The Piss Cat and The Resurrection of Jesus.

A long time since I have done a blog, but here we go again. Discussing the christian technique of defending the resurrection of Jesus. First I am going to look at the strategy employed by Christians today in defending the position and why it is a poor one. Then I will move on to a analogy to show just how ridiculous it is to believe the resurrection.

Lets get started. When Christians attempt to defend the resurrection, for the most part they will try to rule out naturalistic explanations that atheists have given for the resurrection. The irony of this is they do this by saying that any of these natural explanations are so unlikely that they can be ruled out. They do this for any reasons such as grave robbers, or the women went to the wrong tomb. What the christian is attempting to do is reduce the natural explanation to absurdity(reductio ad absurdum). This my friends is a poor strategy of arguing for anything, when you are dealing with a false dichotomy. The reason this is done on a false dichotomy is because the christian has only ruled out the possible natural explanations that we have thought of, he could not have possibly ruled out unknown natural explanations this way. So, when an apologist such as William Lane Craig or others does this, you must see he is committing a fallacy of false dilemma.

Now adding further embarrassment to the problem is the fact that apologists will claim that the naturalistic explanations are unlikely therefore the apologist says he is justified in believing in the resurrection. This is laughable as we know the odds of a resurrection are incredibly low. Statistically speaking based on what we know about deaths they are at least lower then 1 in 6 billion. Why does the apologist not rule out this explanation for the same reason. Well, special pleading of course. Now the common reasoning an apologist will give to argue against this, is that my odds assume no god. Well guess what, they make no such assumption. The only assumption my argument makes is what we see is reality. If what we see is reality then god does not routinely raise the dead. So even in the existence of a god, a resurrection would be highly unlikely. Lets just say god raised the dead is not a explanation that is likely for any case of an empty tomb.

Now I want to present an example to show just how ridiculous the empty tomb really is. Lets say we have 4 people who have just decided to renovate this abandoned house. The house is in need of repair but there is a large fence around the house keeping animals out. Now when the people go into the basement they smell the scent of piss. They cannot figure out where this smell is coming from. Then one women says " she saw the grave of an animal named fluffy outside, and that she had heard stories of a zombified cat getting up and walking at night on this property." So, the other 3 say that is ridiculous, and try to come up with more naturalistic explanations(notice right now you are not screaming naturalism of the gaps, idiot nate). Each one they come up with the women rules out as unlikely. The fence prevents animals from getting in. The women concludes it must be the resurrected corpse of fluffy. The other 3 say that while the other options are unlikely, they are still more likely then a resurrected cat, and also the possibility of a unknown natural cause is far more likely. They do not allow the woman into the conversation about solving the problem of the piss smell. They do this in spite of the women's insisting that you are ruling out the possibility of a god, who would want this cat to piss in the basement. Why you ask, because the resurrected cat theory is far more unlikely then any of the natural explanations and you the believing christian know this.

I hear the christians right now crying false analogy fallacy. Well get this here is the analogy broken down to show it is not a false analogy. The key points remain the same. In the Jesus resurrection resurrected corpses are responsible for exactly 0 known cases of tombs going empty, in the case of the piss cat, resurrected cats are responsible for exactly 0 known cases of basements smelling like piss. In both cases natural causes are still far more likely then a resurrection as resurrections by definition and shown earlier are unlikely. You also must see here that the Christians ridiculous claim that we are ruling out a god who would want this is nonsensical. It does not fly in the face of the piss cat example, because any god that happens to exist is highly unlikely to want any cat to resurrect, and we know that because any god who exists exists in a world where he does not routinely want cats to resurrect, you know reality, much like this god would exist in a world where he routinely wants humans to resurrect. Therefore on any given claim of resurrections of humans or piss cats we must be highly skeptical and look for natural explanations as they simply are far more likely. So, in the end any claim of false analogy would not actually get the point, because the points of analogy are equivalent and any differences in the stories are irrelevant to the analogy, and therefore would be a red herring to bring up.

I just dont' get how anybody can believe in the resurrection.

Is the new testament a consistent and accurate source: Part 2 The Crucifixion.

As I began this series of posts exploring whether the New Testament was a reliable and consistent source of information I had originally planned to make the 2nd post about the crucifixion and resurrection. Well, I ran into a little snag here, namely the crucifixion and events leading up to it was a topic in and of itself, as will be the resurrection. So, what was originally going to be a 3 part series will now be a 4 part series.

The intent of this series is to give Christians a look into the world of historical and textual criticism of the bible. The contradictions and inconsistencies are vast. At some point Christians must lay down their apologetic arms and come to terms with the fact that the bible is not a perfect, inerrant work. Today I am going to be discussing clear cut inconsistencies and errors in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

I shall begin with the trial. There are many inconsistencies here, starting with what does Jesus say in response to the question from Pilate "Are you King of the Jews?" Was it "Thou sayest it" as in Mark(Mark 15:2),Matthew(Matthew 27:11, which actually says thou sayest), and Luke(Luke 23:3) or does he say "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" as in John(John 18:34). That is just a slight difference, but from there on out we have a more drastic difference. After this round of questioning how does Jesus respond from here on out. Does he say nothing as in Mark(Mark 15:4-6), Matthew(Matthew 27:12_14) or does he continue on to say: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." as in John(John 18:36). He could not have said nothing and this, either the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are right or John is right,but someone has to be wrong. This trial is a mess all around. When does Jesus get flogged after the trial as in Mark(Mark 15:15) or during the trial as in John(19:1). One more part of the trial we will discuss is the fact that the custom of releasing prisoners like Pilate did for Barabbus was not in the real Pilates nature. This historical information just does not make sense with what we know about Pilate and Roman history. There are many more problems with the trial but I will leave it at that.


Now we move on route to crucifixion, is Jesus talking or silent, who carries his cross? These questions are left up in the air by the gospels since, get this, they have different answers depending on which author you are reading. When walking to the be crucified is he silent like in Mark and Matthew or is he talking like in Luke(Luke 23:28) were he says to a group of woman "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children." We also have a contradiction of who carries the cross. In Mark(Mark 15:21), Matthew(Matthew 27:32), and Luke(Luke 23:26)or did Jesus carry the cross himself as in John(John 19:17). These things simply cannot be rectified. They are not saying the same thing, one or the other is simply wrong.


Now onto the actual crucifixion, where we find other clear problems. Firstly, Luke(Luke 23:34) is the only one to note Jesus says anything while being nailed to the cross he says a prayer, the others simply have him not saying anything. I will actually be coming back to this later, but we move forward. On the cross there lies different inscriptions:


This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)
The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19)

That is a small difference yes, but it does once again mean not all the gospels are right. We can now turn our attention to how the 2 thieves(Mark 15:27,Matthew 27:28,Luke 23:32, and John 19:18) treated Jesus. In Mark and Matthew the two thieves both mock Jesus(Mark 15:32,Matthew 27:44), while in Luke one of the two thieves comes to Jesus defense, even saying that Jesus had done nothing wrong(Luke 23:40-43). These 2 views are next to impossible to reconcile and again I shall return to this in a bit. Finally, during the crucifixion what are Jesus' final words? There appears 3 different variations:


"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"(Mark 15:34)

'Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?' that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."(Matthew 27:46-50)

"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"(Luke 23:46)

"It is finished"(John 19:30)

Now, I hear your apologetic minds working right now, but both Luke and John say he said his phrase and gave up the ghost, meaning he died right after saying different last words. On the other hand, you could say you have a little wiggle room with Mark and Matthew as they have him taking a drink of vinegar and crying out again and then giving up the ghost(Mark 15:35-37, Matthew 27:47-50). The fact is out of 4 different gospels he says 3 different things as his last words. There is also contradictory reports of when the curtain of the temple was ripped. Matthew and Mark have the curtain ripped after Jesus dies(Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38) Luke says it tore before his death(Luke 23:45-46). There is also the little issue of Matthew talking about resurrecting corpses and an earthquake that is not documented elsewhere throughout history(Matthew 27:51-53). It is reasonable to believe that these events would have drawn a bit of attention, but not even his contemporaries Mark, Luke, or John seemed to be aware of these big events.


As I have been saying I would get back to several comments made by Jesus in Luke. If you have been paying attention, the quotes attributed to Jesus are those of a man who knows what is happening to him a man who is cool and collected. He is not in any sense distraught. Where as in Mark particularly Jesus is distraught. All one needs to do is compare the last words of Jesus in each. In Mark Jesus is asking why god has forsaken him, in Luke Jesus is telling god he is coming to him. It takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to think that these 2 phrases portray the same character. You can look back at the quotes attributed to Jesus by Luke that we have reviewed and see these quotes also portray the same mental state of being aware of his mission and knowing what is happening. The final words of Jesus in Mark and Matthew have always been a problem for Christians because they do not show a man who is making a voluntary sacrifice, but a man who thinks god has left him. Whether this be from this simple theological problem or the problem of dealing with early sects of Gnostic Christians who believed Jesus had 1 part human and one part god, both being 100%, but the god part left the man to be on the cross. This verse seemed to justify their views that the god part had left him.

Alright, now I am going to look at the time table for these events. Did the events happen before the passover or after the passover. Mark says after,where as John(John 13:29, John 18:28, John 19:14) say before. The 2 dates cannot be reconciled. These 2 accounts also do not get the the time right, at 6 on the day of crucifixion Mark has Jesus on the cross(Mark 15:23), while John has Jesus still in the court at this time(John 19:14).

So, once again I say put away the apologetic books and come to grips with the reality that the bible does contain contradictions and irreconcilable differences. The book is a book written by men with different views and who made things up for their own purposes.

Is the new testament a consistent and accurate source: Part 1 the Birth Narratives

In this post I am going to seriously explore the idea that the Gospels tell a consistent story. This may end up being a series of posts, but for today I will focus on the birth narrative. In the gospels the birth narratives only appear in Matthew and Luke, so the question is are the birth narratives consistent and accurate? Lets find out:


To begin with there is one thing both Matthew and Luke agree on and that is that Jesus is born of a virgin. So, at first glance there doesn't appear to be a problem, but lets look at how they got there. This initial exploration of this point is going to use Matthew as he is the first of the 2 authors having written his book in the early to mid 80s(CE) of the first century(Luke was not until 90s(CE) or later). What do we find here,well it appears that the messiah will come from a virgin using: Isaiah 7:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Yet, this is not actually the case. Matthew is directly quoting this line in Matthew 1:23, yet if you actually explore the history of this text the earliest Hebrew manuscripts use the word "alma" which means young woman. Matthew on the other hand used the Greek translation that said "parthenos" which means virgin. So, we are off to a bad start, Matthew is using a bad translation of the old testament and this would lead us to believe he is trying to force prophecy to be fulfilled. It doesn't help matters that according to most Jews the prophecy in Isaiah is not about the Messiah any way. Its presumable about 10 or more years later when Luke was written he was familiar with the virgin birth story from Matthew and kept it in his gospel. If you don't believe Matthew would tell stories to attempt to fulfill prophecy, please check out this outside example, in another case of Matthew misreading prophecy, Matthew unlike the other gospels has Jesus enter Jerusalem on a colt and a donkey. (Matthew 21:7)

Speaking of attempting to fulfill prophecies here is another one. We have already established that both gospels thought Jesus was born of a virgin, yet strangely another prophecy of the old testament is that the Messiah will be of the blood of David (Jeremiah 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalms 132:11) This is fine, but remember that if Mary is a virgin, this bloodline would have to go through her, yet both Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38) go through Joseph with their genealogies to achieve this. This is a clear cut case of 2 prophecies not adding up as either one is true or the other is. Either Jesus is born of a virgin like both Matthew and Luke say and he is not in the bloodline of David since that goes through Joseph, or he is in the bloodline of David through Joseph and is the biological son of Joseph meaning Mary is not a virgin.


Speaking of the Genealogies let me have a look at them:


Luke 3:23-38-------------------Matthew 1:1-17

Heli---------------------------Jacob------------------------no match

Matthat------------------------Matthan------------------------match

Levi---------------------------Eleazar----------------------no match

Melchi-------------------------Eliud------------------------no match

Jannai-------------------------Achim------------------------no match

Joseph-------------------------Zadok------------------------no match

Mattathias---------------------Azor-------------------------no match

Amos---------------------------Eliakim----------------------no match

Nahum------------------------- Abiud------------------------no match

Strange, isn't it, out of the first 10 names starting at Joseph's father, we only have 1 match and I am giving the benefit of the doubt that Matthat and Matthan were the same person. The genealogies are so far off that they contradict 90% of the time here.

Is there more, well let me show you. We are now going to ask when Jesus was born, was it during the reign of Herod the Great as Matthew says, who died in 4 bce and presumably Matthew had Jesus born 2 years before this with the slaughter of the innocence killing 2 year olds or less(Matthew 2:16-18)? This is when most scholars believe that Jesus was born during this time. Yet, Luke clearly says that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria(Luke 2:1–7). Yet, as Bart Ehrman points out here:

"If the Gospels are right that Jesus’ birth occurred during Herod’s reign, then Luke cannot also be right that it happened when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We know from a range of other historical sources, including the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, and several ancient inscriptions, that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 CE, ten years after the death of Herod." Jesus Interrupted pg 33-34

This is at minimum a 10 year gap, most likely 12 years when you consider Matthew probably had Jesus born in 6 CE or earlier.

Now, what about this slaughter of the innocence and the Census. Let me get the slaughter of the innocence out of the way, firstly it has zero non biblical support that it ever happened. It is presumable that other historians would have noticed this. For instance, Josephus loved to write about the terrible atrocities of Herod the Great, why is it not there? Could it be this never happened? Remember we have established Matthew is not above making things up for his story. What about the census? Well firstly a Roman Census would not require people to return to the land their ancestors lived in a 1000 years ago as Luke has here, since Bethlehem was the land of David(Luke 2:1–7). This just simply was not how Roman Census's or any census for that matter works. It was a plot device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.

This whole little tidbit becomes more interesting when you consider Matthew starts his gospel off with Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem(Matthew 2). A place they would presumably live for several years until leaving for Egypt(Matthew 2:13). This is interesting because Luke one other hand has them coming into Bethlehem due to a census and staying at an inn.(Luke 2:7) Where do they go when all is fulfilled in Bethlehem, well its not Egypt as in Matthew, they instead go to Nazareth.(Luke 2:39) In both cases the gospel authors apparently felt the need to have Jesus born in Bethlehem and both used clever plot narratives to get this done. Now, since a historical Jesus would have actually lived in Nazareth, these plot twists needed to get him back there and we have seen how they did that.

At this point I can see Christians getting their apologetic arguments ready to attempt to justify this, yet we have seen contradiction and inconsistency after inconsistency, what are the odds that all of your apologetic arguments are true and that all of this is wrong? Not very high, there comes a point that after you have been exposed to this type of information that you must accept that bible and the gospels are not consistent or accurate, there is just too much to apologize for in the birth narratives alone.

Agnosticism vs atheism revisited.

We are going to learn some basic things such as the law of excluded middle and the English language laws of negation. We will learn the difference between 2 action sentences and 1 action sentences.

Lets start with the law of excluded middle(http://www.stanford.edu/~bobonich/glances%20ahead/IV.excluded.middle.html)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle)

The law is basically this, for every statement either the statement or the negation is true or in other words either a statement is true or false.. There is no middle ground. This is a rock can only have two possible truth values true or false. This is one of the foundational laws of logic and thought that we use. This applies to ignorant agnostics. You can either say that this statement is true or false:

I have the belief in god.

If the statement is true, you have the belief in god.
If the statement is false, you do not have the belief in god.

Also, this statement also has 2 truth values:

I have the belief that there is not god.

If the statement is true, you have the belief that there is no god.
If the statement is false, you do not have the belief that there is no god.

It is true, that if you do have the belief that god exists, you cannot have the belief that god does not exist and vice versa. This is one of the other basic laws of logic and thought called the law of non contradiction(or sometimes the law of contradiction)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction)(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/).

To put this into syllogism form:

If you possess the belief that no god exists, you must not believe god exists.
you possess the belief no god exists
Therefore you must not possess the belief that god exists.

This is a sound and valid syllogism (assuming premise 2 is true of you)
The reason premise 1 is true, is the law of non contradiction, a person cannot possess the belief that god both exists and does not exist.

The agnostic here will then turn around and try to affirm the consequent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent)(http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html) and make this syllogism:

If you possess the belief that no god exists, you must not believe god exists.
you do not believe god exists
Therefore you believe god does not exist.

Now we will move onto sentence structure. We have 2 different sentences to examine:

"I do not believe god exists" vs "I believe god does not exist"

Lets look at the first sentence.( diagram pointing out negations here: (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=35cq6xe&s=6)

in the first sentence the not negates the believe part. This means one does not believe this proposition: That god exists.

On the other hand the second sentence the not negates the exist. While the believe affirms that you have the positive attribute of belief in the nonexistence of god.

Before we go too far we should define belief:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief)

In the first sentence you are not placing trusting confidence in the existence of god. in the second sentence you are placing trust or confidence in the nonexistence of god. These are completely different claims. Now we can see that the set of things that we do not believe and the set of things we believe not are not equal by this example:


My brother and I walk into a field full of grass. At this point, I do not place trust or confidence in the position that there is an even number of blades of grass in the field(Proposition E). I also do not believe there is not an even number of blades of grass in the field(Proposition NE). Why is this, I have not been presented enough logical evidence to believe either claim.

So we can safely put E into the set of things we do not believe. So now, the set things we do not believe looks like this:

(E).

With this said we cannot in turn put the proposition NE into the set of things we do believe so therefore the set of things we do believe remains:
().

It is now time for us to move on to the final part of this the fact that the sentences we are dealing with have 2 actions. The act of believing and the act of god existing. In this case the person as per the diagram must carefully exam which action the negation is being used for.

As per the diagram the sentence " I do not believe that god exists" negates the belief part. The second sentence " I believe no god exists" negates the existence. Strangely, this same rule of negation holds true under these two sentences: " I do not know that god exists" negates the know part where as the statement: " I know that god does not exist" negates the exist part. They are following the same rule.

Now the important part is to understand the question being asked is to understand the question being asked: The question is asking "Do you believe god exists" Not does god exist. We have already explored through the law of excluded middle that this proposition is either true or false:

I Believe god exists.


There are only 2 possible responses. The key word being believe, not "god exists".

Kalam's Cosmological Argument

After watching yet another debate where William Lane Craig uses this argument, I figured I would take a stab at it. We are going to focus on the beginning of the argument before getting into the part about the cause needing to be both personal and timeless. So, here is the basic syllogism we are going to start with(as presented by Craig):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

In my attempt to refute this argument it is important to understand these fallacies:

The fallacy of equivocation- Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic word. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

The fallacy of Composition-The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)

The fallacy of division-A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division)

Now that we have clearly defined some fallacies we can begin our rebuttal of the KCA. The first thing we can point out is that, the argument may well be equivocating the universe as just another thing. A point was made by famous Christian philosopher,Alvin Plantinga, that the universe is just another thing. The universe is actually the set of all things. So, we can look at the universe this way. This rebuttal to me does not seem enough so we shall go a step further. Since now the universe is the set of all things, or all things are parts of the universe, we look at how the argument works. Premise 1, is obtained by using inductive reasoning to see that everything we observe that begins to exist has a cause. The problem here is that everything that we observe to begin to exist is a part of the universe. To then try and say that this means the universe must have a cause, is to attribute this characteristic of the parts of the universe to the parts. This by definition as we have seen is the fallacy of composition.

I have also heard other philosophers go the other direction. The universe is the matter and the energy that everything is made of, in other words the universe is just the parts that everything is made of. You then try to make argument work by making the attributes of the whole( the things made from matter and energy) to the matter and energy itself. If you look at the universe this way, by definition the argument has now committed the fallacy of division. Thinking about the argument this way can bring us to another problem.

That problem is this, everything that we have known to exist was caused by the rearranging of matter and energy. Which is a different kind of causation then to cause from ex nihilo, or from nothing. The argument equivocates the idea that causation follows the same rules for things that come from matter and energy and things that do not. These are too different categories of beginning to exist and you cannot draw conclusions about going from nothing to something, based on going from something to something different. This is fallacious thinking.

You may still be saying at this point, well something can't come from nothing, right? Well how do you know? What nothing have you ever seen? We have not ever observed nothing in the philosophical sense(not the physics sense) to draw any conclusions about what will or won't happen with nothing. That claim is not very justified. (this section I credit to an episode of the atheist experience from Tracy Harris).


So, now we have seen that the argument can't make it through the first part without being fallacious, but lets say for the sake of it that you still think that the universe has a cause. If we are drawing that conclusion from our experiences, in spite of that being fallacious, then you should come to the conclusion that the cause is non personal. Why inductive reasoning shows that the set of complex things caused by non personal causes, far outweighs the set of complex things created by personal causes. Here it is:

Set of things with no evidence of a personal cause(solar systems, planets,start, galaxies, comets, forests, plants, animals.....) > complex things made by design(man made things)


So, in conclusion we are forced to say that Kalams Cosmological argument fails to prove god on a number of different levels. The syllogism is fallacious in many ways, and even if the syllogism were sound the same type of inductive reasoning used to get us to the cause, can be used against it to say that the personal cause is unlikely.

Silly Baptisms

So, yesterday I was going through my facebook account and saw a picture of someone being baptized,a grown man. After a short deliberation about posting a comment I decided to post this: Im sorry but as someone who has studied religion extensively, seems somewhat silly to me, to recognize a man who didn't exist(not the way you think) by jumping in water. If you thik Im wrong for saying this, sorry, but I think the truth deserves a spot in our lives too. This would spark a fire storm of hate comments back. I feel this needs to be discussed. Lets take a look at what a baptism is about. It is about recognizing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So here is the story: 2000 years ago a man was born of a virgin, walked around performing miracles, and was killed on a cross for all our sins. After this he would raise from the dead to prove he is the son of god and to head up to heaven to await us. Now, we flash forward 2000 years and this man supposedly is pleased with 2 grown men jumping in a giant bath together.(Also, apparently displeased that 2 other men may go into the wrong type of bathhouse together, at least according to a little read book about him, the bible). That is what they are telling me is the case and I say its silly and get jumped on. For the love of humanity, it is a scary place where I (in that post) am the only one who recognizes just how silly that really is. If you don't get how silly that is please just go back and read it again. In what other context would we not find this story amusing and silly? The reactions I got were to call me disrespectful, angry, ignorant and more. Lets take a second and pretend that what they had posted was not so blatantly silly, and place a little scenario without religion and see how this plays out. Lets say I have been on my facebook page and it is full of references to nutrition and medicine. I am a semi-expert on this topic and it is clear I read up about it and care a great deal about it from my posts. Lets then suppose the same person that posted the picture posts a picture of them and some new "medical" product that helps you sleep. I comment like this: Im sorry but as someone who studies medicine somewhat extensively, seems silly to me, that medicine does not work the way you think. I hardly doubt we would get nonsense comments about how angry I am, or ignorant. I would probably get inquisitions about why I think it is useless. Furthermore, if I then went onto quote top level doctors and their opinions I would not get a response of hate even further( I referenced many biblical scholars in the earlier post). I would not expect to hear nonsense like, any fool can read a book that just agrees with your opinion(not saying it definitely wouldn't happen, but its far less likely). I would get far more comments about re-evaluating the use of the medicine, especially if I also cited the harmful effects of it on you and others. It is truly sad that rational reasoning takes a backdoor for iron age mythology. It is truly a sad day to note that I even have to mention that this whole baptism thing is silly, let alone be the one left explaining myself.

Ontological Argument debunked.

I am going to put this argument to bed here. So, we must first give a definition.

Maximally great being- a being in which none could be greater.

Now we have the actual argument, which I will present in its entirety and then break down the premises to show how it works. As presented by Plantinga:

1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore maximally great being exists.

Ok so premise 1: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

It is important to note, that this is actual possibility, not perceived possibility. This will become important later. To explain this a little, it is possible that something could be perceived to be possible yet in actuality it is impossible. Therefore in order for this to work we need to know it is actually possible, or at least say it is likely to be possible. As of right now that seems ok.

Now onto premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Possibility of existence naturally implies that in some possible world it exists. This may not be the real world but if it didn't exist in some possible world then it would be impossible, so this premise is good.

Onto Premise 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.

The logic behind this appears to be that if a being could exist in all possible worlds then it would be greater then a being that only exists in some possible worlds. While I would agree, we could dispute that it is logically possible for a being to exist in every possible world. After all the point of changing god from the omni god to maximally great was to avoid paradoxes. Yet alas I will grant this premise. This means that the only way a maximally great being exists is if this is the set of possible universes:(M=Maximally great being)

(M.M.M,M,M,M,M......)

in other words you could not have these sets:NM( no maximally great being)

(M,M,NM,M,NM........)
(NM,M,NM,NM,NM,NM......)

or any variation that combines the two.

So now, we have a updated definition of Maximally great being:
Maximally great being: a being in which none could be greater that exists in every possible world.

We move onto premise 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

This is pretty basic, the actual world is a possible world so its obvious that if this being exists in every possible world it exists in the actual world.

Premise 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Same thing here, anything that exists in the actual world exists. Obvious, no complaints.

6) Therefore maximally great being exists.

So obviously the conclusion follows if we get up to this point with all arguments being sound.

That is how the Ontological argument works;

This can appear very appealing to a theist and they think they have their proof. A closer look and we can see a problem. As Plantinga himself proposes we could define No Maximality. No Maximality is defined as: the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Ok so onto the anti-ontological argument.

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.
2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.
3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

Ok, so lets see if this argument works the same way.

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.

Again, in order to know for sure that no maximality exists it must be actual possibility, not perceived possibility.

Premise 2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.

Same reasoning as for the original argument, if a no maximality possibly exists, that would mean it exists in some possible universe, otherwise it would be impossible.

Ont Premise 3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

This is where the theist, usually whines and complains that no maximality has no requirement to exist in every possible universe. But, alas the theist has defined Maximally great being in such a way that yes it does. Once you have the first possible universe in your set as this:

(NM)

We have already established through the theists own logic that a maximally great being would not exist in a set of universes that has a universe that contains its opposite. So therefore the only universe "No Maximality" can exist in is :

(NM,NM,NM,NM,NM,NM,NM.....)

So based on the theists own reasoning and a little bit of reductio ad absurdum logic, which is as follows: A maximally great being cannot exist in all possible universes, yet not exist in a possible universe. That is breaking the law of non-contradiction.

Onto Premise 4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Same reasoning as for the previous argument.

Premises: 5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

as for 5 and 6 we then get there the same way.

So, as is now obvious both arguments get to their beings existing as long as the being is possible.

Analyzing the 2 sides now:


Now we must determine which is actually possible or at least probable. If the theist were to prove the maximally great being as probable, they would have to argue that their being was more likely then "no maximality." If they wanted to completely prove their god, they would be best suited to use reductio ad absurdum that no maximality is absurd. Now, I am not sure that we can reduce either side to absurdity with our knowledge now. So, at best we can say that it is 50/50 which being exists. I would argue though that it is far less then that.

The no maximality, is less restrictive on possible universes and also requires less assumptions. Currently we don't know of any Maximally great beings, so assuming one is possible is one more assumption. Also it seems that a maximally great being would have a certain impact on universes that would restrict the possible universes. As the logical construct of Occam's razor says, all things being equal the idea that requires the least assumptions and is the least restrictive is preferred.

I would also argue that a maximally great being is pretty well defeated by the problem of evil, as long as you take the assumption that it would be greater to stop suffering, then it is to let it happen. There does not appear to be any logical inconsistency with stopping suffering. Therefore it appears to me, once we look at this, No maximality actually has a greater probability then a Maximally great being. Good Night ontological argument.

Atheists morality comes from the same place religious morality does.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”- Steven Weinberg

I figured I would start out with that quote. While the quote is not necessarily true, it does have some merit to it. We must first address what morality or good and bad things are. I argue that all of our morality comes from the same place, benefit to society or human and animal well being. If you are an atheist or a theist this is where your morality has come from.

Let me explain for the theists. I am going to stick with Judaism and Christianity for this example, although Islam will follow the same path. Judaism gets you to follow God's law by telling their believers that Yahweh rewards people for following the law and punishes people for not following the law. So, in essence the rules will relate to the Jewish peoples well being so they follow those rules. Christianity and Islam do similar things but extend the benefit to human well being to outside this life into another. The eastern religions use similar things such as reincarnation. In the end, the religions are subconsciously playing off of our drive for well being, which is where all morality comes from. This is also where atheist morality comes from. So, now that we can say that based on what we have labeled morality that good acts are acts that benefit well being and bad acts are acts that do not benefit well being, it is time to look at whether we can make objective decisions about these.

Ironically, we need not look much further then these same religious examples to see that we can. What have these religions demonstrated? Let me explain, each one of these religions has shown that if you change the "facts on the ground" and give people incorrect information then we see differing morality. In other words morality comes from facts about what gives us the most human well being. If these facts are incorrect we get good people doing bad things. Examples of this range from the obvious, in WW2 we can see that the German society had been in bad shape and was looking for a reason to figure out why they weren't experiencing a higher standard of well-being. Hitler was able to convince them that their society was being hurt by the Jews. This is what enabled good people to do bad things. There were obviously Germans who did not buy into Hitlers propaganda, so that explains them as well. Another example would be the example of parents praying for their child over seeking medical attention. The parents have been convinced that pray works to heal, and psychologists have even testified that these parents were trying to do what they felt was right. They were, the problem is their view of what is right was obscured by incorrect "facts on the ground."

That last example makes it easy to see that there are actual right or wrong answers to moral questions. Since, our morality comes from benefit to society or human well being, then the statistics don't lie. Medical treatment for this child was a better option then praying as it has a greater chance of increasing the child and the parent mental well beings. Can we measure well being, some of you may be asking. Well the answer is we may not be able to get absolute certainty, but being we do know information about life expectancy and neuroscience is currently studying happiness in an objective manner, we can say that there are actual answers these questions. We just need to do our best to get the correct facts to make our best judgement on these important questions. This is yet another way religion poisons society. It gives us incorrect facts that can negatively effect our morality.

Prayer Billboards

So, If you are driving anywhere from East Stroudsburg to Allentown, you will start to notice signs about prayer and families staying together. They come from the website: Worldatprayer.org. Here is a link to what he signs look like, though the color scheme is different: http://www.familytheater.org/~/media/Images/FamilyTheater/Billboards/HCFM-billboard-family-1024.jpg

Now advertisers are typically required to present truth in advertising. We all know everyone would be in an uproar if an atheist put up a true sign,let alone a sign that doesn't tell the truth. So lets take a look does this ring true. Well born again christians would be more likely to pray, so they should divorce less, but not so much. In a study done by a Christian researcher they have a 27% rate of divorce. The liberal Christian has a 24% rate of divorce. Finally those lowly atheists who don't pray together, well a 21% rate of divorce. This seems a blatant lie. While, I can see where it comes from, the fact that families that do activities together do tend to have better relationships. Though, these stats may indicate that better activities exist then prayer. Should truth in advertising apply to religions, and if so, shouldn't this organization have to demonstrate the truthfulness of this claim.

Faith in one specific god is a form of special pleading.

I apologize this will be a very bland blog but it is to prove a point. I have people telling me it is rational to place faith in one specific god. I want to be clear this is based on faith alone. Lets look at the definition of rational to come up with a way we can falsify this.

World English Dictionary
rational (ˈræʃən ə l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
1. using (good)* reason or (good)*logic in thinking out a problem

*I inserted the (good) into the definition as to not confuse some readers coming over from a certain website who have problems grasping context.

Ok, so we know that being rational is to use or be in accordance with logic. What is not in accordance with logic? Well that would be a logical fallacy. So, if we can demonstrate that placing faith in one specific god is no using logic or thinking out a problem and instead is the opposite we have proven it is not rational. Lets go:


We have multiple possible gods. Lets see for example: Thor, Jesus, Yahweh(jewish), Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus, and Trickster. All of which one can place faith in.

Since, this is the only thing you can use here, how does one determine which god is the only one to place faith in. Can it be rational to choose just one? Lets take a look. From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html we find that special pleading takes this form.

Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

If we can demonstrate that picking one on faith alone takes this form we have a fallacy. So lets see if picking one takes this form:

Premise 1: Gods I generally don't grant faith

Premise 2: My god is an exception of the rule because I picked that one

Conclusion: Therefore my god is not a god I don't grant faith.

Ok, now remember premise 1 is true, because there are quite a few gods and you are granting faith to only one specific god.Premise 2 is merely you picking your god.

This clearing takes the form of special pleading. Since from the same link we find special pleading is a logical fallacy we have this problem:

A decision based on a fallacy is not based on logic and reason
This decision is based on a fallacy.

Conclusion this decision is not based on logic and reason.

Since, Rational is defined as: using reason or logic in thinking out a problem, and this is the opposite. We conclude that it is not rational to place faith in only one god.

Watchmaker or Teleological argument

"The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design.

In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined." According to Wikipedia.


This argument is based on a very faulty presupposition. The argument attempts to use probability to prove a designer of the universe. The problem with this line of reasoning is this its not probable. Let me explain:

In order for a complex thing to imply design we would need to see that out of the number of complex things we observe the majority(above 50%) are demonstrably designed. I am being generous with the 50% number I would think it should be higher but we will go with this. So do things we know to be designed outnumber the number of stars, galaxies, black holes, planets, plants, comets, and more. Well the resounding answer is no. The number of things we know to be designed in the universe that are complex pales in comparison to the things we consider complex that have no evidence for a designer and appear to come about naturally.

In the set of watches for example we have seen enough evidence of design that in the watch set it is probable for design. Unfortunately, for this argument the set of watches is not the same as the set of all complex things. Complex things have not been demonstrated to be over 50% designed. That is why whenever you observe something in the set of complex items you need to go a step further and still find further evidence of design, because the probability of complex items being designed has not been proven to be more probable.

Let me provide a further example to demonstrate the failure of this argument. Lets take the set of football's and try to draw a conclusion abut the set of balls(no dirty minds). All footballs are oblong and have points at the end. If someone says they have a football it is reasonable to expect it to have that shape. It may even be reasonable for someone who has only been exposed to footballs to think that all balls will have that shape. Once a person has been exposed to the set of baseballs, soccer balls, beach balls, basketballs, bouncy balls, tennis balls, and golf balls, this stance of expecting a ball to be oblong and have 2 points on it is no longer reasonable or rational. That is the same failure that a person exposed to the facts of the universe makes when they make this argument. You can not attribute a attribute of a subset to a set just because you want to, it is too likely to be flawed.

Presuppositianal apologetics revisited.

I am going to revisit presuppositional apologetics today. For those that don't know presuppositional apologetics is an attempt to make god the necessary presupposition, stating that without god you can't explain things like logic or inductive reasoning. The common practice used here is to then attack the atheist for not knowing. From what I gather of this technique is that they are trying to use a actual logical argument that can be valid. This argument is Reductio Ad Adsurdum or in other words to reduce other position to absurdity. The problem here is a misunderstanding of the dichotomy.

Most of the time the atheists position is that we may not know what the actual reason for these things are so they don't know. The theist will attack this position, where in reality they need to attack the other positions in the actual dichotomy of options for the existence logic or inductive reasoning. To do so would be a ridiculously futile attempt,so I understand why they try to blatantly cheat, by insisting that the atheist doesn't know proves god. Though that is telling the atheist their position. The theist is being very intellectually dishonest, there are many things in life that we may not personally know the cause of but we can still use them. So lets take a look at the options that are part of the true dichotomy of possibilities that could be there for inductive reasoning. This will not include all options, because what makes this even more ridiculous is that there may be many more possibilities we have never thought of. Here is a list they would actually need to attack to be able to use reductio ad adsurdum as their argument(this will be for inductive reasoning for our purposes):

Inductive Reasoning is a brute fact of the universe
Inductive Reasoning fairies
Inductive Reasoning trolls
Other gods, if they intend to prove their god
Inductive reasoning Unicorns
The invisible pink unicorn
Flying spaghetti monster
and many other unthought of natural explanations


Now I can here the morons who use this argument whining, well you don't believe that. Well guess what, whether I believe any of them has nothing to do with whats the truth. That is my point, I don't believe your god either, you need to show me why your god is more likely. I can make cases for several of these options over your god. Lets just try 2 to show the presuppositional apologetic proponents how it is done:

I will defend that inductive reasoning is a brute fact. I would argue that being a brute fact requires the simplest easiest explanation with the least amount of baggage. To add a god would violate the logical construct of Occams razor, that says that the explanation that requires the least amount of extra baggage is preferred, and god is a lot of extra baggage.

I would also argue that Inductive Reasoning fairies are more likely then the christian god as it only requires one seemingly unknown thing, inductive reasoning, where as the Christian god actually requires: zombie resurrections( Jesus, Lazurus, and the zombie apocalypse of Matt 27), so again based on Occam's razor, I argue they are more reasonable.

See how that works, you actually attack the dichotomy of possible answers the question, what is the reasoning we can know inductive reasoning, rather then attacking the withholding of judgement based on their being a larger dichotomy then you want to admit.

I here a recent person I debated on this topic, whining, but we are saying you must presuppose god, not that god is the cause. Well get this, a believer in inductive reasoning fairies could whine the same thing. The burden is on you to demonstrate your presupposition is necessary, not just to whine that I don't believe the other possibilities.

It just comes down to faith!

Undoubtedly if you are an atheist who actively engages theists in conversations about their religion or beliefs or faith you have heard this. You have heard this as a response to why they believe in their particular god. You are trying to find the reasons for their belief and some bumbling idiot of a theist invokes the faith claim. They do this apparently completely unaware of the other religions out there making faith claims. I mean seriously could they have bothered to hit the on button on their brain before making this statement. Im sorry but this is intellectual dishonesty 101. Let me break this down for you, here I am the atheist listening to all these people tell me what they believe:
Ibn Al-Sharik tells me I must have faith in Allah and the holy koran is gods word and that is what i must have faith in.

David Cohen comes up and tells me I must have faith in good ole' Yahweh and that the Pentateuch lays out gods law for us and I must have faith in this.

Some guy whose name oddly reminds me of a villain from the Children of the Corn series, tells me about John Smith and a little something about magic underwear, and I must have faith in this.

Tom Cruise tells me about Dianetics and e-meters and how I must have faith in them.


Now seriously thinking Christians, are you really going to just say, well it comes down to faith. Don't you see how absurd this is. You can't really be serious with this nonsense can you? It wouldn't even make sense if your faith or no faith was an actual true dichotomy, it makes even less sense when you explore the whole dichotomy of faiths.

Faith does not answer the question: Why do you believe in your god? It avoids the question, its a non answer, its the equivalent of jumping up and down and whining, it is because I say it is.

Christian Bigots and Homosexuality.(Martha Bigot Angeles)

So I wake up this morning, and what do I see on my facebook account but a status update from this Christian who had friended me, and what does her status say? Her status talks about Homosexuals and how they are an abomination, she says god hates them and we should too. She stated that god hated it so much he felt it deserved punishment. At the sake of outing her, her name is Martha Angeles. I have discussed religion with her many times and tried to be somewhat respectful, but this post I felt deserved no respect. Now keep in mind she was using these bible verse as justification:

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

I pointed out that she completely ignores other biblical laws such as these:

Leviticus 11:12 (New King James Version)

12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you.

Leviticus 19:19 (New King James Version)

19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

1 Timothy 2:12 (New King James Version)

12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 14:34 (New King James Version)

34 Let your[a] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

I pointed out that she is picking a choosing which bible verses she was using and which ones she ignored. This girl did not grasp the point. She even told me I should be messaging her and asking questions. Now while I don't believe this, I said well according to your bible, Im the man, your a woman, you should be listening to me. She unfriended me once I called her a bigoted bitch, because I had insulted her, and she had never insulted me. This girl has no idea if anyone I know friends or family are homosexuals, and yes I did have a family member who is. So this whole comment offended me. This should offend humanity. She deserves to be called out and told exactly what she is. Reasoning with hateful bigots like this doesn't work. Sometimes they just need to be told how it is.

Religion should not be allowed the free reign to be justification for hate like this. This was genuine hate for people she was displaying. Christianity is not a religion of love but a religion of hate, she didn't like it when the very verses that were used to oppress woman for years were turned on her. But this bigoted bitch had no problem using her bible as means to oppress other people, this type of person makes me sick.

To end this, if any atheist is reading this, I am well aware the verses I used for the passages about women are probably forged into the bible years later, but Martha uses King James so I have no problem using them on her.

Why are we respecting belief at the expense of truth?

The other day I was sitting in the lunch room at my job, when another employee walks in and asks me about the book I'm reading. The book happens to be "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. This sparks a discussion about the history of how the bible came to be, specifically the writers of the 5 books of Moses and the Gospels. Turns out that my co-worker claims to be an agnostic, never got to explain the problem with that to him, but anyway as we are having the conversation, he stops it to try to keep it quite. His reasoning is that someone with deep beliefs in the bible might hear it and get offended. Now, we don't know whether this was because he actually believed truth was less important then this persons beliefs or he just didn't want to deal with any situation that arises at work. That does not really matter, this brings us to the problem either way this conversation represents the problem. It was felt necessary to hide the truth to protect the believer. It was felt this was the right thing to do by the society we live in, so that he had to make these comments. Why?

Why should we protect belief from the truth. Shouldn't we protect the truth from wrong beliefs, not the other way around. If the 5 books of Moses are clearly written by 4 different authors: J, E,P, and D, why shouldn't I be able to say so at my job. I hardly think that, at my job, there would be a problem with me saying that George Washington was the first president. Even if there was a large contingency of people who had a deep felt belief that it was Michael Jackson. We would still respect the truth being said that it was George Washington. This makes no sense to me.

So, you may ask why is truth more important then belief? Well that is simple, the more mankind has found out about the truth the better our society has become. Look at our advancements in health and medicine when we stopped respecting the idea that most diseases were demon possessions, like good ole Yeshua O Nazarene would have one believe. We have advanced to the point where many diseases that meant certain death are curable in days. That is just one of many examples of how finding the truth has helped society.

Its time we turn the zeitgeist on this whole idea of respect beliefs in spite of the truth. The person whose beliefs are not grounded with facts should be the one that doesn't feel as comfortable saying them, not the other way around. I'm not talking banning of religious beliefs, I'm just saying our societies attitude toward truth vs belief(faith) needs to change. Lets keep the truth, not the faith.

Argument from No Body as presented by David Velasquez

So the other day I was having a conversation with this guy David Velasquez on facebook about the resurrection of Jesus and his comments went something like this. I have heard all the alternate theories and they are ridiculous, until someone comes up with the body Jesus was resurrected. That was his proof for the resurrection. We are going to be very liberal with this, as a matter of fact we are going to pretend for a moment or 2 as David does that he has a personal relationship with a zombie savior. We are going to pretend that his argument doesn't completely shift the burden of proof, we are also going to the land of make believe and going to assume that this David guy, who claims to be going for a masters in college, has the ability to comprehend what a syllogism is and actually put one together. Yes I know atheist brethren this is a huge leap to a conclusion, but please just play along. I present to you the syllogism for his argument.

Premise 1: we have not found Jesus' body.
Premise 2: A resurrection is the most probable explanation
Conclusion: The belief in the resurrection is justified.

Premise 1 is true, I grant that, so far so good. One of the most successful theist arguments ever, first premise is sound. So we get to the second premise.

This is where David runs into huge issues. We have a huge data set on resurrection possibilities. We have millions of cases and not a single resurrection out of the last how ever million cases. Our data set is so large that the margin of error is near zero. The percentages are very low that Jesus resurrected. So we can say we are close to a zero percent chance that a body resurrects after 3 days. So these other possibilities must be pretty bad and impossible right. Well, we could probably stop this ridiculousness at the body was stolen, but that would be to easy. As grave robbery happens far more frequently then bodily resurrections. So that is more likely. Premise 2 is sounding very poor, but I contend that we can do better then this. I contend that there should be no expectation at all that Premise 1 should come as any shock.

Lets go back to this now. I contend that if Jesus was a real person, and this is a huge concession to make, that the historical Jesus is so far from the Jesus of Christianity that we should not expect to find a body. My contention is that if you had only seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you would not expect the person to find Ed Gein, in case you are not familiar he is the real life serial killer that inspired the character. (http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/gein.htm). You would not expect to find st Nicholas by only knowing the story of Santa Claus. The latter may actually be a better example, by the fact that we got there from a constant expansion of myth about the man, where as Ed Gein turned to Leatherface in a more intentional way, as the writer of the movie took many liberties. But that is neither here nor there as the end result is the mythical character makes it hard to find the real person if that is all you have.

Im going for my masters, David, seems to miss the concept that historians only give credit to a historical Jesus as being a apocalyptic preacher. That is far from the actual character that we are searching for. The story of Jesus was not written down until at least 30-40 years after his supposed death. It had long been mixed with Mythology and authors making changes. The changes could be mere mistakes, or intentional to cover up opposing views of Christianity. Early christians had many different alien views of Jesus then modern christians. There are many examples of these causing authors to change the story. He also ignore the whole theory that the resurrection is myth that follows the tradition of many previous gods being raised from the dead. So we have some huge problems with his assumption. We are well aware that throughout history characters have far more often become more myth then reality. This happens in a far greater proportion then any 3 day resurrection story. Not only this but if Jesus was really crucified, he ignores another problem. Criminals executed like Jesus were commonly buried in mass graves, not given anything like a single tomb like the gospels portray. If he was crucified there is no reason to believe that he would be treated any different. How would we even know his bones if we found them.

Another possibility is hoax. This means it was mad e up a people bought into it being real. Many modern examples of this exist today,many people bout the Blair with project as real, ditto for Paranormal actiivity and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. People buy into the lochness monster and in almost every state there is a ghost story about the prom girl walking the road or the hooker man walking the railroad tracks as ghost stories. Wow that is far more modern day examples of fake events being bought into as being real,then any 3 day resurrection stories.

There is zero reason to believe that we should have found Jesus's body. So it turns out our good boy David is just accepting a story without even giving it the basic thought process it deserves. Sorry David your argument fails. Then again I would hope that David would have been honest enough with himself not to have bought into 4 unknown authors claiming a resurrection, when he wouldn't buy into 4 of his own friends telling him someone who died 3 days ago was outside playing basketball. This has to be one of the most blatant displays of intellectual dishonesty in a long time and for a guy who claims to have studied theology this argument gives it an even worse black eye then it already has. That's quite a feat for a field that includes clowns like William Lane Craig and Lee Stobel, but alas thats probably where David adapted this from. Those 2 buffoons empty tomb arguments.

Personal experience or confirmation bias.

Today I want to get to the heart of why people believe in personal gods. This will not apply to everyone but i think it fits a large number of believers. As humans we are naturally afraid of the unknown, some of the more popular ones religion prays on is fear of death. There are definitely other fears that religions pray on but this one is a popular one. People don't want death to be the end so religion sells them a solution. These people want to believe. Once they are in a position where people want to believe, obviously it does not mean people will continue to believe. This is where the actual topic of this blog comes in. People are taught to confirm their god with certain unknowns and confirmation bias. So, in this blog I am going to cut throw the red herring type arguments for their belief such as the argument from design and take a look at the actual factors that lead to religious belief to begin with.

A person is taught to see the good in the world and attribute it to god. They look at the world and their lives and attribute the good things that happen them to god. Many christians will ignore the bad or attribute it to satan. There is no evidence that this is the reason any of this happens they are just trained this way. People have a psychological tendency to fall for these types of things. For instance people will go to a psychic like John Edward and he through some tricky help(spies) and the use of statistical guesses will make a claim about someone in the group. Once the person decides this is about them they find a way to confirm the belief that he really is talking to a dead relative or friend. When actually analyzed we find many errors he has made and many misses but the person did not hear these because they want to believe. The same can be said about religion, it makes you want to believe and you confirm the ideas with your own confirmation bias.

Another example would be prayer, prayer works is a common claim among christians. They ignore the failed prayers and are taught to attribute it to gods will. Then they confirm their beliefs with the prayers that actually come true. Even though prayers are usually something you want so you increase the odds of them coming true by working towards them. Other times you may know somebody who was cured of a disease that kills most, they take that person surviving the disease as a sign of god, but fail to see that many people who were prayed for die.

People will confirm miracles or what they call miracles as well. I had one christian tell me it was a miracle he didn't wreck his motorcycle one day. This person was well trained to attribute this to god, without ever considering the number of people who do crash. Another great example is a miracle that was attributed to Mother Theresa had to do with a new film actually working the way it was suppose to. The camera man made a comment about it being a miracle even though it was the film and he knew this, the rumor spread and out of nowhere even the camera man correcting the situation and saying it was the film not really a miracle could not stop this belief.

Another thing they use are what we call spiritual experiences. It can be through the use of music or the community effect or meditative brain states. . Music is often used in a way to get people to think they are experiencing god. The people are trained to actually think that the feeling they are getting through the church music is god. This is ironic as contradictory gods are given credit for this feeling. The same can be said about the use of the community. Being a part of a community can make a person feel better, even improve themselves, this is then attributed to the god of that community. Also, people all throughout religions have what are called as spiritual experiences, if you are in deep prayer in the usa you will attribute this brain experience to jesus, where as if you are in iran you may attribute it to Allah, or a Buddhist may give credit to reaching nirvana.

Speaking of Geographically, I also talk to a lot of Christians who claim to not have been indoctrinated with their belief by their parents. This may be true but chances are these people are American. A place where 80% of the population is Christian. They probably pass several churches on their way to work. They watch tv filled with TV messages that are associated with the christian world view. One of the biggest ironies many Christians will oppose things such as horror movies or heavy metal music that uses the imagery of Satan, which stays within the christian worldview. This makes the person who wants to be good, go against Satan, further ingraining the idea of Jesus is the right decision.

The person desperately wants to believe in religion so they accept the explanation they are given for these experiences on unfounded evidence, the religion self supports itself without actually having to prove these things are actually related to religion. If there is one thing we can say about religion is the design is brilliant from a psychological side.

Toy Salesman rapes 96 children, today I have an interview with the one witness to all the crimes!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41051427/ns/world_news-asiapacific

A man has raped 96 children and there is one witness so I will interview him today. Ok so we have a witness coming forward to all these crimes the one being who saw all this is our Lord and savior who has a multiple personality disorder Yahweh/Jesus. Lets get right to the interview now.

Atheistbebil: Hi Yahweh or Jesus whatever you want me to call you. Thanks for being here.

God: Just call me God, and no problem.

Atheistbebil: Why did you choice to do nothing in this situation.

God: I had to give the guy free will, besides Joe Smoe american was needing help with a struggle because their child didn't agree with them today.

AtheistBebil: So you thought Joe Schmoe americans problem was worth violating free will and not 96 boys being raped? Interesting?

God: Yup.

Atheistbebil: You don't find this wrong?

God: not at all. What did you want me to do?

Atheistbebil: Well you are all powerful are you not?

God: Yes, but I couldn't do the obviously right thing that would make the whole concept of faith invalid.

Atheistbebil: So faith is more important to you then actually carrying out your supposed love for the people you claim to love?

God: Come on, thats harsh, if i made it to obvious, you atheists would believe in me, then who could I burn.

Atheistbebil: Guess that gets right to the heart of it.

God and the Law of Non-contradiction and other proofs against god

In this blog I am going to discuss proofs that certain gods do not exist based on the law of non-contradiction and possibly some other proofs. In case someone is not aware the law of non-contradiction is basically that something cannot have contradictory attributes. For instance you can not have a circle square. Something can't be all yellow yet all red. So on and so forth. Lets point out a couple of arguments that lead to this law being violated. In each I will show the attributes of god that I am using, and all very common attributes given to a god, might I add.

Ok, the first one will be basic, for this we just need god to be all powerful. Here are the syllogisms that lead to a contradiction.

premise 1: a part of all power is being able to make a rock that anyone cannot pick up
Premise 2: god is all powerful
Conclusion: God can make a rock no one can pick up

Second syllogism:
Premise 1: a part of being all powerful is being able to pick up any rock
Premise 2: god is all powerful
Conclusion: God can pick up any rock

The problem is this one attribute creates contradictory claims. God cannot pick up the rock he made, yet he can pick up any rock. But lets assume we get past this and have more damning arguments against god. Lets say god is all powerful and perfect. For this argument, what I intend to do is show you have a cognitive dissonance in your head if you believe this. I am going to assume you accept this statement. It is wrong to watch a child get raped if you can stop it. If I can prove god does this then god is perfect is a contradictory belief to that. Here is the argument:

Premise 1: God is all powerful
Premise 2: A part of being all powerful is being able to stop child rape
Conclusion: god can stop child rape

Keep that conclusion in mind we will use it again later in this proof.

Premise 1: God is all powerful
Premise 2: A part of being all powerful is having all knowledge
Conclusion: god has all knowledge

Keep that conclusion for later as well.

Premise 1: A part of being all powerful is being able to choice to act on anything you know
Premise 2: God is all powerful
Conclusion: God can act on anything he knows about

Premise 1: Child rape is something you can know about
Premise 2: God has all knowledge
Conclusion: God has knowledge of child rape

Premise 1: God has knowledge of child rape
Premise 2: god can act on anything he knows about
Conclusion: god can act on the action of child rape

Notice here we have god having the ability to stop child rape, his powers give him the knowledge of it and the ability to act on it. Yet he choices not to. That contradicts the original statement. You know its wrong!

Next we have a god who is all loving and has the guidelines set up that if you accept him you go to heaven if you do not accept him you go to hell. This is specific to Jesus for this case: Jesus is suppose to be all loving. But I intend to dispute that based on the assumption that you are moral enough to know that further torture of the Jewish holocaust victims is not loving.

Ok here's the argument:

Premise 1: If you do not accept Jesus you go to hell
Premise 2: The jews in the holocaust for the most part did not accept Jesus(unproven, but very founded premise)
Conclusion: The jews who died in the holocaust went to hell.

What is hell like torture according to a very many christians.

Premise 1: The jews who died in the holocaust went to hell
Premise 2: To go to hell is to be tortured.
Conclusion: The jews in hell are tortured

That's your Jesus character. This shows Jesus is all loving, yet we admitted at the beginning it is not loving to torture the jewish victims of the holocaust further, yet those are the rules Jesus set up. Contradiction.

These are just a few problems god faces in the world of reality.

As an atheist I do pick and choose from the Bible!

Guilty as charged when discussing the bible with a bible believing christian I do pick and choose my passages that I use. Its not that I don't know the passages that are not evil or bad or ridiculous, its that I am debating, I pick and choose the passages that show the opponents view wrong. Here are the 2 stances(usually):

Chistian: The bible is the word or inspired word of a perfect god who made perfect laws.

My claim: The bible is a very fallible book that contains immorality and contradictions.

If I am trying to convince a theist that the bible is fallible, why would i bother pointing out the parts that don't contradict that stance. We both know there are parts in the bible that are good and consistent. The difference is are there parts of the bible that are inconsistent or immoral. So if I want to show that god is immoral I will pick parts of the bible such as these:

Judges 11:30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, ³¹ whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

³² Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. ³³ He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

³⁴ When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. ³⁵ When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”

³⁶ “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. ³⁷ But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

³⁸ “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. ³⁹ After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Or this:

2 kings 2: ²³ From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” ²⁴ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys

Or this:

1 Samuel 6: ¹⁵And the Levites took down the ark of the LORD, and the coffer that was with it, wherein the jewels of gold were, and put them on the great stone: and the men of Bethshemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices the same day unto the LORD.

¹⁶And when the five lords of the Philistines had seen it, they returned to Ekron the same day.

¹⁷And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto the LORD; for Ashdod one, for Gaza one, for Askelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one;

¹⁸And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced cities, and of country villages, even unto the great stone of Abel, whereon they set down the ark of the LORD: which stone remaineth unto this day in the field of Joshua, the Bethshemite.

¹⁹And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Those are just a few of the examples I would use but it would make no sense for me to waste my time in this debate with the parts I feel are consistent with the christian viewpoint. I pick and choose these quotes based on the christian claim. I don't need the other parts, as the claim is attributed to the entire bible and once parts of it are shown not to be consistent it doesn't matter if some parts are.