How To Train Your Craig (W L Craig fraud 9)

Special pleading
The gaps argument
Appeal to authority
Proof by faith
Anger is disproof (or even actually exists)



Attack of the Fifty Foot Craig

Panel on Secular Morality

If you can stand listening to all the interruptions and questions that illuminate the ignorance of the religious and delusional the entire seven clips are worth watching.

I picked out a single clip of the seven that ties into many ideas presented here on SE.

God sets a terrible example for morality

I received the below from a delusional religionist today in my e-mail, it must be some cut-and-paste thing for apologists I see it too often in several forms. (I had to dig up the above just to celebrate)

An atheist will have no standard of absolute morality, an atheist cannot say with absolute certainty that something is wrong.

In the real world more and more evidence is piling up that morality has an actual genetic biological component, no god needed!

Now can we go on to a new subject? God’s morality needs some serious work.

OMG, you are an atheist!

Simple and to the point.. based on the Dawkins argument.

Angry atheists or frustrated atheists

Stories from the past about frustration.

The Pat Tillman shame part two

A modified version of the quote by Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich - so how would this play out in the MSM?

“When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an Jew and you don’t believe in Jesus, if you die, what is there to go to? Hell of course. You are the devil's toy now. So for their son to die and not know Christ, and now he is a Jew in hell. That is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don’t know how an Jew thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough.”

Do you think his religious beliefs become a factor in the ongoing investigation?, Kauzlarich said, “I think so. There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system by that Jewish family. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know.”

Asked what might finally placate the family, Kauzlarich said, “You know what? I don’t think anything will make Jews happy, quite honestly. I don’t know. Maybe they want to see somebody’s head on a platter. But will that really make that batch of Jews happy? No, because they can’t bring their son back.”

Just replace atheist with Jewish and Jew, and family trouble-makers with Jews and how would this "good Christian's" words play out? Can you say instant discharge and ride on a rail?

The delusion of religionists and intolerance of criticism

Simply shocking to see the politically correct atheists come to the defense of the delusion of Islam. I believe this is because of an imagined whiff of "racism" showing the hypersensitivity of the brainwashed masses trained to have their PC filter on "full-power" all the time.

Note the interesting point about the misuse of "Correlation does not imply causation" quip by political and religionist worshipers of political correctness and the demanded veneration of the delusions of religion.

My three favorite logical fallacies are:

argumentum ad hominem - because 90% or more people have seen it but do not understand the mechanics correctly. It is only an ad hominem when you call someone a jackass and then equate that the point made is invalid because that person is a jackass. Example: Sir Isaac Newton was a complete lunatic and a horrid jackass, but that does not invalidate his studies of mathematics.

No true Scotsman - because religionists use this as a blanket for their horrid texts and others behavior when they cannot justify the facts or gather the reality of statistics, it is excuse making at it's best and most irrational.

Moving The Goalposts - because we all know that is the only way a religionists can actually win a logical, factual, argument based on evidence - to run away.

Atheist vs. Christian

click image to enlarge

Is There a God?

John Loftus v. David Wood on the Problem of Evil (You can find the rest of the debate at Google Video)



The problem of evil is not a problem for the atheist. It only arises when trying to reconcile a tri-omni god with suffering and evil. This is not to say that the existence of evil necessarily disproves the existence of a god, even a tri-omni one, but it does put the burden of proof on the theist.

A further word on the tri-omni God idea and all the assumptions that lay behind it. I don't begin my own search for truth with the notion of a tri-omni God, but simply with an admission of lack of knowldge. But concerning such a God one should note there are "open" theologians who cite the Bible to argue that God is not necessarily revealed as being tri-omni, but who consider that God might not know everything. If so that might make the problem of evil less of a problem.

The "free will" defense seems less convincing as a possible solution, because nature presumably got along without human "free will" for hundreds of millions of years, i.e., long before humanity showed up, God was perfecting the ways and means of nature, including carnivorism, diseases, natural disasters, along with the inevitability of death of every individual living thing. Moreover, the presumed attributes/definitions of a tri-omni God that combine "absolute freewill" with "absolute goodness" is a mind boggler. (Doesn't sound like any definition of "freewill" that human beings know about, since for us it is defined as involving a genuine choice between "good" and "evil." Neither has anyone proven that the "will" of human beings is "free" in a libertarian philosophical sense, but the tri-omni God philosophers have zipped past that unanswered question and already claim to be devising "proofs" regarding matters pertaining to things about "God's will." How imaginative of them!)

Question of Evil

Boycott Myspace?

I never got on the Myspace bandwagon, and when it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp I was pretty sure I never would. Why does anyone want to belong to a social network site that is part of the same media empire as Fox "News"?

Now, apparently, a large atheist group has been deleted by Myspace. Bryan Pesta explains:

I assert that our group's history up to its recent deletion establishes a prima facie case that we were deleted for religious reasons:

Note first that I ran the group for almost 3 years, and was very careful to not violate any TOS.

We were deleted two years ago due to complaints from a group called the "Christian Crusaders." They would search Myspace for profiles they found offensive, and then mass complain to customer service.

Their strategy was to send so many emails to customer service that someone, somewhere at Myspace would delete the profile or group.

It worked. They were able to get us deleted for a few weeks til myspace restored us (pre-news corp; Tom Anderson, himself posted to our group offering to protect us). The "Christian Crusaders" also got many other groups and profiles deleted, including a large pro choice group.

Three months ago, my account was hacked. The hacker took control of the group and renamed it "Jesus is love".

It took almost a month of constant emailing to Myspace just to get them to restore the group. I lost my profile (3000 friends; dozens of blogs), and the hacker banned many regular users.

Banning on a Myspace group is oddly permanent / can't be undone. So, I sent more requests asking Myspace to un-ban my regulars.

I got an email back-- finally; after about 3 weeks of requests for help-- saying "thank you for the information. We have scheduled the group for deletion."

Literally 5 minutes later, the group was deleted. I think it's ironic that Myspace's response to my persistent and sincere request for help was to delete the group!

I hope that puts our deletion in context. Add to that, the biggest xtian group here was deleted not too long ago (post news corp) and Myspace Tom personally restored it.

Do I think Myspace is an evil atheist hating conspiracy-- no. Do I think an agent of Myspace deleted my group because it was an atheist group. Yes.

I realize this is circumstantial evidence; but I think the case outlined above is strong enough to warrant my conclusion, and I am waiting to see if Myspace replies.

Some are deleting their Myspace accounts in protest. I would probably do the same if I had one, but I don't. I've never been much for boycotts anyway. In this case, it does seem as though Myspace doesn't care about many of their loyal users and being an atheist is reason enough for them not to bother to make things right. The fact that Christians "would troll myspace for profiles/groups they found offensive (i.e., non-christian) and then mass complain to customer service til the group got deleted" is outrageous! Remember that the next time someone asks you why you bother to continue criticizing Christianity. Its because the Goddamned Christians have an evil, persecuting mindset, that's why! This incident gives the lie to the claim that this is a secular society that is always going after religious believers and that the poor Christians have no rights. Try living life as an open atheist, Christian liar! This Myspace and other similar incidents is also why freethinkers keep fighting bible crap, because it shows us the kind of society we'll be living in if you jerks get any more control and power. Imagine if the leadership of every major corporation were a committed Christian nutjob, or were so intimated by those nutjobs that they caved in to their demands. That's why religious belief is not simply a private matter, it destroys lives, and not just those of the converted. FIGHT ON FREETHINKERS!!!

Atheists and Ron Paul

Recently, some atheists have apparently completely lost it. Over here the atheist blogger calls Ron Paul a "moron." Why? Because he expressed a belief in God and has doubts about evolution. Maybe Paul is a Biblical Creationist and maybe he isn't, but it hardly matters. This thoughtful exponent of "rational thought" (words he has included in his blog's subheading) makes this moronic, irrational statement, quoting Ron Paul: he said "the creator that i know, Who created us and created the universe" - It's pretty much the definition of creationist.

Well, yes and no. If by "creationist" you mean someone who disbelieves in biological evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, then believing in a creator doesn't necessarily lead to such a rejection of science. Our rational atheist writer, however, here fails to make the distinction. He say Paul believes in "The invisible sky daddy theory," but what has that got to do with Paul as potential President? Even if Ron Paul is a young earth creationist (and I don't know that he is), it has nothing to do with his ability to make decisions on public policy, especially not when his track record is so consistent and his reasoning so clearly visible over the years. So what motivates atheists like this? Another quote from our rational atheist might explain:

"But are Atheists right to abandon Ron Paul based solely on his views on evolution? Yes, They are. Simply because someone who claims to be a champion of reason, Evidence and rationality can't help but question the intelligence of someone who believes in biblical creation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It would be hypocritical to demand evidence and rationality from everybody except the leader of your country.The argument has been made by a few atheists that while his views are wacky, It won't effect the decisions he will make as president. While i partially agree, That is irrelevant. A belief in Santa, Elves or pixies wouldn't directly effect the decisions a leader makes either, But it would cast doubt over that individuals ability to think rationally.If you want to call your self an Atheist and a champion of reason, You can't continue to support Ron Paul. If you want a rational leader, You can't put a creationist in to office."

It is hard to know what is going on here with this individual's thinking. The Ron Paul statement that got this debate started was not from Ron Paul injecting creationism into the campaign in a plot to steal evangelical votes from Huckabee, but came about because someone asked him the question. Here is how Paul answered:

"Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. So I just don't . . . if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our . . . if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."

There are some striking things about Paul's statement. He never says he believes in a literal reading of Genesis and that understanding the exact origin is not that important. While atheists may not agree with Paul's uncertainty, this hardly qualifies as a reason to reject him completely as a candidate. Nor does Paul here come across as a ranting fundamentalist loon. The strange thing is, the atheist here seems to simply not want to vote for someone who believes in something he finds irrational. But where will he ever find a candidate who is completely rational by this narrow definition? If 85% or more of Americans believe in God, the odds are any candidate is going to believe in something that atheists find "irrational." And what is rationality when it comes to public policy anyway? Was voting for the Iraq mess or the Patriot Act rational? Ron Paul opposed both. Has Congress or the White House ever been a bastion of sanity?

The sad thing is, this particular atheist (and others) once saw in Paul a candidate who represented real hope.

I used to have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, He seemed like the only presidential candidate able to drag America out of the global mess they have found themselves in.

Another atheist blogger says: Consider any praise or endorsement I made for Ron Paul in the past to be retracted. When you say something completely idiotic like he does...you are guaranteed to lose my vote and that of anybody else with any scientific knowledge in their head. His post is titled "Ron Paul shows he's just as stupid as the next politician." Really now, as stupid as all those politicians who are so completely opposite to Ron Paul? The politicians who vote in mass for things that truly threaten, like the Patriot Act? Just recently the US House voted for the SAFE Act a clear threat to Internet freedom, and Paul was one of only two congressmen to vote against it (no Democrat did). But according to this atheist, Paul is no different from the rest of them. Yep, that's clear-headed, rational thinking if I ever saw it.

What atheists like this show is that they are as stupid as the next Christian bible thumper, the only difference being, the atheist should know better.


Being an atheist is no guarantee that someone has the ability or skills to think clearly and rationally, as Christopher Hitchens' warmongering support for the neocon's foreign policy and certain atheist's rejection of Ron Paul make so immanently clear.

Christians, Atheists and Bears in the Woods, Oh My!

Maybe you got this in your email awhile back:

An atheist was walking through the woods.

"What majestic trees"!

"What powerful rivers"!

"What beautiful animals"! He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7 foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground . He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"Time Stopped.The bear froze.The forest was silent.As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

"You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps You could make the BEAR a Christian"?

"Very Well," said the voice.The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

Here is one response to it from an atheist's perspective.

And another.

Here is a shorter version: An atheist was walking through the woods and suddenly came face to face with a hungry bear. He immediately dropped to his knees and looked up to heaven. "God," he said shamefully. "I know I have professed that you do not exist and I don't want to be a hypocrite and ask you to make me a Christian now. But could you do me one small favor?"
A voice from heaven answered, "I will do as you ask."
The atheist smiled and said, "Could you make this bear a Christian?"
Feeling quite pleased with himself, the atheist stood up and brushed off his pants. He looked fearlessly into the bears eyes. The bear looked into the atheists eyes, dropped to his knees and said, "Thank you Lord for this meal you have provided."

In a forum post at talkjesus.com (billing itself as "100% Jesus") someone replied to it with this: "The atheist was feeling very smug ,wasnt he? But then when the bear,after thanking God for his lunch ,stood up ,,the atheist,(i would emagen)felt very humble and learned a good leason, looking up up up at the bear ,knowing there was no escape,found out that smugness gets one no where.The joke was very funny" (spelling and punctuation as in original).

What the atheist also learned is that animals other than humans can become Christians, that Christians have no mercy for non-believers (just like their hate-filled, hell-creating, psychotic deity) and will actually EAT them, and that God can turn any creature into an instant Jesus freak, making this the god of the Calvinists, I suppose. But if becoming a believer is not a matter of will as portrayed in this story, why berate the atheist for his unbelief? And maybe the atheist wouldn't have been an atheist if Mr. Invisible Magic Being had just revealed himself , as he does in this story, earlier in the poor non-believer's life! That's all any atheist is asking for, just some PROOF!

There are so many google results for this thing (it goes under at least two titles; The Atheist and the Bear, and An Atheist in the Woods) that are all the same, just the story itself published on the site or blog, with maybe a brief comment-LOL and I Like It! being popular ones- and maybe a photo of a bear. Why no picture of the atheist at any of these posts? Atheists are flesh and blood beings that you can actually see, not invisible ghosts that you have to imagine are there and need "faith" that they exist. Atheists are real, gods and fairy tale talking bears are not.

This thing has been going around the internet for a long time and I can't find when it first started (the earliest date I saw was 2004), but I don't care anymore, just please stop passing it on, its making you religious types look stupid, something for which we don't need any more evidence, as you guys provide us skeptics with an abundance of it already.

Happy walk in the woods!

Everybody Hates the Atheists

From Reason Online:

The take-home message of Mitt Romney's recent speech on religion and politics was pretty clear: I may be a Mormon, but at least I'm not an atheist.
Romney sought to strengthen his advantage as a presidential candidate known for being religious while assuaging the concerns of Americans who are reluctant to vote for a Mormon. He did so by reinforcing the public's longstanding prejudice against unbelievers, arguing that religion—any religion—is preferable to no religion at all.

Click here to read the full article.