Why God Is Impossible

Anonymous asked: How do you test P?

With each claim that’s been made. Those with sufficient empirical evidence behind them have, a vast majority of the time, turned out to be correct (or at the very least, functionally correct): and it’s only a lack of empirical evidence that lead to many of the mistakes. 
P is tried and tested. Every single claim made verifies P. 
So we know, at the very least, that claims with sufficient empirical evidence are reliable. 

To examine the ‘only’, we need just look at examples of claims made with no empirical evidence. Incorrect so, so very much more than those made with empirical evidence. Chance alone (a phenomenon with empirical evidence behind it, as well as simple logic) accounts for the incredible minority of correct guesses.

You can test it yourself, should you wish. Find something you have no knowledge about (a book perhaps, or a more obscure/complex region of science). Write down what you think will happen, or is the case, without looking at it: then read the book, or research that field. See which gives a better picture. 

Bad Atheistic Arguments

I consider myself an atheist. That doesn’t mean I’ll defend every atheistic argument out there, and this post is addressed to those. Flawed, frankly awful points used all too often. 
There are good arguments for atheism, naturally, as well as refutations of every single theistic argument I’ve heard (which really is all there needs to be for evidence behind atheism). Things like the problem of evil: convincing point alone, and it’s possible to have good discussions on details. Is free will a valid response? Does it even exist? Is there such a thing as unjustified natural evil? Etc.
That’s a good argument: it examines the outcomes and implications of the opposing worldview, and locates inconsistencies and impossibilities. The following atheistic arguments don’t, and people should really stop using them.

Anyway, this post is just to go through pet peeves. These points really should never be used: if we’re to champion reason and logic, arguments should adhere to those standards. 

Read More

Universal Significance

This point is relevant to so much, even beyond religion. There are a few things which, almost invariably, will mean something. Examples in religion include prophecy, ‘Bible Code’, and all kinds of answered prayers. 
The point is, nearly all the time, similar things will be seen to have the same kind of meaning, regardless. That probably doesn’t make much sense. 

Take numbers, for one example. Perhaps numerology, perhaps the idea that the Bible having 66 books makes it satanic: whatever the case, looking at the kind of charts used to read significance into numbers, every number has some meaning. Every single one. All the seemingly impressive meanings read into something, no matter what the number is, there’ll be another meaning, no doubt with some other justifiable relevance. 

Read More

Anonymous asked: What does atheism offer to replace the benefits of religion?

Truth, beauty, discovery, unity, Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

In The Name Of…

A lot of the time you can hear people blaming atheism as a whole for the actions of some individuals; commonly, there’s the classic ‘Hitler was an atheist!’ (even though that’s questionable), or ‘Stalin was an atheist!’ often leading to some variation on the claims that the atrocities perpetrated by those individuals were somehow tied inextricably to their atheism. 

Here’s the thing:
Atheism has no creed, or book of rules. It has no teachings, or instructions beyond: ‘There is no God’ or, more commonly, ‘There is no reason to believe in God.’

Read More

A Personal Bible

Not just relevant to Christianity, but it’s the most popular, and so it’s the one I’ll mention by name. Feel free to insert the names of alternative holy texts. 

When people quote the Bible, is it just their own view that they put forwards? Possibly, possibly not. I’ll examine. 

Read More

Burden of Proof

I’ve seen a lot of discussion as to who has the ‘burden of proof’ in the ‘is God real?’ debate. 
For this blog alone, I’ve accepted the burden, just to avoid arguments on that specific issue. But in any case, who has the burden of proof?

Read More

Faith and Luck

randomlycastle:

goddisproven:

…

Not quite how Christianity works.

[Click on the link to view the whole response]

So first I had faith that God was listening to me, then I acted on that (by praying), and now I’ve seen the results of that. God doesn’t expect you to believe and then leave you in the lurch.

Luck in order to reach the correct religion, so on that count my post was correct. 
On what happens after, yes, you may see confirmation: but would it happen in a split second? No; prayers are not answered immediately. You’d wait, and wait. Might take an hour, or days.  
And in that time, what? Is there a maximum time limit for prayers to be answered in, and if so, what is it?
Let’s theorize: person V takes faith as a reason to believe in a false religion. They pray, and wait for a response; it’s not going to come. let’s assume it’s a prayer that doesn’t occur by chance. How long should they wait before deciding ‘ooh, maybe this is false. let’s try Christianity?’ And similarly, what are we to make of prayers that do not come true? There are obviously plenty, and plenty more explanations for these (‘not God’s will’, ‘did not pray correctly’… some dodgy excuses, others perhaps valid), yet if person V unwittingly prayed for such things, then what?

It comes down to luck. First to choose the right belief system, then to make the right prayers: and if there’s an error in either step, to somehow realize that, despite having no reason whatsoever to do so. 

Faith and Luck

This post is for those who say that one must have faith to believe in God and thus be saved, or any such thing. 

If you must have faith, then we first have to define it. For this post, I’ll use ‘belief without evidence’, simply because with evidence faith would become meaningless; you could make a decision at least partially informed. 
Belief without evidence, however: faith. It’s just sheer luck. Say the Christian God is real, and person A decides to have faith in the Bible; they’re saved. Person B however decides to have faith in NeoPaganism. They’e subsequently damned. But what would make the Bible a better set of teachings to have faith in?
Nothing. Belief without evidence.  
As soon as evidence enters the picture, faith isn’t the issue. And faith alone, you’re simply hoping what you’ve chosen is right. 

That’s not a virtue. That’s not some great, brave choice to believe. Faith isn’t what saves you. 
It’s sheer luck.  

Euphemisms: Think About It

It’s an interesting phenomenon: in life, our language is often composed of many metaphors: happiness is ‘up’, sadness is ‘down’, the past is ‘backwards’, the future ‘forwards’… when there’s little reason to think so. 
Similarly, euphemisms make up a surprising amount of our life and speech, and that’s what I went to dwell on; especially the euphemisms in religion. If you think about what is actually said, rather than the words spoken almost by rote, the implications are very different. 

Read More

One Fact People Forget: If you could go back in time and bring an early Christian here, they would not be able to recognize what you call Christianity.

Replace ‘Christian’ with whatever’s necessary. Islam perhaps, true for several religions that I’ve seen. 
Just on Christianity, you’ve gone through the Great Schism and Inquisition and Crusades,  Constantine, the idea of the Trinity, the decrease in dependence on Mosaic Law (key to some early Christians)…

The Importance of Perspective

In many debates, perspective is a key consideration. Religion is a notable example, but so are many other issues in the world today. 

Perhaps the easiest to demonstrate would be abortion. Those against the procedure focus on the perspective of the foetus; and how they’d feel, should they possess a working brain. Those in support of abortion, however, those pro-choice, focus on the feelings of the mother. 
The viewpoint in question is key to the argument made. If you were a miraculously conscious foetus, you’d not want to be aborted: and if your body had something within it causing pain and weariness, using your body without permission, you’d want to be rid of it. 
Neither of these can, alone, be the correct point of view. I’d hope we can all be agreed on that: while one or other of the arguments may end up being the most important, it takes a look at both points of view to realize that soundly. 

Now, how can this be applied to religion?

Read More