CARM

Going through the 5 apologetics on CARM.org, my comments are in italics.  

Cosmological Argument

  1. Things exist.  Ok.
  2. It is possible for those things to not exist.  No, I do not agree with this.  This is a nonsense statement.  It is very likely it is NOT possible for something to not exist.  Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed.  After the first Planck second, all the was and every will be came into existence.  
  3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.  There is no such thing as possible non-existence.  The sum total of the universe never changes, just changes form.
    1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
  4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.  Yes, you can have an infinite series of causes.
    2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.  This is an assertion.  The universe does not need a  cause.  
  5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.  The very concept of an uncaused cause is contradictory.
  6. The uncaused cause must be God.  Why?  Why can’t the uncaused cause be a quantum fluctuation?  Or the intersection of two or more universes?  There are almost an infinite number of causes that are simpler than a god.

 

  1. Everything that has a beginning needs a cause.  How do you know that?  This universe started and all matter and energy started at once. 
  2. The universe had a beginning. Really?  How do you know that?  The most commonly accepted hypothesis is the universe most likely did not have a beginning, just a point of minimal entropy.  We will never know what came before.
  3. The universe needs a cause.  If the universe never began, it does not need a cause.
  4. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes.  Yes, there can be.  
  5. There must be a cause for all else which has no beginning and needs no cause for its own existence.  This is contradictory and makes no sense.  To postulate an uncaused cause is nonsense.

Paley’s argument is as follows:

  1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.   We only know this because we are familiar with intelligent designers, us.
  2. The universe resembles human artifacts.  No, it doesn’t, at all.
  3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.  Since 2 is not true, this is a non sequitur.  
  4. But the universe is complex and gigantic in comparison to human artifacts.   Since 2 is not true, this is a non sequitur, and childish to boot.
  5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.  Really?  Not even probably, and the very concept lacks any parsimony.

The Moral Argument for God’s Existence

The argument is a very simple one, and can be structured something like this:

  1. For an objective moral standard to exist, God must exist  Objective morals do not exist.  Morals are the product of thinking agents.
  2. An objective moral standard does exist.  If all multicellular life went extinct, would there be morals?  Of course not.  Objective morals, like objective colors, do not exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.  Therefore gods don’t exist.  Even if there were a objective moral standard, those morals, by definition, would have to be subjective to whatever creates those morals.  If the creature is bound by objective morals, it is not a god. 

Some Christians have found it helpful to structure the argument in the negative form1:

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.  Correct, they do not exist.
  2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.  No, they do not.  Can you even name what those objective morals are?  
  3. Therefore God exists.  Therefore, gods do not exist.

The Ontological Argument

This argument was first attempted by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. He approached it this way:

  1. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being.
  2. This is obvious, because if one can conceive of a being greater than God, then that being would be God
  3. If God exists only in the mind, something greater than God can be conceived: A God who exists in the actual world
  4. But God is the greatest conceivable being, so definitionally we cannot conceive of anything greater than God
  5. God must, then, be a being that exists not only in the mind but also in reality
  6. Therefore God exists

Anselm explained this another way, saying:

  1. A being whose non-existence is inconceivable is greater than a being whose non-existence is conceivable.
  2. God is the greatest conceivable being
  3. God, then, is a being whose non-existence is inconceivable
  4. Therefore, God exists

Many Christian thinkers still believe in and use various forms of this kind of argument. The most popular modern expression was published by Alvin Plantinga and popularized by William Lane Craig. It follows the approach of Anselm in using the concept of God’s definitional greatness and frames the argument this way:1

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

All of the ontological arguments can be broken down into “I can imagine a god exists, so it has to exist in reality.”  Plug in daemon instead of god and the logic holds just as well.   Let me reword it:

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

I just proved the Devil exists.  Stop using this apologetic. It didn’t work 900 years ago, it does not work now.

Doubts

I don’t believe you.

The more that I think about, the less I can accept full grown adults can believe in an invisible space wizard, that grants wishes, created the whole universe, and had to sacrifice himself to himself, to appease himself.  You can’t possibly believe that an infinite sky daddy ‘fine tuned’ 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the the universe to make a world mostly suited to humans? Can you?  Yes, that is 1×10-53rd power.  Why would a god create a universe with 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, just for us?  Why would an intelligent designer give squids better eyes than us?  It just don’t believe it, I can’t believe it, and I don’t understand how people are so deluded that that think some desert goat herders got it all right a few thousand years ago.  They key is, their holy book contradicts reality.  FROM PAGE 1.  The order of creation is all wrong, cosmology is all wrong, the origin of species is all wrong, there never was a flood, Babel never existed, Moses never lived, and there were not 2,000,000 Jews wandering the desert for 40 years.  You can WALK from Egypt to Israel in about 5 days.  

Birds aren’t bats, rabbits don’t chew their cud, axe heads don’t float, you can’t walk on water or return from the dead.  I don’t have a problem with the Bible contradicting itself, I have a problem with it contradicting reality.  

The sheer level of self delusion needed is incomprehesible to me.  So, let me know how you thold those two concepts at the same time?  Do you just deney reality?  Do you just not think about it? Do you use some sort of pretzel logic?  Me, I can only hold one concept at a time.

My website

I recently had a post up regarding a way to reason to Christianity, to which the author responded.  I looked into his blog further and found much of want he is writing about is personally very offensive to me and I do not wish to link back to his site for the clicks.  No matter how you spin it, saying homosexuality is wrong and using your religion to justify it gets no quarter on MY website.  I am a straight, married man, but I have been to two gay weddings in the last 3 years and have gay friends.  To vilify someone for their orientation is disgusting.  My website, my rules.

 

Ark Park

Over a year ago, I posted about the irony of Ken Ham’s Ark Park. Turns out, the ark is not the huge draw that was expected.

America’s Research Group had estimated the park would attract between 1.4 million and 2.2 million visitors its first year.

They claim it is drawing in 1.4 million visitors in the first year.  I was wondering, how busy does a ‘museum’ have to be draw in these numbers of visitors?  Turns out, I live in Chicago, with some of the world’s most renowned museums, including the Art Institute of Chicago, Museum of Science and Industry, and The Field Museum of Natural History.   As a comparison, the 2016 visitor numbers:

  1. Lincoln Park Zoo, 3.6 Million
  2. Brookfield Zoo, 2.3 Million
  3. Shedd Aquarium, 1.9 Million
  4. Art Institute of Chicago, 1.8 Million
  5. Field Museum, 1.7 Million
  6. Museum of Science and Industry, 1.5 Million
  7. Morton Arboretum, 1.1 Million
  8. Chicago Botanic Garden, 1.1 Million
  9. Adler Planetarium, 577,749
  10. Chicago Children’s Museum 409,979.

Yes, Chicago has a shit ton of museums and zoos, and has an entire campus downtown for museums.  However, Chicago has a population of 2.7 million, with the surrounding suburbs having 6 million more.  As a member of Brookfield Zoo, I can tell you, it can get insanely busy on the weekends.  Somehow, the Ark Park expected 2.2 million visitors, which is just a touch more than ONE OF THE BEST ZOOS IN THE WORLD!!!  Mind you,  Williamstown, KY has a population of 3,925 people.  How they expected 1 to 2 million people to drive to northern Kentucky to see a boat shaped barn with animatronic figures is beyond me.  The closest real museum in Chicago to the Ark is the Field Museum, with 1.7 million last year.

The entry fee is the Ark Encounter is a staggering $40 for adults and $28 for children 5-12!

Brookfield Zoo is $19.85 for Adults, $14.50 for children 3-12.  And Brookfield has to feed and care for real animals, not animatronic toys.  Lincoln Park Zoo is Free!

Getting back to the Field Museum of Actual Fucking Natural History, $22 adults, $15 children, 3-11, with free days scattered throughout the year.

I don’t get what they were thinking.  I guess if the people who are coming are used to giving up 10% of their income, no questions asked, what is another couple hundred bucks?

Finally, Ken Ham is blaming Atheists and Secularists for the lower than expected numbers.  Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you had the Almighty Creator of the Universe is on your side?  Turns out human can defeat your god.  All we needed was the power of the pen.

 

 

Shifting the burden of proof and a definition

Came across a gem of a website, Stand To Reason

To summarize, it is attempting to shift the burden of proof by making non Christians define what god they don’t believe in.

The only useful thing on the page was a definition of what god the author believes in:

For instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being. Furthermore, He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present.

So, yes, indeed, I do not believe in this god, or even think a god like this is possible.  Let us break down the properties here:

  • Uncreated : so the God of the Bible is uncreated, but how is this even possible?  Uncreated, to me, is the same as non existent, it is a useless concept.
  • Infinite: Again, infinity is just a concept, like numbers.  The concept of infinite is something a thinking mind can create and does not exist in the real universe.
  • Eternal:  The universe may be eternal (oscillating, or cyclical, or something we can not conceive, but nothing is eternal).  The current version of this universe, is not eternal, and has a finite beginning.
  • Metaphysically necessary being:  This is just another definition of god, so kind of an odd term to use.  Circular definition.
  • All-powerful: If you are infinite, you will also be all powerful.  Infinite is a concept, not a real thing.
  • All-knowing: If you are infinite, you will also be all knowing.  Infinite is a concept, not a real thing.
  • All-good:  Natural evil anyone?  Holoprosencephaly.  Do a google image search on that term and tell me god is all good.
  • Everywhere present:  Again, if you are infinite, you will be a everywhere.  Infinite is a concept, not a real thing.

This definition of god is describing an entirely imaginary concept.  If god is all good, whence comes evil?  If god is all knowing and ever present, is there no such thing as free will?  Infinity is a concept, like numbers.  0, +/- infinity are all just concepts of thinking minds, and I don’t think apologists know this.  There is one last point I want to make:  How can I have a personal, infinite god in a finite universe?

 

 

 

14 Evidences for resurrection of Jesus

Apparently, There are 14 evidences for the resurrection of Jesus.  An admission of bias here, I am a mythicist, I see no evidence Jesus ever existed, and I believe he is a fictional character, like Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter.

So, here are my comments on the evidences:
14 EVIDENCES

  1. JESUS’ EXISTENCE. That Jesus was a historical individual is granted by virtually all historians and is supported by ancient Christian, Jewish, and pagan sources. Yet modern skeptics often feel that their best strategy for denying the evidence of his resurrection is to deny that he even existed.  This statement has two issues, first, it is an argument from authority.  The second is there is no contemporary evidence he existed.  There are no first hand accounts, he left no writings, not even a description of his appearance.  What was written about him was written 40 to 120 years after he was supposed to exist.  In addition, what was written has contradictory and nonsensical statements.  His genealogies don’t match, there was no census, and Herod was dead before he was supposed  to be born.  Even how the crucifixion is described is incorrect.
  2. JESUS’ DEATH. The most popular counter to the Resurrection in non-Christian and heretical beliefs is to deny that Jesus died on the cross (e.g., this is the position of Islam). However, historians regard the death of Jesus by crucifixion as ordered by Pontius Pilate to be as historically certain as any other fact of antiquity.  Again, another argument from authority.  The Pontius Pilate was a real person, but again, the description of the crucifixion was not accurate, nor are the dates and locations. 
  3. CRUCIFIED MESSIAH. Crucifixion was a horrible, shameful way to die, so much so that it would never have occurred to anyone in the first century to invent a story about a crucified man as the divine Savior and King of the world. Something extreme and dramatic must have happened to lead people to accept such an idea—something like his rising from the dead.  If you want a martyr, is there a better way to die than a horrible death?  This statement makes no sense.  
  4. JOSEPH’S TOMB. All four Gospels agree that Jesus’ body had been buried in the rock tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish high council (the Sanhedrin). This is an unlikely Christian fiction, because Christians blamed the Sanhedrin for their role in having Jesus executed.  All of the gospels were written decades or over a century after the event.  Someone who was crucified would’ve taken days to die, and not given a proper burial.  
  5. WOMEN WITNESSES. The four Gospels all agree that the first persons to find the tomb empty were Jewish women, including Mary Magdalene. It is very unlikely that anyone would make up such a story, since women’s testimony was devalued compared to men’s and since Mary Magdalene was known as a formerly demon-possessed woman. If the empty tomb story were fiction, one would expect that Joseph of Arimathea, already identified as the tomb’s owner and a respected male leader, would be credited with the discovery.  I have no idea why women witnesses is a big deal.  Again, the accounts are written decades later AND have contradictions.  
  6. ANCIENT THEORIES. The earliest non-Christian explanations for the origin of the Resurrection belief (mentioned in John and Matthew) were that the body had been taken from the tomb—either moved to another burial place or stolen to fake the Resurrection. These explanations conceded three key facts: Jesus died; his body was buried in Joseph’s tomb; the tomb was later found to be empty.  Yet again, written decades after, and only in 2 of the 4 gospels.  
  7. TOMB WAS GUARDED. Critics routinely dismiss Matthew’s story about the guards being bribed to say that they fell asleep, giving the disciples opportunity to steal the body (Matt. 28:11-15). But Matthew would have no reason to make up the story about the guards being bribed except to counter the story of the guards saying they fell asleep (see v. 15). Either way, the guards were there: the body had been in the tomb, the tomb had been guarded, and the body was no longer there.  Why in the world would you guard a tomb of a disgraced Jew?  Do you honestly believe the local Jews could convince a Roman governor to post guards on a tomb?  Someone who was crucified was left on the cross until they died from exposure, then fed to dogs and birds.  They would not have the honor of being buried in a tomb AND have Roman guards. 
  8. PAUL AND LUKE’S INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS. Paul’s list of resurrection witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 coincides with Luke’s account at several points, but in wording and in what is included Luke’s account is clearly independent of Paul. For example, Paul calls Peter by his Aramaic nickname “Cephas,” not Simon or Peter; he refers to “the twelve,” Luke to “the eleven”; Luke does not mention the appearances to James or the five hundred. Thus Paul and Luke give us independent accounts of the appearances they both mention.  Who are these 500?  Are they named?  Were they Jews, Romans, Gentiles?  Nameless witnesses are useless.  
  9. CLOPAS AND THAT OTHER GUY. Luke gives the name of one of the two men on the road to Emmaus who saw Jesus (Clopas) but not the name of the other man. If he was making up names he would presumably have given both of the men names. The fact that he identifies only one of the two men by name is best explained if that man, Clopas, was the source of Luke’s account. In short, this fact is evidence that the account came from an eyewitness.  How, how is this evidence?  He forgot to make up a name, and that omission is proof?  Really?
  10. BROTHER JAMES. Although Luke does not mention the resurrection appearance to James (the Lord’s brother) mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, Luke does report that James had become a leading member of the apostolic group (see especially Acts 15:13-21). Since Jesus’ brothers had rejected Jesus during his lifetime (John 7:5), Paul’s reference to Christ appearing to James is probably based on fact.   Not sure how this contradiction is evidence, do you?  Acts was written about 90 C.E.  60ish years after the fact.  
  11. JOHN’S EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT. The author of the Gospel of John emphatically states that he was an eyewitness of the death of Jesus, of the empty tomb, and of resurrection appearances of Jesus (John 19:32-35; 20:2-9; 21:7, 20-25). Either he sincerely had these experiences or he was lying; appeals to legend or myth are out of the question here.  John was written 90 to 100 C.E. with the first complete manuscript somewhere in the mid 200s.  It would be physically impossible for this to be a first hand account.    He was lying or it is a myth.
  12. ANCIENT SKEPTICISM. Luke reports the skepticism of the men disciples the morning the tomb was found empty (Luke 24:22-24), and John reports Thomas’s skepticism about Jesus’ resurrection (John 20:24-26). These accounts (see also Acts 17:32; 1 Cor. 15:12) demonstrate that the perception of ancient people as gullible hayseeds who would believe any miracle story is a modern prejudicial stereotype.   No real claim here, does not prove a point that I can make out.  I don’t think ancient people were any more gullible than now.  
  13. PAUL’S CONVERSION. Paul was a notorious persecutor of the early Christians prior to his becoming an apostle. His explanation, that Christ appeared to him and called him to faith and the apostolic ministry, is the only plausible explanation for his 180-degree change. Moreover, Paul’s experience was entirely independent of the experience of the other apostles.  The only evidence that Paul persecuted early Christians is…from Paul.  Since Paul actually founded Christianity (not a well publicized fact) it would be impossible for him to persecute a religion that he created before he created it.  You can have Christianity without Christ ever existing, but if Paul didn’t exist, there would be no Christianity.  Paul never claimed to see a physical Jesus. Paul believed he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, but this does not make Jesus real.  
  14. PAUL’S GENTILE MISSION. Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus did not result merely in him accepting Jesus as the Jews’ Messiah. Instead, he saw himself, a trained and zealous Pharisee, as commissioned by Jesus to take the good news of the Messiah to uncircumcised Gentiles. The fact that Paul embraced such a calling against his former passionate beliefs and training makes any appeal to hallucination or delusion implausible.  Why not?  It could be he was hallucinating.  Happens all the time.  It is easier to believe Jesus was a figment of Paul’s imagination than someone coming back from the dead.  

Apologetics – Listed

I wanted to jot down all the Christian apologetics out there. Let’s see how fast I can refute each one.  This list is taken from Wikipedia.

Philosophical Arguments:

  1. Cosmological argument – Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from cosmology and the nature of causation are often offered to support the cosmological argument.  This is more or less the first mover argument.  It has many flaws, most keen is the fact is the even if there is a first mover, there is no link between that first mover and whatever god you believe in.  
  2. Teleological argument – Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe use this argument as well as others.  I do not accept the world looks designed.  Evolution by natural selection may make it appear there is design, but even Darwin debunked this one.  
  3. Ontological argument – Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.  This is thinking god(s) into existence.  Even when it was formulated over 750 years ago, contemporaries pointed out you can substitute any other word for god and the argument still works. 
  4. Moral Argument – Argues that there are objectively valid moral values, and therefore, there must be an absolute from which they are derived.  There are no morals outside of thinking brains and brains are subjective.  There are no moral absolutes.  
  5. Transcendental Argument – Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.  Silly argument, machines and animals can think, do they require a god?  There is no transcendent reality, it is a fiction.  
  6. Presuppositional Arguments – Argues that the basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition.   This one is just stupid, God exists because we need god to exist to have reason and we need reason to reason god.  It is a stupid, circular argument.  
  7. Alvin Plantinga’s argument that belief in God is properly basic, reformed epistemology.  Which is basically Presuppositional arguments restated.  
  8. Pascal’s wager, is an argument that posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists.  Somehow we can trick god into believing we believe?  Seems a better argument against god than for. 

Moral apologetics

Moral apologetics states that real moral obligation is a fact. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said, “We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.”  There are no moral absolutes and empathy is enough for me.

Scientific apologetics
Many Christians contend that science and the Bible do not contradict each other and that scientific fact supports Christian apologetics.  Bwahahaha.  The earth was not created before the sun.  Your argument has no value.  People do not come back from the dead.  Your argument has no value.

Creationist apologetics

The Creation Museum is a museum run by Answers in Genesis, a young Earth creationism apologetics organization
Creation apologetics include young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, and theistic evolution. Young Earth creationists believe the Bible teaches that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and reject the scientific consensus for the age of the Earth.
Experiential apologetics
Experiential apologetics is a reference to an appeal “primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith.” Also, “they spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience.” This view stresses experience that other apologists have not made as explicit, and in the end, the concept that the Holy Spirit convinces the heart of truth becomes the central theme of the apologetic argument.

PragerU Murder

Hoo boy, found a fountain of stupid this week.  PragerU.com has ‘instructional’ videos, in this case, on religion and the old, worn out trope of objective morality.  Quite a few Atheist YouTube channels have made response videos,

https://youtu.be/kOlf-lEkf5k

https://youtu.be/1yZFkI292CA

And many more.

but I prefer the written form, so here are my comments below:

Do you believe that good and evil exist?

No.  They are adjectives or adverbs, not nouns.

The answer to this question separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values.

Let me offer the clearest possible example: murder.

Is murder wrong? Is it evil? Nearly everyone would answer yes. But now I’ll pose a much harder question: How do you know?

There are three questions here, and he is trying to conflate the first two.  Is murder wrong?  Yes, most of the time.  Is murder evil?  No.  How do I know murder is wrong?  The wrongness of murder is relative.  Is it wrong during war?  I don’t think so.  It is relative.  I don’t know if it is wrong, it is relative.

I am sure that you think that murder is wrong. But how do you know?

I, personally, think murder is wrong, but I understand when murder is necessary.  The key word here is think.  It is my opinion that murder is wrong and a species that didn’t think murder was wrong, most of the time, would survive long.

If I asked you how you know that that the earth is round, you would show me photographs from outer space, or offer me measurable data. But what photographs could you show, what measurements could you provide, that prove that murder or rape or theft is wrong?

No, I can’t prove murder or rape or theft is wrong, objectively.

The fact is…you can’t. There are scientific facts, but without God there are no moral facts.

There are no moral facts, it is a nonsensical phrase.

In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion. But only opinions. Every atheist philosopher I have read or debated on this subject has acknowledged that if there is no God, there is no objective morality.

So what?  Yes, morality is an opinion and IT IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING.  Doesn’t bother me at all the morality is not objective.

Judeo-Christian values are predicated on the existence of a God of morality. In other words, only if there is a God who says murder is wrong, is murder wrong. Otherwise, all morality is opinion.

Even if there is a god, morality is still an opinion, since it would be a god’s opinion.  Even in your own holy book, your god murders everyone and everything.

The entire Western world – what we call Western Civilization – is based on this understanding.

That is an assertion, and most of the values of Western Civilization are a result of the enlightenment, which is in turn based on Greco-Roman values.

Now, let me make two things clear.

First, this doesn’t mean that if you don’t believe in God, you can’t be a good person. There are plenty of kind and moral individuals who don’t believe in God and Judeo-Christian values.  But the existence of these good people has nothing – nothing – to do with the question of whether good and evil really exist if there is no God.

Then what was the fucking point of this video???

Second, there have been plenty of people who believed in God who were not good people; indeed, more than a few have been evil – and have even committed evil in God’s name. The existence of God doesn’t ensure people will do good. I wish it did. The existence of God only ensures that good and evil objectively exist and are not merely opinions.

If the existence or non-existance of gods don’t change how people act, why should we care?  It is a needless layer of complexity.

Without God, we therefore end up with what is known as moral relativism – meaning that morality is not absolute, but only relative to the individual or to the society. Without God, the words “good” and “evil” are just another way of saying “I like” and “I don’t like.” If there is no God, the statement “Murder is evil” is the same as the statement “I don’t like murder.”

So?  There are many societies in the world right now that don’t follow the Bible and Yahweh and Jesus are just fictional characters, and they are doing just fine.

Now, many will argue that you don’t need moral absolutes; people won’t murder because they don’t want to be murdered. But that argument is just wishful thinking. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn’t want to be murdered, but that hardly stopped them from murdering about a hundred million people.

I don’t know what the point of this statement is.  Belief in a god does not stop people from murder either, so it is a non sequitur.

It is not a coincidence that the rejection of Judeo-Christian values in the Western world – by Nazism and Communism – led to the murder of all these innocent people.

And is also not a coincidence that Judeo-Christian values led to the largest genocide is human history, the massacre of the Native Americans.

It is also not a coincidence that the first societies in the world to abolish slavery – an institution that existed in every known society in human history – were Western societies rooted in Judeo-Christian values. And so were the first societies to affirm universal human rights; to emancipate women; and to proclaim the value of liberty.

I really don’t think this statement is factually correct.  Liberty is a Deist value, not a Judeo-Christian.  Your values come from a book that supports slavery, demeans women (most of whom are unnamed) and has nothing to do with liberty.

Today, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values and moral absolutes has led to a world of moral confusion.

We live in the most peaceful time in human history, how this a bad thing?

In the New York Times, in March 2015, a professor of philosophy confirmed this.

Source?

He wrote: “What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun? Would you be surprised? I was.”

What the fuck are you talking about?  I went to public and secular schools only.  I don’t remember anything like that.

The professor then added: “The overwhelming majority of college freshmen view moral claims as mere opinions.”

So?  Who should I care about the opinions of college freshmen?

So, then, whatever you believe about God or religion, here is a fact:

Without a God who is the source of morality, morality is just a matter of opinion. So, if you want a good world, the death of Judeo-Christian values should frighten you.

No, doesn’t frighten me at all.  See Sweden.

I’m Dennis Prager.

Lost Jesus

I have to make an admission, I don’t think Jesus (Christ or of Nazareth) ever existed.
Jesus Christ is just a silly myth, and debating if he ever rose again is just stupid. Why?
This logic:
“All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore, Nellie is pink!” -The Fourth Doctor.
This statement is logical, but ignores one fact, Elephants aren’t pink.

Whenever I hear an argument about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the logic is:
1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
2. On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers
3. On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead
4. The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

This logic ignores one fact, people don’t rise from the dead. Ever. Over 110,000,000,000 people have lived and died on Earth over the last 200,000 years.
None have returned from the dead. There is no mechanism for someone to return from the dead after 3 minutes, no less 3 days.
Until you can prove that someone can return from the dead, the whole argument is pointless.

On Jesus of Nazareth, he was almost certainly based on a compilation of apocalyptic preachers who were a dime a dozen in the first century.
His supposed teachings appear to cobbled from the Old Testament and eastern teachings from Confucius (Who is the origin of the golden rule.) and the Tao, the Way.

Taken together, Jesus Christ, half man/half god, all god, whatever, is an obvious myth.
Jesus of Nazareth is a compilation or  very very loosely based on a real person. Jesus was a common name at the time. Jesus of Nazareth is about as earth shaking as Joe from Newark, NJ.
His teachings are unremarkable and are poorly stated parables.

For a long time I at least Jesus, in some form is real, but from where I am standing, he is a complete myth; Christ or of Nazareth.

Ark Irony

The “Ark Encounter” is due to open some time in 2016.  Looking at the videos, I am struck by the irony that this ark recreation disproves an actual ark!  Wood Used  If you follow the link

, it is actually a pretty interesting video…especially the technology they are using, like CNC machines to cut the wood.  You can see the industrial kilns in the background, chainsaws and circular saws, and modern shipping techniques, like railroads and trucks and forklifts.    If you click around to other videos, you will see the steel bolts and gusseting plates used to fasten everything together.   And, of course, forklifts and giant industrial cranes needed to place everything.

When the ‘real’ ark was supposedly built, it was the late bronze age.  Not only were there no industrial tools, there weren’t even iron tools to work with.   It would be physically impossible for a small group of people to fell, transport, shape, (air) dry, and assemble all that lumber, all using bronze tools and wood hammers.  We are talking millions of board feet of lumber…and you don’t get 100 years to work on it.  The wood would rot before it was all assembled.  Without modern tools, as shown in their own videos, it would be impossible.  In addition, everything is held together using modern steel plates and bolts.  Even with these bolts, this fancy barn would never float.  The bracing, ribs, and keel are far too small and would snap instantly if you tried to take this boat out on the calmest of seas..  It may look like a boat, but it is nothing more than a 3 story barn.

Thanks for proving it is impossible!