Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

50 reasons to believe in God

2010-03-09T21:34:37Z

Zurahn: Removed Natabee's vandalism/apologetics, and Phage's response -- This isn't the talk page

: ''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".}}

===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.}}

===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 untrue, the latter is an [[appeal to consequences]]. Just because religion may have a positive effect does not mean that its claims are true. Furthermore, atheism DOES have good news to preach: The atheist need not subscribe to the arbitrary customs and practices of religious philosophy. He does not have to reconcile biblical contradiction nor the hypocrisy of a deity. He is encouraged to use his own mind, rather than submit to human interpretations of "holy" books.}}
{{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. In so far 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 the wound, ''then'' you can come back and talk about being a "witness".}}

===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. }}

===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. }}

===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]].}}

===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 theories in the face of new evidence is essential to any process that seeks the truth. Atheists believe 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. Christianity is guilty of the same revisionism: In 1633, Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Catholic church for promoting heliocentrism, which directly contradicts biblical evidence of the organization of the universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Galileo was officially vindicated by the Catholic church. Ben Franklin was accused of heresy by Catholics and Protestants alike, for developing the 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 ''and'' the old. For example, quantum physics, 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 behaviours of followers prior are then written off as heretical, even 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 panspermia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Miller-Urey Experiment[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment]), and there are a variety of hypotheses which are more parsimonious than a hypothesis 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.
}}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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?}}

===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]]

Gun Slinger (Chick tract)

2010-02-02T00:27:54Z

Zurahn: /* Frame-by-Frame Transcript */ Undid spelling change, previous was as it was written in the tract

[[Image:gunslinger_page18.gif|frame|Terrible Tom is rewarded for his misdeeds with an eternity in heaven, in ''Gun Slinger'']]

[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)|Gun Slinger]] is a [[Chick tract]] whose description is "A hired killer trusts [[Christ]] and, at death, goes to [[heaven]]. But the law-abiding marshal who hunted him rejects Christ and goes to [[hell]]. Clearly shows that [[salvation]] is through grace, not works."

==Synopsis==

In the old west, Terrible Tom comes to town. Tom is a hitman who is hired to kill the town preacher. Upon hearing the preacher's sermon, Tom has an attack of conscience. Instead of killing the preacher, Tom falls on his knees and accepts Jesus Christ.

An hour later, Terrible Tom is arrested by the town marshall, who describes himself as "the most honest, law-abiding man in this whole territory." Tom spends his last day chatting with the preacher from jail, and says that he is ready to go meet God.

In an ironic twist, the marshall is killed by rattlesnakes hours after Tom is hanged. Since the marshall did not accept Jesus, he goes to hell, while Terrible Tom goes to heaven.

The moral of the story is laid out in the last panel, which says: "Going to heaven is not a matter of '''GOOD''' or '''BAD'''. It's a matter of '''SAVED''' or '''LOST'''. No matter how '''bad''' you've been, Jesus '''''still''''' loves you and wants to save you '''''right now!''''' '''''Will you let him?'''''"

==Commentary==

This tract starkly lays out Chick's [[fundamentalist]] philosophy that it does not matter how good or bad you are. Many people view heaven and hell as reward and punishment for good and bad behavior. [[Hank Hanegraaff]] has argued:
{{Quote-source|[C]ommon sense regarding justice dictates that there must be a hell. Without hell, the wrongs of [[Hitler]]'s Holocaust would never be righted. Justice would be impugned if, after slaughtering six million [[Jew]]s, Hitler merely died in the arms of his mistress with no eternal consequences. The ancients knew better than to think such a thing. David knew that it might seem for a time as though the wicked prosper despite their evil deeds, but, in the end, justice will be served. We may wish to think that no one will go to hell, but common sense regarding justice precludes that possibility.|Hank Hanegraaff, ''Why Should I Believe in Hell?''}}

Jack Chick's philosophy turns this question on its head. If salvation is based entirely on grace rather than works, then it is entirely possible that Hitler not only died, but then immediately ascended to heaven. Hitler was a [[Catholic]], of course, and Chick believes that all Catholics are deluded. But who is to say that Hitler did not, like Terrible Tom, experience a conversion and acceptance of Jesus hours before his death? Worse yet, many of Hitler's Jewish victims probably died in their sins and went straight to hell (in Chick's world view).

This cartoon should make it clear that many Christians do not regard heaven and hell as divine justice at all. Salvation and damnation are not based on anything that a person has done in their lives. It is quite clear that the use of heaven and hell is more for fear mongering to scare people into believing in Jesus as they may be perfect in every other way but if they do not accept him, you will go to hell.

==Frame-by-Frame Transcript==
# Who do you want me to kill?
#A man who has been a curse to my town... The PREACHER!
# He came here three years ago and started a church. I HAD a thriving business!
# LOTS of drinking, gambling, wild women and hell raising! Then he started PREACHING!
#Everyone got religion! My prostitutes joined his church and got married.. Men swore off the bottle and quit gambling. Now I'm almost OUT OF BUSINESS!
# I'll be in his church Sunday... By Monday, he'll be in a CASKET!
#(40 miles away) Excuse me, kind folks. Have you seen this outlaw?
#Yes, Marshall! He was headed for Bottlesville. Much obliged.
# Sir, why ya wearing your guns to church? Shut up, boy, or I'll kill you where you stand!
# Welcome, stranger. God bless you!
# (Sunday morning service begins) The devil is NOT going to get this town back. The Bible says "Resist the devil, and he will flee..."* Devil! Get out of here! * James 4:7
# What's happening? I feel STRANGE!
# Sheriff, have you seen this cold-blooded KILLER? Yes, Marshall. He's in church.
#CHURCH? Trouble's brewing, Sheriff! Get ALL your deputies and lots of shotguns... and surround the church!
#For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him... should not perish (in hell), but have everlasting life (in heaven)."* *John 3:16
# No matter what sins you've committed, Jesus already paid for ALL of them on the cross.* *1 Pet. 2:24
#King David was a murderer, but after he repented, God called him... "a man after mine own heart..."* *Acts 13:22
# The Apostle Paul killed many Christians, but God saved him... then used him to write much of the New Testament.
# The man who was crucified next to Jesus was a criminal. But the Lord PROMISED him... "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)
#No matter how BAD you are, Jesus can forgive you... and He WANTS to come into your heart and change you. (2 Cor. 5:17)
# Preacher I never thought God would forgive a terrible sinner like me. He will, if you will repent and turn to Him. Pray this prayer with me.
# (1 Hour Later) Freeze... gunslinger! You're under arrest!
# (Next Day) Preacher, thanks for telling me that Jesus loves terrible men like me.
#You're not terrible anymore, Tom. You are a child of God! "But as many as received him (Jesus), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
#(That Night) I'm ready to meet you, God. I'll see you in the morning. "...the gift of God is eternal life though Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
#(Next Morning) CRACK
# At last! Terrible Tom got exactly what he deserved.
#(Minutes Later in Heaven) Welcome home, my son. "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life..." John 5:24
# Well, Marshall, Tom's finally gone. Now, how about you? Won't YOU trust the Lord Jesus as YOUR Savior?
# Reverend, I'm the most honest, law-biding man in this whole territory! If I'M not good enough for heaven, then NO ONE is. "there is non righteous, no, not one:" Rom. 3:10
#(3 Hours Later) YAAAAH
#"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation..." Hebrews 2:3
#(Minutes Later in Hell) Wait! This CAN'T be! I was a GOOD man! I UPHELD the law!
# But you NEVER received Christ as your Savior. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36
#Going to heaven is not a matter of GOOD or BAD. It's a matter of SAVED or LOST. No matter how bad you've been, Jesus still wants to save you! Will you let Him?

==External links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp Full tract at Chick.com]
* [http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/Article.asp?article_id=980 Why Should I Believe in Hell?]

{{jackchick}}

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]

User talk:YasmineWard

2010-01-12T01:32:09Z

Zurahn: Removed spam

Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics

2009-12-28T05:09:42Z

Zurahn: /* Appeals to emotion */

[[Image:Button_commonobjections.png|right|Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]

==Overview==
==Categories==
With the growing rise of ''"new atheism"'', non believers have seen an increasing hostility from theist. Common criticisms of atheism and counter-apologetics arguments are made to support the theists position. These usually fall into one of three categories.

===Appeals to emotion===
Since the removal of mandatory prayer in American schools, atheism has been the focus of an increased political and media reaction in the form of fear and smear campaigns. These appeals to emotion have been coming increasing from the politicians such as Monique Davis who stated that "it is dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists"
* [[Why are you trying to tear down others faith?]]
* [[Why can't everyone just have their beliefs?]]
* [[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]
* [[What about all the good things religion has given us?]]
* [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler was an atheist]]
* [[Stalin was an atheist]]
* [[Mao / Pol Pot was an atheist]]

===Straw men===
Probably the most common argument against atheism and counter-apologetics from the theistic ranks, is straw man depictions of the atheist position. These can range from misrepresentations of evolutions such as leading questions like "if we came from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around today" or assertions that science is as much of a religious faith as Christianity, or misrepresentations about atheism and secular humanism being synonymous with immorality, communism or mass murder.
* [[You are a communist]]
* [[So you believe in nothing?]]
* [[You just want to sin]]
* [[It takes more faith to disbelieve]]
* [[Atheists worship materialism]]
* [[Science is a faith]]
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
* [[Atheism is based on faith]]

===Appeals to solipsism===
Perhaps the most interesting of the three categories is the increasing problem of appeals to solipsism. The idea that we can't know everything, (or anything depending on how far the theist wishes to take it) and as such, we can never completely rule god out. Perhaps he's hiding on the other side of Pluto where we just can't see him. This is a classic god of the gaps argument. However this line of argument would seem to create more questions that it solves. If we take the theists assertions to their logical conclusions, ''that we can't know everything or anything'', the how is it that they can claim to know anything about their god? How do they know he exists at all?
* [[What are your qualifications?]]
* [[God can't be defined]]
* [[Science can't touch god]]
* [[You can't disprove God]]
* [[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]
* [[Religion is another way of knowing]]

{{Common objections}}

Sodom and Gomorrah

2009-12-23T07:27:03Z

Zurahn: /* External link */ typo

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

==External link==
*[http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/sodom_and_gomorrah/gn19_01.html The story of Sodom and Gomorrah at the Brick Testament]
*[http://people.virginia.edu/~pm9k/Writings/sodom.html Geologists Zero In on Sodom and Lot's Wife] Possible geological explanations of the destruction are discussed.

[[Category:Bible]]

Argument from Analogy

2009-12-16T06:13:16Z

Zurahn: The argument presented here is identical to the argument from design

#REDIRECT [[Argument from design]]

YouTube

2009-12-13T04:23:54Z

Zurahn: /* Pro-Science/Atheist */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube

2009-12-13T04:23:19Z

Zurahn: /* Pro-Science/Atheist */ Added QualiaSoup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Zurahn

2009-11-19T02:13:27Z

Zurahn: Cleared old discussion

Implication

2009-11-19T02:10:34Z

Zurahn: /* Definition */ punctuation

'''Implication''' is a [[logic]]al operation on two variables. "P implies Q" is usually written as "P → Q". Equivalent statements include "If P then Q", "P is sufficient for Q", and "Q is necessary for P".

==Definition==
Implication, the result of "P → Q" is defined by the following table:
{| class="wikitable"
| '''P'''
| '''Q'''
| '''P→Q'''
|-
| True
| True
| True
|-
| True
| False
| False
|-
| False
| True
| True
|-
| False
| False
| True
|}

In other words, if P is true, then Q must also be true.

Somewhat counterintuitively, if P is false, then P → Q is true. To illustrate why this makes sense, imagine a teacher who tells her class that any student who gets 100% on the final exam will pass the class. In other words,
: '''P''': A student gets 100% on the final
: '''Q''': That student passes the class
: '''P → Q''': A student gets 100% on the final → That student passes the class
Now consider the case in which two students do poorly on the final exam, and while one of them did well enough on the other exams to pass the course, the other did not. Did the teacher lie?

No. She said nothing about students who do not get 100% on the final (i.e., the case where P is false). Unless there is a student who both got 100% on the final and did not pass the course, the teacher told the truth.

For this reason, "P → Q" can be restated as "¬(P &and; ¬ Q)" or "not (P and not Q)", or "it is not the case that P is true and Q is false".

==Logical equivalence==
: ''Main article: [[If and only if]]''
If "P implies Q" and "Q implies P" as well, then P and Q are said to be ''logically equivalent'' and we can write "P ↔ Q" ("P [[if and only if]] Q" or "P [[iff]] Q").

[[Category:Logic]]

User:Zurahn

2009-11-19T02:09:25Z

Zurahn:

As a programmer, I think of myself as living on logic. It's only natural then by that logic that I'm an atheist. I'm much more of a writer than a source of scientific knowledge, though, so since the logical fallacies have largely been covered, my contributions here I suspect will be largely clerical in nature.

I consider my upbringing in terms of religiosity essentially ideal. There was virtually no mention of religion at all. Nothing about whether it's true, false or even existed at all in the world. It was entirely through personal experience that I was in contact with religion. I'd say I'm a walking example of the nature side of nature vs. nurture in favour of atheism.

For those interested, I author the blog, [http://zurahn.wordpress.com Logic's Last Stand] focused on all things logic...and whatever happens to be annoying me, as well as the gaming community and news site which is also a mirror for my blog, [http://thevgpress.com The VG Press].

User talk:Sans Deity

2009-11-19T02:06:42Z

Zurahn: /* User Falseprophet */

== 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 (<span class="unpatrolled">!</span>) 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)

User talk:Sans Deity

2009-11-18T15:51:25Z

Zurahn: User Falseprophet

10th commandment

2009-11-17T22:20:10Z

Zurahn: /* In United States law */ Undid change. No need for petty political vandalism.

{{Ten Commandments}}
The '''10th commandment''' (of the so-called [[Ten Commandments]] in the [[Bible]]) prohibits coveting of a neighbors property. Property is said to include ones house, [[wife]], [[slave]]s, oxen, asses, and, well, "anything" else.

{{Bible|Exodus 20:17}}:
{{Bible-verse|17|Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.}}

{{Bible|Deuteronomy 5:21}}:
{{Bible-verse|21|Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.}}

A very different 10th commandment from {{Bible|Exodus 34}} doesn't correspond with any commandments from the {{Bible|Exodus 20}} and {{Bible|Deuteronomy 5}} versions:

{{Bible|Exodus 34:26}}:
{{Bible-verse|26|Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.}}

===Counter-apologetics===
* Wife is listed among property. Modern societies tend not to accept this view anymore.
* There is no prohibition against coveting a husband. Thus men and women are viewed unequally.
* [[Slave]]s are listed among property. Slavery is no longer officially sanctioned anywhere in the world.
* Coveting is a [[thought crime]].

===In United States law===
* The 10th commandment is possibly the commandment that is most firmly '''not''' a part of U.S. law. [[Capitalism]] is the basis for the U.S. economy. The idea that "I shouldn't want the nice things my neighbor has," if actually followed, would probably cause the collapse of the entire U.S. economy. It is absurd to pretend that this commandment even remotely applies to the U.S. system of laws. (See [[America is a Christian nation]] and [[United States Constitution]].)

[[Category:Commandments]]

Australia as a Christian nation

2009-11-08T15:57:14Z

Zurahn: /* Republic Referendum */

Though the not quite as severe as the religious right in America, Australia isn't without its own dominionist issues. Australia has a constitutional separation of church and state similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Despite this, several issues involving the nature of constitution monarchies as well as supreme court precedents continue to hold Australian separation of church and state issues under contention.
==Australian Federal Constitution==
The only section of the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf Australian Federal Constitution] that mentions religion is section 116 which states

:The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

==Constitutional Monarchies==
It remains unclear whether constitutional monarchies of the English Commonwealth are capable of having true separation of church and state, whilst the Queen being the titular head of government also remains the head of the Church of England.

==Supreme Court Precedent==
The issues of Church State separation reached the Australian supreme court in 1981 after efforts from prime ministers Sir Robert Menzies in the 1950s and Gough Whitlam in the 1970s to bring up the issue of subsidised funding for non-public schools. In particular Poorer Catholic schools.

In 1981 the supreme court ruled in favour of government funding of private schools. Supreme Court Justice Sir Ronald Wilson citing that

:The fact is that s.116 is a denial of legislative power to the Commonwealth and no more … The provision therefore cannot answer the description of a law which guarantees within Australia the separation of church and state.

Since the supreme court ruling the Australian government has claimed to subsidise private schools based on a per student allotment of money. Despite their being religiously founded as well as being private commercial entities (some charging up to [http://www.exfin.com/private-school-costs $20,000 per student per year] in private school fees), this trend has led to [http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/factsheet3.pdf private schools actually gaining more public funding than public schools], which remains a major point of contention in Australian culture.

==Religious Parties==
Over the last several years since the supreme court rulings, a number of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia) explicitly religious political parties] have sprung up in Australia. Whilst not being able to gain any kind of majority seating in the federal or state parliaments, they have started gaining footholds in some local councils.

In addition to the issues of s.116's legal scope, a loophole has also been argued that an independent or party should be able to run on the grounds of Christian morals and agenda without the government necessarily endorsing the religion.

==Republic Referendum==
Though the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1999_(Establishment_of_Republic) 1999 referendum] to secede from the British Commonwealth as a republic failed, there has been some talk of a second republic referendum since the election of Kevin Rudd as prime minister in 2007. It is uncertain what effect seceding as a republic would mean to the scope of constitutional church state separation, or the supreme court rulings based on the current scope, but at this point it would seem that the government is far too entrenched for it to make a clean break over a single referendum.

[[Category:Separation of church and state]]

Overview of early Christianity

2009-11-01T18:01:26Z

Zurahn: Wikification adjustments

From a counter-apologetics standpoint, having a basic understanding of early Christianity is invaluable. Particularly the origin of the gospels and their historical reliability, as the supposed truth of modern Christianity is more or less completely dependant on these factors.
It is very easy to be deeply bogged down in modern metaphysical apologetics by [[Transcendental argument|transcendental smoking mirror arguments]], and [[Ontological argument|semantic tricks about ontology]]. Instead keep in mind where Christianity actually originated. What exactly is Christianity based on? What exactly are Christianity's original claims? Are these claims historically reliable and/or verifiable? If not, everything else that follows is more or less nullified. This page is meant as an overview to tie together the relevant third party articles of greater depth on this fairly large subject.

==The Gospels and New Testament==

There are 27 books of the [[New Testament]]. Starting from the four gospels of [[Book of Matthew|Mathew]], [[Mark]], [[Luke]], and [[Book of John|John]], which are usually considered the cornerstone of the new testament, teachings, and life of Jesus. These are followed by a collection of additional books attributed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus Paul of Taurus], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist Luke the Evangelist], and a number of others.

===Authorship===

One of the first things to notice, is that the best current historical consensus, concludes that the four main Gospels (and indeed several of the other books) were in fact not written by those people commonly attributed to them.
The four gospels are all internally anonymous, and there are no original signed copies. The names of the four apostles were not attributed to these texts until the late 2nd Century CE, and as late as the 4th Century CE in the case of Mark.
The body of the texts themselves were also written many years after the events they claim to report. Mark, the earliest of which, is estimated to be written no sooner than c. 70 CE. A full 40 years after the purported death of and resurrection of Jesus, which more or less precludes any notions the gospels were written by the apostles, or any other first hand eye witnesses of Jesus.
Furthermore, it is worth noting this is not a fringe belief of a few “atheist extremists”. Even some standardised bibles such as the NIV actually make note of these facts on their relevant title pages.

===Synoptic Gospels and Q===

The gospels themselves can be divided into two groups. The synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And the non-synoptic gospel of John.
The word synoptic means “Seen together”. Refering to the consistencies of these three books with each other. Upon deeper inspection though, it appears as though the books are not merely consistent, but in fact directly based on each other with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document#Synoptic_problem large slabs copied word for word], bringing further into question the idea that they would be true eye witness accounts. Why after all would an eye witness rely so heavily on a third party account.
Originally it was though that the first book was that of Matthew, but now it is thought that the first book was actually Mark, written [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Date no earlier than c. 70 CE]. Then from Mark and a second hypothetical document named the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document Q Document] containing a list of quotes supposedly attributed to Jesus or perhaps simply a collection of Greek philosophies such as the Golden Rule, were used for the basis of writing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Date_of_gospel Matthew] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date Luke] between c. 70-100 CE.

===John===

The gospel of John is Non-Synoptic, quite obviously meaning it is not seen as being together (consistent?) with the other gospels. It's origin is dated later in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date the 2nd Century CE], and it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_gospels#Differences_from_the_Gospel_of_John differs radically in its content and claims from the other three gospels]. These inconsistencies range from small details such as the date of the last supper to larger details such as Jesus performance of miracles, exorcisms, and his stance on old testament Judaic law.

===Paul of Taurus and Luke the Evangelist===

Much of the rest of the New Testament is attributed to Paul of Taurus and Luke the Evangelist. Perhaps more than anyone, Paul is attributed as being the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_tarsus#Influence_on_Christianity founder of the early Christian church] and the propagation of Jesus' teachings. However, by their own accounts, neither Paul or Luke actually met Jesus face to face. Paul himself claimed that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul#Paul.27s_conversion_experience only saw Jesus in a vision] while traveling on the road to Damascus.

===Others===
The remaining books of the new testament are supposed to have been written by a number of other people including John the Evangelist, Peter, and James the Just. Though as with so many of the other books, the general consensus is that most of these books [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_bible#New_Testament were not in fact written by those commonly attributed to them].

==Extra-Biblical Accounts==

Perhaps the biggest short coming of the New Testaments reliability, is that there are absolutely no extra biblical contemporary accounts of Jesus or the extraordinary events of his life. Basically everything we know about Jesus' life, we know from the four gospels. The same four books that make fantastical claims of miracles that completely defy our current understandings of physics, chemistry, biology, history, etc. We can find no third party accounts anywhere to verify or even come close to supporting these claims.

===Josephus===

When pressed on the issue, apologists often cite two passages of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus Josephus], an early Jewish historian, as being extra biblical contemporary evidence of Jesus.
Unfortunately for the apologists, Josephus was not born until after the purported life of Jesus and is not a contemporary at all. The passages themselves coming from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews 'Antiquities of the Jews'] not published until c. 94 CE. Over 60 years after Jesus' death. At best the passages really couldn't tell us much more than [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Josephus#Problems_with_the_Testimonium what the late first century Christians at the time believed about the Jesus].
Furthermore, Josephus was an Orthodox Jew which is altogether inconsistent with the passages [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Josephus#Problems_with_the_Testimonium claims that Jesus was the Messiah]. Whilst perhaps not being an outright forgery, even decent Christian scholars will admit that the passages were at the very least tampered with probably some time in the 4th century by Christian scribes.

===Tacitus===

The other major early non Christian historian that apologists often cite is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus Tacitus], Though his testimony fails on many of the same grounds that Josephus does. He was not born until after Jesus' death thus he was in no way a contemporary of Jesus. The account cited in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ Book 15 of the Annals was not published until c. 116 CE]. Many years after the life of Jesus and in no way a first hand account.
Additionally, the paragraph itself mentions that at this time there was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Context religious group identifying themselves as Christians], causing problems within the Roman empire, and nothing more. It says little about Jesus or the veracity of the claims surrounding his life and divinity, and even if it did, it would only be reliable so far as telling us, that this is what early 2nd Century Christians believed.

===Lack of Other Evidence===

Whilst some may make the argument that its not surprising we don't have a great deal (or any as the case my be) third party evidence surrounding an itinerant Jewish preacher in a backward corner of the Roman empire, there are additional concerns that further bring the reliability of the gospels into question.
The first of these concerns is the supernatural claims of magic and miracles. Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead. Spontaneously healing the blind. Walking on water. Spontaneously turning water into wine. Pre cognition. Exorcism. Death and resurrection. Etc. Whilst a theist will claim that the miracles are part of Jesus divinity and consistent in context, we have no reliable documented accounts that such things have ever happened or are even possible with in the reality we observe. The claims completely defy our current understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and medical science. In short they are not consistent with reality and further question the nature of the gospels reliability.
The second concern is that the gospels make several grandiose claims that if true should have been documented by third party sources. An example of this is the mass exodus in the Roman empire with everyone having to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#Historicity_of_Luke.27s_details return to their place of ancestry for an empire wide census]. This is not recorded anywhere outside the gospel of Luke. Another example is towards the end of Matthew were [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2027:52-53&version=NIV the dead rise from their graves and walk through theww streets of Jerusalem] seen by many people. Once again there is no documentation to be found anywhere of this outside the gospel o Matthew.
On a geopolitical scale, these were not insignificant events by any stretch of the imagination. If these events were even remotely true we should expect to find at least some third party documentation or record of their happenings in otherwise detailed Roman and Jewish annals. Instead we find nothing.

===Further Textual Corruptions===

A further issue surrounding the biblical historical reliability is that there are known forgeries and edits that were added many years after the original writing. Any decent standardised bible such as the [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:9-20&version=NIV NIV will point out that the last few passages of Mark are not in the oldest copies of the manuscripts that we have]. They were added some time later in the mid 2nd Century. However these known forgeries are still included in the bible cannon and some denominations such as Pentecostal churches largely base their teachings on these known forgeries.

==Conclusions==

===What exactly is Christianity based on?===

These claims are based souly on a collection of books in the second half of the Christian bible called the new testament. Specifically the four gospels that claim to provide a first hand account of Jesus' life.

===What exactly are Christianity's original claims?===

The basis or core original claim of Christianity is that at the start of the 1st Century CE there lived a man named Jesus. Jesus was the divine son of god and performed many spectacular supernatural miracles, good deeds and teachings throughout his life. He was betrayed by one of his own apostles and put to death by the Romans, where his blood sacrifice and resurrection supposedly cleansed humanity of all sin.

===Are these claims historically reliable and/or verifiable?===

On inspection, the four gospels that provide the core understanding of Jesus' life not only appear to have not been written by the apostles that are attributed to them, but they were misleadingly not written by any first hand eye witnesses of Jesus at all. They were all written many years after the purported life of Jesus, by people who had never met him. In the case of John as late as the early 2nd Century CE.
The rest of the new testament is made up of parables by people like Paul of Taurus and Luke the Evangelist who by their own admission never met Jesus during his lifetime and never witnessed the events and miracles claimed in the gospels. As such, even within the context of the bible itself, there is no first hand account of Jesus' existence.
There are no extra-biblical contemporary accounts confirming any of the claims about Jesus in the new testament. The two best examples apologists cite are Josephus and Tacitus who were in fact not contemporaries of Jesus at all, and who's references to Jesus range from the misleading fact that they can really only tell us about what Christians of the time believed about Jesus, and in the case of Josephus, obvious forgery done by later Christian scribes.
Furthermore, the Gospels make several grandiose claims of spectacular events such, as the dead rising from the graves and walking through the streets of Jerusalem or a mass exodus in the Roman empire with everyone having to return to their place of ancestry for an empire wide census. If these events were even remotely true we should expect to find at least some third party documentation of their happenings in otherwise detailed Roman and Jewish annals. Instead we find nothing.
There is no reliable evidence within or outside of the bible, to support any of the claims about Jesus or the spectacular events of his life.

===Epilogue on the Historicity of Jesus===
It seems clear from the evidence presented in the gospels, new testament books and third party sources, that there is simply not enough evidence to say that Jesus existed as anything more than myth or legend. That's not to say he didn't exist at all though. As the saying goes, “No smoke without fire”. In much the same way that the King Arthur myths may have been based on a real man, it is all together possible, perhaps even likely, that around this time there was an itinerant rabbi named Yeshua who roamed the country side preaching and may have even run into some kind of trouble and been put to death by the Romans, but this is pure speculation, and certainly not the Jesus of the new testament who performed many fantastic miracles, healed the sick, walked on water, and was the son of god through death and resurrection. There appears to be no empirical evidence that such a man ever existed.

Pascal's Wager

2009-10-30T22:14:55Z

Zurahn: /* Counter-apologetics */

{{wikipedia}}
{{Arguments For the Existence of God}}
'''Pascal's Wager''' is the [[argument]] that you should [[believe]] in [[God]], even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real. The claim is that you should believe in God just because there's a chance that you might go to [[heaven]] and avoid [[hell]]. Based on simple [[probability]] theory, the argument was first formally put forth by [[Blaise Pascal]], a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician.

==Apologetics==

God might or might not exist. It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the [[odds]].

Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite — eternal bliss in heaven. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you ''gain'' nothing. But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity — eternal suffering in hell.

To summarize:
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="margin:1em 2em;"
! Table of Payoffs
! Believe in God
! Don't believe in God
|- align="center"
! align="left" | God doesn't exist
| 0
| 0
|- align="center"
! align="left" | God exists
| +∞ (heaven)
| −∞ (hell)
|}

Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.

==Counter-apologetics==

===Nonzero payoff for atheism===
[[Image:Cectic-Without Hesitation.jpg|thumb|[http://cectic.com/ Cectic] strip illustrating some problems with Pascal's Wager.]]
In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero.

For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate a tenth of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real.

That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages. Also, in the US, churches don't have to pay taxes, which includes property tax. Property tax is what goes to schools, so all the land that churches own is sucking money out of schools.

When "God Did It" becomes an acceptable answer, there is little incentive to continue exploring the question. More damaging, the "success" of this theory encourages one to apply it to other areas of human understanding. Practiced in this manner, theism can actively discourage human knowledge by compelling people to follow an arbitrary code of conduct, rather than one based on logic and reason.

And by the way, you don't lose pork.

===Which religion?===
Even if you buy into Pascal's Wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. [[Fundamentalist]]s often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was [[Catholic]] and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic.

This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the [[Jew]]s are correct, or perhaps the [[Muslim]]s, or if [[reincarnation]] is right. The best wager, it seems, would be to choose the religion with the worst punishment for non-belief and the best reward for belief.

===Atheist's Wager===
The [[Atheist's Wager]] is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works finds that it is better to not-believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on [[faith]] in a deity without [[Argument from nonbelief|reasonable evidence to believe]] that god is evil and spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility that a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.

Summary:
*If '''one does not believe in God'''.
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="margin:1em 2em;"
! Table of Payoffs
! Good Life
! Evil Life
|- align="center"
! align="left" | Benevolent God Exists
| +∞ (heaven)
| −∞ (hell)
|- align="center"
! align="left" | No God Exists
| +finite
| -finite
|- align="center"
|}

*If '''one believes in God'''.
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="margin:1em 2em;"
! Table of Payoffs
! Good Life
! Evil Life
|- align="center"
! align="left" | Benevolent God Exists
| +∞ (heaven)
| −∞ (hell)
|- align="center"
! align="left" | No God Exists
| +finite
| -finite
|- align="center"
|}

Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such God's getting the right answer is a 1 in ∞. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God for might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with [[Evidentiary argument|good reasons]].

===The faith of the wager===
Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes? The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith. The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing. The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see [[argumentum ad baculum]]). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to ''act as if'' he or she believes — that is, it serves as an instrument of [[social control]].)

===Where does it end?===
If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Why even assume that God supports any existing religion? Perhaps there is a perverse God who likes critical thinkers and doesn't like "blind" followers. Perhaps all atheists will eventually [http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm find themselves in heaven — completely surprised, but pleased anyway] — while their Christian counterparts burn for eternity! Perhaps there is a [[Maltheist]] God.

Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Site support|donate]] $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?

==External link==
*[http://www.jhuger.com/pascal Pascal's Sucker Bet] by [[Jim Huber]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

50 reasons to believe in God

2009-10-30T22:08:06Z

Zurahn: /* Reason 21: The tornado and the 747 */ rephrased -- not really a refutation, but a contradiction

: ''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".}}

===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 fallacious in its assumption that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to 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.}}
{{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.}}
{{Response|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.

The statement is nonsense to begin with, because none of the 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 quantum level because of how matter works, 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 therories) 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. }}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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 untrue, the latter is an [[appeal to consequences]]. Just because religion may have a positive effect does not mean that its claims are true. Furthermore, atheism DOES have good news to preach: The atheist need not subscribe to the arbitrary customs and practices of religious philosophy. He does not have to reconcile biblical contradiction nor the hypocrisy of a deity. He is encouraged to use his own mind, rather than submit to human interpretations of "holy" books.}}
{{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. In so far 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 the wound, ''then'' you can come back and talk about being a "witness".}}

===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.}}

===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. }}

===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. }}

===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]].}}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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 theories in the face of new evidence is essential to any process that seeks the truth. Atheists believe 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. Christianity is guilty of the same revisionism: In 1633, Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Catholic church for promoting heliocentrism, which directly contradicts biblical evidence of the organization of the universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Galileo was officially vindicated by the Catholic church. Ben Franklin was accused of heresy by Catholics and Protestants alike, for developing the 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 ''and'' the old. For example, quantum physics, 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 behaviours of followers prior are then written off as heretical, even 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 panspermia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Miller-Urey Experiment[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment]), and there are a variety of hypotheses which are more parsimonious than a hypothesis 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.
}}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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?}}

===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]]

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

2009-10-30T14:26:01Z

Zurahn:

<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. <br />
''[[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.
#This assumes a very small number of solar systems; in terms of just entire galaxies, let alone individual solar systems, there are only estimates, as the numbers reach the hundreds of billions.[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/021127a.html] 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.
#A star's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone habitable zone] is the region where a terrestrial planet like Earth could form liquid water on its surface, and therefore have the potential to support life. The [[Sun]]'s habitable zone is quite broad, by some estimates over 100 million miles, leaving a large region that is neither too hot or cold for life.

==See also==

* [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Category:Internet memes]]

[[Category:Arguments from design]]
[[Category:Science]]

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

2009-10-30T14:24:41Z

Zurahn:

<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. <br />
''[[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.
#This assumes a very small number of solar systems; in terms of just entire galaxies, let alone individual solar systems, there are upwards of 500 billion.[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/021127a.html] 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.
#A star's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone habitable zone] is the region where a terrestrial planet like Earth could form liquid water on its surface, and therefore have the potential to support life. The [[Sun]]'s habitable zone is quite broad, by some estimates over 100 million miles, leaving a large region that is neither too hot or cold for life.

==See also==

* [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Category:Internet memes]]

[[Category:Arguments from design]]
[[Category:Science]]

The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)

2009-10-23T02:53:40Z

Zurahn: /* Rock and Roll is the Devil's Music */

'''The Satanic Influence''' is the 6th episode of the second season of ''[[Way of the Master]]''.

==Episode Synopsis==

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

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

==Episode walkthrough==

==Introduction==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==The Prodigal Son and Modern Preaching==

The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)

2009-10-21T04:55:41Z

Zurahn: /* About this episode */ typo

The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)

2009-10-21T04:54:55Z

Zurahn: /* Episode Synopsis */ Wikification, formatting

Young-Earth creationism

2009-10-18T22:54:40Z

Zurahn: rephrasing

{{religion-stub}}
'''Young-Earth [[creationism|creationists]]''' (YECs) believe that [[God]] created the [[Earth]] and all life on it in six 24-hour days, exactly as described in [[Genesis]], and that the [[universe]] (and by extension the Earth) is less than 10,000 years old. There is quite an amount of contradictions that this claim has with history and science.

==Scientific difficulties with Young Earth Creationism==

===Speed of Light===
One problem with Young Earth Creationism is with light. Supposedly, the Earth is 10,000 years old. Since light travels in light years, we would only be able to see stars that are less than 10,000 light years away. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy Great Andromeda Galaxy] is 2 million light years away. Other galaxies are even further away. Some scientists have even saw some stars about 13 billion light years away from the Earth. If the universe was only 10,000 years old, the light from these objects would not be able to be seen by telescopes.

===Universe Formation Problem===
Modern cosmology has established that the universe as we know it is about 13.7 billion years ago. This is, by far, much older than what creationists say. The evidence consistently correlates with the model of the Big Bang.

====Age of Earth====
One topic that comes up frequently is the Age of Earth. Young-Earth creationists believe that Earth is about 6,000 years old. This contrasts with radiometric dating of the Earth, which puts her age at 4.6 billion years. Rocks from space also have been dated around 4.6 billion years. Geologists also track changes in the Earth happening over millions of years, such as plate tectonics and mountain building.

==Other Scientific Difficulties==
#Fossil remains and artifacts in the Americas show that humanity migrated to the Americas thousands of years before Young-Earth creationists believe when the Earth was created. Does the biblical textual evidence outweigh physical evidence?

[[category:Religion]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Unspecified Evidence

2009-10-01T14:34:21Z

Zurahn: Grammar, wikification

'''Unspecified evidence''' is an argument supported by the claim that [[evidence]] exists, but where such evidence is not presented.

This argument is stated as, "there is a lot of proof, but I can't be bothered to show you" or, "there is so much proof that if it is not obvious to you then you must be willfully ignorant of it."

In itself, withholding the evidence that would support a claim is not a [[fallacy]], but expecting someone to accept that claim based on such unspecified evidence is an [[Argumentum ad verecundiam|appeal to authority]].

Biblical genealogies

2009-10-01T05:34:49Z

Zurahn: /* Jesus */ reformatted to remove float. Can re-add later if there's content other than just the genealogy

{{stub}}
[[Biblical genealogies]] are often cited as evidence for the reliability of the [[Bible]]. Some apologists claim that the genealogies in the Bible are supported by historical and archeological evidence, yet the Bible includes a number of internal contradictions in these accounts which must call into question the reliability of these genealogies and of the Bible itself. One notable aspect is the Luke genealogy being much longer that in Matthew as well, giving the impression of the writers having very different ideas of how long ago King David lived from Jesus' alleged time. One apologetic has been to claim the Luke genealogy refers to Mary, not Joseph, with spurious claims that adoption could pass one into the bloodline of David. This is necessary because the genealogy in Luke derives Nathan, son of David, instead of Solomon (he alone was to carry on the bloodline, which had to be physical, thus necessiting it be Mary, not Joseph). However, women could not pass on the bloodline. Moreover, the genealogy clearly lists Joseph, not Mary. Apologists seek to get around this by claiming that when a genealogy ends with a woman, her husband is listed instead, despite no evidence of this existing. If Joseph was son-in-law of Heli in the Luke genealogy, it would have been clearly listed, as other parts of the Bible show in-law relationships, but there is nothing, and this does not change the lack of inheritance through mothers. They attempt to get around ''that'' problem by claiming Joseph adopted Jesus, with no mention of this in the Bible. Adopting Jesus would have meant acknowledging Joseph had not fathered him, and he was thus a bastard, for all anyone could know, thus negating any possible claims to anything, besides putting Mary in danger of being stoned to death for adultery.
The Matthew genealogy has its own problem anyway. It lists the cursed king Jechoniah, none of whose heirs God decreed would inherit as punishment, thus negating that whole line of descent. The writer of Matthew seems to have been unfamiliar with this, although where he got this genealogy in the beginning is thus anyone's guess (is there a chance it was originally meant to ''disprove'' Jesus' claim, regardless of whether he existed?) Aside from all this, why Jesus needed to be descended from David through Solomon and the Messiah is hard to grasp, as being God's son is far greater, except the obvious conclusion that originally he was not believed to be divine in any way (a blasphemous idea to Jews, we might note). There were many claimants to being the Messiah and so proving this was important. Virgin birth and gods fathering children were distinctly pagan things likely added later to widen its appeal, since pagans were preached to. Prior to Jesus, there is no precedent in the Bible even close. The genealogies, perhaps even more strongly most anything else, prove the New Testament is composed of many competing writings, if we didn't already know that. For, if Jesus is the son of God, why bother with it?

Agnostic Review of Christianity quotes the Bible chapter and verse proving this:
http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/genealogy.htm

==Jesus==
Two different genealogies are given for Jesus, in the first chapters of Matthew and Luke:

{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"
! style="background:#efefef;" |Matthew 1:1-16 !! style="background:#efefef;" |Luke 3:23-38
|-
|valign="top"|
* David
* Solomon
* Rehoboam
* Abijah
* Asa
* Jehoshaphat
* Joram
* Uzziah
* Jotham
* Ahaz
* Hezekiah
* Manasseh
* Amon
* Josiah
* Jeconiah
* Shealtiel
* Zerubbabel
* Abiud
* Eliakim
* Azor
* Zadok
* Achim
* Eliud
* Eleazar
* Matthan
* Jacob
* Joseph
* Jesus
|valign="top"|
* David
* Nathan
* Mattatha
* Menna
* Melea
* Eliakim
* Jonam
* Joseph
* Judah
* Simeon
* Levi
* Matthat
* Jorim
* Eliezer
* Joshua
* Er
* Elmadam
* Cosam
* Addi
* Melki
* Neri
* Shealtiel
* Zerubbabel
* Rhesa
* Joanan
* Joda
* Josech
* Semein
* Mattathias
* Maath
* Naggae
* Esli
* Nahum
* Amos
* Mattathias
* Joseph
* Jannai
* Melchi
* Levi
* Matthat
* Heli
* Joseph
* Jesus
|}
<div style="clear:both"></div>

==Old Testament Genealogies==

Appeal to consequences

2009-10-01T04:01:59Z

Zurahn: "then" refers to sequence, "than" refers to quantities or difference

An '''appeal to consequences''' is a logical fallacy in which the truth of a proposition depends on its consequences:
* If A is true, then B. B is good, therefore A is true.
* If A is true, then B. B is bad, therefore A is false.

The latter form is the [[argument from adverse consequences]]. In fact, the appeal to consequences is simply a generalized form of the argument from adverse consequences; desirable as well as undesirable outcomes are included.

Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy for the simple reason that wanting something to be true does not make it true.

==Example==
* "Religion promises an eternity in heaven. Don't you want to go to heaven?"
* "God must exist because my life would be meaningless without him."

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Biblical laws

2009-09-22T04:21:47Z

Zurahn: /* But that's the old Bible */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Civil Law versus Moral Law===
One tactic, often employed by [[Ray Comfort]] is to dismiss weird laws as "civil" pertaining to general advice as opposed to commandments. While it can seem applicable for reasonable advice at the time, it fails to address the clearly bad advice and immoral commandments.

==External links==
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm All about the Decalogue]

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

Red herring

2009-09-21T06:11:21Z

Zurahn:

A '''red herring''' is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

This isn't so much a fallacy as it is an evasion tactic. The red herring is similar to a "wild goose chase." When someone leads the debate off on a red herring, they are trying to divert attention away from a particular argument, and toward some inconsequential statement that you may have made, or inventing some tangent to go off on. Creationists often use this when they attack the Big Bang Theory to try and prove evolution wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are completely separate theories, and are not mutually inclusive. The Creationist trying to debate the Big Bang is a red herring.

Example:

::"Evolution is impossible because the Big Bang is merely speculation."

Counter:

::The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Even if it were proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that populations adapt to their environment.

Solipsism

2009-09-21T05:51:12Z

Zurahn:

'''Solipsism''' is the philosophical position that the only justified belief is that one's own mind exists. Anything external lacks [[absolute certainty]] and is thusly uncertain and untrustworthy. One's inability to determine whether or not he is in The Matrix is an example of this position.

==Criticism==

*Absolute position is often rejected as meaningless. Lacking absolute certainty does not inhibit one from making consistently good decisions.
*Whether or not one ascribes to the belief that he is in fact a brain in a jar does not affect his own feelings in the world he is experience, an illusion or not. It does not affect one's actions.

==See Also==

*[[Reality]]
*[[Absolute certainty]]

50 reasons to believe in God

2009-09-12T05:49:22Z

Zurahn: /* Reason 37: Science changes */

: ''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".}}

===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 fallacious in its assumption that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to 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.}}
{{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 maths and science.}}
{{Response|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.

The statement is nonsense to begin with, because none of the 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 quantum level because of how matter works, 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 therories) 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. }}

===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.}}

===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.}}

===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 untrue, the latter is an [[appeal to consequences]]. Just because religion may have a positive effect does not mean that its claims are true. Furthermore, atheism DOES have good news to preach: The atheist need not subscribe to the arbitrary customs and practices of religious philosophy. He does not have to reconcile biblical contradiction nor the hypocrisy of a deity. He is encouraged to use his own mind, rather than submit to human interpretations of "holy" books.}}
{{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. In so far 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 the wound, ''then'' you can come back and talk about being a "witness".}}

===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. 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.}}

===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. }}

===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. }}

===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|What? Nothing. Who? No one. There are approximately anywhere between 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 some have to be just the right temperature by pure chance, unless some force stops planets forming in the goldilocks zone. Our solar system has 8 planets, only 2 of which (Earth and Mars) are in the goldilocks zone. That makes 6 failures for our solar system alone. See also: [[Anthropic principle]].}}

{{Response| There is a wide range of [[Wikipedia:Habitable_zone|possible orbits]] suitable for life in our solar system, about 0.95 to 1.37 AU (or 88 million to 127 million miles away from the Sun). The Earth is near the middle of this Goldilocks Zone, so it hugely inaccurate to claim that any amount further from the Sun would freeze us all up. There is also reason to believe that life is [[Wikipedia:Gliese_581_d#Climate_and_habitability|possible]] in
[[Wikipedia:Europa_(moon)#Possible_extraterrestrial_life|other]]
[[Wikipedia:Enceladus_(moon)|interesting]]
[[Wikipedia:Titan_(moon)|locations.]]}}

{{Response| Humanity, or even life, is not an end-goal of the universe. We are the only ones who care that we are here. If things were different, things would be different.}}

===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.}}

===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, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.</tt>

{{Response|While phenomena like radio waves or infrared light may be "unseen" to the human eye, they are not supernatural. They are well understood and explained by science, and thus are not analogous to any purported supernatural phenomena. Moreover, they are detectable and have known detectable effects, which 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|Urban myth. See [[Deathbed conversion]]. Even if it were true (and evidence shows that it is not), it is an [[Argumentum ad verecundiam|argument from authority]]. We do not accept evolution based on Darwin's word, but on the evidence supporting the theory, which is independent from anything Darwin may or may not have said. It is also worth noting that Darwin was not the first person to propose evolution as a possibility, he only happens to be the first to produce solid evidence for the proposition.}}

===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 psychologists have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear instinctual; observations of social animals reveal that many have moral codes that are similar to humans'. Atheists may follow any number of secular ethical codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived rationally, 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 our moral values being held? Simply put, we are accountable to those around us.}}

===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 (which is one reason it is rejected by many theists).
# 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 apparent "chance" (genetic mutations), the process of natural selection is the guiding force which directs the process of adaptation. "Chance" is also not a description of something that we cannot find a reason for; it 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.}}

===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.}}

===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#Historicity].}}

===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 theories in the face of new evidence is essential to any process that seeks the truth. Atheists believe 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. Christianity is guilty of the same revisionism: In 1633, Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Catholic church for promoting heliocentrism, which directly contradicts biblical evidence of the organization of the universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Galileo was officially vindicated by the Catholic church. Ben Franklin was accused of heresy by Catholics and Protestants alike, for developing the 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 ''and'' the old. For example, quantum physics, 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 behaviours of followers prior are then written off as heretical, even 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 panspermia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Miller-Urey Experiment[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment]), and there are a variety of hypotheses which are more parsimonious than a hypothesis 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.
}}

===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.}}

===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 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.}}

===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.}}

===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?}}

===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:Argument from trees

2009-08-15T17:23:27Z

Zurahn:

==Delete this article==
"Wednesday exists, therefore sneezing is heavier than purple."

There is no such thing as the argument from trees. If we allow an unsupported statement to be called an argument, the above is the Argument from Wednesday, and another argument exists for every noun. IMO, this article is pointless and should be deleted.

Though if anyone really wants to, we could have an article on people who just make a statement but don't offer any evidence or arguments to support it, because they are really just trying to confirm to themselves or their group that they believe it, not actually convince you of its correctness. *shrug*

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 03:26, 15 August 2009 (CDT)

::I vote for a redirect to [[argument from design]] --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 12:23, 15 August 2009 (CDT)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

2009-07-26T13:07:21Z

Zurahn: /* See also */

{{stub}}
[[Image:Cartoons of Muhammad.jpg|100px|right|boarder|An English Language Translation]]
{{wikipedia}}

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was a controversy in which Danish cartoonists published cartoons depicting the prophet [[Muhammad]]. Due to [[Muslim]] law which forbids depictions of Muhammad, there was a great uproar over the publication. This uproar eventually led to riots and death threats towards the cartoonists.

==See also==
*[[Problems with Muslim Sharia Law]]
*[[Qur'an]]

[[Category:Religions]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Qur'an

2009-07-23T15:57:19Z

Zurahn: /* Videos */

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia}}

The '''Qur'an''' or '''Koran''' is the primary holy text of the [[Islam]]ic [[religion]]. According to [[Muslim]]s, the Qur'an was dictated by [[God]] to [[Muhammad]] in [[Wikipedia:Classical Arabic|Classical Arabic]] through the angel [[Gabriel]]. The Qur'an is heavily criticized, especially in the West, for its consideration of [[women]] as inferior to men, its advocacy of [[intolerance]] towards non-Muslims, and its extremely violent system of [[punishment]] for crimes (especially victimless "crimes" such as [[extramarital sex]], [[homosexuality]], [[blasphemy]] and [[apostasy]]).

==External link==
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an]

===Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GO3kfw8bHU&NR=1 The video that got Nick Gisburnes account deleted] This video features less pleasant parts of the Koran and Youtube took it down but after heavy criticism restored it.

[[Category:Holy books]]
[[Category:Qur'an]]

There are no atheists in foxholes

2009-07-19T00:34:11Z

Zurahn: /* Counter-arguments */

{{Wikipedia|Atheists in foxholes}}
"[[There are no atheists in foxholes]]" is a saying that means, roughly, that when things are bad, everyone turns to [[God]] for help. The same sentiment has been expressed in other forms. Having little power as an argument for the existence of god, this is often used to undermine atheists directly, by asserting that despite all arguments, in a moment of crisis they too will seek a higher power.

==Counter-arguments==
This is an incredibly weak argument. In essence, it boils down to
# I am not strong enough to handle all of life's problems on my own.
# Therefore, I want a higher power to help me.
# Therefore, that higher power exists.

While the first part is almost universally true, and the second is certainly understandable, the conclusion does not follow. Wishing for something does not make it true.

People in desperate situations take desperate measures, even if they only have a small chance of success. A person who has gone into cardiac arrest may want a doctor to use a defibrillator to restart their heart. But this does not mean that applying electrified paddles to people's chest is a good idea in general.

Suggesting atheists turn to God in a time of crisis could be considered a result of [[Psychological projection|projection]] wherein the theist is uncomfortable with his own relationship with a god or religion as being a matter of comfort and not rationality.

==Real-life counterexamples==
Even taken literally, the saying is not true. Many atheists have served in the military and have seen combat.

* [[Pat Tillman]] - an American Football player who joined the military and died fighting in Afghanistan.
* [http://www.atheistfoxholes.org Atheists In Foxholes Veterans Day Event] - a parade and rally held on Veteran's Day, 2005 to recognize those who have served in the Armed forces. The event was sponsored by [[American Atheists]].

==External links==
* [http://www.maaf.info/ Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers]

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

Trinity

2009-06-26T02:33:27Z

Zurahn: /* John 10:30 */

[[Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png|thumb|right|260px|The Shield of the Trinity, purported to explain the Trinitarian doctrine. Your guess is as good as mine.]] In most branches of [[Christian|Christianity]], the '''Trinity''' is an eternally-coexisting entity consisting of [[God]] (the Father), [[Jesus Christ]] (the Son), and the [[Holy Spirit]]. Sometimes called the "Triune Godhead," most Christians do not consider the Trinity to be a [[Pantheon]], as you would find in many [[Polytheism|polytheistic]] religions, but as "three persons in one God." This allows [[Christians]] to claim that they follow a [[Monotheism|monotheistic]] religion, while in essence worshipping three gods. The composition and nature of the Trinity has been a major topic of disagreement and confusion among Christians since it was adopted at the [[Council of Nicea]] in 325 C.E.

==Biblical support==
The Trinity is never mentioned by that name in the [[Bible]]. While God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned separately throughout the [[New Testament]], there are only two passages that are used by apologists in an attempt to support Trinitarian doctrine. Each of these passage reveal errors in translation or meaning when examined.

===1 John 5:7-8===
{{Bible|1 John 5:7-8}}, which scholars call the [[Johannine Comma]], is translated as follows:

{{Bible-verse|7|For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.}}
{{Bible-verse|8|And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.}}

Most of verse 7 is not found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and has been dropped from many modern translations[http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Jo&chapter=5&verse=8]. Another translation based on the older Greek read "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement." ([http://hcsb.bhpublishinggroup.com/crossmain.asp Holman Christian Standard Bible]) Scholars believe the Johannine Comma to be a later addition to the New Testament, inserted to justify the doctrines of the orthodoxy.

===John 1:1===
{{Bible|John 1:1}} is often cited as in support of the trinity as well:

{{Bible-verse|1|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.}}

In this passage, there is no definite article before the word ''theos'' (god) in the third part of the sentence. Coptic translators and Origen of Alexandria (both c.200) indicated their belief that John included a definite article before ''theos'' when referring to the creator god, and left it out when he was not. It is believed that in this context it means that Jesus is not one with God in person, but in essence.[http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=1] The translation of John 1:1c as "the Word was God", therefore, is a topic of scholarly debate, as it could justifiably be translated "the Word was a god" without the reference vaguely supporting the Trinity doctrine. This is the way that the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] have translated the passage in the New World Translation.[http://www.watchtower.org/bible/joh/chapter_001.htm]

Origen, however, noted that John was not consistent in his use of a definite article when writing about god. Whether John meant the creator God in certain passages was a topic of debate as early as the second century, as evidenced by Origen's exegesis and the Sahidic Coptic translation being markedly anti-Gnostic. So it could be argued that both translations are equally valid.

Neither view, of course, addresses the possibility that John may well have been influenced by Greek polytheism, not consulted the other Gospel writers to make sure the details of his writings matched theirs, written a passage or two supporting a trinity, and been a bit inconsistent because he was just making it all up.

===John 10:30===
{{Bible|John 10:30}} is also used to support the view of trinitarian belief:

{{Bible-verse|29|My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.}}
{{Bible-verse|30|I and my Father are one.}}

However, like John 1:1 there is an issue of the definite article. The NETBible translators note:

:The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neutral, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence).[http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=10&verse=30]

Another way of putting this is that in essence all humans are the same, but all humans are not one person. Although both God and Jesus may both be divine heavenly bodies, they are not the same trinitarian being. The interpretation that any of these passages assert that God and Jesus are part of the trinity is not conclusively shown.

==Interpretations==
There have been a wide variety of different interpretations of the nature of the Trinity over the centuries. Many of these groups were persecuted and some of the Crusades were actually fought in Europe against these groups.
* '''Modalism''' is an early Christian view that suggests that the three entities are different forms of a single God, in much the same way that water has solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. While some churches retain a modalistic interpretation, orthodox Trinitarians consider it to be [[heresy]].
* '''Adoptionism''' posits that Jesus was a normal human who became divine, either at his baptism or his ascension.
*'''Arianism''' was an early Christian doctrine which claimed that Jesus was created by God the Father, who later worked through Jesus to create the Holy Spirit, setting up a hierarchical godhead of separate entities. The [[Arian Controversy]] was a major reason for the Council of Nicea, which defined the Christian orthodoxy and effectively declared Arianism heretical.
* '''Unitarians''' deny the Trinity altogether, believing that there is one God, and that Jesus was merely a human [[prophet]] or perhaps a supernatural entity in his own right, but was not God in the flesh. There was a Unitarian Church that merged with the Universalist Church some time ago to create the Unitarian Universalist Church. This church in modern day focuses more on universalism and in this way tends to be very open to atheists and many atheists attend. Other examples of unitarianism include the following:
** The [[Mormon]]s believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are separate entities with separate bodies, united in single purpose; this view is criticized by the orthodoxy as being a form of '''Tritheism''', or worship of three separate gods.
** [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] see Jehovah as God, Jesus as an angel and the Holy Spirit as Jehovah's "active force" and not as an entity.

==See also==
*[[God]]
*[[Christian]]
*[[Monotheism]]
*[[Polytheism]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Talk:Big Bang

2009-06-18T02:50:04Z

Zurahn: Use of "theory" in the article

I reverted to the previous version because the information about the early universe was simply a duplicate of material later in the same article. [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:32, 14 December 2006 (CST)

The word "theory" seems to be used laxly throughout the article. I have the concern of conflating the colloquialism with the scientific meaning. It is however difficult to avoid given the limited diction available for "plausible but unsupported explanation"--[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 21:50, 17 June 2009 (CDT)

Big Bang

2009-06-18T02:47:45Z

Zurahn: /* Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe */

{{wikipedia}}
The '''Big Bang''' [[theory]] is the prevailing [[cosmological]] theory describing the origin and evolution of our [[universe]].

==Description==

The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the [[universe]] was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of [[wikipedia:space|space]] and [[time]] called a [[wikipedia:singularity|singularity]]. At that time there was no physical matter in the universe.

The name "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer, since the universe simply expanded and didn't literally explode (and it certainly didn't make a "bang" sound). As the expansion continued, the universe cooled, eventually reaching a point at which particles of matter could "freeze out" of pure energy (see [[Wikipedia:Mass–energy equivalence]]) and collide with each other to form the first simple atoms. These atoms continued to collide creating progressively "heavier" elements through the process of [[wikipedia:nuclear fusion|nuclear fusion]]. Over billions of years, these particles combined to form "clouds" of matter which further condensed, because of gravitational attraction, into stars and planets. (See [[Wikipedia:Physical cosmology]] for much more detail.)

The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds after the big bang. What occurred in the first 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds (the [[wikipedia:Planck epoch|Planck epoch]]) is not known and difficult to theorize, due to interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics.

==Apologetics==

[[Creationist]]s often object to the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it removes [[God]]'s hand from [[creation]]. A common Creationist argument against it is the question "What caused the Big Bang?" and the closely related question "What happened before the Big Bang?"

There is a common misconception that the Big Bang means that the universe "came from nothing." Creationists use this as a launching point to claim that without introducing God, the first law of [[thermodynamics]] would be violated.

==Counter-apologetics==

The Big Bang theory does not say that the dot came "from nothing"; it simply postulates the existence of the singularity and then proceeds from there. The answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is simply "No one knows yet."

This lack of knowledge cannot be used to assert the existence of a God, however, as one can always ask "[[Who created God?]]" Since Creationists typically believe that every effect needs a cause they assume that the universe needed one too. See the [[Cosmological argument]].

==Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe==

* The '''[[wikipedia:oscillatory universe|oscillatory universe]]''' is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. (This theory has declined in popularity since 1998, when astronomers reported evidence that the acceleration of the universe's expansion continues unabated.) [http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/]
* '''[[wikipedia:Cosmological natural selection|Cosmological natural selection]]''' is a speculative hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin. Smolin speculates that every [[black hole]] might contain another universe inside it. Thus, our universe might be a black hole inside another universe. Each universe shares properties and fundamental constants with its "parent" universe, but may be slightly different. Thus--according to this theory--universes [[evolve]] over time, and the ones that are particularly well suited to produce black holes are the ones that thrive.
* The '''[[wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (science)|multiverse]]''' hypothesis suggests that there are already multiple parallel universes, generated in a meta-universe.
* Strictly speaking, time is not linear. For persons traveling at extremely large differentials in speed (for example, one at near-light speed and the other static), time will progress at different rates, though not necessarily perceived as such by the individuals. Relativistic theories imply that time itself erupted from the big bang; the idea that an event could occur before time itself would under this pretense be logically invalid. (This theory suggests that the universe is infinitely old, and thus had no "origin")

None of these concepts have been conclusively demonstrated, but they do illustrate that God isn't the only possible answer (See [[Wikipedia:Cosmogony]] for more information).

[[Category: Science]]

Bertrand Russell

2009-06-13T22:01:02Z

Zurahn: Added image

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

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

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

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

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

File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg

2009-06-13T21:58:04Z

Zurahn:

Transcendental argument

2009-06-04T06:15:57Z

Zurahn: /* Counter-arguments */

{{Work in progress}}
The '''transcendental argument''' for the existence of [[God]] (TAG). Wikipedia defines the argument as follows:
:"The Transcendental Argument is an argument for the existence of God that attempts to show that [[logic]], [[science]], [[ethics]] (and generally every fact of human experience and [[knowledge]]) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of God."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument]

The standard requirement to the argument is that there are transcendental things such as science, logic, morality, and mathematics which are not physically in existence which are also part of reality (when you stop believing in them, they don't go away). Since these systems exist, *waves arms*, God exists.

The argument is popular within [[presuppositionalism]] and the associated apologetics. Presuppositionalism however tends to reverse the argument and simple begin at the conclusion. Logic depends on God, therefore you can't use logic to argue against God as that would be self-contradictory.

== Version 1 of TAG ==

That is, knowledge cannot be obtained absolutely unless the source of that knowledge is itself an absolute source (read: being/God). Therefore, either you subconsciously believe in an absolute being that upholds and makes absolute the [[law]]s of the universe/[[morality]] or you do not—and ''can'' not—know anything for certain.

* There are some objective logical absolutes.
* We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
* These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
* These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
* Concepts require a mind.
* Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
* That mind is God.
* God exists.

== Version 2 of TAG ==

Other iterations of the same general theme exist.

* Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources.
* Logic isn't material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic.
* Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic.
* Therefore atheism is self refuting.
* Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true.
* God exists.

== CARM.Org Version of TAG ==
{{Work in progress}}
This is the version of the Transcendental argument presented by Matt Slick of the CARM:
# Logical Absolutes
## Law of Identity
### Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
### For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
## Law of Non-Contradiction
### Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
### For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
## Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
### A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
### "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
#### Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
#### Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
#### Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.
# Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:
## That which exists has attributes and a nature.
### A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
### A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
## Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
### It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
## Something cannot bring itself into existence.
### In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
## Truth is not self-contradictory.
### It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
## Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
# Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.
## If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
## If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
### For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
### But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
## If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
## But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
## If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
# Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
## Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
### They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
## Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
### They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
## Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
### People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
### If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
# Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
## Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
## Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
## Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
### If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
## But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
### For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
### Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
# Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
## Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
## Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
### If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
### If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
#### What is their nature?
#### If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. What would that option be?
#### If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical.
#### Since logic is not a property of physical nature (see point 5 above), then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature.
#### Simply "denying" that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn't sufficient.
# Thoughts reflect the mind
## A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
## Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
## Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
## We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

== Counter-arguments ==

There are transcendental systems which exist and are neither conceptual nor physical. If this suggestion is possible then the argument crumbles due to a false dichotomy suggesting that all non-physical things are conceptual.

Others claim that TAG is a variation of the [[ontological argument]], in that they both blur the line between concepts and reality. Imagining the most perfect being requires that that being exists (existing is more perfect than not exist) the line between conceptual and real is arbitrarily crossed.

"Where is the number 7?" - Those advocating the transcendental argument must contend that 7 exists within reality or within the mind of God. However in all cases 7 must have an actual location (since abstract transcendental mathematics is assumed to not exist). It doesn't go very far, but it is always amusing.

TANG or the [[Transcendental argument against the existence of God]] attempts to show that such logical absolutes cannot be absolutes if they are subjective by being God based. God could simply ignore the number 7 or believe that killing children is good and the logical absolutes would change. Therefore, they would not be logical absolutes or objectively true but rather subject to the whims of God.

So what? Many [[non-theist]]s, when they are backed against the wall, will admit that they know nothing with 100% certainty. Humans generally will prefer some explanation rather than no explanation. However, providing "some explanation" does not make the claims in the explanation true. [[Absolute certainty]] is in general meaningless as by definition one would have to be [[omniscient]] to acquire it. [[Atheist]]s do not in general make claims to the absolute truth of things; this is usually the domain of the [[theist]].

An example of what some may call absolutely certain is the idea that the [[sun]] will rise tomorrow. To be truly absolute in certainty, you would require precognition; however, that is generally useless. It's much more accurate to state that based on the evidence of many days prior as well as our understanding of chemistry and the composition of stars that the sun will not soon cease to rise.

Even, for the sake of argument, accepting every point made, the only conclusion drawn is that there must be at all times intelligence. Unless God is defined only as a something capable of conceptualizing the rules of logic -- of which, most mammals by necessity are able to grasp in a rudimentary sense -- the existence of a god is still unsubstantiated.

[[Category:Transcendental arguments]]

Problems with Muslim Sharia Law

2009-05-30T19:00:54Z

Zurahn:

There are good points with Sharia, Moslems frequently point out that Widows and orphans should be looed after for example. Unfortunately there are many areas where decent civilized people will disagree with Islamic rules.
==Problems with Muslim Sharia Law==
===Slavery===
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves. Slaves are helpless before their masters, can be bought and sold and masters can have sex with female slaves whenever they want.

For more about abuses suffered by slaves under Islam, see the following:
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
#[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html Slavery in Islam]

===Wife beating===
Wives may be beaten simply for being too independent and not respectful enough.
#[http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm The Koran instructs men to beat their wives]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===People may be severely flogged for drinking or gambling===
<blockquote>Of course, don't expect any men to be flogged. Even though President Anni drank Sula shiraz, the courts failed to look into the case and have him flogged. If you look at Maldives law, any man or woman who is proven to drink alcohol has to be flogged.[http://maldivesdissent.blogspot.com/2009/04/video-of-flogging-of-17-year-old-girl.html] </blockquote>

===People who have blinded someone else may be blinded themselves===
This has actually happened in the 21st Century, see the following:
#[http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/11/iran-sharia-court-sentences-man-to-be-blinded-with-acid.html Iran: Sharia Court Sentences Man to be Blinded With Acid]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
===Thieves should have their hands amputated===
The Koran stipulates this, see the following:
#[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2587039.stm Eyewitness: Nigeria's Sharia amputees]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===Crucifixion and other forms of torture are allowed to punish some crimes===
Laws allowing crucifixion and other barbaric punishments in Hamas controlled territories have been passed. There have been several crucifixions in Saudi Arabia during the last 20 years and at least one innocent man was lucky to escape crucifixion in Saudi Arabia.
#[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts Hamas enacts Islamic (Sharia) laws]

This article is work in progress, there’s much more to write.

Problems with Muslim Sharia Law

2009-05-30T18:59:45Z

Zurahn: /* People may be severely flogged for drinking or gambling */

There are good points with Sharia, Moslems frequently point out that Widows and orphans should be looed after for example. Unfortunately there are many areas where decent civilized people will disagree with Islamic rules.
==Problems with Muslim Sharia Law==
===Slavery===
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves. Slaves are helpless before their masters, can be bought and sold and masters can have sex with female slaves whenever they want.

For more about abuses suffered by slaves under Islam, see the following:
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
#[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html Slavery in Islam]

===Wife beating===
Wives may be beaten simply for being too independent and not respectful enough.
#[http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm The Koran instructs men to beat their wives]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===People may be severely flogged for drinking or gambling===
<blockquote>Of course, don't expect any men to be flogged. Even though President Anni drank Sula shiraz, the courts failed to look into the case and have him flogged. If you look at Maldives law, any man or woman who is proven to drink alcohol has to be flogged.[http://maldivesdissent.blogspot.com/2009/04/video-of-flogging-of-17-year-old-girl.html] </blockquote>

===People who have blinded someone else may be blinded themselves===
This has actually happened in the 21st Century, see
#[http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/11/iran-sharia-court-sentences-man-to-be-blinded-with-acid.html Iran: Sharia Court Sentences Man to be Blinded With Acid]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
===Thieves should have their hands amputated===
The Koran stipulates this, see
#[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2587039.stm Eyewitness: Nigeria's Sharia amputees]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===Crucifixion and other forms of torture are allowed to punish some crimes===
Laws allowing crucifixion and other barbaric punishments in Hamas controlled territories have been passed. There have been several crucifixions in Saudi Arabia during the last 20 years and at least one innocent man was lucky to escape crucifixion in Saudi Arabia.
#[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts Hamas enacts Islamic (Sharia) laws]

This article is work in progress, there’s much more to write.

Problems with Muslim Sharia Law

2009-05-30T18:58:34Z

Zurahn: /* Slavery */

There are good points with Sharia, Moslems frequently point out that Widows and orphans should be looed after for example. Unfortunately there are many areas where decent civilized people will disagree with Islamic rules.
==Problems with Muslim Sharia Law==
===Slavery===
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves. Slaves are helpless before their masters, can be bought and sold and masters can have sex with female slaves whenever they want.

For more about abuses suffered by slaves under Islam, see the following:
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
#[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html Slavery in Islam]

===Wife beating===
Wives may be beaten simply for being too independent and not respectful enough.
#[http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm The Koran instructs men to beat their wives]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===People may be severely flogged for drinking or gambling===
<blockquote>Of course, don't expect any men to be flogged. Even though President Anni drank Sula shiraz, the courts failed to look into the case and have him flogged. If you look at Maldives law, any man or woman who is proven to drink alcohol has to be flogged .[http://maldivesdissent.blogspot.com/2009/04/video-of-flogging-of-17-year-old-girl.html] </blockquote>

===People who have blinded someone else may be blinded themselves===
This has actually happened in the 21st Century, see
#[http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/11/iran-sharia-court-sentences-man-to-be-blinded-with-acid.html Iran: Sharia Court Sentences Man to be Blinded With Acid]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
===Thieves should have their hands amputated===
The Koran stipulates this, see
#[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2587039.stm Eyewitness: Nigeria's Sharia amputees]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===Crucifixion and other forms of torture are allowed to punish some crimes===
Laws allowing crucifixion and other barbaric punishments in Hamas controlled territories have been passed. There have been several crucifixions in Saudi Arabia during the last 20 years and at least one innocent man was lucky to escape crucifixion in Saudi Arabia.
#[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts Hamas enacts Islamic (Sharia) laws]

This article is work in progress, there’s much more to write.

Problems with Muslim Sharia Law

2009-05-30T18:58:15Z

Zurahn: /* Slavery */

There are good points with Sharia, Moslems frequently point out that Widows and orphans should be looed after for example. Unfortunately there are many areas where decent civilized people will disagree with Islamic rules.
==Problems with Muslim Sharia Law==
===Slavery===
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves. Slaves are helpless before their masters, can be bought and sold and masters can have sex with female slaves whenever they want.

For more about abuses suffered by slaves under Islam see
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
#[http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html Slavery in Islam]

===Wife beating===
Wives may be beaten simply for being too independent and not respectful enough.
#[http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm The Koran instructs men to beat their wives]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===People may be severely flogged for drinking or gambling===
<blockquote>Of course, don't expect any men to be flogged. Even though President Anni drank Sula shiraz, the courts failed to look into the case and have him flogged. If you look at Maldives law, any man or woman who is proven to drink alcohol has to be flogged .[http://maldivesdissent.blogspot.com/2009/04/video-of-flogging-of-17-year-old-girl.html] </blockquote>

===People who have blinded someone else may be blinded themselves===
This has actually happened in the 21st Century, see
#[http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/11/iran-sharia-court-sentences-man-to-be-blinded-with-acid.html Iran: Sharia Court Sentences Man to be Blinded With Acid]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]
===Thieves should have their hands amputated===
The Koran stipulates this, see
#[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2587039.stm Eyewitness: Nigeria's Sharia amputees]
#[http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html Why Sharia is an Evil Abomination]

===Crucifixion and other forms of torture are allowed to punish some crimes===
Laws allowing crucifixion and other barbaric punishments in Hamas controlled territories have been passed. There have been several crucifixions in Saudi Arabia during the last 20 years and at least one innocent man was lucky to escape crucifixion in Saudi Arabia.
#[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts Hamas enacts Islamic (Sharia) laws]

This article is work in progress, there’s much more to write.

Talk:Islam

2009-05-26T20:49:07Z

Zurahn:

"It is the fastest growing religion in the world" which statistics are used for this claim? It's slightly problematic, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion. Also most muslims would probably object to being called missionaries.--[[User:Stig|Stig]] 09:30, 5 October 2008 (CDT)

:There you go. They are now "one of the fastest". Still no source.

:What they would object to has no bearing on the accuracy of the description of their actions.

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 12:18, 5 October 2008 (CDT)

Someone deleted [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Islam&diff=next&oldid=36086 this] from Liberapedia and I feel it should be somewhere. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 07:02, 26 May 2009 (CDT)
: Frankly, I agree with their reasons for deleting your edits (sounds too much like Conservapedia). Can you rewrite this to not be so inflammatory, and also fix the grammar and markup problems? Alternately, if you just want the text to be preserved somewhere, why not put it on your blog or something? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 13:30, 26 May 2009 (CDT)
::I edited the segment to maintain the sentiment, only in a more appropriate manner. In terms of preservation, honestly I don't think it's worth it, but if it's for that sake, I don't think this article really fits the bill.--[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 15:49, 26 May 2009 (CDT)

Islam

2009-05-26T20:47:22Z

Zurahn: Cleaned up Liberapedia portion

{{wikipedia}}
'''Islam''' is the predominant [[religion]] in the Middle East and is the second-largest religion in the world. Not limited to the Middle East, it has approximately 1.4 billion members, 80% of which are non-Arabs. It is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Its adherents are called "Muslims" (also spelled Moslem), historically "Musselman", "Muhammedans", or even simply "Turks" in Europe and North America. In Arabic, a Muslim is "one who submits to [[God]]" ([[Allah]]).

Muslims, like Jews and Christians, are monotheistic and trace their roots to Abraham. However, they receive their instruction from the [[Qur'an]] (also spelled Koran) rather than the [[Bible]] or [[Torah]]. Islam's beginnings as a distinct people can be traced back to the 7th century under the leadership of [[Muhammed]] and his followers. An universalizing (evangelizing) religion, it spread throughout the world by military conquest and Muslim [[missionaries]].

Islamic fundamentalism is fairly strong in middle-eastern regions, one result being the oppression of women. Spurred by, though unlikely exclusively due to, inflammatory passages of the Qu'ran, there have bee instances of terrorism in the name of Islam, including suicide bombings, beheadings and public [[stoning|stonings]] [http://nazret.com/blog/index.php?title=islamists_stone_to_death_somali_woman_fo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/].

Moderate Muslims are more prevalent in Europe, but despite this there are still pushes there to silence criticism of their religion and of [[Mohammed]] rather than addressing the criticisms.

==External links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9LVf_KMO0&feature=related The myth of Islamophobia]

[[Category:Religions]]

America as a Christian nation

2009-05-24T02:19:54Z

Zurahn: /* Separation of church and state */

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"?

==Famous quotes==

Any amount of historical research will prove that America was not founded on religion, but rather on freedom from oppression by religion. Take the following quotes:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
-Thomas Paine, 'The Age of Reason'

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
-Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
-John Adams

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson

"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
-James Madison

"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington

==Separation of church and state==
''Main article [[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]]
[[Category:Separation of church and state]]

Treaty of Tripoli

2009-05-24T02:19:26Z

Zurahn:

The Treaty of Tripoli references the first treaty between the United States and Tripoli, signed in 1796 and ratified in 1797 under then President John Adams. It is often used in support of the case for the United States founders' position with regard to church-state separation.

Article 11 reads as follows:
:''Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.''

In terms of contention, there is little reason to believe that the article was controversial. The ratification passed the senate unanimously by the 23 senators present for the vote.

{{stub}}

50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God

2009-05-20T13:04:07Z

Zurahn: /* Outline */

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

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

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

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2009-05-09T06:25:37Z

Zurahn: Wikification

"Expelled" is a 2008 film intended to support [[Intelligent Design]] and suppress scientific theories regarding [[evolution]].

===Arguments===
[[Ben Stein]] attempts to link evolution with communism, fascism, [[atheism]], Planned Parenthood, and the Nazi holocaust by correlating evolution to eugenics. The film further contends that an extensive conspiracy exists to promote Darwinism and suppress any concept of intelligent design. This conspiracy allegedly involves scientists, media, educators, and even the courts.

In his blog, Ben Stein claims:
<blockquote>Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of "anti-intelligent design" would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him... EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe? EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS... HE WOULD BE BANNED. </blockquote>

===Counter-Arguments===
Eugenics is nothing more than the idea that artificial selection techniques, such as those used by animal breeders, can be used on humans as well. Evolution is the study of change, specifically, changes in biological forms. While the artificial selection techniques of eugenics and breeding do fit under this umbrella, the main concern of evolutionary study is the understanding of [[natural selection]].

While these techniques can, theoretically, be used against a population by forcing individuals to breed or sterilize themselves, in practice, eugenics are used by individuals to increase their quality of life and that of their children.

Dor Yeshorim, for example, is a genetic testing program that identifies harmful recessive genes in [[Judaism|Jews]]. When both parents have the same recessive gene, their offspring have a significant chance of contracting certain harmful or even fatal conditions. Eugenics come into play where Jews use this information in selecting a mate, deciding to have children, or deciding to abort a pregnancy. This form of eugenics helps prevent Tay-Sachs disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan disease, Fanconi anemia, Familial Dysautonomia, Glycogen storage disease, Bloom's Syndrome, Gaucher Disease, Niemann-Pick Disease, and Mucolipidosis IV.

==External links==
* [http://www.expelledexposed.com/ Expelled Exposed]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/ExpelledExposed ExpelledExposed's YouTube channel]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwhZqNgfRC0 How To Watch Expelled with Correcting Subtitles]