How to Address, and Dismiss, Presuppositional Apologetics as Presented by Sye Ten Bruggencate and Others

A skeptic's response to the mutated Presuppositional Apologetic as advocated by Sye Ten Bruggencate and his acolytes. -http://youtu.be/mssq45r-6Jk

J. Neil Schulman Argues God with the Atheists

J. Neil Schulman is the author of the popular libertarian novel, Alongside Night. He was an atheist from a young age, and says that George H. Smith's bestselling atheist book Atheism: The Case Against God was a major influence on him.

What distinguishes my approach to God from others is that I’ve never abandoned my view that one should not accept the existence of anything on faith. Nor religious dogma. Nor scripture. Like anything else, I always have viewed existence of God as a fact that needs to be verified or negated. One can negate something by showing how the concept is impossible. But once a proposed existent survives the intellectual challenge that the very idea is impossible, one is still left with the problem of what constitutes sufficient reason to regard it as real.

He continues: I was a rationalist when I was an atheist. I’m a rationalist still. What overcame my skepticism were personal experiences that challenged my cosmology, my epistemological premises, my concept of what the nature of God is, and my view of the nature of man and his place in existence, itself.

Yet I did this without abandoning my reliance on any of the axioms or rules of logic that Ayn Rand used to dismiss the concept of God. I thought George H. Smith would have some respect for that.-I argue God with the Atheists


At his I Met God audio book site he lists some things that are in the book. I've always felt that some people create a false dichotomy between atheism and Biblical Christianity or organized, revealed religion in general as the only options, when I still think that philosophical theism (belief in God without formal religion of any kind) is a live option for most people:

What convinced Neil that God was not a fable but a real and present spirit with a fully human personality;

How religious scholars' totally non-Biblical definition of God as "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" have driven rational people into atheism;

...

Why the disbelief in the afterlife, or belief in Heaven as a real place, is the single most important factor in how people make their fundamental life choices and form their political opinions;

What God looks for when He looks into a human soul, and how from His viewpoint God is not all-powerful but He feels almost helpless in the face of our individual free-will powers ...



Certainly God as portrayed in the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) is not obviously omni anything, though the more "sophisticated" God of theology is omni-everything. If there really is a god (and not just a very powerful being that might just be a super alien), I would lean toward the omni-attributes, though they pose logical problems. If God exists, however, He/She will remain mostly mysterious to us, at least in this life (assuming there's more to come).

Schulman's book is available to read for free chapter by chapter, starting with the introduction here.

Debate: Does The Universe Have A Purpose?

We are a species oriented toward a teleological view of the world. We feel as though there is a purpose to not just our individual lives (as in, "God has a plan for you") but for the whole of humanity and the universe. We could be wrong, of course, but the quick dismissal of such intuitions of meaning may be just as wrong.

The book of Genesis and its great illustrations, like the frescoes of Michelangelo, remain a far more intelligent account of the nature and origin of the universe than the representation of the world as a chance collocation of atoms. for the biblical cosmology continues to express - however inadequately - the significance of the fact that the world exists and that man has emerged from it, while the scientific picture denies any meaning to the world, and indeed ignores all our most vital experience of this world. The assumption that the world has some meaning which is linked to our own calling as the only morally responsible beings in the world, is an important example of the supernatural aspect of experience which Christian interpretations of the universe explore and develop.--Michael Polanyi

The debate features Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins vs Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig and Douglas Geivett. The introduction is in Spanish, and the debate begins at about the 8:30 mark.

Rationality and Scientific Naturalism

Is this a good argument for God? I'm not convinced, but would be interested in your thoughts:

The recalcitrant nature of human persons for scientific naturalism has been widely noticed. Thus, Berkeley philosopher John Searle recently observed, “There is exactly one overriding question in contemporary philosophy….How do we fit in?….How can we square this self-conception of ourselves as mindful, meaning-creating, free, rational, etc., agents with a universe that consists entirely of mindless, meaningless, unfree, nonrational, brute physical particles?” For the scientific naturalist, the answer is “not very well.”

The difficulty for scientific naturalism in accounting for these commonsense features of human beings has not been noticed simply by notable atheists. In fact, the nature of human persons has lead some to embrace theism.

...

But rationality is an odd entity in a scientific naturalist world. Christian philosopher Victor Reppert agrees: “…the necessary conditions for rationality cannot exist in a naturalistic universe.” And Reppert goes on to argue that the ontology of human rationality provides evidence for theism as its best explanation.

Naturalism, Human Persons and Rationality: Admitting the Problem



h/t Victor Reppert

CLS: How the most religious states fare

The always-entertaining libertarian blogger on the evidence.

And goody, I live in one of the ten least religious states!

Is secularism harming society?

Just the opposite, of course.

From Dostoyevsky to right-wing commentator Ann Coulter we are warned of the perils of godlessness. "If there is no God," Dostoyevsky wrote, "everything is permitted." Coulter routinely attributes our nation's most intractable troubles to the moral vacuum of atheism.

But a growing body of research in what one sociologist describes as the "emerging field of secularity" is challenging long-held assumptions about the relationship of religion and effective governance.

In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.

Read the rest here.

Witch hunts in India

Literally. And just as I returned from there!

India, while an interesting place to visit, is not a place where I would ever choose to live. It is the most polluted, crowded, noisy, impoverished and ultraconservative (women don't even wear shorts there) country I've ever been to. I thought Moscow was in shabby shape when I visited it back in the day, but it's got nothing on India.

The Anti-Dawkins Delusion

I'm currently about halfway through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. If it took me a while to get to it, it's because I suspected I would already be familiar with most of his arguments. And indeed I am. Yet it's nice to have all of them neatly summarized in one book.

The responses from Dawkins' critics (such as the laughably ineffective Dinesh D'Souza) posted online are truly amazing, even for the religious crowd. Almost none of them give any indication whatsoever that the critic actually read the book. The critics simply trot out the same old batch of arguments, apparently unaware that Dawkins has already addressed each and every one of them in exhausting detail. The negative reviews are written *by* people who have never read the book *for* people who have never read the book.

If you think Dawkins' answers are flawed, then fine. But at least acknowledge that Dawkins has addressed them in the book. Instead of responding to Dawkins' rebuttals to their arguments, theists merely repeat the exact same arguments. I'm not sure that I've come across a single intellectually honest review...at least not yet.

If theists were honest, they would simply say: "We're deeply uncomfortable with the book and its conclusions, therefore we hate it." Just skip any pretense of countering the arguments and cut to the chase, guys. It would be a refreshing change for once.

What Does the Cube Contain?

via Debunking Christianity

God is a statist

A libertarian debate over religion at fr33agents (which I plan to join soon) produced this excellent quote:

Your self-ownership applies even to the imaginary Sky Tyrant: your soul, if it exists, is your own. The Sky Tyrant does not own it and does not have the moral right to torture you should you choose to follow your own path and not its. I think anybody who still believes in the Sky Tyrant as a good and just god requires some alone time with their conscience, to ponder what possible morality such a torturing, murdering bloodthirsty demon god could possibly push into the world.

There are many Christian libertarians out there who are perfectly decent, well-meaning people. But remember: the thing that makes libertarians different is we apply our moral standards (against crimes like theft, murder, rape, torture) to everyone, including the state. Should we not apply these standards to god as well?

Why should god get a free pass?

Another idiot prays to Jeebus while his daughter dies

He's being charged with homicide. Not that it'll bring his daughter back.

I'll have a Galt with cheese

Sales of Atlas Shrugged have exploded under the Obama regime, and conservatives are starting to appreciate Ayn Rand.

Perhaps if they would listen to Ayn Rand on the subject of Church and State, they would once again attract sane people to their party. Don't count on it.

Charlie Reese's most insane quote ever

I surprised some people once by saying that I would rather live in a neighborhood of Islamic fundamentalists than in a neighborhood of atheists and agnostics. That's true. You can count on the morality that Islam teaches; there is no morality for atheists and agnostics, except what they arbitrarily choose.

-"Religion essential"

Charlie does realize that the Islamic fundamentalists would immediately execute him for being an "infidel," right?

When to believe in miracles

Never! Unless a miracle happens right in front of you, and you catch it on videotape, and you aren't delusional, and it isn't some kind of magical illusion (a la David Blane). Not that there's any chance of that ever happening.

Thus, it goes without saying that there's no reason to believe that any the miracles in the Bible happened. None. I don't care if there were "witnesses." Even today, there are delusional people who make outrageous claims about things they've supposedly "witnessed." Just look at the massive number of idiots who believe in ghosts and conduct seances. Nuff said.

If we laugh at "divine witnesses" today, why on Earth would we take the "witnesses" of the ancient past seriously? People back then were as gullible, irrational, and fearful as it gets. Add in the dubious history of Christianity's emergence, and we have even less of a reason to believe.

For whatever reason, Christians find it hard to accept that their magic book was written--badly--by humans. Well...the kazillion other religions are obviously man-made, are they not? Whether you're an atheist or a theist, one thing is for certain: they can't all be true. Thus, we have a ton of hucksters out there inventing religions. This is an absolute indisputable FACT.

All of them speak of miracles, gods, supernatural beings, and other silliness. And what a coincidence: all of this miraculous hokum happened long ago, without a trace of evidence!

"Don't think, just believe!"

No. I refuse to believe in their bullshit. The only evidence they've given us is mere say-so.

Say-so is not enough for me to believe in all of these miracles. If it is for you, then you're simply a fool.

Why Is There Nothing Rather Than Something?

Why? From our earliest years we ask questions. Why is the sky blue...why do birds sing...who made God? The answers are sometimes based on fact, but in many cases we receive an invented answer from someone-a parent when we are very young-who hasn't a clue but is afraid of declaring "I don't know".

All of the questions of the above type are merely little versions of the ultimate why, which is, why is there anything at all?, though it's often expressed as Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? But most often, those who ask it have a ready answer: God. Which is very curious, as I've never encountered a religious person who believes there was ever a time when there was nothing. On the contrary, there was always a big something according to such people.

The devastating reply should be obvious to the unbiased. Why is there a God rather than nothing?

So, why is there nothing rather than something? You're puzzled perhaps? The question is nonsense, you say? There isn't "nothing", there's something. But that's the point. There is no such thing as "nothing". There is existence, and to ask any question at all presupposes it.

Conservapedia's hilarious entry on atheism

Here.

In a nutshell, we are: mass murdering Communists, charity-hating grumps, promiscuous, suicidal, mentally ill, immoral party animals (ok, maybe they're right about that last one).

And did you know that the "evolutionary position" is "losing public support?"

Funny stuff.

Is it safe to denigrate Muhammad yet?

Remember back when idiot Muslims rioted all over the place and killed people over a few (hilarious) cartoons mocking their stupid beliefs? Every media milquetoast was horrified of offending them. Even Comedy Central wouldn't touch it with a 20-foot pole (they censored South Park).

I, too, was offended by the anti-Islam cartoons. I was offended because they weren't sufficiently disrespectful to the laughingstock that is Islam.


These masterpieces are from a contest held at Right-Thinking a few years back. So what ever happened to the "denigrate Mohammed" movement? It's as if people just forgot about it, which is a shame, because there's a lot of comedic opportunity here.

Having a good laugh at Pascal's Wager

Socialism and Religion: the similarities that can't be denied

It is a great irony that socialists hate religion, considering that socialism has all the defining characteristics of a religion. Let's have some fun examining the obvious similarities.

1) Socialism and religion are both completely unproven dogmas that have zero actual evidence to back them up. In fact, there is plenty of evidence against both.

Therefore, belief in religion or socialism can only come from completely blind, irrational faith. The faith that theists and socialists have in their doctrines is very strong, bordering on hysterical. Why is it so strong? Because the idea that they may be devoting their lives to a stupid pipe dream (cough) is too much for them to handle. They don't want anyone blowing on the house of cards that is their belief structure.

2) Socialism and religion both promise that we can eventually reach a state of "heaven." And in the process, they've both brought us hell on Earth. Socialists and theists have yet to apologize for all the atrocities their belief systems have generated. If you point to the Soviet Union, socialists will answer that it wasn't "real" socialism. If you point to hideous rights violations in Middle Eastern countries, you'll be told that "real" Islam is a "peaceful" religion, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

3) Socialism and religion both maintain that everything would be chaos without central planning running the show. But in reality, neither the economy nor the universe could ever be "planned." Both are just the result of a ton of spontaneous shit happening. This lack of control horrifies both socialists and theists.

4) Socialists and theists both believe that those of us who simply laugh at their dumb beliefs are evil and working against all that is good and right. We are trapped in the hands of Satan, or in the pay of the "capitalist class" (defined as anyone who works for a living).

5) Socialism and religion both fulfill a similar psychological need: the need to believe in a "higher power," or the "common good." Neither exist, but they are both comforting to believe in. Comforting lies are always far more pleasant than the truth.

What Is Theism?