1. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202449 by Garnok on July 1, 2008 at 1:56 pm

At least he freely admits that he is commiting the "God of the Gaps" fallacy, even to the extent that his arguments are ultimately on par with ID. Sadly, it doesn't seem to give him pause for thought regarding his conclusions based on it. No instead he writes a book to promote his ideas based on fallacious reasoning.

2. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #199989 by Garnok on June 26, 2008 at 3:22 pm

But how are we to know if these traits weren't 'potentiated' by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right?

Good question. A better one is when will the Disco- Toot or some other creationist group actually get around to developing proper tests to determine the answer? You know, when will they actually get around to doing the science they so often claim they do?

3. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190701 by Garnok on June 9, 2008 at 12:10 pm

The Agnosticism/ Atheism blog guide on About.com had a response to an article by Postelnik a few week ago. If anyone is interested in seeing how he responds to criticism Postelnik, and either his sockpuppet army or his loyal fans (who are exactly what one would expect), left several replies in the comments. Here's the link:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/05/26/yomin-postelnik-why-some-liberals-unresponsive-to-falsehoods-illogic.htm

4. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188266 by Garnok on June 3, 2008 at 2:42 pm

adonais said:

Did the movie actually comment on [John] Lennon's views? Can someone enlighten me.

I think the problem here is that, combined with the Stalin images and such, he was probably confusing John Lennon with Vladimir Lenin.

5. Scientists discover 'frogamander' fossil

Comment #183677 by Garnok on May 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Barbara said:

The Atlas of Creation is a stunning, beautifully illustrated, work of crap.

Yeah, I never would have thought that anyone would actually take the time to polish a piece of their sh!t and claim it to be gold but he showed me to be wrong about that.

6. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183665 by Garnok on May 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm

GBile said:

There may have been several shrouds.

Now that I think of it I do remember watching a show several years ago that had someone claiming that they had the cloth that was given to Jesus to wipe his face while he was marching through Jerusalem to be cruxified. That a clear impression of Jesus' face would be left is odd even if he simply dabbed his face with the cloth instead of wiped it. However, I don't recall anything in the bible that claimed that the burial shrouds had an impression left on them as well. I wonder if the shroud is just the result of someone imposing one part of the myth onto another?

7. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183302 by Garnok on May 21, 2008 at 7:36 pm

steveroot said:

OK, you *really are* going to hell!

Na, I'll just accept Jesus as my savior before I die. He'll have to let me into heaven then.

8. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183202 by Garnok on May 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm

There is something I have always wondered about the Shroud since I read an article about it by Joe Nickell (IIRC). The article itself was questioning whether Sylvia Browne had lifted some of Nickell's writings about the Shroud for one her books because the thrust was the same and the wording was almost exact. Anyway, Nickell noted that the bloodstains were more consistent to those that had not been wrapped in cloth since they were lines and trickles instead of blots, which is what any liquid, including blood, would do if pressed against cloth.

This started me thinking, why would there be bloodstains at all? One would think that, if he were real and people actually believed him to be the son of their god, those responsible for his entombment would have thoroughly cleaned the body before wrapping him in the burial shroud. Cleaning of the body of the deceased is a rather common practice and one that would be undertaken by the Jews of the time as well as far as I am aware. Unless they took him down from the cross as soon as he died and he was quickly cleaned and wrapped up (which might have been a touch difficult due to the earthquake that rocked the Holy City and destroyed the temple and the zombie saints running amok through the streets at the moment of Jesus' death, if the bible is to be believed) coagulation of the blood would have prevented much, if any, bleeding to stain the shroud.

Also, if they failed to clean him properly, if at all, why is there a noticable lack of fecal matter and urine on the shroud. As muscles relax after death it is common for the body to release any waste still inside, sometimes hours after death. If blood is still fresh enough to flow so freely inside the shroud, surely Jesus' corpse must have taken a Holy Sh!t? Even though the depiction on the shroud has a man in a loincloth, he was supposedly placed on a stone bench in the tomb and, combined with the positioning of his legs, would have ensured some seepage and spreading (I mean, where's it gonna go?).

From the article:

Historical evidence also suggests that the shroud may be the Shroud of Constantinople, which was displayed in the 1100s but disappeared from that city, now called Instanbul, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.

Right, because there couldn't be several genuine, authentic Jesus Shrouds going about at the time. I mean there were only twelve churches that claimed to have the real foreskin of Jesus at one point and one of the desciples must of had about fifteen fingers on his right hand given all the right- handed knuckle bones but the Shroud... well that's different. No way there could have been more than one supposedly real shroud.

9. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176084 by Garnok on May 6, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Colwyn Abernathy said :

Wouldn't that be convenient? Absolve humankind by blaming entities we cannot measure or observe infecting a small portion of it.

Isn't that ultimately the core purpose of Christianity to begin with: the total absolution of humanity? They have the devil to blame for all the supposed wrong- doings of humanity and the "sacrifice"* of Jesus to take the consequences, so long as you believe it all.


*Or the bad weekend Jesus had, if you want to be precise with the terminology.

10. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176069 by Garnok on May 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Layla Nasreddin said:

why do "liberal" mainstream Protestant churches in America hemorrhage members, while hardcore conservative ones grow by leaps and bounds?

Others have given answers to your question, but another reason that liberal churches are declining in membership is that for some the message that the churches give becomes so wishy- washy and stripped of any meaning they leave the congregation open to question the message (a big no- no for an insitution built on faith). Those that are more hardlined in their beliefs pick the more conservative churches, even if they might be a little uncomfortable with the church's stances on some topics and issues.

On the other hand, members that have never really given any thought about their beliefs, just always went along because they were born into it or what not, decide to find other religions or philosophies or just drop the whole thing all together. Some take up Eastern religions, like Buddhism, or New Age beliefs while others just adopt the "spiritual but not religious" mantle. There are also some that realize that there was never anything to their religious beliefs to begin with, adding to the (hopefully continuing) growing number of atheists and agnostics.

11. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #165436 by Garnok on April 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I wouldn't call the movie a success. Over at Ed Brayton's blog is a link to what the movie did on its opening weekend and it isn't too pretty for them.

As for the User reviews on Yahoo, just looking at the titles makes me think that the only people that went and saw this movie are those already predisposed to agree with it.

12. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150330 by Garnok on March 26, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Happy birthday, Mr. Dawkins!

13. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150324 by Garnok on March 26, 2008 at 5:46 pm

"We have lost sincerity, morals, fidelity and attachment to our religions and to humanity," Abdullah said Monday, deploring "the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world - a frightening phenomenon that all religions must confront and vanquish."

Abdullah's message of tolerance

Yeah, the message of tolerance is overwhelming.

emmet said:

Perhaps King Abdullah has a progressive agenda, but the realpolitik dictates that he take things one step at a time

That sounds nice but I seriously doubt it. If that is his actual goal then he would have chosen his words a little differently instead of talking about confronting and vanquishing a group of people he later plans on trying to rally acceptance for at some point down the road. I'm not flaming you here, just pointing that out.

14. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138786 by Garnok on March 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm

In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence)

"Does too!"

or

"I know you are but what am I?"

I know I'm cheating but to me that seems to be the basic arguements coming from them when you break it down into essentials.

15. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133155 by Garnok on February 25, 2008 at 6:02 pm

I find it an interesting insight more than anything, especially given the amount of 5* reviews it has received on Amazon. It's difficult for me to grasp how anyone could read through his book and feel that his logic is sound, valid & cogent.

It's not difficult to grasp at all. It's the same reason why many people accept other convoluted arguments, such post- modernism: they think that since they don't understand what the hell was just said, it must be intellecually sound as well as profound. So they just nod their heads with everyone else (because who wants to be singled out as the one dolt that didn't get it) and hope that no one asks any follow up questions.

16. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #130023 by Garnok on February 19, 2008 at 11:34 pm

As a man of faith, Bishop Hanson still has a key question for those who don't believe in God.

"Where do you place your trust in times of need? Where do you place your hope in the time of a crisis of confidence?" Hanson said.

Depends largely by what a "time of need" or "crisis of confidence" is in Hanson's opinion. A time of need could be anything from needing a lift to the corner store or being in a serious car accident. A crisis of confidence could be anything from doing badly in a video game to losing a job. What one turns to in those moments depends on the situation. At any rate and regardless of the details, talking to a non- existent being is pointless. Then you are just talking to yourself.

Come to think of it, maybe in many cases atheists turn to the samething as theists: ourselves. We just don't kid ourselves about it.

17. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #119457 by Garnok on January 31, 2008 at 4:03 pm

The sad thing is that, even if any effort to help this man succeeded and he was released, either some zealots would probably kill him in the streets a few days later or he would spend the rest of his days hiding from said zealots.

18. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115851 by Garnok on January 24, 2008 at 11:23 pm

My first reaction was to wonder if this was from the Onion, but it looks like it's from the BBC instead. Jeezie- Creezie, that's stupid!

From the article:

The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

Well, let's see:
1) Are all builders cowboys? If they are from Texas, most likely so. However, I'm sure that builders from, say, France are not cowboys but if I were to make a movie involving French builders would it be criticised because I'm claiming all builders are French? If we use the same reasoning here that would most likely be the case.

2)Builders get their work blown down? Well, to answer that one I suppose asking workers along the coast of or the islands within the Gulf of Mexico would be relevant and I think most of them would say that their building do get blown down by strong winds almost every year during hurricane season. However, no one in their right minds would ever think this extends to builders, or their buildings, everywhere.

3)Are builders are like pigs? Well, if we are talking about human builders, the answer is probably so. I'm sure there are many similarities between pigs and human builders, or just humans in general (it's that whole evolution thing). Beyond that, I've seen Mickey Mouse cartoons where Mickey was a boat operator, so does that mean that all boat operators are like mice? Hey, Donald Duck wears a sailor outfit, does that mean all sailors are ducks?

19. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115843 by Garnok on January 24, 2008 at 10:57 pm

I can't say much about this being disgusting or sick, even by evangelical standards, since I was bored just 2 minutes into it and stopped watching. Although I will say George Lucas should give them a call about their use of the word crawl at the beginning. Not necessarily because it rips off Star Wars, but because that was simply tacky and I've seen better dubbing on a Saturday afternoon Kung- Fu theater special.

Cartomancer said:

I'm guessing this is supposed to be aimed at young adults old enough to drink and drive, which would make them what, about 17 or 18? Are they telling me that a modern seventeen year old would find this even remotely scary?

If said 17- 18 year old was a child sequestered from the world and constantly told that every shadow held a demon or devil just waiting for a stray thought that didn't contain god to cross their mind so that they could drag this hopeless person down into the depths of hell for all eternity, they might find this rather scary. Sadly, I know too many people who were raised like that.

20. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110263 by Garnok on January 10, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I liked that clip. Dawkins did seem a little off, but that could have been the cold.

Still, I predict that someone will claim that Dawkins is an admitted pyromaniac at some point in the future after the "setting stuff on fire" bit.

21. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106858 by Garnok on January 3, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Huckabee is part of a battle for a new direction for the post-Bush Republican party.

What new direction would that be: downward or very f#cking downward?

22. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #106336 by Garnok on January 2, 2008 at 5:16 pm

I wonder if the people that think this to be an excellent arguement for the existence of god would be impressed by me telling them that, by their own reasoning, since I have never experienced god I know that god does not exist?

Something tells me not that much.

23. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #98483 by Garnok on December 13, 2007 at 6:12 pm

All those people who fought to abolish slavery or to gain their civil rights, many of whom we are reminded were theists, were said to be divisive yet I see few people complaining about that.

24. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96688 by Garnok on December 10, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Sorry of the long post. I guess I'm feeling talkative tonight.

I began our debate by reminding you of that day in March of the year 2000 when John Paul II, supported by his then "deputy for doctrine," Joseph Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI), made an unprecedented plea for forgiveness for the evils committed throughout history by Christians... The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems. They sought to create religion-free utopias and in order to do so they arbitrarily eliminated at least 100,000,000 innocent lives.

Given what he asks of Dawkins later in this letter, for this to be equivalent, the pope needed to apologize for atrocities committed in the name of every god or religion, not just his own. Funny how atheists seem quite capable of limiting culpability to Christians when referring to terrible acts made for the sake of Christianity, to Muslims when referring to terrible acts made for the sake of Islam, and so forth. However, theists have a horrible time of limiting culpability to, say, Stalinistic communists when referring to terrible acts made for the sake of Stalinistic communism, and cannot help but to drag atheists everywhere into it.

You fail to point out, however, that the actions of these radicals are routinely condemned by their religious leaders as contrary to the ideas of their faith. In other words, the truth is their actions follow their own ideas, not the ideas of true religion. (Here I can't help rejecting, once again, what you said in the debate, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. That is like saying you are an Anglican even after everything you have said and done to reject the church into which you were born.)

And Morris fails to point out that, on the occasions that religious leaders do condemn such actions, it almost always from miles away or years, if not decades or centuries, after the fact. Otherwise, this is little more than a No True Scotsman fallacy.

For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.

How less easily does the belief in a soul, "sacred dignity" and an afterlife make taking the life of another? How about one who has unabashedly rejected the "One True" god? None of this makes killing innocent people for political or selfish reasons all that difficult. Indeed, in some cases, it makes it even easier.

I think even you would agree that an acceptance of a neo-Darwinian "survival of the fittest" ethic is easier to swallow when one rejects the existence of a supreme being and the inherent dignity that he bestows on his creatures, made in his image and likeness.

Only if one has an incorrect understanding of what Darwin means when he says "survival of the fittest". Further, having a belief that a supreme being created people in its image and likeness, and with inherent dignity, has yet to stop many theists from committing murder and/ or acts of bigotry and subjugation, in the present or in times past. There is yet no reason to think that the future will be any different in that regard either.

As history shows, however, an atheistic philosophy about man serves as a great silencer of the conscience when sick human beings reject the demands of human reason and go on to trample on human rights. (emphasis mine)

I'm sorry, was that a joke? If so it was a very inappropriate one. If not, I wonder a) how Morris thinks that belief in a god will help a sick mind in this case and b) what he has been smoking/ injecting/ ingesting to come to this belief?

All this is to say, Richard, that no group, neither religious nor atheist, has a monopoly on fanaticism.

Seriously incorrect: the group that has a monopoly on fanaticism is those who have fallen victim to irrationality. That the religious have largely fallen within that group should give Morris pause for thought. Somehow, I doubt it will though.

It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God's name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century. I think we both agree, but I have only heard you say the latter of the two affirmations.

Sorry, I can't agree with this. Misguided sentiments of moderation and political correctness may lead Morris, and others, to claim agreement with this, but I doubt Morris himself believes it either. Especially given what he has already said in this very letter in regards to the latter part.

As human beings, we should ask the question what will cure us of such human weakness. According to Pope Benedict, it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all. That's an act of faith, of course — and not something I expect you to accept just yet — but I think you and I can surely agree it's not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest.

Really? Assuming that this god is the one Pope Benedict believes in, it has yet to clear his vision to retract the official church position on condoms, including the misrepresentation of facts of same, when it comes to the AIDS crisis in Africa, for example, which allows thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of more people to be infected or die every year from this, perhaps god- given, disease. And this despite substantial scientific evidence that condoms do help greatly to prevent the spread of AIDS. If this does not fall under the category of "fanaticism" in Morris' book I'm at a loss when figuring out what would. Then again, I suppose he is okay with this since some future pope, in all likelihood, will apologize to the African people for the church's role in all those deaths.

As different as our views on God may be, I think we can — and given the circumstances — must, announce with ever greater vigor that human reason, when properly cultivated, can lead us to peaceful coexistence. And that doesn't require wiping religion off the face of the earth.

No, it will not require wiping religion off the face of the earth, though that might not hurt, but proper cultivation of human reason, if done correctly, will lead to a considerable decrease in the primacy religion and religious beliefs play in people's outlook and decision making, as well as other questionable viewpoints.

25. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92667 by Garnok on December 1, 2007 at 5:53 am

"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," Meyer said during Wednesday's court proceedings.

So, the boy beleived that if he received the blood transfusions that he would be "unclean and unworthy" and, as a result, he most likely believed that he would not be allowed into heaven when he died. Despite this, however, the judge believes there to have been a lack of coercion?

26. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92666 by Garnok on December 1, 2007 at 5:36 am

Ed Husain advocates an Islamic 'renaissance' arguing that Islam can be re-interpreted to meet the challenges of the modern world.

I'm not sure if this is what Husain really advocates or if it is just an inaccurate and simplistic blurb but it seems to me that if one re-interpretes what they believe to be the word of their god, doesn't that kind of make it not the word of their god anymore?

27. Pascal's Wager

Comment #91642 by Garnok on November 28, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Pascal's Wager is not an arguement for the existence of god but a competition of which religion has the scarier concept of hell.

28. African Crucible: Cast as Witches, Then Cast Out

Comment #89019 by Garnok on November 19, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Ultraviolet G said:

Does anyone else think that the "not my religion" crowd are, not racists per se: that's completely the wrong insinuation and I do not accuse them of it for a second- but extemely chauvinistic and provincial and bourgeoise?

How about elitist? They discriminate by claiming that they have a sophisticated belief system and anyone who does not have the same one or something similar, and that may include those who simply lack an integrial part of the belief system, is somehow deficient or incapable to reaching "rational" conclusions. But those that cannot do so are not to be denigrated or abused, they are to be pitied.

29. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88396 by Garnok on November 16, 2007 at 1:02 pm

he refers to Prof. Dawkins as "owl-faced"

Hmm, I've always heard that owls were associated with wisdom. Were I Dawkins I'm not sure I would feel too insulted by this and find it more of a compliment. Maybe Dougherty attended the "Beavis and Butthead School of Insulting".

If the general consensus is that pushing religion on your children is not an issue, then why is the advocacy of non-religion? Why was there such a backlash to our own Blasphemy Challenge, largely because teens were being "targeted" by the evil atheists? It is the obvious hypocrisy that is most problematic here—indoctrination from Christian parents is fine, but atheist parents need to keep their lack of belief to themselves.

See also the latest bruha over the movie The Golden Compass and the books the movie is based on. Yet I saw many people had no problem at all about having their children watch The Passion of the Christ whether it was at the theater, at home or at church. Even if I were Christian I'd have concerns over the violent and bloody content of the movie in regards to young children. I suppose that is some small evidence that, for some, typical matters of propriety become irrelevent for some when it comes to religion, at least of the Christian variety. Given the number of bootleg DVD copies of that movie I saw floating around, I suppose the same goes for legal issues, secular or religious, as well.

As others have said, good article.

30. Antony Flew's Bogus Book

Comment #87191 by Garnok on November 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm

clearthinker said:

Flew has changed from being an atheist to a deist. So what? What difference does that make to the argument about whether there is a God or not? He is not professing to be a Christian is he? Or to believe in a personal God? I have seen a video of him where he clearly renouces his atheism and states he is a deist. So why all the fuss? And why all the attempts by some other atheists to undermine him and suggest it is only senility that would drive him that way? It does not do the atheist cause any good to be so bitchy and petty.

I don't think it matters to many here, or to Carrier, if Flew has gone from atheist to deist. What matters, and what people are concerned about, is that a few apparently dishonest hucksters are trying to use an old man to promote their cause and claiming that he believes things he may not actually believe. Many here are used to seeing quote- mining and misrepresentations in theists writings but writing a book in someone else's name when they seem to have had nothing to do with it in the first place is a whole new level of duplicity.

31. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #85675 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 7:59 pm

[Y]ou can't be moral without God.

The theist has come to the belief that his god is moral yet how has he done this if he cannot realize on his own what is moral and what is not without the help of this god he believes to be moral?

32. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #85673 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Sometimes people claim that Atheism is its own religion, and that it is possible to be a "Fundementalist Atheist."

I'll first give a response to the "atheism is a religion" claim. Simply put, is theism a religion? No. It can be a part of a religion, just as atheism can (some Buddists sects, Raelians, etc.), but it cannot make the whole of a religion.

As for the "fundamentalist atheists" claim, what is there in atheism to be "fundamental" about? The only thing required for one to be an atheist is to lack a belief in a god or gods. No more, no less. In that sense every atheist is a fundamentalist by default, just as every theist is as well. If that is the case then the word "fundamentalist" ultimately loses all meaning.

33. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #85492 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 2:41 am

It seems to me the best response to this is to simply ask "How so?" Really, the comment seems to say nothing reagrding either theism or atheism, much less the validity of either. Ultimately, it appears that the only purpose this statement has is a quick, easy and empty claim that only sounds like it says something profound, and I'm sure many believers will think as much. However, those that would use it so blithely, as well as those who would respond positiviely towards it, have probably not given it much thought. A simple "How so?" would probably not counter it but their stammering to justify it could deflate the rhetorical or emotional punch the theist thought it had.

34. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #85483 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 2:13 am

I could probably offer many examples or methods to show that I love one particular person or another in the manner appropriate to my relationship with them but, regardless of anything I say or do, all you will most likely respond with is that I could easily fake all of it if I wanted. Admittedly, that is true. However, because of this I must assume that if there is no difference between proving love and proving your god exists, otherwise why would you make this arguement, then you might just be faking god.

35. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85467 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 1:18 am

Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier. Many people would find the reverse to be true.

As far as I can tell, the only "metaphysical difficulties" that would really be present is the human propensity to anthropmorphize things, including the non- existent. I could be wrong though.

36. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #83399 by Garnok on October 29, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.

Which requires that said all- knowing being actually exists, otherwise making said arguement meaningless, incoherent and based on nothing but one's own conceit unless one can show that god exists or is very likely to. A claim that requires the existence of something to be true cannot also be used as evidence that said thing exists.

I'm just saying. :)

37. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #83396 by Garnok on October 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm

I would have to say that it was the other way around: society was beneficial to religion. Without a society, religion (as we know it today) would probably never have existed as it requires numbers greater than were possible before our development of agriculture. While religion probably had, and still has, some benefit to offer society (things tend to work full circle) the real question should instead be: was religion necessary? I would have to say no. Religions were man- made and as such we could obviously have thought of the things that we find in religion to be valuable. That we find those ideas in multiple religions and philosophies, often seperated by time, distance and geography, supports that to an exceptional degree in my opinion. While a religious person may see that as proof of their god at work, I see that as the commonality people share from us all being human beings. I leave it to others to decide which is the more reasonable.

38. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83393 by Garnok on October 29, 2007 at 10:26 pm

There are probably a myriad of reasons we could give as to why this is beneficial. As an evolutionary advantage it really isn't one unless you are a member of a social species, which humans are. Even then I wouldn't call it an advantage necessarily. From an evolutionary stand point a show of kindness, genuine or false, might help one increase the chance that they get to reproduce, either by attracting a mate or convincing others to not toss you out so that you live long enough to attract a mate, but that doesn't make it an advantage, just a tactic.

The question seems to be misdirection, a feint by the religious intended to show that we need a god, their god, to be moral (although the morality of offering an old lady your seat on the bus is debatable since kindness does not equal morality).

39. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #83264 by Garnok on October 29, 2007 at 1:17 pm

I don't think there is a concise way to answer this question, which is probably why it is used so often. However, I think the best way to deal with this line of reasoning is to instead take on the "atheism is a religion" and "without god, atheists have no morals" assertions as they are at the heart of the claim regarding Stalin, Pol Pot or whoever else they want to throw in. I think this claim, and any response to it, is better served by using it as segue to tackle those other assertions. Once they are taken care of, the emotional and rhetorical bite from this one is diminished greatly.

40. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #83262 by Garnok on October 29, 2007 at 1:05 pm

mrtim said:

Garnok -- well said.

Thanks.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said in an interview that he hoped religion would eventually evolve into philosophy, just as alchemy evolved into chemistry.

Funny that. I had a discussion with a theist (one of the few somewhat pleasant and rational ones I've had) about this and he was trying to go the other way, that philosophy became religion. I granted at least the two were very similar and the lines between them could get blurred easily. However, I told him that I think that most likely religion, of some type, came first as religion has a "make it up as you go along" feel to it while philosophy has some forethought. I did admit that this was my opinion as one who is mostly uneducated in philosophy, so to take it with a grain of salt.

In my experience this rebuttal will *not* result in a reasoned response . . .

Not too many do sadly.

41. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #82726 by Garnok on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 am

"The US is (or was founded as) a Christian Nation."

Most polls do show that he majority of the United States affiliates with one type of Christianity or another but they also show that the majority of those affliate with Roman Catholicism, so why do we even bother with elections and not just give the Pope the reins of power? After all, you think the "majority rules", right? (This is assuming that you are talking to a non- Catholic Christian, of course, but most Catholics I know have no problem with the US being a secular nation)

"The idea of Church/State separation comes from Christianity"

Then you should have no problem agreeing with it. Why are we still discussing it. Get your religion out of government. You don't want to upset your god, do you?

42. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #82721 by Garnok on October 27, 2007 at 10:55 am

"Religion created science" or "Without religion there would never have bene science" or something like that.

Chemistry began as alchemy. Astronomy began as astrology. Christanity began as Judaism. The origins of something is not relavant to the veracity of its current position and the strength of the current position does not lend validity to its origins. Science began the moment one of our ancient hominid ancestors developed the brain power to ask "why?".

43. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82720 by Garnok on October 27, 2007 at 10:43 am

The appeal that religion is generally moderate, and that it is only the extremists who are the problem.

For the sake of arguement, I'll grant that it is a minority of extremists causing all the problems. However, even moderates claim, if indirectly, to have in their possession the Truth when they repudiate the actions and opinions of the extremist minority. Otherwise, how could their actions be wrong or problematic? I must ask how one holds a moderate view on the Truth?

44. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82716 by Garnok on October 27, 2007 at 10:12 am

If I'm in a pithy mood, my response to "If you don't believe in God, you must not believe in anything" is usually, "Sure I believe in something. Case in point, I do believe that what you just said is the dumbest thing I've heard all day." But I generally use this only with those that have demonstrated an inablity or unwillingnes to look at things reasonably or those that can see the joke in it.

Otherwise, I usually reply with, "I could sit here and recite a whole list of things I believe, however, I believe that would be a pointless endeavor. If you equate belief in a god, particularly your god, with belief in anything and everything then it is unsurprising that you then see that god's hand in everything, including that which would controvert said god's existence."

45. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81505 by Garnok on October 24, 2007 at 9:06 pm

He surmised that for poor Hitchens, "the gates of hell are locked from inside." Because, well, we are free to accept or reject salvation, and if we reject it, "God reluctantly gives us our wish." The crowd liked this, too.

I haven't watched or listened to the debate yet, but I have a hard time accepting that Hitchens allowed that to go by without answer unless he was not allowed to. I say this because McGrath made a similar arguement in his debate with Hitchens and he put it to bed rather well then.

At any rate, as far as the arguement of who has a higher body count goes: Chirstiantiy v. atheism? I say this, sure I'll take Stalin and Pol Pot. I'll even take Hitler off the Christians hands just because I'm a nice guy. However, if they want to put the actions of people who may have been atheists on the heads of atheists everywhere, then the Christians must accept the actions of theists everywhere. If they feel that divisions of political ideology do not enter into the discussion, just atheism alone, then I see no reason why religious divisions should either, just theism alone.

46. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77596 by Garnok on October 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm

The Texas law, which was drafted and promoted by a Religious Right group called the Liberty Legal Institute, is yet another salvo in a long-running battle in America over the proper place of religion in public schools.

I have to give them one thing: the fundies are an endless source of irony with their use of the word liberty .

phasmagigis said:

so maybe we'll hear some islamic prayers in texan schools, that will go down well.

Or maybe a reading from Harris' The End of Faith or Dawkins' The God Delusion ? As we have already seen from the incident involving flyers sent home in kid's backpacks from schools; it's all okay so long as it it used to promote their religion but once it is used fairly, for the benefit of all, the fit hits the shan.

Frankus1122 said:

I think there is great value in getting religion into the public school system - not to promote it as truth but to hold it up as an object of study. When people begin to look at religion from outside of the bubble it quickly becomes apparent how silly it is.

I agree here. I would really like a comparative studies course for religions in schools (maybe as an elective) that does not promote any as truth. However, attempts to do so at any level below collage haven't been well receieved. For some reason many religious folk don't like having their beliefs seen in the same light as other religions.

47. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74735 by Garnok on September 30, 2007 at 7:32 am

PeterK said:

I have never seen a theist accuse an atheist of introducing vague terms which can be defined in any way to suit his purposes.

I have. In fact, a theist accused me of doing just that recently during a discussion after I told he was being vague and equivocating, as well as engaging in other forms of intellectual dishonesty. In the end, I think he was just trying to turn the tables by projecting his fallacies onto me.