1. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #108147 by Slavny on January 6, 2008 at 5:39 am

How about a debate point on some of the other supernatural claims of theology? For example: is there an essence to our character beyond our physical bodies? Does the soul exist?

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

Comment #106551 by Slavny on January 3, 2008 at 6:10 am

I would say a similar thing to the proponents of this view as I would to those who are in favour guns being legal in America. I know most Americans who own guns are decent, law-abiding citizens and only a few go on homicidal rampages. But frankly I don't find it significant to tot up the number of gun owners and compare criminal records. It's far more significant to look at a gun and ask yourself: could these go wrong if everyone had one?

The answer for both guns and religion is yes. Religion creates the most potent in-groups conceivable, the byproduct of which is often intolerance to other groups, religion is often characterised by sin, shame and punishment and gives mortal actions the dangerous taint of divine purpose. What could possibly go wrong there...?

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

Comment #106546 by Slavny on January 3, 2008 at 5:56 am

Experiencing God doesn't prove that God exists any more than being hungry proves there's food in your cupboard.

4. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #102517 by Slavny on December 23, 2007 at 4:34 am

'Why' presupposes meaning (insofar as it's distinguished from 'how'). Meaning is a contrived, human concept. There's no basis for assuming a 'why' in the same way as there is for assuming a 'how', because a reason for existence is not logically requisite but a method is. It returns to the existentialist dictum, 'existence precedes essence.' First of all, we are, and only then can we question why we are. To try and invert this sequence is a bit like claiming two can be understood without understanding one.

This argument provokes indignation in people, they think it's too reserved, too fettered by reason to provide profound insight. It seems intuitively unsatisfying, but we should beware of intuition or inward impulses, our brains are evolved organs, and in a sense they have their own agenda independent of our desire to discover genuine truth.

If this seems bleak, consider the fact that you now have the opportunity to construct your own 'why' from scratch. Where divine ordinance is sacrificed, human authorship is gained. There's really nothing cringe-worthy about the cliche: 'life is what you make of it.'