The "Blind Lizard" argument

I know, it's been a while since I have posted anything. It's been a VERY busy couple months with moving suddenly (the house I was renting had black mold), having hernia surgery for the 3rd time and the holidays. I will say I made it through all of it without thinking I should pray to anyone or anything even once! I would like to take a second though and thank the good doctors and nurses at IMC for their care and professionalism. They were great!

Last Saturday as my son and I were getting ready to go to the archery range and loose some arrows at a few very deserving paper targets, we received a visit from an evangelical whackadoo. I am not sure what faith he was promoting specifically as he didn't identify himself with any organized group. He was an older man and had a young african american boy with him in tow. When I answered the door, he immediately asks me without introducing himself if "I would like to discuss god with him"?

Now, I very rarely turn down a good debate and would normally have invited he and his little buddy in for a spirited debate on religion and the existence of a supreme being. Since I was getting ready to go, (bow in hand) I wasn't really in the mood for a long discussion with him and politely said "No, thanks. I'm not a believer and this would be a waste of your time."

He stood there for less than 2 seconds and started into a tirade regarding creation and evolution. I am not sure why he went there, I didn't mention anything of the sort to him. I politely responded that there isn't a creator and that evolution proves itself, all he would need to do is examine any animal or for that matter human being and he could see evolution in action.

This is when he got weird on me: He looked at me and said "what about blind lizards?" then went on to explain how a blind lizard would die if god didn't give it eyes. I told him that there are plenty of blind animals and other life forms on the planet that do just fine. He insisted that if god didn't give blind animals eyes they would all die. At that point I knew I was dealing with a crackpot and realized that there was going to be no simple end to this conversation so I stood there mute for about three minutes as he rambled on about blind animals and gods link to them. He asked me if  that made me think that there could be a god, I simply said no it makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.

He then says "well we have stuff to do" and turned and walked away.

Has anyone else dealt with this before? I have no idea where he was going with the blind lizard argument. If it was to convice me of a creator it didn't work, it only convinced me that he was an idiot that had no idea what he was talking about.

It's good to be back. I will make sure to post more to keep you all entertained.

Students Walk Out on Dan Savage

Students Walk Out on Dan Savage

If the truth hurts........ It's sad. The bible is an allegory, not to be taken literally. Why oh why, don't people get that?

It's a great book of morality tales, stories of violence and intolerance. Not a book to live you life by....

Jeez,

When will people all wake up.

Go Dan!!!

Separation of Church and State? (In God We Trust)?

I found this article on the First Church of Atheism Blog. (Please go there, and donate and help them help all Atheists everywhere). I think it's relevant:

By Rev. Chris Andersen




Throughout the course of my wanderings, the subject of religion and government has occasionally reared its head in discussions with friends, family, classmates, etc. While talking about the merits and negatives of including “In God We Trust” on our currency, I noticed a common statement: “It’s just four words. What does it matter?” The same is said concerning the phrase “One Nation Under God” in our pledge. On the surface, I may agree. My worry is that it will not end at just four words. So where will it end?



Hmmm, time for a brief history lesson:



A Gospel Minister, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, sent a letter in November 1861 to the Secretary of the Treasury. This was a time when religious fervor was en vogue during the Civil War. In the letter, Rev. Watkinson pleaded his case (from one Christian to another) that U.S. currency should recognize all mighty god in some form.



An excerpt from his letter:



“… no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.”

Within seven days of the original letter, the Secretary of the Treasury set about the process of devising a motto to include on the nation’s coins. In God We Trust first appeared on U.S. coins three years later in 1864. The motto’s appearance on our coins came and went… and came and went… and well, you get the point. That changed during the McCarthy period when in 1956 the President approved a law passed by Congress which made IN GOD WE TRUST our national motto. Beginning the following year, our new national motto would be printed on U.S. currency… coin AND paper.



The passing of this law came on the heels of another landmark event. Congress added the words “under god” to the pledge of allegiance two years earlier in 1954. One of the arguments of the day was that reasonable people should not object to the addition of just two words (sounds remarkably similar to what the reverend had said nearly 100 years earlier).



A decade later, government and religion were back on the front pages. The non-theist population started asserting its voice. An Atheist mother was enraged that her tax money was being used to buy bibles for public schools. Worse than that was the mandate that her son would take part in bible readings and prayer while attending school. When her son opted out, he was beaten by his classmates while the school officials turned a blind eye. The mother brought suit against the board of education. In a nearly unanimous decision (8-1), the Supreme Court agreed that mandatory bible readings and school prayer were unconstitutional.

In the years since, many have argued that the establishment clause of the constitution either does not exist or does not apply because of past precedent. What precedent you may ask? You guessed it… Government endorsement of religion on U.S. currency, Government endorsement of religion through our national motto, Government endorsement of religion in our official pledge of allegiance.

People who want religion integrated more into our government / education / society often claim that a few liberal judges have hijacked the legal system and are legislating from the bench. This argument just doesn’t hold water. Judges have pointed to the establishment clause consistently over many decades. These are not isolated cases involving a few radical judges. The dual protections of the first amendment have been cited by dozens of courts and judges over a sustained period of time. Both liberal judges as well as ultra-conservative judges have pointed to the constitutional protections in their findings.



By keeping phrases such as “in god we trust” and “under god” in our official government psyche, we keep the door open for fundamentalists to claim precedent. The fight is ongoing to bring organized prayer and bible readings back into public schools. If the religious wing manages to get that through somehow, do you think they will be satisfied? They weren’t satisfied with having coins minted with “in god we trust”. They weren’t satisfied with having a religious national motto. They were not satisfied with making every citizen in the country acknowledge a god in order to pledge their allegiance to this nation and its flag.



If they gain momentum, what will be next? Will they once again start banning any books that are not in agreement with the bible? Strike classes from school curriculum which do not conform to biblical stories? This is not much of a stretch, but what will be next? Will we start enforcing more laws from the bible? Start snuffing out any atheistic movements as well as Wiccans and Satanists? After that we may move on to tell Muslims that they have their own countries they can live in. After all, this is a nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles. If we do not stay vigilant in the protection of the separation principles of the first amendment, we could end up like the people of England before the settlement of America; being forced to adhere to a narrow religious interpretation. This may not include Mormons. It may not include Jews. It may not include Protestants if the government happens to follow catholic principles instead. It is in everyone’s — religious or not — best interest to maintain a strict separation of church and state. By allowing religion into the government business, we allow government into religious business. I don’t think anyone really wants that.

Scientific Proof of God??

While browsing the internet I came upon a site that purports to prove God exists SCIENTIFICALLY! This of course intrigues me as I have never in my life met anyone that could definitively prove that God exists via science. I read their article and am going to respond to it here. You can read the article here if you want to see that I didn't take anything there out of context. My responses to the article will be italicized for easy differentiation.

Before we can discuss the existence of scientific proof of God, we need to identify what we mean by proof. Also, to know what type of evidence supporting the existence of God would be considered by science, we also need to know which definition of science applies.

Interesting isn't it? Before we can even begin, we have to define what "is" is. Since there is ONLY one definition of science I am already skeptical of the entire article. 

The definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of God. The truth or untruth of this statement is not based upon evidence or lack of evidence, but by definition alone. Even though there is extensive, solid evidence for God’ s existence, none of that evidence would be admissible in the science court of law using the current definition.

Interesting! Let's see if I have this correct. Science says there is NO GOD, in order to make your argument you are now going to throw out the accepted scientific definition and decide to go with the definition (right or wrong) that best suits your argument. Not sure how credible your argument is going to be, but I am willing to see where you take this.

Consequently, to know what evidence really supports the existence of God, we need to base our statements on the old classic definition of science to eliminate the disqualification of the evidence. The kind of evidence we need to consider is the same type that would be admissible in a court of law.

The level of proof is different in a criminal court than a civil court. In a civil court the prosecution only needs to prove that the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in their direction. Alternatively, in a criminal court a higher level of proof is required. The prosecutor needs to provide evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What types of evidence are admissible in courtrooms? These include direct evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or eyewitness accounts. Also, circumstantial evidence is normally admissible unless it is abnormally weak. Although circumstantial evidence is indirect, it can be powerful evidence to prove guilt or innocence.

I see, so in order to prove that God exists, we are now going from SCIENTIFIC proof which is what the author purported to be proving to now LEGAL proof. The kind of evidence/proof that would be acceptable in a CIVIL court, since Criminal courts would require ACTUAL proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The author is going with the weakest possible standard of evidence here. Typical creationist mantra, we will PRETEND to use proof and science when in REALITY we will simply use smoke and mirrors and lots of verbiage to prove NOTHING.

Scientific Proof of God – The Evidence

First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.

 Let me get this straight. Since I cannot prove the non-existence of God, God must therefore exist? Using this logic, I must also accept that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, all the Greek Gods, Mesopotamian Gods, Egyptian Gods, Allah, Aliens, The Loch Ness Monster, The Kraken, Giant Ship Killing Squids, Vampires, Werewolves and the Borg MUST all exist? The argument itself is ridiculous, you cannot simply say "since you can't prove it doesn't exist, it must." and call that an intelligent argument. 

Since everything listed above must now be considered a universal truth, then I think the people of planet earth have some serious issues to work through. Which supreme being should you be following since they all exist? And, if they all exist shouldn't we all be worshiping all of them just to be safe? I can see that now, human sacrifice on Monday and dancing and praying to Allah on Thursday with Tuesdays being set aside to burial rituals and the weekends for talking with our Alien brethren. 

The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.

All I have to say here is: "Big Bang" anyone? This isn't proof, it's the same silly religious argument that I hear every time I discuss this with someone that is going to argue the existence of God. 

Both direct and indirect evidence for God’s existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.

First, the ONLY documentation of Jesus Christ is the Bible. Since the Bible cannot be considered a credible source of information - see the Council of Nicaea - and Constantine's efforts to make himself the image of Jesus Christ. (Constantine commissioned ALL the images currently of Christ and they are all Constantine). The calendar argument doesn't hold water as again that goes to Constantine and his efforts to deify himself. The predictions in the Old and New Testaments cannot be considered credible as there is NO definitive proof as to when the specific prophesies were written or included in the canonized scripture. The miracles referred to again cannot be proven to have occurred as there is NO collaborative proof outside of the Bible itself. If there were proof, it would have been not only constantly referred to but one of the biggest discoveries of this century. Also, the story of Jesus Christ is strikingly similar to the story of Osiris of Egyptian mythos as well as the stories of Hercules and many other Greek and Roman mythologies, not to mention Mohamed. C.S. Lewis had it right, IF Jesus did exist he was a lunatic. 

Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us. 

Now we have completely gotten away from any kind of SCIENTIFIC PROOFS. Since the Bible itself was not canonized till well after the alleged time of Jesus Christ, any quotes where Jesus referred to the Old Testament cannot be regarded with credibility as all accounts of Jesus Christ are written by people OTHER than Christ himself. Also, since all interaction with God took the form of burning bushes etc. How much of what is written can be taken seriously? To do so would be to also take the work of fiction known as the Book of Mormon as literal truth, when anyone that has looked into it knows that Joseph Smith tried to SELL that scripture as FICTION with HIMSELF as the author. Given that information how credible is a book written 1000+ years ago that is a COMPILATION and incomplete at that, that has NO credible scientific or archeological backing?

God’s interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus’ testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.

Interesting isn't it? Still referring to the Bible as the "Scientific proof" of the existence of God. Using the testimony of an individual whose existence is debatable would be like arguing that Darth Vader exists because there are written accounts of his existence. Wait! Scientology is doing almost exactly that! Does that mean that L.Ron Hubbard is as credible as any Old Testament Prophet? Not in my book, but using the logic above he would have to be. Ancient Manuscripts? So if the writing is OLD it must be accurate? If that argument is to be used, then we MUST accept everything written that predates 1ad. as accurate and correct. If we did this, we would all be worshiping hundreds of Gods and sacrificing our friends and neighbors on a regular basis. The archaeology argument only works if all you are looking at is that a city listed in the Bible exists. Of course it would, who would write about cities and places and try to be credible to the PEOPLE of their TIME using made up places? 

Eye witnesses and indirect accounts? Seriously? That cannot even be justified with a legitimate response outside of then stating that using that logic, we must then assume that all Alien encounters reported are factual and people the world over are being kidnapped by little green men and getting anal probed. We must also then accept that Vampires and Werewolves live among us and are plotting to one day rule the world as there are tons of indirect evidence to support this. 

It is obvious to me that the author of the quoted article above cannot and will never be able to PROVE scientifically or otherwise of the existence of God let alone their own intelligence. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't see that the author has proven anything other than their undying illogical belief in something that they cannot and refuse to prove empirically.  

 

 

 

 

Great Quotes from Great men and or women...

I stumbled upon these quotes in my travels across the internet (invented by Al Gore) while wearing my pants (invented by GW Bush). I thought I would share them with you all.

Enjoy!

1. Religion easily has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
2. Atheism: A non-prophet organization.
3. I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
4. Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?

5. Faith means not wanting to know what is true.

6. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
7. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
8. It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
9. If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
10. The most henious and the must cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.
Mohandas K Gandhi, Young India, July 7, 1950, quoted from Laird Wilcox, ed., “The Degeneration of Belief”
11. I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
12. “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
Mark Twain
13. A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
Mark Twain
14. What God lacks is convictions — stability of character. He ought to be a Presbyterian or a Catholic or something — not try to be everything.

15. Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.
Mark Twain, quoted from Curmudgeon-Online
16. “In God We Trust.” I don’t believe it would sound any better if it were true.
17. Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
18. We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society.
19. The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard’s Almanack (1758)
20. Lighthouses are more helpful then churches.
21. If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.
Voltaire

22. Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.
23. Black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.
Stephen Hawking, NATURE, 1975
24. We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There’s not much personal about the laws of physics.
25. Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
26. The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
27. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Christopher Hitchens
28. Christopher Hitchens On Jerry Falwell: If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox.
29. Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.
Sigmund Freud
30. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Karl Marx
31. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw
32. Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
Blaise Pascal Quote
32. You’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend.
Richard Jeni Quote
34. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg Quote

35. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Delos B. McKown Quote

36. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Edward Gibbon
37. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.
Robert Ingersoll
38. The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see.
Huang Po
39. Where knowledge ends, religion begins.
Benjamin Disraeli Quote

40. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
Quote from Unknown

41. If there really is a God who created the entire universe with all of its glories, and He decides to deliver a message to humanity, He will not use, as His messenger, a person on cable TV with a bad hairstyle.
Dave Barry
42. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus Quotes

43. The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.
Eric Hoffer Quotes
44. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.
Bill Maher
45. There’s a phrase we live by in America: “In God We Trust”. It’s right there where Jesus would want it: on our money.
46. If we go back to the beginning, we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them.
Baron D’Holbach, cited in Jonathan Miller. (2004). A Brief History of Disbelief [TV-Series].
47. If I thought the Jews killed God, I’d worship the Jews.
Bill Hicks
48. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
Isaac Asimov
49. A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition.
José Bergamín
50. One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion.
Arthur C. Clarke Quotes