My good friend JohnEvo (a/k/a The Ancient Atheist, tho’ he’s not so ancient) sent me a link to this video. This is a really good example of the contention that religion has simply become a big business. Here we have a doctor, one schooled, presumably, in science and the necessity of basing the application of medicine on evidence, who’s simply shilling for a book he wrote that supposedly presents evidence for human resurrection. He travels the Extreme Christian circuit of talk shows, web sites and other forms of media hawking his book. The video blogger who created it makes a good case that there’s big bucks in the process, which, to understate it, somewhat diminishes the credibility of the claims.
Evidence for the proposition “There is no god”.
I haven’t written any posts in awhile, partly because I have been having a long debate with someone on another blog post, in the comments, about the conflict between Religion and Science, which has gravitated, as usual, to the existence of god. This is as it should be. It is where atheist/theist debates should properly end up. One can talk about the merits of religion, or the efficacy of religious belief, or the overwhelming preponderance of theists in the world, but ultimately none of it means anything in the debate until you’ve resolved the TRUTH of religion – i.e. does god exist. If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth. It should be obvious. The fact that there isn’t even something close to human consensus gives the lie to the proposition.
Not one, but two, front page articles from today’s local paper highlight the personal failings of those ruled by their religion. And those two stories seem to predominate the online discussion on the paper’s website.
A couple of months ago the local chapter of the PA Nonbelievers gave me a free copy of Dan Barker‘s Godless at the meeting I went to. I gratefully took it home and once the Christmas season was over, I pulled it out and read it.
There are many different types of atheists, ranging from the insincere to the fully committed. Dan Barker is one of those who I think Continue reading
I saw this on Pharyngula, and thought that certain troll-like commenters here might find it enlightening. It fits in nicely with discussion we were having in some of the past posts about ignoring evidence, the Bible, and all the other willful ignorance they like to espouse.
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! It will shake your religious preconceptions, but only if you have an open mind.
I really should read the Bible. I’m not one of those atheists who claims that my reading of the Bible actually caused my deconversion. I haven’t read it from cover to cover, primarily because it’s written so archaically, that I can’t get through it, and because there’s really no point to reading it. Logic says that you don’t put the cart before the horse, and logic also says you don’t read the Bible to find evidence of the existence of god. God must be proven first before I’d read it for that reason (and what other reason to read it?). To say god exists because the Bible says it’s true is circular.
One of the things that irritates me about theists is that because they subscribe to a belief system that involves made up fairy tales, they only feel comfortable if they can claim that atheists subscribe to a similarly unprovable and delusional belief system. It’s the adult version of “So am I but what about you” epithet thrown back in defense when one is accused of something stupid. It’s as if theism would not be valid unless it’s compared with its opposite, which makes no logical sense. Theism should stand or fall on its own merits, but it always falls, as a belief system, upon even the slightest scrutiny. To deflect us from that scrutiny, theists point out that we hold equally silly beliefs. Let’s look at that.
I must give a plug to an organization I’ve joined here in Central Pennsylvania – Pennsylvania Nonbelievers. Last night I was invited to speak to them at their monthly meeting, and for a free meal, I agreed. Actually, I would have done it without the fine culinary compensation, as I found the meeting to be pleasantly enjoyable, and the members quite congenial, despite my initial trepidation brought on by irrational stage fright. I’m used to speaking in a courtroom, or arguing cases before a panel of judges, but addressing a crowd, albeit as cozy and intimate as this was, tucked into the back room of a local restaurant, was still a new experience. But in the end I’m glad they asked me, as I discovered that as long as I’m talking about something I’m qualified to talk about (in this case – me), the term “verbal diarrhea” actually has personal meaning. I needed the humbling experience. It’s good for my