entailed by theism, non-Calvinistic theists will not be swayed by the mere citation of Calvin's authority, nor should they be.

===Hitler and Stalin were atheists===

''Main article: [[20th century atrocities]]''

The basic fallacy of this argument is similar to the one in the first, though it could be considered an example of guilt by association rather than an appeal to authority. Furthermore, the historical accuracy of the argument can be questioned. [[Hitler]]'s theistic proclamations are well documented,[http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm] and anti-religious quotes attributed to him are apparently inauthentic. He seems to have held to basic doctrines of Christianity, in spite of rather unorthodox changes, such as his belief that Jesus was an Aryan and Paul corrupted Christianity with proto-Bolshevism. Stalin was an atheist, but given that this is one of many beliefs he held, it is unclear why his actions should be attributed to his atheism. For example, though many would be surprised by this, Stalin opposed mainstream theories of evolution on the grounds that they were too capitalistic. Stalin's rejection of evolution could just as easily be named the source of his crimes as his rejection of God, and indeed his rejection of evolution arguably sheds more light on the ideological dogmatism at the heart of the Soviet regime.

===If God does not exist, humans are just animals===

One snappy response to this argument is "Humans are animals whether or not God exists," which has indeed been the consensus view among taxonomists since Aristotle. Though this point may seem trivial, but beneath it is the deeper point that it is hard to see how God's existing or not existing changes the status of humans. If the theist insists on claiming that human beings are worthless on their innate attributes alone, it is hard to see how God could change this situation.

===Moral law requires a Lawgiver===

Though we sometimes use the same words to talk about moral principles and human legislation, closer inspection calls into doubt the claim that there is a strong analogy between them. Human laws can be changed if the government wills it and follows correct procedures, but moral principles are typically thought to be unchanging. Also, it is possible to have a bad human law, but it is impossible to have a bad moral principle. In response to this second argument, it could be claimed that amoral laws are analogous to acts of a lower body that violate acts of a higher body which the lower body is responsible. This seems intuitively wrong, however: the wrong in a national law relegating part of the population to sub-human status seems very different, and more serious, than the wrong in a local law that contradicts a state. This argument is built on an [[equivocation]], and is fallacious on those grounds.

===God's rewards and punishments needed to make morality in one's own self interest===

Usually, this argument is not stated so baldly. A more typical statement is "we admire people who sacrifice their lives for others, but if there is no God who rewards self-sacrifice, then such people are being stupid." When the underlying assumption is stated explicitly, most people recoil. Most people do not believe that the ultimate maxim by which we should act is "look out only for your own self interest." Though such a view is technically an ethical theory (known to philosophers as ethical egoism), it is not what most people mean when they talk about morality. It seems that if ethical egoism is true, then the second premise of the moral argument is false, at least in the normally understood sense.

===Absolute morality requires an absolute standard===

Statements of this argument are often unclear, but it seems to rest on an equivocation of the term "absolute," in much the same way that the Lawgiver argument rests on an equivocation of the term "law." The two relevant senses here are "applicable in all cases" (a characteristic typically applied to moral principles) and "omnipotent, omniscient, etc." (a characteristic typically assigned to God). There is no reason to think that the first sense entails the second sense.

==Arguments against the first premise==

===The Euthyphro dilemma===

This is perhaps the most famous objection to the second premise. The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's ''Euthyphro'', in which Socrates asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is good commanded by God ''because'' it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" Both options are problematic for those who would claim morality is dependent upon God.

If God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree, then God has no higher standard to answer to. Therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary. Although God once decreed that murder and theft are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily, so then murder and theft would be right. This makes morality arbitrary, not what most theists mean to say in articulating the second premise of the moral argument.

If right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do with the process. God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore irrelevant to morality (except to the extent that he can tell us things which we could not figure out for ourselves.)

An effective summary of the argument was given by [[Bertrand Russell]]:
{{quote-source|The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.|''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]''}}

One perceived way to get out of the dilemma is to say that, although God has the freedom to command immoral acts such as rape, he would never do such a thing because it goes against his character or nature.

In response, Michael Martin has argued that this doesn't solve anything because the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of God's character: "Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?"[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html] The structure of this modified dilemma is exactly the same as before, and it appears to be if anything harder to escape.

===Moral truths as necessary truths===

Richard Swinburne, a theistic philosopher, has argued that moral truths cannot depend on God because moral truths are necessary truths, existing in all possible worlds, including ones where God does not exist. This objection of Swinburne's was cited by Jeffery Jay Lowder in Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes.[http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492] Keith Yandell, another theistic philosopher, raised a similar objection in his comments on the Craig-Flew debate.

=== Which God? ===
{{main article|Which God?}}
This argument does not specify a particular God which is the source of a true objective moral standard. Even if one accepted the argument, one would be forced to decide which religion to follow by some other means. If one can determine which God is the "true" God without using this argument, how is the argument necessary in the first place?

Alternatively, if one cannot rationally find the correct religion, the argument undermines its own respect towards objective morality, by suggesting that morality comes from a source we cannot recognize. While this does not mean that the argument is false, it does imply that human beings can never legitimately understand whether they are acting rightly or wrongly.

===Argument is self-refuting===
One can argue that if God does not exist, an objectively provable existence of objective morality does not exist, and an objective need for objective morality to exist does not exist. Hence, the atheistic situation is no longer problematic.

===Secular morality===
: ''Main article: [[Secular morality]]''
Finally, it can in general be claimed that there is a specific, well-founded theory of morality that leaves God out of the picture. This is a complex topic and is dealt with in full by the above-linked article. One thing is worth noting here: some theists appear to think that it constitutes a valid link in the moral argument to simply demand a secular theory of morality without giving any reason to think that theistic theories are more likely to be successful. This is clearly fallacious, and debaters should not fall into this trap. Meta-ethics, like most areas of philosophy, has unresolved debates, but pointing to an unresolved philosophical debate is no argument for the existence of God. To show that the moral argument is unsuccessful, one need only show that we should not accept the second premise. Full development of secular theory of morality may be helpful here, but it is not necessary.

==Other formulations of the moral argument==

===Normativity of morality===

This formulation of the moral argument relies on the assumption of normativity, that is to say, that the awareness of morality is a more or less universal experience among humans. Most people recognize that, for example, murder is wrong. From there, a theist claims that this universal awareness must come from some ultimate source, which is God.

To put it concisely:
# It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.
# The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.
# Therefore God exists.

This version of the moral argument may sometimes be used by theists as [[red herring]] when responding to arguments about the moral nature of God. For instance, a person who points out the inherent cruelty of exterminating 99% of the earth's population, as in the story of [[Noah's ark]], or takes issue with the apparent Biblical support of [[slavery]] and [[rape]], may quickly expect to be countered with this claim:

"You recognize mass murder/slavery/rape as a '''bad''' thing, so you must have some standard to judge that against. If there was no God, then you'd have no rational reason to say that those things aren't good."

===Counter-apologetic responses to normativity===

# Although the awareness of SOME sort of right and wrong is apparently universal, many specific details differ across cultures and time periods. In the case of slavery, for example, the practice was once universally accepted in the southern United States, and many anti-abolitionists even quoted the Bible to justify the practice. (See the main [[slavery]] article for more details.) This indicates that morality has a strong cultural component to it, and is tied up in evolving notions of [[secular morality]].

In fact, this serves as an argument against the existence of God.

Moral-Knowledge Argument

A recently proposed atheological argument is the Moral-Knowledge Argument, which can be expressed as follows: If the theists' version of god exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Since this god is benevolent and his ethics are supposedly morally good for humanity, he would want all human beings to know his ethics perfectly. And since this god is omnipotent, it would be within his capacity to make sure that all human beings know his ethics perfectly. However, all human beings do not know his ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values. Therefore, this version of god does not exist.

# Other human perceptions also have the appearance of being normative. For instance, most people agree that chocolate is "delicious," while dirt is "not delicious." By the same reasoning as the argument from normative morality, it could be said that there must be some ultimate standard for deliciousness, and that standard must be God, the ultimate tasty treat. We could use a similar argument to prove that God is the definition of the perfect homosexual lover.
# The fact that there may be an abstract standard of perfect goodness that an individual strives to achieve, does not indicate that this standard represents an existing object. For example, bowling a perfect game would yield a score of 300. However, even if no one in history had ever bowled a 300, this would still be the highest attainable score according to the rules of the game. It is quite possible to have a theoretical ideal, yet not have any concrete instance of that ideal. Therefore, we could say: "Yes, this thing that you call 'God' could be our standard for morality. However, ''this tells us nothing about whether or not God exists.''"

==References==

*Stan W. Wallace, ed. ''Does God Exist?: The Craig-Flew Debate.'' Ashgate, 2003.
*Richard Swinburne. ''The Existence of God.'' Oxford University Press, 2004.
*Richard C. Carrier. 'Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds.' ''German Studies Review'' 26.3 (Oct 2003): 561-76.

==External Link==

* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ Moral Arguments for the Existence of God]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]
[[Category:Moral arguments]]

Liar, Lunatic or Lord

2011-05-02T15:20:33Z

Sans Deity: /* False premise p1: Unfounded Assumptions */

The ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument attempts to present a case through process of elimination of all other options, that Jesus Christ must have been god.

===Background information===
Even a number of theologians have pointed out that the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument is unsound. Apologists such as [[William Lane Craig]] cite this argument as a good example of a bad argument for Christianity. This argument has also been referred to as the "trilemma" by [[Josh McDowell]].

Despite this, the argument is widely used, and widely loved, by the more general Christian audience, as are many of Lewis' other equally flawed arguments such as the [[argument from desire]].

==Argument==
===C.S. Lewis version===
''[[C.S. Lewis]] in [[Mere Christianity]] c.1952'':
{{Quote|I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.}}

===Syllogism===
::p1. Jesus made certain claims
::p2. These claims are of a nature that has certain implications about his character
::::a. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was
::::b. Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway
::::c. Lord: Jesus was telling the truth and is God
::p3. Through process of elimination we can exclude the possibilities of lunatic and liar
::::a. Existential evidence
::::b. Textual evidence
::::c. Historical evidence
::c1. Therefore Jesus was/is the the lord and God in human form.

==Counter arguments==
===False premise p1: Unfounded Assumptions===
The first problem with the argument is that it assumes the efficacy of the bible. It assumes that the depiction of Jesus in the bible is historically accurate and an accurate depiction of his character, including (but not limited to) the words and claims attributed to him.

There is no first hand contemporary evidence that the words attributed to Jesus are his own. Indeed there is no first hand contemporary evidence that Jesus existed at all.

Based on all the best historical evidence we currently have, everything we know about the [[new testament]] gospel is [[Overview of early Christianity|completely consistent with it being a fiction]] written some time in the late 1st and early 2nd Century.

===False premise p2: False dilemma===
Based on the shaky grounds of the first premise, the argument creates a false dilemma to suggest that Jesus as appearing in the gospels is either telling the truth or not. This of course neglects the obvious possibility that he is a legend, in which case his claims (or those claims attributed to him) are neither true or false, but partially or entirely fictional.

Nearly everything that is "known" about the life of Jesus, or his claims of godhood, come from the [[Bible]], which [[Christian|Christians]] regard as inerrant but [[atheist|atheists]] do not. Jesus may not have existed, or he may not have said all the things that were attributed to him.

The premise also ignores hybrid possibilities. For instance, that Jesus may in fact have been a lunatic who said true things (much like an insane person who thinks he's Napoleon may still be able to tell you the correct day of the week or the prevailing weather conditions) or that he might have been the Lord ''and'' a liar (unlikely, but inconvenient for Lewis' intended point). At heart, the dilemma commits the [[genetic fallacy]], of assuming that an idea from a bad source is itself inevitably tainted.

Finally, the premise also ignores the very real possibility that Jesus existed and did say some of the things attributed to him, but may have been misinterpreted. Many believers will refer to themselves as "Children Of God" (or similar phrasings), but they presumably do not mean this literally. In a similar fashion, if Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son Of God," he may have intended it as a metaphor that was misunderstood by subsequent audiences. (In fact "Son of God" meant a righteous man, the Messiah or a prophet. This did not in any way mean the "physical" son of God, a very pagan belief that Jews considered very blasphemous.) Additionally, the term 'Lord' is a term of nobility and respect that has subsequently been confused to be synonymous with 'God'. When the disciples call Jesus 'Lord' they are not necessarily confirming a belief that he is God.

===False premise p3: Unsupported evidence===
Even accepting the first two false premises, the so called evidence for the exclusion of lunatic and liar possibilities is questionable at best.

Many apologists, including some who are qualified psychologists, attempt to show that Jesus could not have been a lunatic. There are two major problems with this.

* First, is a complete lack of evidence. The idea of performing a real psychological diagnosis on someone that has been presumed dead for 2000 years, based solely on a few scarcely descriptive tales, from the very book that purports to reveal the truth of his divinity, is nothing short of laughable.

* Secondly, they make a case of special pleading. Despite the fact that Jesus isn't depicted as a rabid, uncontrollably raving maniac, doesn't mean he was necessarily sane. Any of the psychologists who attempt to claim Jesus was not insane would have no hang ups about committing a person today that made similar claims. Indeed if Jesus made his claims today, he would fit right in at the asylums full of other people that think they're God, Jesus, Napoleon etc.

Jesus could also have been a liar. Lewis disregards this because he claims Jesus was a ''great human teacher''. However, much of Jesus' advice was [[Sermon on the mount|bad advice]]. And regardless of his lesson content, being a great teacher doesn't by fiat logically exclude the possibility that he could lie. Jesus also had great motive to lie. Despite the trouble [[The Life Of Brian| Brian]] found himself in, there are presumably a great many selfish benefits to being mistakenly considered a human deity.

Additionally, some forms of the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument further commit the fallacy of begging the question, by accepting the 'biblical miracles as evidence for the lord' option, which of course a priori assumes the conclusion of Jesus' divinity that the very argument attempts to prove.

==Other counter arguments==
* Lewis makes the [[straw man]] presumption that lunatics speak falsely, rave without moments of clarity, never say anything worth paying attention to, etc. In truth, one may suffer from a delusional belief or fixation and function adequately or even superlatively in society.

==Additional notes==
===Trilemma/Dilemma===
The reason for the use of ''dilemma'' in False premise p2. rather than the titular ''trilemma'', is due to the fact that despite there being three options, two of those have effectively the same outcome as far as the argument is concerned. The multiple options are really nothing more than a red herring, as the argument's outcome is that the claims of Jesus are either true or not true.

Additionally, formal logic deals exclusively with dichotomies, not trichotomies. The overall argument attempts to prove he is the lord. So to actually express all three options, logistically it would need to be presented as two separate, but hierarchical dichotomies. (lord:(liar:lunatic))

::The main dichotomy: That he is either the lord or not-lord.
::::The sub dichotomy if he is not-lord: That he is either a liar or lunatic.

==Links==
===See also===
* [[Argument from desire]]
* [[Overview of early Christianity]]
* [[False dilemma]]
* [[Begging the question]]

===External links===
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html Jim Perry on the trilemma] – Article by Jim Perry at infidels.org

===Reference===
* [[wikipeida:Lewis's trilemma]] – Wikipedia article on Liar, Lunatic or lord

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Christological arguments]]

Liar, Lunatic or Lord

2011-05-02T15:18:44Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Jt (Talk); changed back to last version by WizOz

The ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument attempts to present a case through process of elimination of all other options, that Jesus Christ must have been god.

===Background information===
Even a number of theologians have pointed out that the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument is unsound. Apologists such as [[William Lane Craig]] cite this argument as a good example of a bad argument for Christianity. This argument has also been referred to as the "trilemma" by [[Josh McDowell]].

Despite this, the argument is widely used, and widely loved, by the more general Christian audience, as are many of Lewis' other equally flawed arguments such as the [[argument from desire]].

==Argument==
===C.S. Lewis version===
''[[C.S. Lewis]] in [[Mere Christianity]] c.1952'':
{{Quote|I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.}}

===Syllogism===
::p1. Jesus made certain claims
::p2. These claims are of a nature that has certain implications about his character
::::a. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was
::::b. Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway
::::c. Lord: Jesus was telling the truth and is God
::p3. Through process of elimination we can exclude the possibilities of lunatic and liar
::::a. Existential evidence
::::b. Textual evidence
::::c. Historical evidence
::c1. Therefore Jesus was/is the the lord and God in human form.

==Counter arguments==
===False premise p1: Unfounded Assumptions===
The first problem with the argument is that it assumes the efficacy of the bible. It assumes that the depiction of Jesus in the bible is historically accurate and an accurate depiction of his character, including (but not limited to) the words and claims attributed to him.

There is no first hand contemporary evidence that the words attributed to Jesus are his own. Indeed there is no first hand contemporary evidence that Jesus existed at all.

Based on all the best historical evidence we currently have, everything we know about the [[new testament]] gospel is [[Overview of early Christianity|completely consistent with it being a fiction]] written some time in the late 1st and early 2nd Century.

It needs to be noted that the Bible never claims to be a historical or scientific text book, and to subject it to this mind set is inappropriate. Whether a person believes or dismisses the story of Christ there must be a basic acceptance of uncertainty. Christians must realize that they are called to faith, which implies a level of doubt. Rather than argue for the absolute assurance in the Biblical text, Christians should acknowledge the fact of hoping in something that might not necessarily be true. Christ can neither be proven nor disproven; one can have faith that it’s true or false.

===False premise p2: False dilemma===
Based on the shaky grounds of the first premise, the argument creates a false dilemma to suggest that Jesus as appearing in the gospels is either telling the truth or not. This of course neglects the obvious possibility that he is a legend, in which case his claims (or those claims attributed to him) are neither true or false, but partially or entirely fictional.

Nearly everything that is "known" about the life of Jesus, or his claims of godhood, come from the [[Bible]], which [[Christian|Christians]] regard as inerrant but [[atheist|atheists]] do not. Jesus may not have existed, or he may not have said all the things that were attributed to him.

The premise also ignores hybrid possibilities. For instance, that Jesus may in fact have been a lunatic who said true things (much like an insane person who thinks he's Napoleon may still be able to tell you the correct day of the week or the prevailing weather conditions) or that he might have been the Lord ''and'' a liar (unlikely, but inconvenient for Lewis' intended point). At heart, the dilemma commits the [[genetic fallacy]], of assuming that an idea from a bad source is itself inevitably tainted.

Finally, the premise also ignores the very real possibility that Jesus existed and did say some of the things attributed to him, but may have been misinterpreted. Many believers will refer to themselves as "Children Of God" (or similar phrasings), but they presumably do not mean this literally. In a similar fashion, if Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son Of God," he may have intended it as a metaphor that was misunderstood by subsequent audiences. (In fact "Son of God" meant a righteous man, the Messiah or a prophet. This did not in any way mean the "physical" son of God, a very pagan belief that Jews considered very blasphemous.) Additionally, the term 'Lord' is a term of nobility and respect that has subsequently been confused to be synonymous with 'God'. When the disciples call Jesus 'Lord' they are not necessarily confirming a belief that he is God.

===False premise p3: Unsupported evidence===
Even accepting the first two false premises, the so called evidence for the exclusion of lunatic and liar possibilities is questionable at best.

Many apologists, including some who are qualified psychologists, attempt to show that Jesus could not have been a lunatic. There are two major problems with this.

* First, is a complete lack of evidence. The idea of performing a real psychological diagnosis on someone that has been presumed dead for 2000 years, based solely on a few scarcely descriptive tales, from the very book that purports to reveal the truth of his divinity, is nothing short of laughable.

* Secondly, they make a case of special pleading. Despite the fact that Jesus isn't depicted as a rabid, uncontrollably raving maniac, doesn't mean he was necessarily sane. Any of the psychologists who attempt to claim Jesus was not insane would have no hang ups about committing a person today that made similar claims. Indeed if Jesus made his claims today, he would fit right in at the asylums full of other people that think they're God, Jesus, Napoleon etc.

Jesus could also have been a liar. Lewis disregards this because he claims Jesus was a ''great human teacher''. However, much of Jesus' advice was [[Sermon on the mount|bad advice]]. And regardless of his lesson content, being a great teacher doesn't by fiat logically exclude the possibility that he could lie. Jesus also had great motive to lie. Despite the trouble [[The Life Of Brian| Brian]] found himself in, there are presumably a great many selfish benefits to being mistakenly considered a human deity.

Additionally, some forms of the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument further commit the fallacy of begging the question, by accepting the 'biblical miracles as evidence for the lord' option, which of course a priori assumes the conclusion of Jesus' divinity that the very argument attempts to prove.

==Other counter arguments==
* Lewis makes the [[straw man]] presumption that lunatics speak falsely, rave without moments of clarity, never say anything worth paying attention to, etc. In truth, one may suffer from a delusional belief or fixation and function adequately or even superlatively in society.

==Additional notes==
===Trilemma/Dilemma===
The reason for the use of ''dilemma'' in False premise p2. rather than the titular ''trilemma'', is due to the fact that despite there being three options, two of those have effectively the same outcome as far as the argument is concerned. The multiple options are really nothing more than a red herring, as the argument's outcome is that the claims of Jesus are either true or not true.

Additionally, formal logic deals exclusively with dichotomies, not trichotomies. The overall argument attempts to prove he is the lord. So to actually express all three options, logistically it would need to be presented as two separate, but hierarchical dichotomies. (lord:(liar:lunatic))

::The main dichotomy: That he is either the lord or not-lord.
::::The sub dichotomy if he is not-lord: That he is either a liar or lunatic.

==Links==
===See also===
* [[Argument from desire]]
* [[Overview of early Christianity]]
* [[False dilemma]]
* [[Begging the question]]

===External links===
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html Jim Perry on the trilemma] – Article by Jim Perry at infidels.org

===Reference===
* [[wikipeida:Lewis's trilemma]] – Wikipedia article on Liar, Lunatic or lord

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Christological arguments]]

Euthyphro dilemma

2011-04-21T08:39:59Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Sans Deity (Talk); changed back to last version by TennysonXII

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

==The dilemma==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Counter-apologetics==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This counter-apologetic contains certain risks, however, which a canny apologist may exploit. The theist may contend, sincerely or otherwise, that yes, because God commanded all of the ostensibly immoral acts contained within both Old and New Testament, they are therefore good. The theist can then shift the burden of proof to the counterapologist and demand that he or she justify why such acts are objectively ''immoral'', opening the door to endless picayune objections, diversions, and moving of the goalposts.

===God's nature===

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

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

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

===God provides a standard to emulate===
In ''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'', Rabbi Moshe Averick argues that the entire Euthyphro dilemma is the philosophical equivalent of an optical illusion. It applies only to the pagan "gods" of the ancient Greeks and the civilizations that surrounded them. In Jewish theology "good" means attaching oneself to the only reality that has actual existence; namely God himself. In other words, God commands humans to "love their neighbor" not because it is "good" but because it will bring the created human into a relationship with the actual and eternal being of God.

In Rabbi Averick's own words from his book, ''Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist'' (reprinted with permission of Tradition and Reason Press, 2011, pg. 208)

<blockquote>
'''The Euthyphro Argument Crumbles'''

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

If this infinite being we call God actually exists, we have a real standard to determine a meaningful concept to moral truths. The standard is closeness to God, and the actual absolute existence which is his being. This is what the Psalmist means when he proclaims, "To me closeness to God ''Italic text''is''Italic text'' good" (Psalms 73:28). On the other hand, if this God does not excite, we are left with nothing but 100% subjective human tastes, opinions, and social mores.

'''Who has greater Moral Authority: The Incredible Hulk or Zeus?''' 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==External link==

* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato
* [http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.pdf Apologetic essay entitled "A New Euthyphro"] by New Zealand Christian philosopher Glenn Peoples
* ''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'' by Rabbi Moshe Averick
* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/]

{{Arguments against god}}

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

Euthyphro dilemma

2011-04-21T08:36:24Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by TennysonXII (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaban

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

==The dilemma==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Counter-apologetics==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This counter-apologetic contains certain risks, however, which a canny apologist may exploit. The theist may contend, sincerely or otherwise, that yes, because God commanded all of the ostensibly immoral acts contained within both Old and New Testament, they are therefore good. The theist can then shift the burden of proof to the counterapologist and demand that he or she justify why such acts are objectively ''immoral'', opening the door to endless picayune objections, diversions, and moving of the goalposts.

===God's nature===

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

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

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

===God provides a standard to emulate===
In ''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'', Rabbi Moshe Averick argues that the entire Euthyphro dilemma is the philosophical equivalent of an optical illusion. It applies only to the pagan "gods" of the ancient Greeks and the civilizations that surrounded them. In Jewish theology "good" means attaching oneself to the only reality that has actual existence; namely God himself. In other words, God commands humans to "love their neighbor" not because it is "good" but because it will bring the created human into a relationship with the actual and eternal being of God.
In Rabbi Averick's own words from his book, ''Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist'' (reprinted with permission of Tradition and Reason Press, 2011, pg. 208)
'''The Euthyphro Argument Crumbles'''
In the context of Jewish theology (and I would imagine, most monotheistic theologies), the Euth. Argument breaks down completely:
- Is “loving your neighbor” good because God commands it? – Obviously not, that would make it arbitrary.
- Does God command “love your neighbor” because it is good?
No, it is neither of these. God commands us to love our neighbors so that we can choose to have a relationship with him, so that we can attach ourselves to his infinite and actual being; God himself is THE good.
If this infinite being we call God actually exists, we have a real standard to determing a meaningful concep ot moral truths. The standard is closeness to God, and the actual absolute existence which is his being. This is what the Psalmist means when he proclaims, "To me closenes ot God ''Italic text''is''Italic text'' good" (Psalms 73:28). On the other hand, if this God does not exite, we are left with nothing but 100% subjective human tastes, iopinions, and socail mores.
'''Who has greater Moral Authority: The Incredible Hulk or Zeus?'''
The Euthyphro Argument as a challenge to Monotheism is nothing more than philosophical smoke and mirrors. The only reason it has some superficial appeal at all is because the word “gods” is used, giving the impression of some authority above human beings. Plato’s original argument, of course, involved the pagan gods of Greece. In fact, pagan gods have no more moral authority, nor moral credibility, than mortal humans. A pagan god is simply a human being projected to a large scale. He’s just bigger, stronger, lives longer, and can even throw a few lightning bolts when needed. Pagan gods are no different than The Incredible Hulk, The Flash, or Superman (who as the old TV show told us had “powers far beyond those of mortal men!”).
Formulating the Euthyphro Argument using pagan gods is exactly the same thing as saying: Does The Incredible Hulk command it because it is good, or is it good because The Incredible Hulk commands it? The moral proclamations of The Incredible Hulk, have no more or less significance, than the moral proclamations of Zeus, Mick Jagger, Jerry Seinfeld, Oprah Winfrey, or for that matter, any of the approximately 6,000,000,000 individuals living on this planet.
When stated this way, it becomes obvious how misguided and mistaken the whole argument was to begin with. What did you expect? Of course, pagan gods, superheroes, rock superstars, Jewish comedians, and even wildly successful talk show hosts – just like everyone else - can only tell us their totally subjective views on morality, or manufacture it arbitrarily.
Not so, the God of Abraham, the One God. The God of Monotheism is not a human being projected on a large scale. He is above time and space. He is above the physical. He is even above the spiritual. He created the spiritual. He is, as Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg has put it, “so totally and completely other than we are.” With the existence of the One God, greatness, goodness, meaning, and morality lie in front of us. They are within our grasp if we choose them. Without God, in the utterly empty void of the atheistic world, we are left with nothing but bleak despair, as expressed by the American novelist T.C. Boyle:

'' I am an atheist and a nihilist…I believe in nothing. And it causes me tremendous despair and heartbreak…there is nothing between us and the naked howling face of the universe. Nothing."''

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

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

==External link==

* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato
* [http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.pdf Apologetic essay entitled "A New Euthyphro"] by New Zealand Christian philosopher Glenn Peoples
* ''[http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/euthyphro.html The Euthyphro Argument: A Philosophical Dinosaur]'' by Rabbi Moshe Averick
* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/]

{{Arguments against god}}

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

Talk:Faith is a virtue

2011-02-11T14:46:55Z

Sans Deity:

The "delusion/faith" language is both unnecessarily prejudicial and simply bad writing. The article is intended to contrast faith with virtue. If you want to do another article addressing the similarities between faith and delusion, go ahead - but I don't think I'll accept it. A delusion is a belief - faith isn't a belief, it's the proposed justification for a belief. You'd be comparing apples and bicycles.
[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:46, 11 February 2011 (CST)

Faith is a virtue

2011-02-11T14:43:35Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Eklenczar (Talk); changed back to last version by Willymaz

==Definition of faith and virtue==

A virtue, as defined by the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue Random House Dictionary], is a particular moral excellence,or a good or admirable quality or property.

The meaning of faith, from the same [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith dictionary], can be defined as a trust and/or belief in something that is not proven.

==The value of faith==

Comparing the definitions of faith and virtue reveal a disconnect between the two. However, virtues are established by the greater culture and society, and in many cultures faith is deemed as a good and admirable quality. Faith, along with all virtues assert that they are inherently a good and moral qualities. By definition, morality and goodness are distinct ontological concepts. A truly virtuous person must be balanced all their virtues; for if faith fully encompasses a person then ignorance and dogmatism will come about. In comparison, if a person is too prudent, then opportunities will be lost. Faith is an admirable property, not simply because it allows for things to go unexplained, but because it allows oneself to be humble and submit to questions that cannot be answered. A faithful person can find trust and security in things that cannot be answered in reality, and that is virtuous.

Bible

2010-12-30T17:52:13Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Trevor75 (Talk); changed back to last version by Iesous

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

==Composition==

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

==Christian perspective==

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

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

==Atheist perspective==

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

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

==Contradictions within the Bible==

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

==Additional perspectives==

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

==Unsuitable reading==

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

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

==See also==
* [[The Brick Testament]]
* [[Fun facts about the Bible]]

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

{{Christianity}}

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

Talk:Atheism

2010-12-08T15:38:14Z

Sans Deity:

The "strong atheists" link is supposed to be redirecting to strong atheism (even that entry shows this) - but it's redirecting to weak atheism. Any idea why?

[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:17, 20 June 2006 (MST)

I felt the atheism, strong atheism, and weak atheism articles were stubs. So I merged them into one article (keeping as much of the original writing as I could). hope nobody's upset! - [[User:MadOtaku|MadOtaku]] 13:02, October 24 2006 (PST)

I think that makes sense, at least until there's a need (read: sufficient content) for them to be moved to separate entries. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:51, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Should we be adding any more information to this page, as Atheism is a pretty major subject for the wiki, in my opinion? I mean, look at Conservapedia, they have a 'wonderful' article about Atheism that is at least ten times longer than necessary, but at least it explains how we're all mass murderers and immoral... wait that's not a good example. XD - [[User:RoaringAtheist|RoaringAtheist]] 17 Januari 2009
:While you can add what you'd like, most of the people coming here for information are looking for counter-apologetics, considering that the purpose of this wiki is that very subject. Most of the people using the wiki would probably self-identify as atheist or agnostic, so it isn't the most important article in the world. [[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 06:04, 20 January 2009 (CST)

I removed the sentence "This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god." from the introduction, as it conflicts with the definition given for Strong Atheism. --[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 19:57, 7 December 2010 (CST)

There is no conflict. Atheism is the top-level category, weak and strong are sub-categories. The top-level category does not require a positive claim of the nonexistence of a god. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:38, 8 December 2010 (CST)

I'm a little perplexed by the section that reads "For the above reason, strong atheism is sometimes criticized for "requiring faith." But this is not necessarily true." First of all it seems that a better response is to ask why this is a criticism. Certainly no one who's taken an intro philosophy course is going to state that they can prove everything they base their actions on. I think that assuming "basing it on faith" is actually a criticism is attaching some sort of negative connotation to "faith" which is self defeating. "Faith" is a synonym for the word "assumption". People may be worried by the idea that they make assumptions, but as this is unavoidable why should it be treated like a valid criticism?

Perhaps we would be better served by adding a section describing how attaching the term "faith" to atheism is a kind of verbal trap which assumes the atheist has made the claim that everything they believe is based on evidence?--[[User:BunniRabbi|BunniRabbi]] 20:33, 7 December 2010 (CST)

Atheism

2010-12-08T15:36:59Z

Sans Deity:

[[Image:Button_atheism.png|right|Atheism]]
An '''atheist''' is a person who does not believe in any [[god]]s. '''Atheism''' is the corresponding philosophical position. This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god.

==Types of atheism==

===Strong atheism===
''Main article [[Strong atheism]]''

A "strong" atheist is one who positively asserts that "there is no god". Strong atheism is the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't know the distinction between strong and weak atheism, however strong atheists are rarer than most people think.

As a general concept, god is very vague, with specific incarnations being very well defined. Well defined gods are easy to disbelieve, it's the claim that god as a concept is false that separates strong atheists from most weak atheists.

For the above reason, strong atheism is sometimes criticized for "requiring [[faith]]." But this is not necessarily true. One could argue that it depends on how you define god. If by god you mean an infinite being, then you have certain logical contradictions. The [[omnipotence paradox]] for example. If you mean a finite being, the strong atheist may deny its status as a god, as it could be surpassed, and may only be very advanced extraterrestrial life.

===Weak atheism===
''Main article [[Weak atheism]]''

A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim that there is no god, but instead simply lacks belief in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "[[agnostic]] atheism" (see our discussion of [[atheist vs. agnostic]]).

Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the only rational position, as both theism and strong atheism make positive claims.

==Discussion==
Apart from not believing in any gods, there is no official atheist [[doctrine]]. There is no atheist [[pope]], no atheist [[church]], and no atheist rules to live by. This does not mean that atheists do not also follow societal and [[legal]] rules, or that they are not necessarily religious (as atheism is a component of some religions). It does mean that there is nothing specific about atheism that tells you how you should live. However, there ''are'' comprehensive philosophical positions that include atheism as a part of the overall philosophy, [[secular humanism]] being the most well-known example.

==Other views==
Not everyone (not even all atheists) agree with the definitions above. For instance, the authors of [[Evil Bible]] seem to [http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm define atheism] as denial of the existence of any gods, or the (positive) belief that there are no gods. Richard Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, does reserve the terms ''theism'', ''agnosticism'' and ''atheism'' on a Spectrum of Theistic Probability from 1 (''I know that a God does exist'') to 7 (''I know that a God does not exist''). In other words, that "atheist", for Dawkins, is synonymous with "strong atheist", as above.

==See also==
*[[Atheist vs. agnostic]]
*[[Atheism vs. rationality]]
*[[Agnostic]]
*[[Secular humanism]]

{{Atheism}}

[[Category:Atheism]]

Talk:Validity vs. soundness

2010-07-01T16:25:43Z

Sans Deity:

I rewrote this to correct an error and expand the topic a bit. The original content included the following:
{{comment-box1|bg=#fff|text= 
# I either own a bicycle or a car.
# I don't own a bicycle.
# Therefore, I own a car.

The premises can both be true, that is, it's possible for me to own a car but not a bicycle. However, it's not necessarily true that, just because I don't own a bicycle I must own a car. Thus, this argument is valid but not sound.}}

This argument is actually valid and sound as the first premise declares a direct dichotomy and the second premise eliminates one prong.

In any case, the current article has a link or two that will need to be expanded. I'll try to add the syllogism page and include the named forms and an explanation of why those forms are valid, as opposed to others. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:34, 30 August 2006 (MST)

:Wrong! It's valid because the conclusion is proven by the premises. Soundness has only to do with the truth of the premises. For example:

:Sadam Hussein either has weapons of mass destruction or he has a cheese cake factory.

:Sadam Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction.

:Ergo: Sadam has a cheese cake factory.

:This conclusion or "ergo" is a direct result of the premises. If Sadam as a result doesn't have a Cheese Cake factory then the argument is invalid. However, it is true that the truth value of the premises are independent of validity. It could be true that Sadam Hussein had neither,making it false and unsound, but if the argument is presented in the above format it will still be valid. --carlos (2010-07-01)

Go research the difference between validity and soundness. Read these articles, research them elsewhere...because you're confused, and simply wrong. I've reverted the edits. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:25, 1 July 2010 (CDT)

::'''Not knowing''' the truth of a premise does not automatically make the argument unsound, though. You can easily show that it's false to state "''all people'' have either a bicycle or a car", but it isn't necessarily false for a person to state "''I'' have either a bicycle or a car." You would need to verify the conclusion to know if that premise is true or false.

::That example demonstrates why similar logical argument can be so readily accepted by creationists. The premises are written in such a way that they would be true if the conclusion were true... and the conclusion has been accepted a priori.

::Also, please bottom-post and sign your comments. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 06:39, 1 July 2010 (CDT)

Validity vs. soundness

2010-07-01T16:22:41Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Carlos vlds (Talk); changed back to last version by Dcljr

In [[logic]] there is an important distinction between '''validity''' and '''soundness'''. A logical [[argument]] or [[syllogism]] is '''''valid''''' if true [[premise]]s always lead to a true conclusion. An argument is '''''sound''''' [[if and only if]] the argument is valid '''and''' all of the premises are true. Thus validity refers to the structure or form of the argument and not to its contents, while soundness considers the structure and content.

==Examples==
Consider this logical syllogism:

: P1: All '''G''' are '''S'''
: P2: All '''S''' are '''D'''
: C1: Therefore, all '''G''' are '''D'''

The form is valid and this particular syllogistic form is named "[[syllogism|Barbara]]". If P1 and P2 are both true, C1 must be true. If we insert some "common knowledge" content into the argument, we can demonstrate an argument which is both valid and sound:

: P1: '''''I''''' (G) am a '''''man''''' (S)
: P2: All '''''men''''' (S) are '''''mortal''''' (D)
: C1: Therefore, '''''I''''' (G) am '''''mortal''''' (D)

What happens when the premises are untrue? Consider the following example:

: P1: All '''''toothpicks''''' (G) are '''''made of metal''''' (S)
: P2: All '''''metal objects''''' (S) are '''''toasters''''' (D)
: C1: Therefore, all '''''toothpicks''''' (G) are '''''toasters''''' (D)

We can prove that P1 and P2 are false by finding either a toothpick which isn't made of metal, or a metal object that isn't a toaster. In this particular case, P1 and P2 are not only false, they directly contradict each other (if all metal objects are toasters, clearly toothpicks can't be made of metal) and no external verification is required - the argument is valid, but the conclusion is unsound.

Let's look at an example where only one of the premises is untrue:

: P1: All '''''mammals''''' (G) have '''''backbones''''' (S)
: P2: All '''''creatures with backbones'''''(S) have '''''scales''''' (D)
: C1: Therefore, all '''''mammals'''''(G) have '''''scales''''' (D)

In this example, P1 is true, but P2 is not. This one false premise renders the argument unsound. Let's modify this latest argument just a bit to demonstrate an important point:

: P1: All '''''mammals''''' (G) have '''''backbones''''' (S)
: P2: All '''''creatures with backbones'''''(S) have '''''three bones in each ear''''' (D)
: C1: Therefore, all '''''mammals'''''(G) have '''''three bones in each ear''''' (D)

P1 is still true and P2 is still false (there are vertebrates with only one bone, the stapes, in each ear) however, the conclusion (C1) in this example happens to be true. If an argument is unsound, the conclusion may be either true or false - there's simply no way to tell from the argument alone. This issue is seen in many common [[logical fallacies]] and can be confusing to those who aren't skilled in assessing logical arguments.

It's possible to reach the correct conclusion by accident, but in order to actually demonstrate that the conclusion is true, the argument '''must''' be both valid and sound.

[[Category:Logic]]

50 reasons to believe in God

2010-05-25T14:06:29Z

Sans Deity: /* Reason 10: Atheists need to get a life */

: ''For the book by Guy P. Harrison, see [[50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God]].''

'''50 reasons to believe in [[God]]''' is an email that made the rounds of [[atheist]] [[Wikipedia:Blog|blog]]gers in June 2008. [[PZ Myers]], on his blog [[Pharyngula]], identifies the original author as Debra Rufini, an author whose recent book contains "an imaginary scenario in which [[Richard Dawkins]] gets psychiatric counseling…from Jesus".[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php]

What follows is a collection of responses to these purported "reasons".

(Note that the title associated with each "reason" did not appear in the original e-mail and is provided here merely for reference.)

==Responses to the message==

===Preamble===
<tt>It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:</tt>

{{Comment-box1|label=General responses:|text=None of the arguments put forth in this e-mail are "proofs" of God's existence. Technically, most of them aren't even "reasons" to believe. On the other hand, the author did say, "prove to yourself", which is, one could argue, different from proving a claim to someone else. Nevertheless, almost all of the arguments rely on the same handful of [[logic]]al [[fallacies]], the responses to which can be summarized as follows:
# Disproof of one claim is not proof of another (unless they are exact logical opposites).
# The [[burden of proof]] lies with the person making the claim that something exists or should be "believed in".
# Just because you [[argumentum ad ignorantiam|can't figure out what caused something]], or can't understand how something works, doesn't mean [[God did it]].
# Arguing that the environment was created to fit the needs of humans is getting the order of causality exactly backwards: according to modern [[evolutionary theory]], humans have evolved to fit their environment.
# If an argument for the existence of God can be used to argue for the existence of ''any other god'', then it can't be a good reason to believe in the ''particular'' god of [[Christianity]].}}

===Reason 1: DNA===
<tt>Whilst agreeing that [[random]] [[pattern]]s occur naturally [[by chance]], [[DNA]] however, consists of code, which requires a [[designer]].</tt>

{{Response|This is the [[argument from design]]. Incidentally, it is the study of DNA that gives the strongest [[evidence]] of [[common descent]], a key component of [[evolution]]ary theory (which is argued against in several of the "reasons" below).}}

{{Response|A code does not simply require a designer - it requires an encoder and a decoder who ''agree on its meaning''. Or more generally, a code requires a set of ''understanders''. It makes no sense to speak of something being a "code" unless it encodes a ''message'' of some sort from a sender to a receiver. That is: to call DNA a "code" at all is [[begging the question|question-begging]]. DNA is a chemical which interacts with other chemicals according to well-understood laws of chemistry and physics.

However, if we wish to speak of it as encoding a message, then that message surely comes not from a God but from ''prior generations of living things''. The message our distant ancestors have left for us are such things as: "this is a good way to make a muscle", "this is how you digest food", "it is a good idea to run away from things that look like this", and of course those instincts that make us a social species such as "punish the wicked", and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".}}

{{Response|Not all systems which are known to represent information (aka code) were known to have been created by a designer. For example, the solar system can be viewed as a system which encodes information, such as the length of a day or the period in which one might harvest crops or the tidal calendar. While this coded information provides data relevant to the daily lives of the inhabitants of this planet, it is by no means apparent that this information was created by a designer, and it is highly plausible this information is simply the emergent metrics of an unordered assembly of celestial bodies.}}

===Reason 2: Paranormal phenomena===
<tt>How do you explain the [[paranormal]], such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine — I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.</tt>

{{Response|This is an [[argument from personal experience]] and an implicit appeal to [[personal revelation]]. It fallaciously presupposes that one's senses, and the interpretations given them, are [[infallible]]. One need not be a liar or attention-seeker, or be overtired to misinterpret sensory information.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built up from prior beliefs and past experience (a fact that [[magic]]ians primarily rely upon to "fool the eye", especially in [[wikipedia:close-up magic|close-up magic]]). In addition, we tend to impart meaning on ambiguous input even when there is [[pareidolia|no real meaning behind it]] (e.g., "seeing faces" or "hearing voices" where there are none). There are also real physiological limitations to our senses that result in nearly universal misperceptions such as [[optical illusion]]s. On a different level, we tend to see causal relationships where none exist (one example of this kind of fallacious reasoning is called [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]). All of these tendencies may have conferred evolutionary advantages in the past — and may continue to do so today — but they can easily lead to the misinterpretation of evidence.

Finally, consider the fact that the very same phenomena that were once attributed to "ancestors" in early human history may have been attributed to angels or [[demon]]s in the Middle Ages, to [[witch]]es or [[the Devil]] in the 17th and 18th centuries, to "spirits" or [[wikipedia:poltergeist|poltergeist]]s in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and to [[wikipedia:extraterrestrial|extraterrestrial]]s in the late 20th century. The sensory stimuli may be the same, but the interpretation is different. Why should we believe the claim that these phenomena point to the existence of a god, especially the god of [[Christianity]]?}}

{{Response|I don't believe you. We each of us have to decide, from the multitude of conflicting voices around us, what information we are going to accept as reliable. I have no more reason to believe your miracle story than you have to believe the stories that a Hindu (I assume you are a Christian) might tell you, on indeed that other Christians might tell you. Every religion is awash with absurd miracle stories, and you and I both have to reject the vast majority of them. You are going to have to do better than "My mate and I saw a ghost! For real!"}}

===Reason 3: Prayer===
<tt>Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?</tt>

{{Response|This argument is an attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]]. It urges the reader to pray, and anticipates that any results of [[prayer]] would be easy to dismiss as chance. In essence this is an admission that the results of prayer may not actually be distinguishable from coincidence and chance. On the other hand, using similar reasoning, what good is it to consider the extremely low odds of winning the lottery, or the risks of [[wikipedia:day trading|day trading]]? Shouldn't we all just jump in and have a little faith? [[Skepticism]] helps people live better, more secure lives.}}

===Reason 4: First cause===
<tt>The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.</tt>

{{Response|This fails to provide proof for a god, as it requires to define god as the "[[uncaused cause]]," therefore negating the original premise. Refer also to [[David Hume]]'s arguments regarding the inability to determine the cause of an effect through reason alone (we need some experience, and have none for 'creating universes.') Moreover, there need not be a direct cause for all things; there is no direct cause for the radioactive decay of an individual atom, and yet it happens. There would appear to be uncaused quantum "effects" as well. Attempts to use physical laws (real or conventionally-accepted, with the above being the latter) to require the existence of a god tend to ignore that, for nearly all definitions of god, god violates various physical laws. Even if "everything must have a cause" necessitated the existence of a God, "energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed" (the [[Thermodynamics#Laws|First Law of Thermodynamics]]) would necessitate an un-created/eternal universe. Theists can't [[Cherry picking|cherry-pick]] physical laws to prove their god's existence. See also: [[Special pleading]].

The author doesn't explain why things that existed for ever don’t need a cause while others do. In any case, recent physical theories suggest that the physical [[Universe]] is part of a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]; which by your reasoning always existed and doesn’t need a cause.}}

===Reason 5: Complexity===
<tt>Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.</tt>

{{Response|This is [[False premise|fallacious in its assumption]] that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to [[Origin of the universe|start from "nothing"]]. It also is guilty of [[special pleading]] ([[responsibility]] is an attribute of [[intelligence]]) and is another invocation of the [[argument from design]]. Note also that this author's "nothing" includes the entirety of physical, chemical, and other laws of the universe.

For the record, none of the scientific theories about the beginning of the universe posit that there was "nothing" and then there was "something." The [[Big Bang]] theory does posit the universe as being compacted to a singularity, and this does pose certain problems at such a [[Wikipedia:Quantum theory|quantum level]] because of how matter is understood to work, but it is not even clear that matter yet existed at this singularity - it doesn't have to, either, because matter and [[energy]] are equivalents (by [[general relativity]]) and energy does not follow the same types of quantum constraints as matter. You could (in a very simplified view of quantum and relativity theories) have all the matter in the universe converted to energy, and have all that energy contained in no space at all (a singularity) because energy requires no space.}}

{{Response|We know that this claim is factually wrong. According to this argument, complex snowflakes must be made by some intelligence, rather than the "mindless nothing" of physical and chemical forces. That is, if this is true, then God must assign angels to individually craft each snowflake. There must be a "Jack Frost" who draws those artistic patterns on our windows when it's cold. Rather than this childish storybook view of the world, we know that emergent complexity happens all the time, and is an exciting and interesting branch of mathematics and science.

Snowflakes are a special case of any crystalline structure. Diamonds, for example, are nothing more than a special (and precise) arrangement of carbon atoms in a structure that makes the overall object transparent (unlike graphite or other forms of pure carbon). Diamonds do not require a creator to arrange the carbon atoms just so. They require nothing more than the right pressure to force the carbon atoms into this configuration, and such pressures arise naturally in the earth as a result of nothing more than the properties of matter and gravity.}}

{{Response|I once read a Jack Chick tract that said that all the atoms in the universe are held together by God. This argument here reaches to the one about complexity. If God has to multitask on everything, what if God got tired and let his guard down for one second? Uh-oh, the universe is destroyed. If one is making an argument this complex, one should check all the angles so it is foolproof.}}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 6: Limitations of science===
<tt>Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.</tt>

{{Response|This is a case of possible confusion on the meaning of the terms used, as well as a use of the [[god of the gaps]] argument. We can detect emotions through the physical changes to the body, and we can detect brain activity. To say that memory is not detected 'scientifically' is possibly a [[dualism|dualistic]] argument, but there is no basis in it. It is true, however, that the scientific method can only detect certain things: specifically, things which have some observable effect in the universe. Either God has an observable effect on the universe, and can therefore be studied scientifically, or God does not, and therefore is irrelevant.}}

{{Response|Taking the case of 'memory' further, psychologists long ago learned that if they probe the brain in certain areas, they can stimulate full, vivid, true memories in the subject. This would seem to be a form of 'scientific detection' of memory.}}

===Reason 7: Evolution is only a theory===
<tt>Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!</tt>

{{Response|This is surely an instance of [[hypocrisy|the pot calling the kettle black]]. Modern [[evolutionary theory]] is supported by a large number of independently verifiable facts and is used to explain, predict, and manipulate the responses of all manner of biological systems. Where is the corresponding [[evidence for God]] (or [[intelligent design]], etc.)? No, in actuality, most religions, with their tales of super-beings and [[magic]]al events, bear a much greater resemblance to fairy tales than does evolution.

More to the point, however, this is the "[[Evolution is only a theory]]" argument, which relies heavily on an [[equivocation]] between the common usage of the word "theory" and the scientific one (see [[Theory]] for more information). Furthermore, [[science]] is not about [[proof]]s, but [[evidence]], and the evidence supporting evolution is solid. See, for example, the Wikipedia article, [[Wikipedia:Introduction to evolution|Introduction to evolution]] (or the full [[Wikipedia:Evolution|Evolution]] article).

Finally, even if our current understanding of evolution were completely wrong, it still wouldn't make belief in God any more reasonable.}}

{{Response| Gravity is 'just a theory' too. We do not really know how or why it exists, or what exactly causes it. We can, however, observe it, understand it, and make use of that understanding to fly airplanes, launch rockets, put satellites into orbit, etc. I think we could all agree that few theists would question the theory of gravity- why then single out evolution as being 'just a theory'?}}

===Reason 8: Atheism is based on faith===
<tt>Atheism is a faith which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.</tt>

{{Response|Typical claim that [[atheism is based on faith]] combined with the claim that [[religion provides hope]]. The former is simply untrue (for most atheists) and involves [[shifting the burden of proof]] when used as an argument for belief in God (you don't need to "prove" something doesn't exist to lack belief in it). The latter is an [[appeal to consequences]]; just because religion may have some positive effects does not mean that its claims are true, nor that its tenets should be accepted even for "practical" purposes.}}
{{Response|It is simply not true that "believers believe because they have witnessed". No believer alive today has witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus, the saints emerging from their graves, heaven, God, or any of the other myriad things that they claim to be "witnesses" to. Insofar as a religion orders its followers to "witness" to things they have no experience of, it is ordering them to be ''liars''. Thomas had the right idea: when you have put your fingers in Jesus's wound, ''then'' you can come back and talk about being a "witness".}}
{{Response|In fact, atheism ''does'' have "good news" to "preach": atheists need not subscribe to the arbitrary customs and strictures of religious dogma. We don't have to reconcile biblical contradictions nor deal with the hypocrisies of a schizophrenic deity. We can use our own minds rather than submit to competing human interpretations of "holy" books.}}

===Reason 9: Atheists are angry with God===
<tt>How much of the [[Atheism is based on faith|atheist's faith]] relies on [[Angry at God|anger with God]] as opposed to genuine [[disbelief]] in God?</tt>

{{Response|The assumption that ''any'' atheists are [[angry at God]] is an unfounded one and constitutes an [[ad hominem]] argument, since it questions the motivations behind atheists' lack of belief.}}

{{Response|Ignoring the [[atheism is based on faith]] part of the question, the correct answer is: None.

Granted, there are different kinds of atheists, and people are atheists for different reasons. But if you use ''[[atheism]]'' to mean either [[weak atheism|the lack of a belief in any gods]] or [[strong atheism|the belief that no gods exist]] then, logically, no atheists can be angry at God. How can you be angry at something that you don't think exists? Those who are angry at God are, by definition, not atheists but angry theists.}}

===Reason 10: Atheists need to get a life===
<tt>Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?</tt>
{{Response|This is a [[straw man]] argument, and a [[False dichotomy|false dilemma]]. Atheism does not prevent hobbies, partying, etc. Furthermore, it neglects that while god may not exist, religions do exist. The adherents to these religions often try to impose the values and practices of their own religion onto society at large. Moreover, it presupposes that a majority of people on the planet believe in a fantasy and that is a good reason to have an active life.

Furthermore, assuming that atheists, indeed, need to get a life, it is not a valid reason to believe in a god, as the subject of the email insists.}}

{{Response|The vast majority of atheists have no problem with- indeed, could care less about- theists and theism. It is the methods theists use that cause the problem. When we see theists use political means to try to force their beliefs down our throats, we are offended, and we do indeed "rant and rave" about this misuse of our political processes. However we, more than any, realize that one must have the convictions of their beliefs. Penn Jillette of "Penn & Teller" puts it nicely in one of his videos when he states something to the effect of "if you are a theist and you DON'T proselytize, I have no respect for you." In other words, if you truly believe in Christianity and yet do not share that belief with me- you are no Christian, and are, in fact, evil by your own definition, since you refuse to 'save my soul' by sharing your beliefs. I have no problem with theists sharing their beliefs when they follow established cultural norms in doing so (i.e., ask if I want to hear it, don't try to force your beliefs and opinions on me.)}}

===Reason 11: Chicken-and-egg paradox===
<tt>What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] leading to [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]. Also, evolutionary biology shows that the egg preceded the chicken[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_and_egg#Science_and_Evolution]. This is also a direct refutation of [[#Reason 4: First cause|Reason 4]].}}

===Reason 12: Improbability vs. impossibility===
<tt>Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.</tt>

{{Response|The first sentence is [[special pleading]] as it applies to anything and everything that isn't explicitly disproven, including no god whatsoever. The second is an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. It is also a direct refutation of [[#Reason 5: Complexity|Reason 5]].}}

===Reason 13: Complexity of human life===
<tt>How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. The complexity of life is the very thing that the theory of evolution explains. }}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 14: Complexity of the human mind===
<tt>How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and similar to the [[homunculus argument]]. Science demonstrates that [[consciousness]] is an [[emergent property]] of the physical brain; this argument suggests a form of [[dualism]], where the mind and brain are separate. }}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 15: Food and drink===
<tt>What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?</tt>

{{Response|This is an example of the [[anthropic principle]]. It commits the formal fallacy of [[petitio principii]], assuming that hospitable features of our universe were built to support life, rather than considering that life was adapted to the undesigned features of the universe through natural selection. Douglas Adams' analogy about a [[Douglas Adams#Quotes|sentient puddle]] neatly sums up the problem with this argument.}}

===Reason 16: The five senses===
<tt>Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.</tt>

{{Response|Another example of the [[anthropic principle]].}}
{{Response|The "five senses" common to most humans, while adequate for the purposes of savanna apes, are only able to capture the barest fraction of all light and sound waves, and detects a very limited set of chemicals. There is nothing intrinsically special about the number of senses we possess: they differ from one another more by degrees than by kinds. For instance, our sense of touch is much like hearing when it comes to detecting vibrations, and much like sight for heat detection. Similarly, our senses of smell and taste are quite related. Thus, we can just as easily say we are born with three sense as seven (if you reduce touch to pressure and temperature detection, and consider the sense of balance, for example). Finally, there is nothing special about our sense mechanisms when compared with other members of the animal kingdom. We are far outclassed in the abilities we do possess, and we lack even rudimentary detection mechanisms for electrical or magnetic fields.}}

===Reason 17: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 1===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?</tt>

{{Response|See next reason.}}

===Reason 18: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 2===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?</tt>

{{Response | See the [[Anthropic principle]].}}

{{Response | What? Nothing. Who? No one. When Earth and the rest of the solar system were formed, the development of human life, or indeed life of any kind, was not the purpose or goal. We humans are the only ones (that we know of) who care that we are here. If things were different, they would be different. Perhaps a different kind of life would have developed — maybe even a kind of life that could wonder how or why it came to exist. But if not, there wouldn't be anyone to ask the question in the first place. In other words, it is possible that the correct answer to the question, "Why do things in the universe look like they were 'fine tuned' to support human life?" might simply be, "If they weren't that way, there would be no humans around to ask the question."}}

{{Response | There is a wide range of possible [[Wikipedia:Habitable_zone|orbits suitable for Earth-like life]] (that is, carbon-based and dependent on water) in our solar system: about 0.95 to 1.37 AU (or 88 million to 127 million miles) from the Sun. The Earth is near the middle of this so-called Goldilocks zone, so it is hugely inaccurate to claim that any deviation from our current position would freeze (or burn) us all up. There is also reason to believe that [[Wikipedia:Gliese_581_d#Climate_and_habitability|life is possible]] in other places in the solar system, such as Jupiter's moon [[Wikipedia:Europa_(moon)#Possible_extraterrestrial_life|Europa]] or the moons [[Wikipedia:Enceladus_(moon)|Enceladus]] or [[Wikipedia:Titan_(moon)|Titan]] of Saturn. These "hot spots" are possible because direct warming by the Sun is not the only way for a celestial body to become warm enough to support life: tidal forces caused by gravitational attraction to other "nearby" bodies (like Earth's moon) can be sufficient to heat up the interior of a planet or moon.}}

{{Response|There are approximately 200 – 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Around many of these stars there are going to be planets. Most will be too hot or too cold for life, but there will surely be some that are the right temperature just by chance alone. Our solar system has 8 planets ([[Wikipedia:Pluto#Classification|Pluto is no longer recognized as a planet]]), only 2 of which (Earth and Mars) are in the Goldilocks zone. That makes 2 "successes" out of 8 for our solar system alone. Now extrapolate that to the billions of other solar systems that are presumed to exist in the billions of galaxies in the universe. Even with relatively pessimistic estimates of the sizes of the various Goldilocks zones and the number and kinds of planets that would form in them, there could easily be billions of planets capable of harboring life. See also the [[Infinite monkey theorem]].}}

===Reason 19: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 3===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]].}}

===Reason 20: Complementarity of plant and animal life===
<tt>What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]]. These anthropic principle arguments are all phrased in such a way as to assume that the answer must be in the form of a "who"--i.e., a personal God. This is [[Petitio principii|begging the question]].}}

===Reason 21: The tornado and the 747===
<tt>The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[argument from design]]. This is [[Fred Hoyle]]'s classic [[Tornado argument]], which is based on the assumption that evolution works by [[Probability|random chance]], ignoring the non-random process of [[natural selection]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] proposed the Ultimate 747 argument[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit] as a response. This reason is also contradictory to the argument proposed in [[#Reason 12: Complexity|Reason 12]].}}

{{Response| The Tornado and the 747 argument also does not take into consideration that a Boeing 747 is a nonliving entity, with no will of it's own or ability to think or act. Life came about through natural selection, and by living organisms. Organisms that could adaption, had the will to survive and reproduced. As evolution progresses, organisms have evolved into more complex beings with the ability to communicate, socialize, analyze data and interpret them. Basically life did not come about by chance, as the nonliving 747 has no will to assemble itself whereas a conscious being can think and act to suit survival purposes. }}

===Reason 22: The invisible and the supernatural===
<tt>We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work [sic], yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.</tt>

{{Response|While phenomena like [[wikipedia:radio waves|radio waves]] or [[wikipedia:infrared light|infrared light]] may not be visible to the human eye, they are not analogous to any purported supernatural forces. Natural "unseen" waves [[manifest]] in other ways — ways that are detectable and predictable. In short, they are well understood and explained by science, and this is why they can be utilized in technology. The same cannot be said for God.}}

===Reason 23: Self-organization and entropy===
<tt>Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.</tt>

{{Response|An uneaten tomato does not "transform" into disorganization. It may decompose into simpler organic components by the action of bacteria, fungi or other creatures such as maggots through well-understood biological processes. In fact, these components might then become part of other plants or animals, including a pineapple. This argument is utter absurdity, ignoring the very basics of [[evolution]], specifically that individuals do not evolve, ''populations'' evolve. It also ignores the role of reproduction in evolution, the fact that evolution proceeds by small changes over time, the lack of a hierarchical/teleological path for evolution, and so forth. See the EvoWiki page on a similar, more common argument[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_descendants_of_an_X_(cat,_dog...)_will_remain_X].}}

{{Response|The opening assumption that matter is unable to self-organize is wrong: crystals are a prime example of matter organizing itself. This innate ability of matter becomes important in some theories of abiogenesis, like A. Graham Cairns-Smith's Clay theory.}}

===Reason 24: Darwin's deathbed conversion===
<tt>Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions; wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbors the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"</tt>

{{Response|The story of [[Darwin]]'s [[deathbed conversion]] is an [[urban myth]]. Even if it were true (and evidence shows that it is not), it is an [[Argumentum ad verecundiam|argument from authority]]. We accept [[evolution]] not based on Darwin's word but on the [[evidence]] supporting the theory, most of which has been discovered since Darwin's death. By the same token, we should not reject evolution based on Darwin's word, even if he repudiated everything he had written on the subject. Similarly, we should not take Darwin's word for it that a [[god]] exists (if he did believe that) or that [[Christianity]] is the path to [[salvation]]. It is also worth noting that Darwin was not the first person to propose evolution as a possibility, or even that natural processes were responsible; he just happens to be the first to produce both a cogent theory for how the process works along with solid evidence supporting it.}}

===Reason 25: Morality===
<tt>Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.</tt>

{{Response|[[Evolutionary psychology|Evolutionary psychologists]] have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear to be instinctual; observations of [[wikipedia:social animal|social animal]]s reveal that many have moral codes that are similar to that of humans. [[Atheist]]s may follow any number of [[secular]] [[ethical]] codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived [[rational]]ly, rather than to a [[deity]]. Furthermore, the [[Euthyphro dilemma]] turns this argument around on the [[theist]]: where do [[God]]'s moral values come from?}}

{{Response|To whom are we morally responsible? In moral systems that lack a divine component, we are accountable to those around us.}}

{{Response|Most people don't share many of the moral values of the bible. The vast majority of humans consider rape within marriage and slavery to be wrong while working on the sabbath is considered to be acceptable, which conflicts with biblical morality. The fact that the bible condemns murder, theft and lying is trivial because peoples and even many other animals that are unfamiliar with the bible also hold these moral values.}}

===Reason 26: Man vs. animal===
<tt>If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.</tt>

{{Response|There are many problems with this argument.
# It is based, at least implicitly, on the archaic concept of the [[Great Chain of Being]], in which humans are seen as separate from, and inherently superior to, other animals. In fact, humans ''are'' animals. The theory of evolution doesn't hold that they evolved "away from" animals and became something fundamentally different.
# Since evolution necessarily implies change from a previous state, the fact that the ancestors of humans had certain characteristics doesn't necessarily mean that humans must still have those characteristics. ''Any'' two animal species will share certain characteristics and not share others. This is the result of the process of evolution and not — as is implied above — a refutation of it.
# Many human behaviors ''are'', in fact, very similar to those found among animals today (especially other [[wikipedia:primate|primates]]). Examples include the seeking of food and shelter, the forming of social groups to secure these resources, the forming of pair bonds for reproduction and the rearing of offspring, the protection of family members from others in the social group and of members of the group from outsiders, and communication through sound and gestures. On the other hand, aspects of human behavior that are indeed unique to our species may be attributable to adaptations such as bipedalism or advanced cognitive function, particularly the capacity for abstract thought. Evolutionary theory may actually be able to explain how these characteristics arose.
# Given the history of the 20th century (for example), there is some doubt as to what "civilized" actually means and whether humans can be said to possess that characteristic.
# Finally, as with [[#Reason 7: Evolution is only a theory|Reason 7]] (and many others), even if the claim above were completely true, it wouldn't justify belief in God.}}

===Reason 27: Chance and ignorance===
<tt>'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.</tt>

{{Response|[[Straw man]] argument. While [[evolution]] contains some aspects of apparent "[[chance]]" (genetic mutations), the process of [[natural selection]] is the force which drives the process of adaptation. Furthermore, "chance" is not a description of something we cannot find a reason for; that is "ignorance". Chance is a description of systems which operate according to laws of [[probability]].}}

===Reason 28: Limitations of science and logic===
<tt>Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[special pleading]]. If we have no understanding of these forces, then how can anyone be said to be "aware" of them? If we are aware, we must have some small measure of understanding.}}

===Reason 29: Gregorian calendar===
<tt>Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.</tt>

{{Response|This is an unfounded claim that [[the Gregorian calendar proves that Jesus existed]]. The Anno Domini (AD) dating system was not created until 525 AD. It is not independent, contemporary historical confirmation of the New Testament. The current Gregorian Calendar was drafted in 1582 under the direction of Pope Gregory XIII of the Catholic church, and cannot act as evidence of the existence of a man who is thought to have lived 15 centuries earlier.}}

{{Response|Look at the names of days and months on your calendar. This proves that the gods "Moon, Tiu, Woden, Thor, Frigg, Saturn and Sun, Januarius, the Roman gods to whom the Februa were celebrated, Mars, etc, etc all exist.}}

===Reason 30: Martyrs===
<tt>Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!</tt>

{{Response|This could only show that purported martyrs ''believed'' they were dying for a true faith. It cannot prove that their beliefs are actually true; martyrs may be mistaken. Many people have died in the name of many contradictory faiths. Further, people have given their lives in the name of beliefs such as Nazism; must we assume these are also true?}}

===Reason 31: Biblical accounts===
<tt>Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.</tt>

{{Response|It may be a stretch to describe stories of events written 40+ years after they supposedly occurred as "eyewitness accounts", when the average lifespan of a human in those times was likely much lower[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history]. The truth is that none of the [[Gospels]] were written by eyewitnesses, the earliest dating estimate[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating] is 65 C.E. and most are thought to be significantly later. Moreover, the earliest New Testament texts were purportedly authored by early church founder Paul of Tarsus, who was not an eyewitness. Even assuming the events were recorded by supposed eyewitnesses, we could make that argument in favor of many religious texts and other writings which may contradict each other. Does this give us reason to assume the events recorded in books like the Qur'an are also true? And given the many conflicts over heresies, apocryphal texts and other teachings in the early church, it seems safe to say that there was "confusion and anger" over the contents of the books.}}

===Reason 32: Archaeology===
<tt>From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaeological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.</tt>

{{Response|This may be true, but there is also a striking ''lack'' of archaeological evidence for many important stories recorded in the Bible (see claim #34). Atheists do not claim that the Bible must be entirely false in every respect. What matters when determining if the Bible provides basis for a belief in God is the evidence we can find for its claims of supernatural phenomena, like the resurrection of Jesus. This evidence does not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence to confirm many of the details provided in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad Iliad] or the average [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-man Spider-Man] comic, but that doesn't mean that Achilles and Spider-Man exist.}}

===Reason 33: Biblical prophecy===
<tt>Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.</tt>

{{Response|This is an attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]]. The Bible does not contain a single fulfilled prediction which is/was verifiable, non trivial, and was not self-fulfilling.

Biblical [[prophecy]] was "confirmed" by those who were already aware of such prophecy and with a vested interest in ensuring that such prophecy had the appearance of being fulfilled.}}

{{Response| This claim is simply false. Perhaps the most strikingly embarrassing unfulfilled prophecy in the bible is Jesus' prediction of his own second coming, to occur within the lifetimes of the people listening to him. There are dozens of others.}}

{{Response| Those profesies only come true in the context of the bible, which was compiled and edited after the fact. There are many works of fiction where predictions are made that come true in the context of that book or film, does this make the stories true?}}

===Reason 34: Biblical history===
<tt>The evidence from literature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.</tt>

{{Response|This is plainly false. In addition to the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible, for which there is no historical evidence, many of the historical claims which could theoretically be substantiated with archaeological evidence are contradicted by modern historians. For example, historians believe there is no evidence for Hebrew slavery in Egypt or the Exodus as described in the Old Testament[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus#CriticalEvaluation].}}

===Reason 35: Christianity and science in harmony===
<tt>From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac ''[sic]'' Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.</tt>

{{Response|Many of the arguments in this email appear to promote Christianity by opposing science, but even if we grant that there is no conflict between science and Christianity and that many scientists are Christians, this hardly provides evidence that Christianity is true. See [[burden of proof]]. And if we fail to grant that there is no conflict, we recognize many contradictions[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html] between the Biblical account and established science.}}
{{Response| From the time of Galileo to the latest attempts by creationists to push their agendas in schools, science and faith have ''always'' been in opposition. Whether its the germ theory of disease vs demons and the powers of the air, the preposterous miracles of the roman church, heliocentrism vs angels moving the stars about, lightning rods instead of sounding the church bells, science has ''never'' had to back down: it has always been religion that has had to preserve itself by "reinterpreting" its texts.}}

===Reason 36: How vs. why===
<tt>Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.</tt>

{{Response|This argument is essentially meaningless. To science, 'how' and 'why' are the same thing.}}

{{Response| Terry Pratchett, of all people, sheds insight onto this. The question "why" presupposes that there is a ''story'' to be told. A ''narrative''. Science is a different way of knowing, and one of its discoveries is that the language of the universe is not that of story and legend, but that that of mathematics. It's something that a lot of math-phobes have a hard time accepting.}}

===Reason 37: Science changes===
<tt>Science is constantly recorrecting ''[sic]'' its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.</tt>

{{Response|A willingness to reconsider [[theory|theories]] in the face of new [[evidence]] is essential to any process that seeks the [[truth]]. [[Science]] is strong precisely because of this, rather than despite it. In addition, religious groups, even those considered extreme or [[fundamentalist]], often change their teachings in response to social concerns. For example, the [[Church of Latter-Day Saints]] abandoned polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah. Mainstream [[Christianity]] is guilty of the same revisionism: In 1633, [[Wikipedia:Galileo|Galileo]] was convicted of [[heresy]] by the Catholic church for promoting [[wikipedia:heliocentrism|heliocentrism]], which directly contradicts biblical "evidence" of the organization of the universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Galileo was officially vindicated in a declaration by [[Wikipedia:Pope John Paul II|Pope John Paul II]]. Did God change the arrangement of the heavenly bodies in the intervening centuries? Or was the Catholic church simply wrong because they were using a completely unreliable source of knowledge? [[Wikipedia:Ben Franklin|Ben Franklin]] was accused of heresy by Catholics and [[Protestants]] alike, for developing the [[wikipedia:lightning rod|lightning rod]], which was considered an effort to stifle God's wrath. Today, however, virtually all structures, including churches, are fitted with lightning protection.}}

{{Response|When science changes, the new theory generally explains both the new facts ''and'' the old. For example, [[Einstein]]'s [[Wikipedia:theory of relativity|theory of relativity]], which shows relative speed changes the rules while at the same time making it quite clear that Newtonian physics is still a very good approximation for a lot of things. On the contrary, when society changes in such a way that religions have to "reinterpret" their own scriptures, the original interpretations are no longer valid. The prior behaviours of followers are then written off as heretical, as, for example, in the case of the Catholic church during the [[inquisition]]. See also: [[no true Scotsman]]. }}

===Reason 38: Abiogenesis===
<tt>Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.</tt>

{{Response|The biological theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life; it describes how the diversity and complexity of life found today arose from simpler organisms. However, science could explain how life began on Earth if a credible theory of [[abiogenesis]] or [[wikipedia:panspermia|panspermia]] emerges in the future. Though there is currently no generally accepted and evidence-supported theory of how life arose on Earth, scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis is possible (such as in the [[Wikipedia:Miller-Urey experiment|Miller-Urey experiment]]), and there are a variety of hypotheses which are more [[Occam's razor|parsimonious]] than one invoking a transcendent God. While a consensus theory of abiogenesis or panspermia would not disprove the existence of God, the [[burden of proof]] is on those who assert the existence of supernatural phenomena.}}
{{Response|This is another iteration of the [[God of the gaps]] argument and an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. While this argument attempts to defend the Christian mythological deity, it serves the same function for all other deities, as well as for any other unfalsifiable claim, including [[You can't prove God doesn't exist|Russell's Teapot]], [[Wikipedia:Brain in a vat|you are in the Matrix]], or that the universe was created 20 seconds ago by me.}}
{{Response|The author is entirely correct in maintaining that proof of evolution would not be disproof of God; however, as can be seen in many other "reasons", she seems to be unwilling or unable to recognize that ''disproof'' of evolution is likewise not ''proof'' of God.}}

===Reason 39: A bad lie?===
<tt>The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were very low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.</tt>

{{Response|Let me get this straight: because women had low status and because it is written somewhere that some women claimed something that would be really great (from the author's perspective) if it were true, therefore the claims must be true? Wow. That's an amazing logical leap. (To be fair, historians do sometimes use such [[Wikipedia:Criterion of embarrassment|"countersupportive" evidence as positive evidence]] of historical claims — for example, [[Bart D. Ehrman]]'s analysis of which [[sayings of Jesus]] in the Bible might be historically accurate relies in part on whether each quotation shows Jesus or his message in a positive or negative light — but a good historian would never go so far as to argue that this makes the claims ''true''.)}}

{{Response|While the Gospels describe Jesus' tomb being found empty by women, the Gospels also give accounts of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his male disciples. The Gospels were also written and promulgated by men. The resurrection claim does not rest solely on the word of low-status women. Even if it did, this would hardly be sufficient reason to deem it true; [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]]. Moreover, the account is [[hearsay]] and [[Biblical contradictions|contradictory accounts]] of this event are given in the Gospels.}}

===Reason 40: Near-death experiences===
<tt>Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african ''[sic]'' man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.</tt>

{{Response|It is not naive to seek physiological or psychological explanations for unusual experiences a person may have while their body is recovering from life-threatening trauma or disease; in fact, studies have shown that NDEs can be induced through drugs or trauma, and are almost certain to be a physiological phenomenon. It is naive to immediately presume something supernatural is occurring. Why are these bizarre claims about paperclips and Africans rising from the dead not substantiated? If credible evidence existed of a man being actually deceased and rising three days later, this would be unprecedented news quickly publicized to every corner of the globe by every kind of formal or informal media. If this actually occurred, present the evidence. Science demands more proof than a mere assurance that one asserting a shocking revelation is "not silly." See also the Skeptic's Dictionary entry[http://skepdic.com/nde.html] on the subject.}}

===Reason 41: Biblical skeptics===
<tt>There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.</tt>

{{Response| This is a form of [[argumentum ad populum]], at one stage the majority of the world believed the earth was flat. These are anecdotal accounts of people who could be mistaken. While it is true conversions to Christianity continue today, conversions to other religions and away from organized religion also occur.}}

{{Response| This argument does not take into consideration that people may have alternative reasons for changing their religion (or lack thereof) besides believing. People may changes religions to suit a new marriage, or perhaps they lost a loved one and need some form of comfort. Perhaps they are trying to please persistent family members or just enjoy the Christmas carols and architecture and enjoy the sense of community. We can not always assume that people join a faith because they believe that it is true. }}

===Reason 42: Einstein quote===
<tt>Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".</tt>

{{Response|[[Albert Einstein]] also said, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." [[argumentum ad verecundiam]]. Lameness does not affect factuality. Besides this, Einstein used the term "religion" in a specific, nonstandard way, defined here: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'." It is this admiration for the structure of the universe that Einstein thought essential to science.}}

===Reason 43: The tomato thrower===
<tt>A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"</tt>

{{Response|This unsubstantiated anecdote about a believer assaulting an atheist with a vegetable is actually a form of the [[unmoved mover]]/[[uncaused cause]] argument, implying that atheists are foolish not to believe in a higher power that created the universe. This argument does not solve the problem of the first cause; it merely shifts the burden onto an unproven supernatural being. If God is not caused, then it cannot be said that all things must have a cause. Whether it be the universe itself, for atheists, or God himself, for the believer, all must admit the existence of something whose cause is as yet undiscovered. Atheists hope to continue discovering causes through reason; theists merely give up. Theism cannot claim this as an advantage. If we are to take this anecdote at face value, we must also question the morality of the presumed theist who both assaulted the speaker, rather than refute his claims, and then either lied about the assault or failed to confess and apologize.

Furthermore, the public assault of an atheist by means of a possibly self-actuating, suicidal vegetable is hardly a compelling reason to believe in a god, as the subject of the original email suggests.}}

===Reason 44: Occam's supernatural razor===
<tt>It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.</tt>

{{Response|This is another form of [[uncaused cause]] argument employing [[Occam's Razor]], but an explanation that requires the existence of an unseen, omnipotent supernatural being can hardly be simpler than one that relies on observable natural principles. This argument also prompts the question, how did God arise out of nothing? It also presupposes a [[straw man]] form of the [[Big Bang]] theory of cosmology. Theists often claim that the Big Bang suggests that "nothing became something," when in fact it says no such thing. In fact, there is no scientific reason to think that the matter and energy of the universe had to be created (which would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics) and have not merely always existed in one form or another.}}

===Reason 45: How-vs.-why Hawking quote===
<tt>Stephen Hawkins ''[sic]'' has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"</tt>

{{Response|Spurious. Whatever reason the universe exists, the Bible does nothing to answer this question. All it does is provide a claim of 'what' was created, and 'when', vaguely (and incorrectly) answers the 'how' ([[magic]]) but it in no way answers the 'why'. If it even makes sense to speak of the universe as if it chooses to exist, why it does so would not be the subject of science, which deals with what can be naturally observed. This should be considered a problem of philosophy.}}

===Reason 46: With God all things are possible===
<tt>We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.</tt>

{{Response|[[Petitio principii]], [[religion provides hope]]. These statements merely follow from the definition of an omnipotent creator God; they do nothing to prove its existence.}}

{{Response|It is precisely ''because'' supernatural explanations allow "all things [to be] possible" that they are useless when it comes to determining the true causes of observed phenomena.}}

{{Response|It was also the Bible that said that pi is equal to 3, but I don't see any Christians promoting that theory.}}

{{Response| Is it really true that with God all things are possible? Can God create a stone large enough that even he can not lift? Either way, he fails at omnipotence. The argument is also special pleading, it gives God a status of being immune to the laws of science but how is this possible? God is NOT made up of matter? Ultimately this argument is only an attempt to "dodge the bullet".}}

===Reason 47: Evolved vs. evolving===
<tt>If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]]. And, in fact, we ''are'' still evolving, as are all living things. As for "finely tuned", most of our planet's surface is uninhabitable by or inhospitable to humans (frozen wastelands, oceans, deserts), and the vast majority of the universe is fatal to humans, so how can "everything" be said to be "finely tuned for our living"?}}

===Reason 48: The Missing Link===
<tt>Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!</tt>

{{Response|[[False dichotomy]]. The falsification of [[evolution]] would not be evidence of god and inability to find a particular [[missing link]] is not falsification of evolution. The "missing link" itself comes from a misunderstanding of evolution, and has more in common with the [[Great Chain of Being]] than anything scientific.}}

{{Response|The famous Missing Link between humans and ape ancestors has also been found. Not merely one example, either, but many different stages. This is another example of the [[God of the gaps]] argument.}}

{{Response| The Missing Link argument claims that we are still missing the fossils to prove evolutionary descent. However scientists are discovering more fossils by the year, each giving more insight to how evolution works and how relationships are established. This argument does not take into consideration the other things besides fossils which prove evolution, such as genetics.}}

===Reason 49: Open your eyes===
<tt>God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?</tt>

{{Response|[[Special pleading]], [[petitio principii]]. If God is omnipotent, there is no limit to what more he could do. Even if our eyes are "shut to him," an omnipotent being could certainly open them.

Such a claim is also prejudiced against the blind. What if someone has no eyes to see God's works? Are blind people, by definition, atheists?}}

{{Response|[[Argument from non-belief]]. Why doesn't God speak directly to the entire human population? Or visit "physically" every once in a while? In other words, why isn't God's existence more obvious, based on direct, observable and irrefutable evidence and not theoretical guesses and feeling? }}

===Reason 50: Liar or Lord?===
<tt>Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.</tt>

{{Response|[[False dichotomy]]. He could have also...
* been insane,
* never actually existed,
* not said all of the things attributed to him, or
* been deceived by the lies of others.
See also C.S. Lewis's [[trilemma]].}}

===Big finish===
<tt>YOU DECIDE!!!</tt>
{{Response|[[Pascal's Wager#Atheist's Wager|Choose wisely!]]}}

==External links==

* [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php Copy of the email] originally posted by [[PZ Myers]]

[[Category:Internet memes]]

Talk:Euthyphro dilemma

2010-03-02T16:40:31Z

Sans Deity:

I don't see the section on game theory as directly related to the Euthyphro dilemma. It is a useful jumping off point to talk about [[secular morality]], so perhaps a new article on that subject should be started and the game theory section moved there.

Question: should there be two separate articles on "morality" and "secular morality"? Another question: are "morality" and "ethics" the same subject, or do they require different articles?

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 17:39, 13 August 2006 (MST)

: Yeah, that was my attempt at rationalizing what the "external force" is from which God learns what is and isn't good. I agree that it doesn't really fit in well here, so feel free to move it (or delete it, if you want to obliterate my deathless prose :-) ).
: Also, I have no idea what the difference is between "ethics" and "morality". I've added these to the "wanted pages" page, in hopes that someone will define them.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 20:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)

== Rolled back ==

The content of this article were removed as they were incorporated into the moral argument page. I've rolled this back to the pre-deletion state. At worst, this should have been changed to a re-direct and the moral argument page should include a section on the Euthyphro dilemma. However, it's also not unreasonable to have some nearly-duplicate content if the subject is one which we reference by name or where there is a potential difference. The moral argument page could reference this page, include it, etc. I haven't made up my mind on what the preferred solution should be - but before we go deleting content, let's see if we can figure out the best way to get to virtually-identical ideas to mesh. I'll be looking over both pages and encourage others to do the same - but, for now, let's keep this content available. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

== A better summary. ==

1. If god is the author of morality, then god himself cannot be said to be moral. In this case, god is not truly interested in morality per se, but merely obedience.

2. If god is not the author of morality, then belief in god is not necessary to be moral. It is still rendered questionable as to whether god even cares about morality, since he is uninvolved in the concept. --[[User:Yeahsurewhatever|Yeahsurewhatever]] 10:12, 15 March 2009 (CDT)

: Your point 1 seems to be a [[non sequitur]]. How does "God is not moral" follow from "God is the author of morality"? (Which I understand to mean "God made up the rules as to what is and isn't moral.) Couldn't God hypothetically decide that killing people is bad, then go kill a bunch of people in violation of his own rule? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 22:15, 15 March 2009 (CDT)

: God can be the author of morality '''and''' be said to be moral if-and-only-if moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Keep in mind, however, that this means "God is moral" is an ontological statement, not a moral valuation; i.e., God is the final reference point in moral predication. -- [[User:Ryft|Ryft]] 21:37, 23 August 2009 (CDT)

:: You sound like you are following the argument of Thomas Aquinas, who answered that morality is the nature of God and as such his commands are not themselves moral or immoral but are rather an expression of his moral nature. But all this does is answer the question - he chose one of the two options Euthyphro and Socrates gave (that is, he's saying that things are okay to do if God says to do them). He did not actually answer the dilemma. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 10:34, 25 August 2009 (CDT)

== Not unsolvable ==

I disagree that this is a paradox, and it isn't circular either, here is why:

The fist paragraph states that whatever God commands is good (or moral) by definition (according to Christians). The second sentence is: things are good because God commands it. This is '''not''' circular reasoning, this is simply restating the definition.

Further, if you accept this definition, then there is no sense talking about an "external source" for morality, because by definition there is no such thing. So the answer to the dilemma is: Something is good ''because'' God commands it. And of course if you do something else, that's called immoral.

Now, in theory this could mean that God could command killing and stealing (as he did according to the Bible). But at that point it would not matter, because per definition that would be moral. If you "believe", you might trust that that act has some ultimate purpose for the benefit of humans or humanity as a whole, but that does not change anything, and does not cause a paradox either. Remember, with the "rape" argument, you are trying to use your '''current''' sense of morality to judge something that would be happening in a completely different moral value system, this is not a good argument.

As for the quote from Bertrand Russell. I agree with the conclusion, that in this case, it would be pointless to apply "moral" or "immoral" to God, since it is in fact defined as his wishes or acts. So what? It still makes sense for us to "hope" or "trust" that God's "plan" aligns with our best interests (this last bit might be another definition of what's "good", for us at least).

The conclusion is, that if you believe that God exists, define moral as his wishes/acts/commands, than this dilemma is not unsolvable.

--[[User:Robert|Robert]] 06:02, 19 August 2009 (CDT)

== Morality versus Ethics ==

As I understand it (in this context), 'ethics' examines and/or compares theories of values and morals, while 'morality' examines the implications and applications of a specific theory of ethics. -- [[User:Ryft|Ryft]] 21:30, 23 August 2009 (CDT)

== What the hell does this mean? ==

"Theists will claim that because God's nature is supposedly eternal and unchanging, that God's nature was not "created" by himself or otherwise. To overcome the objection, it may be necessary to restate the dilemma as a true dichotomy: either (i) Morality is derived from God or (ii) Morality is not derived from God. The burden of proof remains with the apologist to demonstrate that (i) is a true claim, irrespective of whether such morality is dependent on God's fiat or God's nature. It falls to the apologist to justify the claim that God's nature is necessarily good, and therefore that the various immoralities of scripture may be considered moral."

This was added to the article. What does it mean? Is it even necessary?

'Is morality derived from God?'- is a question which is begging the question since it needs a god to exist for morality to be derived from him, even though God's nature is not created and morality is independent of a deity (this means premise 1 of the moral argument is refuted).

: It does seem redundant. I'm in favor of deleting this section. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:34, 27 February 2010 (CST)

::Agreed. Same with the "not unsolvable" section above. Both miss the point of what the dilemma is. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 01:35, 28 February 2010 (CST)

== Avoiding the Euthyphro problem ==

Of course, this argument is sound and is useful in refuting the moral argument. However, the moral argument can be reformulated to suit the theist.

1. Universal moral laws require a universal 'spreader'.

2. Universal moral laws exist.

3. Universal 'spreader' (aka God) exists.

How can we avoid this argument?

Also, I would like to share wikipedia's info on the dilemma. Please, have a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

:: Seriously? I don't mean to sound insulting but if you need to ask that question, you probably shouldn't be editing a counter-apologetics wiki.
:: - 1 is an unfounded assertion... not only have they not demonstrated this to be true but it's possible that such a moral law might arise as an emergent property.
:: - 2 simply isn't true.. there is no evidence that universal moral laws exist and every reason to think they don't. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 02:46, 1 March 2010 (CST)

What the hell? This is actually a common argument and I wanted to share this one because Euthyphro does notb adress it. This is a counter-apologetics wiki and the main page states exactly my point: "We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "evidence" for religious claims."
Shouldn't we be adressing this argument?

:: Sure we should, my point was that asking how to address it SHOULD have been unnecessary - you should know how to address it if you're contributing here. That was my point. Additionally, your claim that Euthyphro doesn't address it is as irrelevant as claiming that evolution doesn't address origins. As if Euthyphro was some catch-all for all version of moral arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

I DO know how to address it but I wanted to take a vote if we should add it and how we should respond to it. I did the same when deleting the unnecessary section in the Euthyphro dilemma article. I don't like arbitrarily adding shit and fucking up the wiki. I can certainly do that but the purpose of my question was to get a swift refutation of the revised moral argument. Arguing this new argument takes more effort on the atheists' side and more time. Atheistic arguments should be succinct and swiftly delivered. The purpose of the euthyprho dilemma is ending the moral argument before it started ( no need for explaining the atheistic premises of how morality is naturalistic). On the other hand, your counter-arguments take a number of sub-premises and further explanation. The theist will take advantage of that. For example, premise 1 of this new moral argument would be supported by the impossibility of universal human legislation. Second premise can be easily argued. The theist will definitely argue the existence of objective moral truths and we are back to the stretched atheistic refutation which will take ages to discuss. Also, if you don't admit the existence of objective moral truths, the theist will appeal to emotion by implying that atheists are evil as they don't recognize what eevryone recognizes as good- a soft spot owned by the theist. Furthermore, I did not insinuate that the Euthyphro should address ALL moral argument but I was giving atheists a heads-up as to the modern moral argument where Euthyphro is useless and a new swift response should be made. Doesn't this require some collaboration and agreement on the counter-argument?

And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument. Your article there is very poor.
I should not be discussing this here but you need to know where your own wiki is the poorest in handling the best theistic arguments.

:: The article could be improved, many of them could. That's the purpose of having a wiki where a community can work together on responses. However, your implication that Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments is particularly ironic when you're seemingly unable to recognize the scope of Euthyphro...and just a bit further down in your response you're going to demonstrate that you are certainly not ready for prime time. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments. Ontological argument is dead (however, you might not have realized that there is a modal ontological argument advanced by Plantinga, which I introduced to this wiki). Design argument is dead (see my ultimate 747 gambit article, which I introduced and provided unprecedented counter-apologetic responses). Pascal's wager is dead. Kalam is the only one which has been constantly used in recent debates. Have you been to any recent debates?

"The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, or not a natural cause."

Craig adresses this point. You might want to mention that. This cause must be timeless, personal, yada yada yada. Even if it is wrong, it deserves a response (for the atheists' sake).

From wikipedia: With Kalām's conclusion logically following from its premises, Craig concludes by arguing that impersonal, scientific causation exterior to the universe could not cause a finite universe. He gives the example of the temperature being below zero infinitely, and thus any water, although caused to be frozen by the subzero temperature, could not begin to freeze; it would be frozen infinitely. Similarly, any condition that could cause the universe to exist would have to be infinitely, and thus the universe would also exist infinitely. The solution, Craig posits, is that the cause of the universe's beginning to exist must be a personal agent. Craig has extended this argument to conclude that the cause must also be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent.

Circularity- can't logic be admitted in NBE?

Counter-example- Craig addresses this point. These quantum flucutuations require pre-existing physical entities, returning to the question "what created the vacuum?".

Where's the kalam argument for atheists?

:: And that's the point at which you demonstrate that you're not yet ready to contribute here. Where's the Kalam argument for atheists? There isn't one, nor does there need to be one. That question betrays that you've been bamboozled by the burden of proof and that you find arguments from ignorance to still have teeth. As if the lack of an 'atheist Kalam' is remotely relevant to the soundness of Kalam... [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

No, my friend. You are NOT ready to take on counter-apologetics if you have no idea of what the kalam cosmological argument for atheists is, which has been introduced by atheist philosopher quentin smith. Search for it, please do! This is not a shift in the burden of proof, it is acounter-argument to the kalam which demonstates the inadequacy of the God explanation. This is exactly why the article is poor. It's amazing how you have no knowledge about this COMMONLY-used theistic argument. It is the most basic argument and you don't even know half of it (as demonstrated in this poorly-constructed kalam article).

Where's quentin smith?

Philosopher Quentin Smith states that "the universe...both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist."

Where's Oppy?

Where's imaginary time?

Where's the hartle-hawking model?

:: You were free to add any of those, instead of just whining about why they aren't there. It's clear that we got off on the wrong foot here, but my current role is little more than policeman and editor, I've got more projects than available time. If you think you've got a handle on Kalam, by all means attack it. I don't think you're up to the task but I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Sincerely. I'm not pissed, I'm not frustrated, I'm just being honest...from what I've seen, I am not convinced that you're really ready to be taking on these counter-apologetics. I'd like nothing more than to be wrong...because we'd all benefit. But, this conversation is currently a waste of my time and there's nothing I despise more than having my time wasted. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

I am going to; it's not whining. You also have poor articles on 'quran and science' which could be a powerful atheistic tool against islam'. There's no mentioning of the 'inimatibility of quran' argument. There are many arguments you have missed. As you see, I have my hands full and it seems that you are not ready taking on counter-apologetics from the apparent poverty of this wiki.

== Wissan ==
Go read your [[User talk:Wissam hemadeh]] page

There's no need to keep adding this discussion to this page.

User talk:Wissam hemadeh

2010-03-02T16:37:54Z

Sans Deity:

Wissam...

You're about two comments from being blocked and I'd really rather not do that, so let's clear a few things up.
#Sign your comments. It's really easy 4 tildes at the end of your comments will add the name and date stamp. (It's very difficult to follow discussion on talk pages when there's just a wall of text with no formatting and no signature)
#We don't need to have a discussion and take a vote about how to deal with a simple, obviously flawed argument
#Understand the scope in which you're working. Euthyphro shouldn't be a catch all for all moral arguments - feel free to create new pages
#Make sure you're familiar with posting rules, guidelines and wiki formatting. Visit the forum and/or talk to people who post regularly.
#Make sure you not only know who you're talking to, but make it clear who you're directing your comments to. Several of the comments you made, responding to me, don't seem to apply to me. The first step is to look at the history for a given page. You can see who has made changes and what changes they've made...that'll keep you from saying things like "your counter-arguments" to someone who didn't make them. (Note: At first, I took this to mean 'your arguments' as in 'your wiki'...but I'm not convinced you even knew that you were talking to the site owner.)

So, let's get to your actual comments, so we can clear the air and I can get back to work:

{{quote-source|Furthermore, I did not insinuate that the Euthyphro should address ALL moral argument but I was giving atheists a heads-up as to the modern moral argument where Euthyphro is useless and a new swift response should be made. Doesn't this require some collaboration and agreement on the counter-argument?|Wissan}}
The argument you presented is not an argument where Euthyphro is useless, it's just a moral argument that limits the use of Euthyphro as a response. We have an entire category for moral arguments, feel free to add a page for this one if it doesn't exist. No, we don't need collaboration and agreement on counter-arguments. We tend to list the counter arguments and they are then modified or removed. A wiki is a living document, we don't need a committee before adding a page and, in the end, a committee of 1 (me) may overturn the decisions.

{{quote-source|And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument.|Wissan}}
Thanks for your advice. There's a reason that I opened the wiki up to the public: I simply don't have time to do this, the TV show, the podcast, my ridiculously demanding regular job, e-mail, speaking engagements, ACA business and still find time to eat, sleep and occasionally socialize. There are many articles that simply don't exist. There are many that need some serious editing...but I've had to limit my efforts here to a bare minimum.

{{quote-source|Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments.|Wissan}}
Which is only slightly more impressive than being the least smelly dung pile.

{{quote-source|Kalam is the only one which has been constantly used in recent debates. Have you been to any recent debates?|Wissan}}
Clearly you have no idea who you're talking to. I say that not because I would have expected any special fawning...but because if you knew, you couldn't have said something so monumentally stupid. Whether or not I've been to a recent debate (I have) is entirely irrelevant. I'm involved in debates 7 days a week, with real theists of all stripes and Kalam isn't nearly so common as you might think. That said, it deserves a thorough response.

{{quote-source|No, my friend. You are NOT ready to take on counter-apologetics if you have no idea of what the kalam cosmological argument for atheists is, which has been introduced by atheist philosopher quentin smith. Search for it, please do!|Wissan}}
I have done...and you missed the point. Your implication was that without Kalam for atheism, one isn't ready to take on Kalam as an apologetic. This is false and it ignores the burden of proof. Kalam stands or falls on its own merits and the existence or non-existence of a Kalam-for-atheism is a secondary concern. I've read Smith's essay. It's interesting and contingent upon unproven particulars. I don't find it particularly compelling and I don't find that it is in any way superior, as a response, than simply exposing the flaws in Kalam. - HOWEVER, it is an argument that should be included, both in the counters to Kalam and as a page in the arguments for the non-existence of a god.
Your implication that one isn't ready for counter-apologetics if they don't possess an exhaustive familiarity with a particular argument is without merit. My concern was that you seemed to be confused about how to address a simple and obviously flawed argument...that concern was based on a miscommunication. You were asking for feedback on how to address it at the wiki, not feedback about how one should respond to it. The fact that you still missed the point that one has no more need of the Kalam for atheism than they do of the atheists wager in order to address the apologetic is still a minor concern.

{{quote-source|You also have poor articles on 'quran and science' which could be a powerful atheistic tool against islam'. There's no mentioning of the 'inimatibility of quran' argument. There are many arguments you have missed. As you see, I have my hands full and it seems that you are not ready taking on counter-apologetics from the apparent poverty of this wiki.|Wissan}}
Well, aren't we lucky you've arrived! There was no claim that the wiki is finished (as if it ever would be) or that it even had adequate coverage of most arguments...it's a resource, a work in progress and its state is entirely dependent on volunteer participation. While the goal would be to serve as the premiere treatment for these subjects no one has said we were anywhere close to that. Your comment is akin to walking into a garage where someone is building a car from scratch and saying, "Where's the odometer? There's no headliner or carpet? If you really cared about this car, you'd have a GPS system installed. You aren't ready for Daytona..." - and it's almost enough for me to revoke your welcome.

Fortunately, I'm not quite that reactionary. Go. Edit pages, add comments help improve the site like many others have done. Just sign your comments and try to be clear. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:37, 2 March 2010 (CST)

Talk:Euthyphro dilemma

2010-03-01T16:48:40Z

Sans Deity: /* Avoiding the Euthyphro problem */

I don't see the section on game theory as directly related to the Euthyphro dilemma. It is a useful jumping off point to talk about [[secular morality]], so perhaps a new article on that subject should be started and the game theory section moved there.

Question: should there be two separate articles on "morality" and "secular morality"? Another question: are "morality" and "ethics" the same subject, or do they require different articles?

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 17:39, 13 August 2006 (MST)

: Yeah, that was my attempt at rationalizing what the "external force" is from which God learns what is and isn't good. I agree that it doesn't really fit in well here, so feel free to move it (or delete it, if you want to obliterate my deathless prose :-) ).
: Also, I have no idea what the difference is between "ethics" and "morality". I've added these to the "wanted pages" page, in hopes that someone will define them.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 20:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)

== Rolled back ==

The content of this article were removed as they were incorporated into the moral argument page. I've rolled this back to the pre-deletion state. At worst, this should have been changed to a re-direct and the moral argument page should include a section on the Euthyphro dilemma. However, it's also not unreasonable to have some nearly-duplicate content if the subject is one which we reference by name or where there is a potential difference. The moral argument page could reference this page, include it, etc. I haven't made up my mind on what the preferred solution should be - but before we go deleting content, let's see if we can figure out the best way to get to virtually-identical ideas to mesh. I'll be looking over both pages and encourage others to do the same - but, for now, let's keep this content available. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

== A better summary. ==

1. If god is the author of morality, then god himself cannot be said to be moral. In this case, god is not truly interested in morality per se, but merely obedience.

2. If god is not the author of morality, then belief in god is not necessary to be moral. It is still rendered questionable as to whether god even cares about morality, since he is uninvolved in the concept. --[[User:Yeahsurewhatever|Yeahsurewhatever]] 10:12, 15 March 2009 (CDT)

: Your point 1 seems to be a [[non sequitur]]. How does "God is not moral" follow from "God is the author of morality"? (Which I understand to mean "God made up the rules as to what is and isn't moral.) Couldn't God hypothetically decide that killing people is bad, then go kill a bunch of people in violation of his own rule? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 22:15, 15 March 2009 (CDT)

: God can be the author of morality '''and''' be said to be moral if-and-only-if moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Keep in mind, however, that this means "God is moral" is an ontological statement, not a moral valuation; i.e., God is the final reference point in moral predication. -- [[User:Ryft|Ryft]] 21:37, 23 August 2009 (CDT)

:: You sound like you are following the argument of Thomas Aquinas, who answered that morality is the nature of God and as such his commands are not themselves moral or immoral but are rather an expression of his moral nature. But all this does is answer the question - he chose one of the two options Euthyphro and Socrates gave (that is, he's saying that things are okay to do if God says to do them). He did not actually answer the dilemma. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 10:34, 25 August 2009 (CDT)

== Not unsolvable ==

I disagree that this is a paradox, and it isn't circular either, here is why:

The fist paragraph states that whatever God commands is good (or moral) by definition (according to Christians). The second sentence is: things are good because God commands it. This is '''not''' circular reasoning, this is simply restating the definition.

Further, if you accept this definition, then there is no sense talking about an "external source" for morality, because by definition there is no such thing. So the answer to the dilemma is: Something is good ''because'' God commands it. And of course if you do something else, that's called immoral.

Now, in theory this could mean that God could command killing and stealing (as he did according to the Bible). But at that point it would not matter, because per definition that would be moral. If you "believe", you might trust that that act has some ultimate purpose for the benefit of humans or humanity as a whole, but that does not change anything, and does not cause a paradox either. Remember, with the "rape" argument, you are trying to use your '''current''' sense of morality to judge something that would be happening in a completely different moral value system, this is not a good argument.

As for the quote from Bertrand Russell. I agree with the conclusion, that in this case, it would be pointless to apply "moral" or "immoral" to God, since it is in fact defined as his wishes or acts. So what? It still makes sense for us to "hope" or "trust" that God's "plan" aligns with our best interests (this last bit might be another definition of what's "good", for us at least).

The conclusion is, that if you believe that God exists, define moral as his wishes/acts/commands, than this dilemma is not unsolvable.

--[[User:Robert|Robert]] 06:02, 19 August 2009 (CDT)

== Morality versus Ethics ==

As I understand it (in this context), 'ethics' examines and/or compares theories of values and morals, while 'morality' examines the implications and applications of a specific theory of ethics. -- [[User:Ryft|Ryft]] 21:30, 23 August 2009 (CDT)

== What the hell does this mean? ==

"Theists will claim that because God's nature is supposedly eternal and unchanging, that God's nature was not "created" by himself or otherwise. To overcome the objection, it may be necessary to restate the dilemma as a true dichotomy: either (i) Morality is derived from God or (ii) Morality is not derived from God. The burden of proof remains with the apologist to demonstrate that (i) is a true claim, irrespective of whether such morality is dependent on God's fiat or God's nature. It falls to the apologist to justify the claim that God's nature is necessarily good, and therefore that the various immoralities of scripture may be considered moral."

This was added to the article. What does it mean? Is it even necessary?

'Is morality derived from God?'- is a question which is begging the question since it needs a god to exist for morality to be derived from him, even though God's nature is not created and morality is independent of a deity (this means premise 1 of the moral argument is refuted).

: It does seem redundant. I'm in favor of deleting this section. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:34, 27 February 2010 (CST)

::Agreed. Same with the "not unsolvable" section above. Both miss the point of what the dilemma is. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 01:35, 28 February 2010 (CST)

== Avoiding the Euthyphro problem ==

Of course, this argument is sound and is useful in refuting the moral argument. However, the moral argument can be reformulated to suit the theist.

1. Universal moral laws require a universal 'spreader'.

2. Universal moral laws exist.

3. Universal 'spreader' (aka God) exists.

How can we avoid this argument?

Also, I would like to share wikipedia's info on the dilemma. Please, have a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

:: Seriously? I don't mean to sound insulting but if you need to ask that question, you probably shouldn't be editing a counter-apologetics wiki.
:: - 1 is an unfounded assertion... not only have they not demonstrated this to be true but it's possible that such a moral law might arise as an emergent property.
:: - 2 simply isn't true.. there is no evidence that universal moral laws exist and every reason to think they don't. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 02:46, 1 March 2010 (CST)

What the hell? This is actually a common argument and I wanted to share this one because Euthyphro does notb adress it. This is a counter-apologetics wiki and the main page states exactly my point: "We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "evidence" for religious claims."
Shouldn't we be adressing this argument?

:: Sure we should, my point was that asking how to address it SHOULD have been unnecessary - you should know how to address it if you're contributing here. That was my point. Additionally, your claim that Euthyphro doesn't address it is as irrelevant as claiming that evolution doesn't address origins. As if Euthyphro was some catch-all for all version of moral arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument. Your article there is very poor.
I should not be discussing this here but you need to know where your own wiki is the poorest in handling the best theistic arguments.

:: The article could be improved, many of them could. That's the purpose of having a wiki where a community can work together on responses. However, your implication that Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments is particularly ironic when you're seemingly unable to recognize the scope of Euthyphro...and just a bit further down in your response you're going to demonstrate that you are certainly not ready for prime time. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

"The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, or not a natural cause."

Craig adresses this point. You might want to mention that. This cause must be timeless, personal, yada yada yada. Even if it is wrong, it deserves a response (for the atheists' sake).

From wikipedia: With Kalām's conclusion logically following from its premises, Craig concludes by arguing that impersonal, scientific causation exterior to the universe could not cause a finite universe. He gives the example of the temperature being below zero infinitely, and thus any water, although caused to be frozen by the subzero temperature, could not begin to freeze; it would be frozen infinitely. Similarly, any condition that could cause the universe to exist would have to be infinitely, and thus the universe would also exist infinitely. The solution, Craig posits, is that the cause of the universe's beginning to exist must be a personal agent. Craig has extended this argument to conclude that the cause must also be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent.

Circularity- can't logic be admitted in NBE?

Counter-example- Craig addresses this point. These quantum flucutuations require pre-existing physical entities, returning to the question "what created the vacuum?".

Where's the kalam argument for atheists?

:: And that's the point at which you demonstrate that you're not yet ready to contribute here. Where's the Kalam argument for atheists? There isn't one, nor does there need to be one. That question betrays that you've been bamboozled by the burden of proof and that you find arguments from ignorance to still have teeth. As if the lack of an 'atheist Kalam' is remotely relevant to the soundness of Kalam... [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

Where's quentin smith?

Philosopher Quentin Smith states that "the universe...both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist."

Where's Oppy?

Where's imaginary time?

Where's the hartle-hawking model?

:: You were free to add any of those, instead of just whining about why they aren't there. It's clear that we got off on the wrong foot here, but my current role is little more than policeman and editor, I've got more projects than available time. If you think you've got a handle on Kalam, by all means attack it. I don't think you're up to the task but I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Sincerely. I'm not pissed, I'm not frustrated, I'm just being honest...from what I've seen, I am not convinced that you're really ready to be taking on these counter-apologetics. I'd like nothing more than to be wrong...because we'd all benefit. But, this conversation is currently a waste of my time and there's nothing I despise more than having my time wasted. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)

Talk:Euthyphro dilemma

2010-03-01T08:46:41Z

Sans Deity: /* Avoiding the Euthyphro problem */

User talk:Sans Deity

2009-11-19T00:17:25Z

Sans Deity: /* User Falseprophet */

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

2009-10-28T21:43:05Z

Sans Deity: The earth-sun distance is not random. This paragraph was not an accurate, scientific response to the question.

<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 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.

Sermon on the Mount

2009-01-19T22:02:15Z

Sans Deity: /* Adultery */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, if we were to do away with legal oaths, and rely on every imprecise word subject to interpretation being a legally binding contract, civil life would be far more difficult. Imagine every time you joked or spoke exageratingly you were held as if you were swearing into a binding legal document. While it's good advice to speak honestly, doing away with contractual oaths is a recipe for disaster.

And this "wisdom" either borrows from or contradicts the Old Testament, where it suggests avoiding vows because with the rationality that, as long as you don't swear something, you aren't obliged to follow through on it {{Bible|Deuteronomy 23:21-23}} Jesus is either taking this to an extreme "let your oaths be none" or he is saying "let everything you say be an oath." Either way the effect is rather the same: contractual oaths are either devalued by their continuous use, or they are complete ignored and never implemented.

Honesty is a good idea, but getting rid of contractual oaths is legal suicide.}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Thomas

2008-12-02T21:41:26Z

Sans Deity:

If you can bring something interesting to the table, I'm more than willing to discuss the issue! [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 22:27, 30 November 2008 (CST)

Your "improvements" of the St Augustine page were inconsistent with reality. I modified them as little as possible. Our discussion is an entirely separate issue. [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 23:52, 30 November 2008 (CST)

I suggest you review [[Project:NPOV]]. [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 00:45, 1 December 2008 (CST)

== Please sign ==

Please [[project:sign your comments|sign your comments]] on talk pages. And you shouldn't italicize every comment you make, since ''italics'' on talk pages are usually taken to mean you're quoting someone else's words (for example, text from the article — that's why [[User:Rivalarrival]] [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:You_can%27t_prove_God_doesn%27t_exist&diff=9939&oldid=9937 italicized your original text] before he responded to it on [[Talk:You can't prove God doesn't exist]]). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:57, 2 December 2008 (CST)

'''NOTE''' I blocked this user for a month. I haven't had time to review all of the edits, but there were some NPOV problems, some possible proselytizing and he managed to turn a talk page into a debate forum. This isn't the place for that. Also, we don't need counter-counter-counter-counter-apologetic entries... apologetic argument/counter-apologetic response, the end. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 15:41, 2 December 2008 (CST)

Talk:Bad arguments against the existence of God

2008-11-23T16:05:25Z

Sans Deity:

Thanks for starting this, I've been wanting to do something similar for a while...but we need to make a few changes.

1. Instead of calling this "bad arguments...", we should retitle this in a way that it's clear that these arguments are often ineffective.

Your first entry, for example, may be ineffective as you've presented it, but I think this is actually a pretty good argument. Here's why:

What does omniscience mean?
1. All knowledge, including future events, without error
2. All knowledge, excluding future events, without error
3. All possible knowledge

Your apologists example, that omniscience simply means knowing all possible outcomes should not count. I know all possible outcomes of a coin toss, but I have no knowledge of what the actual result will be until it occurs. Am I 'coin-toss omniscient'?

In this case, your apologist is simply cheating to avoid the very problem we're trying to address here. Your apologist's redefinition is simply the equivalent of definition 2, above.

Definition 3 is useless, because we have no way of knowing what knowledge is possible. This is an ambiguous definition. Definition 2 (and your apologist's dirivative) leads to other objections, about how such a god could ever make reliable prophecy. Definition 1 is, for most people who believe in an omniscient creator, the only one that really conforms to what they believe - without creating new contradictions with their other beliefs.

The second part of this issue also includes a dilemma. If this omniscient being created the universe, did it have a choice about how to do this? Could it have created a universe with a slightly different progression?

If the answer is no, then we can address the power of this deity, by pointing out that if it had no choice about how to make the universe, then it isn't all powerful - the universe could only have come about in one way...and this kills about a dozen of their fine-tuning arguments and other claims.

If the answer is yes, then we can address this by pointing out that a creative deity, specifically chose to make the universe we live in (from a pool of possible universes) with foreknowledge of future events. This '''does''' eliminate free will, in any meaningful sense and it does place the responsibility for everything squarely on the deity.

It's not like creating a world and letting it run, it's more like creating the pre-rendered, scripted intro to that virtual world. It runs the same way, every time, exactly as you planned it. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:05, 23 November 2008 (CST)

Problem of evil

2008-10-13T13:47:55Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Tolentothe (Talk); changed back to last version by Arensb

{{wikipedia}}
The '''problem of evil''' points out a [[logical contradiction]] in the traditional conceptions of the nature of [[God]] and the world.

Suppose we have the following four premises:
# God is [[omnipotent]].
# God is [[omnibenevolent]].
# God is [[omniscient]].
# [[Evil]] exists.

As [[David Hume]] wrote, (paraphrasing [[Epicurus]]): {{Quote-source|Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?|''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'' }}

We get the following contradiction. If God is omnibenevolent, then He does not want evil to exist. If God is omniscient, then He must know about all evil in the world. If God is omnipotent, then He must be capable of doing something about it. Therefore, evil should not exist. Dropping any one of those four premises would resolve the contradiction, but dropping #4 would require us to fundamentally redefine evil in some way, and dropping the other three would undermine the Christian concept of God.

==Theodicy==
A [[theodicy]] is a proposed solution to the problem of evil. Coined by Gottfried Leibniz in 1710 in a work called "Theodicy Essay on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil".

A theodicy can generally be divided into four categories, each typically rejecting one of the four premises used to make the argument. The argument is, after all, not an argument for the non-existence of God but an argument for the non-existence of God with the characteristics of [[omniscience]], [[omnipotence]], and [[omnibenevolence]] in the presence of evil. Some arguments aren't solutions to the problem but justifications.

When compared to a easily prevented, extremely 'evil' act, such as the rape and murder of a child or a gross atrocity like the holocaust, slavery or other genocides most theodicies crumble, quickly exposing them as sophistry with worse implications than the original problem.

===God is not omnipotent===
====Free will====
It is often claimed that evil exists because God gave humans [[free will]]. According to the Bible, God's gift of free will led to the fall of [[Adam and Eve]] through their [[original sin]]. Free will is assumed to be a greater good than the evil that it causes or is needed by God to serve some purpose. For example, free will is required for people to love God in a free and open fashion. So if a young girl is raped and murdered, this is because God needed the rapists free will so that his actions could result in greater good or so that the rapist could freely love God.

This argument also fails to explain why God allows natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. These events kill large numbers of people in specific geographical locations, which indicates that the concept of "evil" is not necessarily tied to what people do. Furthermore, it fails to account for evil done to people against their will. The argument of free will is used to justify why a infant can be killed, however the infant's invoked no measure of free will to allow for this evil to result. So in order to give the gift of free will to this infant, this child is murdered without having any choice in the matter.

Even if we define natural disasters as not being evil, there remains the fact that they occur, and that God does not prevent them or the deaths and suffering they cause. If we replace "evil" with "suffering" in the discussion above, the problem remains: either God is unaware of people's suffering, and is therefore not omniscient; or he is unable to do anything, and is therefore not omnipotent; or he is unwilling to intervene, and is therefore not omnibenevolent.

There is also the question of [[heaven]]. Heaven, being a perfectly wonderful place, does not contain evil. Does this mean that inhabitants of heaven no longer retain their free will? Or does their will suddenly become perfectly good?

====Best of all possible worlds====
Apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] have made the claim that although there may be some evil in the world, this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. {{Wikipedia|Pangloss}}

This theodicy suggests that no improvement may be made to the world. Preventing children from dying in a [[tsunami]] or the [[holocaust]] from happening would be impossible for God. Plantinga argues that God's power is limited in that he cannot sin and cannot violate free will. However, there are plenty of improvements one could make to this world without violating free will or requiring God to sin.

Although, it is not a direct problem with the claim itself, it is important to note that many theists who propose this claim also believe in [[Heaven]] which is believed to be an even better world than this one. If this is the best world able to be created then Heaven cannot be created.

====Tough love====
[[Apologists]] often claim that what appears to be harmful to humans may, in fact, be for humanity's good. How can we learn, the argument goes, without making our own mistakes?

The "tough love" argument only works if God is limited in power. If God is omnipotent there is nothing he can not teach us gently that he can teach us harshly. If he is benevolent than he would never choose to teach us a harsh lesson when it could be taught, with exactly the same impact, gently.

Another problem with this argument is that although according to this argument, God wants us to grow as people by learning from our mistakes, according to most religious doctrine he also wants worship. Worship involves complete obedience and submission, whereas learning from mistakes requires using one's intelligence. It is contradictory to claim that God wants us to be both completely obedient and make decisions for ourselves, since complete obedience means blindly obeying authority, for example the story of Abraham and Issac ({{Bible|Genesis 22:1-19}}).

====Really powerful, not all-powerful====
God is not all-powerful in the sense that he can create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it. So, God is omnibenevolent, omniscience, and really really powerful.

If a child is raped and killed, this is because God is not powerful enough to prevent it? I could prevent that and would strive to with the smallest degree of foreknowledge. So if this argument is to succeed it must conclude that I am more powerful than God.

====God does not exist====
God is unable to prevent evil because God does not exist.
Argument does not apply to non-existing gods.

===God is not omnibenevolent===
====Redefining benevolence====
One way to redefine the term 'benevolence' is to cite limited human perspective in space and time. A parent might spank a child for running into traffic, or take a child to the doctor for painful, life saving, injections. It is only in the limited, child's-eye-view that these things are malevolent.

As with the "tough love" argument, this view of God implicitly denies his omnipotence or, at least, his omnisciences. What kind of parent purposely takes his child for a surgery which he knows the child does not need or want?

Another way to redefine 'benevolence' is to argue that God may be benevolent to specific humans or to non-humans. Our entire history may exist for the positive influence it may have on aliens we have not met. We may be actors in a puppet show that makes these beings happy. After all, it is perfectly possible for benevolent humans to play comically violent video games with their delighted children.

But this argument is sophistry. To win the argument the apologist defines a God that neither we nor he would have much reason to worship. For example, if the creatures in a violent "Run and Gun" video game were to gain self awareness, would we expect them to view us as benevolent beings worthy of their love and trust as we blast them into electronic oblivion?

And, if God is not benevolent toward humans, then what differentiates him from a human sociopath or from the [[Devil]]?

The problem of evil must be taken up in the context of humanity. No other context would make a God useful to humans in any realistic way. A God that is benevolent to others at lethal expense to humans is, by definition, malevolent, or at least indifferent, toward humans. It is an unusual apologist indeed who believes in this type of God.

====Evil is a consequence of disobeying God====
Evil exists not because it was created by God but because it results from our disobeying of God's divine laws.

Blame the victims? So if bad things happen to you, they are because you are disobeying God. What about when an infant drowns, that is punishment for the infant who made no choices or is it punishment somebody else who isn't the victim?

====Perfection implies no lacking====
God is also evil. The argument does not apply.

====God allows evil so that the good is appreciated====
God wants to be loved and is very vain. He wants to be loved so much that he allows many evils to befall mankind so that they appreciate the good more. Much as the blind man healed by Jesus appreciated his sight more because of his blindness.

===God is not omniscient===
Unlike the other characteristics of God, omniscient isn't necessarily required for the argument. Any situation god doesn't see can still be created as intended directly with the power of omnipotence.

====God does Good. Satan does Evil.====
God only has limited omniscience, he cannot see the future. God simply did not know that Satan would turn against him because he cannot know the future. Satan blindsided God, who lacks knowledge future knowledge, and created evil himself. God was betrayed and Satan is the reason evil exists.

If God is all-good and all-powerful, he should snuff out Satan and promptly remove all evil from the world.

===Evil does not exist===
====Redefining evil====
As with "benevolence", "evil" can be redefined. What is "evil" for humans may not be evil for God. In fact, anything that God chooses to do can be construed as "good". Using this argument, "evil" can not exist in any definable terms when applied to God.

Besides the arguments already used in the "Tough Love" response (an all powerful God would have no reason even to appear evil) here, the apologist treads dangerously close to [[ethical relativism]]. We know from information in the bible that ethical rules have changed at the will of God. Is God, then, a relativist?

If the answer is that God is following an ethical plan, then the apologist opens himself up to the [[Euthyphro dilemma]]. If the answer is that God changes as he sees fit and anything that god declares as good is good, then what is the difference between being a relativist and following a relativist God?

When an apologist tries to redefine the premises of "the problem of evil" he finds himself in a morass of relativism, but when he tries to work with the premises he finds himself unwittingly limiting the unlimited God of his religion.

====Evil is an illusion====
We believe that evil exists because we view things like genocide as bad. We are simply wrong, all of these things are good.

Which suggests that everything which has ever happened is objectively good: [[rape]], the [[holocaust]], [[slavery]], [[genocide]]. In order defend this theodicy, a proponent would need to agree that any horrific thing you could mention is a good thing to do.

====It is all part of the plan====
God's divine plan is good. What we think is evil is not, rather it's a part of God's plan we are misidentifying as evil because we cannot see the big picture.

The holocaust is part of God's divine plan? Young girls being raped and murdered is part of God's plan? If such things are part of God's plan, even without seeing the big picture one must conclude that it's a really bad plan. Furthermore, what is the point of a plan if one is all powerful? There are no steps needed, simply create the end results.

====Evil is a test====
Evil is needed so that God can test people.

The holocaust is a test of faith? Whose faith is tested when a child is murdered? If God is omniscient, then God already knows what humans will do in any test.

====Evil is the absence of Good====
Just as cold is the absence of hot and dark is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

This contradicts an omnipresent deity. Furthermore, if accurate than an omnipotent omnibenevolent deity should employ his omnipotence to be omnipresent in order to stand vigilant against evil.

===Justifications===
====You bring evil on yourself====
God is good and does good, but any evil you do you brought upon yourself. This is principle the theodicy of Islam.

If you are raped, you were bad. If you have a holocaust happen to you, you were bad. If something bad happens to you, you brought it on yourself. This theodicy consists of blaming the victim.

====Heaven exists after this world====
After you die you can go to heaven which evens everything out in the end. Regardless of what pain and suffering exists here, heaven will balance out the scales.

This has nothing to do with the argument, rather it's a conclusion that it doesn't matter if there is evil, rather than address the logical consequence of an incompatible deity with an evil filled world.

==False trilemma?==
One could argue that the argument above does not cover all possibilities, much like C.S. Lewis's trilemma "[[Liar, Lunatic or Lord]]", which does not consider alternate possibilities like "Legend".

However, the problem of evil can be restated as follows:
# If evil exists, and God is omniscient, then God knows about it.
# If God knows about evil, and is omnibenevolent, then he wants to prevent it.
# If God wants to prevent evil, and is omnipotent, then he can prevent it (if God wants something to happen, then it happens).
# Therefore, if God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, then evil should not exist.

In this restated form, the branches of the argument follow from each other to form a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]''.

==The problem of good==

It is fairly easy to flip the argument around: if we postulate that
God is all-evil, the problem of evil becomes the problem of good: why
would an infinitely evil god allow good to exist?

Many or all of the arguments against the problem of evil can easily be
turned around to argue against the problem of good:
* People do good deeds because God gave us free will, which in turn allows us to torment each other in ways that mere automata couldn't.
* Natural beauty, such as sunsets or the majesty of a starry sky, exists so that we may more deeply appreciate the ugliness around us.
* Mystery: while some instances of good may remain unexplained, who can claim to understand the mind of an infinitely evil god?

If the existence of evil in the universe that also includes a lot of
good does not point to an infinitely evil god, then it follows that
the existence of good in a universe that also includes a lot of evil
does not point to the existence of an infinitely good god.

==See also==
* [[Theodicy]]
* [[Problem of Hell]]

==External links==
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil]
* [http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/John_Wright/Hume%20Dialogue%2010.htm Hume and the Evidential Problem of Evil]
* Stephen Law, ''[http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html The God of Eth]'' — the problem of good
{{Def-word|sophistry}}

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

Petitio principii

2008-10-07T20:12:04Z

Sans Deity: Reverting unnecessary change...potentially correct either way

{{wikipedia}}
'''Begging the question''', which goes by the technical name '''petitio principii''', is a [[logical fallacy]] (technically, an [[Wikipedia:informal fallacy|informal fallacy]]) that occurs when an [[argument]] implicitly assumes its conclusion.

For example, consider the following exchange:
: Q: How do you know the [[Bible]] is correct?
: A: Because it was written by [[God]].

The answer begs the question, "How do you know that God wrote it?"

Note that if the answer to this question is, "Because it says so in the Bible," then this is an example of [[circular reasoning]]. If, however, the answer involves a discussion of how the Bible has been "confirmed" scientifically, archaeologically, historically, and/or prophetically, then depending on the evidence presented this may be a case of [[non-sequitur]] reasoning, [[cherry picking]], or being just plain wrong.

==Grammar note==
People often refer to "begging the question" when they really simply mean "raising another question". For example:
: "You say that [[theism]] makes more sense than [[atheism]], but that just ''begs the question'' of which [[religion]]/[[philosophy]] I should choose to believe."
This is not an appropriate use of the term, since the question being raised is not implicit in the preceding statement.

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Mythicism

2008-03-27T13:09:42Z

Sans Deity:

'''Mythicism''' is the general position that [[Jesus]] was not a historical person but a [[legend]] and that the [[gospel]]s were therefore written as a work of fiction. Much the same as [[Wikipedia:William Tell|William Tell]], [[Wikipedia:Paul Bunyan|Paul Bunyan]], [[Wikipedia:Robin Hood|Robin Hood]] and [[Wikipedia:King Arthur|King Arthur]] are generally considered non-historical, mythicists argue that Jesus should added to the list. The reasons for mythicism is typically an [[argument from silence]] and the parallels to other known myths.

==Argument==
* There is no contemporary evidence such that Jesus existed.
* The story of Jesus resembles the stories of other generally fictional characters.
* The onus is on those individuals who claim there was a historical Jesus to back up this positive claim.
** One should not believe in a historical Jesus.

===There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus===
* The [[Gospels]]
** Four text copied from each other, [[Mark]] perhaps having been written as fiction and the source of the story itself.
* The writings of Paul
** Paul may have been writing about a divine figure rather than a historical one.
* Christian [[apocrypha]]
** Stories about the stories do not qualify as historical evidence, any more than additional books about Superman prove the existence of Superman.
* [[Josephus]]
** There are good reasons to assume the relevant passages in Josephus are a forgery.
* [[Tacitus]]
** Tacitus reported on the existence of Christians. Nobody disputes the existence of Christians.
* [[Suetonius]]: ''As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome''
** Chrestus is a Jewish word meaning good or useful. The reference is about events 20 years after Jesus is said to have died. The passage might just be referring to Christians.
* [[Pliny the Younger]]: ''Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.''
** The passage refers to Christians being annoying rather than a historical Jesus.
* Many early Christians (who may have known a historical Jesus) died for their beliefs, and they wouldn't die for a lie.
** The above passage of [[Pliny the Younger]] suggests that they start worshiping Roman gods and cursing Christ, long before giving their lives.

===The story of Jesus resembles other myths===
* Those stories are invented by the devil.
* A lot of parallels are stretches.
** For example [[Horus]] is said to be born of a virgin, when he was born (in one telling of the story) of Hathor and the reassembled body of Osiris.
* Joseph Campbell's ''[[Hero With a Thousand Faces]]'' showed a general outline for myths, even without the myths being inter-related. A notable amount of the argument for mythicism is that the early Christians stole the God ideas from other groups rather than invented them outright. This is not necessarily the case.

===The burden is on those who argue there is a historical Jesus===
* It is generally accepted that there is a historical Jesus.
* The places in the Gospels exist.

==Criticisms==
* Mythicism is a fringe position.

==Counter-apologetics==
In the weak form — "we shouldn't believe in a historical Jesus or actively disbelieve the proposition" — it is hard to argue that a character should be accepted as due to the lack of good evidence of historicity. Keeping this in mind, it becomes progressively harder to accept a divine one if there doesn't exist the grounds for a historical one.

[[Category:Jesus]]

Ray Comfort

2008-02-21T06:24:56Z

Sans Deity: /* Counter Responses */

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

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

==Favorite arguments==

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

===The Watchmaker Argument===

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

This is the [[argument from design]].

===The Banana Argument===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Comfort

2008-02-21T06:24:06Z

Sans Deity:

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

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

==Favorite arguments==

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

===The Watchmaker Argument===

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

This is the [[argument from design]].

===The Banana Argument===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Comfort

2008-02-21T06:21:34Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Sans Deity (Talk); changed back to last version by LtCmd.Lore

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

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

==Favorite arguments==

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

===The Watchmaker Argument===

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

This is the [[argument from design]].

===The Banana Argument===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ray Comfort

2008-02-17T16:56:40Z

Sans Deity: /* Counter Responses */

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

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

==Favorite arguments==

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

===The Watchmaker Argument===

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

This is the [[argument from design]].

===The Banana Argument===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Sans Deity

2007-09-28T15:19:08Z

Sans Deity: /* Odd... got my wiki account working but the forum account fails. */

== Comments/Requests ==

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

:: When I last looked, it wasn't possible to add these due to limitations of my hosting service. I'll try to dig into this issue again, but (as I'm sure everyone has noticed) I really haven't had the time to focus on the wiki. I'll need to set aside a block of time to do this, but I'm not only spread to thin, I now have to start looking for a new job (Sept. 1 is my last day). I'll try to make time before then. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::: "''limitations of my hosting service''" — Because of their version of PHP? I'd say, if that's the reason, you need to start complaining to your hosting service. (The current stable release of MediaWiki doesn't even ''support'' PHP4 anymore.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:10, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

That seems to have done the trick for now. Good job, Matt! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

: I've also tried to start using the "[[WikimediaMeta:Help:Patrolled edit|Mark as patrolled]]" feature a bit more. When you select a "diff" from the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page (not from a page's history, though), you can mark the edit as "patrolled" (if it hasn't already been done), meaning it was a legitimate edit. Unpatrolled edits are marked with a red exclamation point (!) on the Recent changes page. Only admins can mark edits as patrolled. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:01, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Interestingly, admins can even patrol their own edits. I guess if you're an admin you can be trusted not to abuse this feature.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:49, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

== Another extension ==

In addition to the '''Cite.php''' extension I requested [[#Cite.php for ref's|above]], I've come across another extension it would be nice to have: '''[[WikimediaMeta:Help:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]]''' (which requires >= MediaWiki 1.6.8). This would make it possible to simply copy over any Wikipedia (for example) templates that use '''#if''' and the like, without needing to translate them to use our [[Template:If]]. For example, [[Template:Cite journal|this one]], which a user has already [[Talk:Hares chew their cud|tried to use]] in an article here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

User talk:Tatarize

2007-09-28T15:18:43Z

Sans Deity:

Your forum account has been activated and added to the member's list.[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:18, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

User talk:Tatarize

2007-09-28T15:18:29Z

Sans Deity:

Your forum account has been activated and added to the member's list.

Talk:Problem of evil

2007-06-29T15:42:51Z

Sans Deity: /* Animal suffering */

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

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

== Animal suffering ==

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

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

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

User talk:Sans Deity

2007-06-27T22:22:09Z

Sans Deity: /* Cite.php for ref's */

== Comments/Requests ==

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

:: When I last looked, it wasn't possible to add these due to limitations of my hosting service. I'll try to dig into this issue again, but (as I'm sure everyone has noticed) I really haven't had the time to focus on the wiki. I'll need to set aside a block of time to do this, but I'm not only spread to thin, I now have to start looking for a new job (Sept. 1 is my last day). I'll try to make time before then. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

That seems to have done the trick for now. Good job, Matt! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

: I've also tried to start using the "[[WikimediaMeta:Help:Patrolled edit|Mark as patrolled]]" feature a bit more. When you select a "diff" from the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page (not from a page's history, though), you can mark the edit as "patrolled" (if it hasn't already been done), meaning it was a legitimate edit. Unpatrolled edits are marked with a red exclamation point (!) on the Recent changes page. Only admins can mark edits as patrolled. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:01, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Interestingly, admins can even patrol their own edits. I guess if you're an admin you can be trusted not to abuse this feature.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:49, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

== Another extension ==

In addition to the '''Cite.php''' extension I requested [[#Cite.php for ref's|above]], I've come across another extension it would be nice to have: '''[[WikimediaMeta:Help:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]]''' (which requires >= MediaWiki 1.6.8). This would make it possible to simply copy over any Wikipedia (for example) templates that use '''#if''' and the like, without needing to translate them to use our [[Template:If]]. For example, [[Template:Cite journal|this one]], which a user has already [[Talk:Hares chew their cud|tried to use]] in an article here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Omnibenevolence

2007-06-24T16:13:40Z

Sans Deity:

=Not a common word=
Actually, I usually only see atheists using this word, and never theists. The [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God classical definition] of the monotheistic deity is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect, so a theist can counter that you're making a straw-man. It should not be used. –[[User:Reinis|Reinis]] 14:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
:They're free to claim a straw-man, as long as they don't believe that their god isn't all good, doesn't dictate morality, isn't perfectly just... whether or not theists commonly use a specific term is irrelevant to whether or not the term applies to their concept of god. Without the concept of omnibenevolence, regardless of the term used, theodicy becomes a non-issue. In any case, there's no justification not to include the term, or the concept at the wiki. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
::I think their arguments usually go more along the lines that God equals morality because he is the creator, meaning that everything that it does or commands is always moral. They also often say that it isn't supposed to be all-good, only absolutely just. Anyway, my point was that one should not assume that all theists believe their god is omnibenevolent. –[[User:Reinis|Reinis]] 03:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
:::We're not assuming that all theists believe anything (beyond the existence of something they call god) - I fact, we're not assuming anything. We're simply listing and responding to arguments and trying to cover as much ground as possible. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:13, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Omnibenevolence

2007-06-23T21:35:10Z

Sans Deity:

User talk:Sans Deity

2007-06-12T17:26:08Z

Sans Deity: Killing the vandals

== Comments/Requests ==

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Cosmological argument

2007-06-12T17:23:55Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by AgtM34 (Talk); changed back to last version by Arensb

The '''cosmological argument''', or "first cause" argument, takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe. The cause is assumed to be [[God]].

There is also a specific form known as the [[kalam]] argument.

==Apologetics==

The argument runs like this:
# Everything that exists must have a cause.
# If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
# This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
# But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
# Therefore, God exists.

==Counter-Apologetics==

# The most concise answer to this argument is: "[[Who created God?]]", which in turn raises the question "Who created God's creator?", and so on ad infinitum. This is also related to the phrase "[[It's turtles all the way down]]".
# There is a contradiction between the first statement and the second statement. If "everything that exists has a cause" then there cannot exist anything that does not have a cause, which means that there is no first cause. Either some things can exist without causes, or nothing can. It can't be both ways.
# It is not necessarily the case that there are not an infinite chain of causes and effects. It is widely agreed among scientists that our universe had a beginning (the [[Big Bang]]) but we don't know what occurred in the first split second after the big bang, nor can we comment on anything that came before it, as no experiments have yet been devised to test any theories about these early moments. (For further discussion on this topic, see the "Big Bang" article.)
# This argument can be associated with the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the amount of mass and energy in the universe will remain constant. They cannot prove the proposition "Everything has a cause." without proving the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since this law only talks about mass and energy, space-time itself can, as far as we know, pop into existence whenever it wants. Some scientists, especially those who favor M-theory, say that, in a multi-universe model, when two universes collide it could create a matter and energy in a big bang, which would be the cause of mass and energy. Therefore, it is entirely possible for the universe to arise from material sources.

===Why assume the first cause is god-like?===
Even if we grant that a first cause exists, it makes no sense to assume that it is any kind of god, let alone [[Yahweh]]. The idea of an intelligent, universe-creating god "just existing" is '''far''' more difficult to explain than the universe itself "just existing". [[Intelligence]] is one of the most complex things we are aware of in the universe. To assume a being who is so intelligent that it can design an entire universe, as well as micromanage the personal lives of billions of people on earth through prayer, would require an enormous amount of explanation.

Christians try to avoid this issue by saying "God does not need a cause because He is outside of time." This is a glib non-answer. If all that is required to get around the first cause argument is an entity that exists outside of time, then all we need to do is postulate a single particle that exists outside of time and triggered the big bang. It need not have any special powers at all. Besides, this particle might even exist, depending on how you define "outside of time". Photons, light particles, do not experience time, since they move at the speed of light. Therefore, according to this argument, light can pop into existence without cause.

Theists will object that this particle should have a cause. But they have already refuted this argument by granting that there exists an uncaused cause in the first place. If God can exist without a cause, why not a particle? Why not the universe?

[[Category: Cosmological arguments]]

Kent Hovind

2007-06-12T16:18:08Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Ao8Pva (Talk); changed back to last version by LtCmd.Lore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Sans Deity

2007-06-12T15:32:31Z

Sans Deity:

== Comments/Requests ==

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Biblical value of pi

2007-06-12T13:44:35Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Nx1Fac (Talk); changed back to last version by Arensb

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

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

==Counter-Apologetics==

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

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

==Apologetic response==

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

In short, the Bible does not say that pi must be three, unless you are going to assume that the numbers given are accurate to more than two significant figures, which is unjustifiable given the wording. Additionally, the Bible doesn't claim that the sea was a perfect circle, just "round" or "circular".

==Summation==

While some atheists like to cite this as a demonstration against strict Biblical literalists, as we could certainly expect greater precision if the words of the Bible come directly from a god, the argument tends to be viewed as trivial. While the argument can be useful, it would seem to be vastly overshadowed by the wealth of errors, contradictions, ambiguities and atrocities contained in the Bible.

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

Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (custom)

2007-06-05T14:06:56Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Ww9Nk1 (Talk); changed back to last version by Dcljr

<noinclude>This content is [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Advanced editing|transcluded]] into other pages. Please do not edit it unless you know what you're doing.</noinclude>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="3"|Iron Chariots additions/changes
|-
! SitePrefix !! URL !! Comment
|-
| BibleGatewayNIV||http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=$1&version=31||Added (New International Version)
|-
| BibleGatewayKJV||http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=$1&version=9||Added (King James Version)
|-
| BibleWiki||http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/$1||Added
|-
| WikiaCentral||http://www.wikia.com/wiki/$1||Added
|-
| WikiaSite||http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:$1||Added
|-
| WikimediaCommons||http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1||Added
|-
| WikimediaMeta||http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1||Added
|-
| Wikipedia||http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$1||Added
|-
| Wikireason||http://wikireason.net/wiki/$1||Added
|-
| Wikisource||http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/$1||Modified default entry to new URL
|-
|}<noinclude>
==See also==
* [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map]]
* [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (full)]]
* [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (requests)]]
[[Category:Iron Chariots|Interwiki map (custom)]]
[[Category:Utility transclusions]]</noinclude>

Template:Wiktionary

2007-06-05T14:06:28Z

Sans Deity: Reverted edits by Tc7Bid (Talk); changed back to last version by Dcljr

<div style="clear:right; float:right; width:13em; margin:0 0 .5em 1em; padding:.3em .4em .6em .5em; text-align:left; border:1px solid #66c; background-color:#eef;">See also [[Wiktionary:Main Page|Wiktionary]]'s definition of:
<div style="text-align:center;">'''''[[Wiktionary:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]'''''</div>
</div><noinclude>
This [[Project:Templates|template]] may be used in any [[Iron Chariots]] article that would benefit from a prominent link to an ordinary dictionary definition of the article's title (or a closely related word or phrase). Note that cases where this is really necessary are likely to be rare.

Do not use this template if you wish to link a word or phrase in [[Project:running text|running text]]; for that, use a [[Project:Interwiki map|"'''Wiktionary:'''" interwiki link]].

; Usage
# <tt><nowiki>{{</nowiki>wiktionary}}</tt> — use if the Wiktionary entry (i.e., page) matches our page title ''exactly'', including capitalization
# <tt><nowiki>{{</nowiki>wiktionary|''entry''}}</tt> — use if the Wiktionary entry differs from our page title ('''note:''' it usually ''will'' differ in capitalization)
# <tt><nowiki>{{</nowiki>wiktionary|''entry''|''Link text''}}</tt> — use if you want to use link text that differs from ''both'' our article title and Wiktionary's entry name (this really shouldn't ever be necessary)

; Example of third form
: <tt><nowiki>{{wiktionary|misspelled|mispelled}}</nowiki></tt> creates a box with the link: '''[[Wiktionary:misspelled|mispelled]]''' (which points to the entry '''''misspelled''''')

; See also
* [[Template:Wikipedia]]
* [[Project:Interwiki map]]

[[Category:Interwiki templates|Wiktionary]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Argument from design

2007-05-22T18:06:01Z

Sans Deity:

I'm planning on expanding the "rock" section to cover natural rock formations vs. art created with rocks to demonstrate a bit more about complexity and the perception of design.
[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:58, 26 June 2006 (MST)

== Multiple creators ==

Matt, what about something in relation to the possibilty of multiple creators/designers?

:: I'm really not familiar with any claims like that and I can't really see how the rebuttal would be very different, but if there's a real argument there and it needs a response, feel free. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

America as a Christian nation

2007-05-02T22:31:48Z

Sans Deity: /* In God We Trust */

American [[Christian]]s often claim that '''America is a Christian nation''' as a way of justifying overt government support of Christianity. This claim is in opposition to the [[separation of church and state]] which is clearly laid out in the [[United States Constitution]].

==Apologetics==
[[Apologists]] claim that America is Christian for the following reasons:

* Many of the [[founding fathers]] were Christians.
* The [[Declaration of Independence]], written by [[Thomas Jefferson]], asserts that men are endowed with inalienable rights "by their Creator".
* The [[Puritans]], who came here seeking the freedom to practice their religion, founded biblical law settlements that established a Christian colonial culture.
* The first official act of the First Continental Congress was a call to prayer.
* The [[Pledge of Allegiance]] contains the words "under [[God]]".
* America's national motto is [[In God We Trust]], which also appears on the currency.
* The majority of people who live in America are Christians.

==Counter-Apologetics==

===Founding fathers===

Many of the founding fathers were Christians, but many were [[Deist]]s.

Regardless of their personal religious affiliations, they deliberately set up a [[secular]] [[US Constitution|Constitution]].

===Declaration of Independence===

The Declaration of Independence did not establish US law. The Constitution, a deliberately secular document, did.

===Puritans wanted a Christian nation===

The Puritans did not found America. They preceded the founding of the nation by more than 100 years.

===First Continental Congress===

The Continental Congress convened in 1774, two years before the Declaration of Independence and fifteen years before the Constitution. Obviously this Congress was not bound by the [[First Amendment]], which had not been written yet.

===Pledge of Allegiance===

The original pledge was written by Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. It is not a founding document. Nevertheless, when the pledge was written it did not contain the words "under God". The reference to deity was added in 1954.

===In God We Trust===

"In God We Trust" was established as the national motto in 1956. A reaction to "godless communism", this McCarthy-era action may violate the ''Establishment Clause'' of the [[First Amendment]].

===Majority of Americans are Christian===

The majority of Americans are also white. Are we a "white nation"?

==Separation of church and state==

The actions of the Constitution's authors at the 1787 Convention best reveal their thoughts and intent regarding religion. They avoided attempts to insert worship into their deliberations, keeping religious activities separate from the process of creating our government. If no religion at the Constitutional Convention was good enough for our founders, it should be good enough for all public officials in the execution of their duties.

Our founders created a secular government based on freethinking political philosophies. Our founders' Constitution is a stunning rejection of "government under god", or [[theocracy]]. Only the Constitution establishes our government, not any other piously-worded document (such as the Declaration of Independence, Mayflower Act etc.). The Constitution makes no reference to god, except for the date, which is indicated by use of the convention, "In the year of our Lord." "We the People," not god, are the authority for our government. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for national office. The Constitution's first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws even "respecting an establishment of religion." During many Constitution ratification sessions in the states, Christians attempted to insert references to God and Jesus into the Preamble and sought to remove the "no religious test for office" provision. The fact that these religiously-motivated efforts failed demonstrates that even though the Constitution was a heated public issue and subject to controversy as a result of its secular nature, it was ratified as written. Our founders and the public knowingly chose a godless Constitution.

Conservative Christians argue that the First Amendment language, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," means our founders only meant to prohibit one denomination from becoming the official national religion. The evidence refutes this narrowest of interpretations, aside from the fact that the Constitution must give government such a power, and there is no power to do anything religious in the Constitution. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited "a wall of separation between Church and State" as his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson's metaphor came from London school master James Burgh, one of England's leading enlightenment political writers. Burgh's Crito (1767) included the phrase, "build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." Along with numerous other documents, Jefferson's message clarifies the intention of the amendment.

The proverbial "nail in the coffin" for the "Christian nation" argument is located in the Treaty of Tripoli. This treaty was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 10, 1797 and was signed into law by President John Adams. Article 11 of this document states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Constitution and amendments only mention religion three times, and only as prohibitions against government doing things religious. One cannot pervert express prohibitions against government doing religious things into powers for government to do religious things. Many public officials have a long history of violating their oath of office by mixing religion into government or by supporting religious groups. A tradition of violating the Constitution does not, however, change the Constitution.

[[Category:Arguments]]

Talk:God of the gaps

2007-05-01T22:21:20Z

Sans Deity:

The example against evolution doesn't work as the origin of life has been explained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life [[User:Samineru|Samineru]] 15:42, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
:: Depending on what you mean, I agree. Their objection doesn't have any teeth as the Miller/Urey experiment clearly showed that life can come from non-life by purely natural means. (The fact that their atmospheric conditions don't accurate reflect Earth's atmosphere at the time of abiogenesis is irrelevant, as is the fact that we currently have no idea precisely how life originated on earth). I've been meaning to expand the information on the [[abiogenesis]] page - if anyone wants to do so, feel free. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:21, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Falsifiability

2007-04-26T21:24:12Z

Sans Deity:

I noticed that you listed the text source as ''"now defunct skepticwiki.org"''. That site doesn't appear to be defunct and I'd prefer that we not use large quotes from other sites (defunct or not) without permission and citation. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:24, 26 April 2007 (CDT)