Of miracles, prayer and consistency

So this morning I saw a Tweet pop up in my timeline and though I did comment on it on Twitter itself I felt the need to elaborate upon my point a little bit more on my blog. So the Tweet in question said the following:

“Back in May a couple of teens were lost at sea off the coast of Florida clinging to life when they started praying for God to save them.

A boat finally arrived; the name of the boat ? The “AMEN.”

Coincidence ?

Tell those teens it was a coincidence.

Saves”

I see those comments very often expressed by Theists in an effort to claim that God still works miracles and that prayer actually works. As an Atheist I do not accept this claim of course and I maintain that the reasoning employed within this is both lazy as well as arrogant and outright inconsistent.

So let’s address it: Is it coincidence? Well I certainly wouldn’t find it surprising that when children are saved that it may very well be by a boat or a ship or whatever which has as its name a religious foundation. The vast majority of people on our planet are Theists. The majority group of those people are (as it stands) Christians. If you are a believing Christian and you own a boat then it is to be expected that you give it a Christian name. In this case it was the “AMEN” but there are probably other boats like the “gospel” or the “grace” out there as well. I have no idea how many boats are currently in existence but with approximately 2/7 of the world identifying as Christian I can imagine that no shortage of boat owners will have a boat with a Christian theme.

And let’s be real here if it was the “grace” that saved these teens his reaction would have been no different.

So right away it doesn’t seem that unlikely anymore. Considering then that there is a limited amount of boats in Florida and considering that people may have been searching for them it does not seem that miraculous after all now, does it?

 

What bothers me the most about these supposed answered prayers and these supposed miracles is the inconsistency behind it:

How many times has this happened in history when the Christian boat was not able to save the poor children? Probably more than zero. Would Christians count this as evidence against God? Of course not no. What if the “AMEN” was about to save the children but failed to do so in the last second? Does that mean that God’s word failed? No this can be chalked up to “mysterious ways” . Or what about the children who died in this very seconds where I wrote this line?

Now I am not presenting these as a problem of evil or the problem of suffering. Not at all. What I am saying is that when you think prayer works in this case but you do not think that prayer or by extension God failed in those other cases then you only take into account the data which suits your preconceived conclusion and ignore the data which would go against it.

 

But let us take it a little bit further: What if it was the “HSF Muhammad” which came to rescue? Would anyone of the Christians reconsider their stance on Islam? What about the “PS 666” . May it be that Satan is a good guy after all? Or how about the “MS Godless” ?  If God existed why would he use a ship to save people which declares that he is not needed to begin with? That’s very contradictory to his nature which seeks to glorify himself.

If you would be unwilling to change your stance in those cases, then how can you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously in this one?

 

But we could in theory extend this scenario of a “Christian symbol” coming to the rescue and see how we stack up when employing that:

 

If God uses Christian boats to save people then that means that he influences the minds the body etc. of the people within the boat in order to save others. Given that this Hypothesis is true then we would likewise expect this principle to work with other scenarios. So if we have various lifeguards named “Noah” who as we all know supposedly built an Ark to save his family as well as animals from the Flood through which other people drowned then we would therefore expect them to all be immediately on alert when there is a child which is about to drown at the beach. If that is not the case then the Hypothesis is disconfirmed. Same with a guy named “Jesus” who sees a man beating on a woman. One thing we absolutely would not expect is anyone or anything who or which represents Christianity in any way to do harm to people in any way. So a person named Jesus could presumably never be a criminal right?

 

One final thing: Notice how these happenstances are touted as miracles these days. Yet in biblical times we have had miracles of far greater magnitude. Men who are undefeatable and beat up 1000 men with the jaw of a donkey all because they never cut their hair off (Samson). Jonah living inside a giant fish for 3 days instead of drowning. Jesus walking on water and pulling up his disciple out of the water to save him from drowning. Moses parting the sea.

And now what are we reduced to? A lucky occurrence which involves nothing demonstrably Supernatural, nothing unusual and nothing which cannot be explained by natural means.

These children may or may not have been saved by God. I just find it funny that he used to save people in a grandious and spectecular way in order to show the world who the Boss is and nowadays instead of simply pulling the children out of the water without the involvement of a boat, he sees it necessary to save people in a way that does not make him appear to be real in the first place once we remove our biases.

 

I hope you afford yourself the opportunity to think about why the world is the way it is. As always I am open to criticism. Hope you have a good day.

 

Goodbye from yours truly,

 

René von Boenninghausen @Renevelation

Flood Fiasco

Today I want to talk about another issue which often comes up in debate with Christians especially when you are in a debate about morality:

The Global Flood as described within the 7th chapter of the book of Genesis.

There are several moral issues I find with this particular story in the Bible and it is my intention to lay them out right here.

Before I do so here is just a quick disclaimer about what the purpose for this article is and what it is not: Within this article I concede, though I do not think this is true, that the Flood narrative as presented within Genesis is scientifically possible and actually occurred. I also concede, though I do not think this is necessarily true, that the objections which Christians present to me in defense of the Flood are in accordance with the Bible.

My aim in this article is to expose some of the implications that the Flood has on the moral nature of God.

 

Typically the first thing that is brought up is that the world used to be very wicked back in the day and the giant deluge was simply God’s way of removing the wickedness.

 

But let’s think about this for a second: Was everyone truly wicked at that time and place. I mean sure it might very well be that there were many wicked people at that time but was it truly everyone? Presumably there were babies around at that time. Were they wicked? It might very well have been that there was a pregnant woman around at that time. Was the baby residing inside her body wicked? After all God was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of 10 people (Genesis 18: 32) so one would presume that the bar was set significantly lower when it comes to the destiny of the entire world. That is if God is consistent. He already spared 6 righteous people with Noah and his Family so adding the baby and the woman would make them a total of eight which one would presume was gonna be enough for God to spare the planet. Now this is of course only an assumption on my part based on what other verses within the Bible tell us but if God is consistent within his nature I would say it is a fairly reasonable one.

Besides even if he absolutely had to get rid of the wicked people then there are several ways to do so without throwing the baby out along with the bathwater:

God could’ve gone the route of simply making those evildoers drop dead by simply switching their brains off. You know: The good ones get to live the wicked ones cease to be. This is effective concerning the protection of the people whom he considers good.

It is also effective insofar as it is also a quick and easy death for the evildoers. I think we can all agree that there are more pleasant ways to die than by drowing. It takes minutes to get it over with, you are struggling to try to preserve your life, it is psychologically tormenting because you go through the realization that this is it and that death will set in at every moment etc. . Surely the God of the Bible wants to prevent needless suffering if he is loving and good. So then why go the difficult way of drowning them when he could have made their death quick and easy?

Now even if one were to argue that these people were so wicked that they had it coming, the people were far from the only group of living entities who were subjected to the Flood:

Enter the animals. The animals did do nothing to even cause the Fall and are therefore not responsible for the wickedness which God sought to punish. Would it not have been therefore reasonable and merciful for God to spare the completely blameless creatures instead of just including them as casualties for the heck of it? Yes he did spare some animals on the Ark of course but the vast majority of them died and suffered because they were drowned including members of their family, which no doubt left some of them emotionally scarred. Finally of course the Flood also destroyed a lot of food resources which meant for the animals decades if not centuries of struggle for survival because God could not think of a better way to solve his problems with humanity then destroying the planet. Talk about an overkill.

One apologist soundbite which I also frequently hear is that God left the choice open to enter the ark to all people who wanted to come aboard. The people refused to do that and they thereby killed themselves.

 

If that sounds completely unconvincing to you, that’s the case because it is completely unconvincing. Let me paint a picture for you here:

 

Let’s say I had a nuclear bomb which potentially could destroy China (country with the largest population: 1.42 billion people) as a whole. I warn the people of China in advance that I am gonna drop the bomb on them. But they all have the opportunity to flee on a planet which I have sought out for them on which they could live and which has enough food sources which has an atmosphere and which has everything they need to survive and thrive. All they have to do is get on my spaceship which is large enough to fly them all to this planet and the bomb is not gonna be of consequence to a single human. Now for whatever reason only a few million take me up on my word and actually go on my spaceship which takes them to this special planet. The rest of them are killed by my bomb.

Question: Did I commit Genocide?

 

I think it is abundantly clear that I did. Yes true enough I did offer them a way out of their predicament. They did not take it. But I am still to blame for creating this predicament to begin with, I am still to blame for following through with it and I have the blood of billions of people on my hand.

This is true irrespective of whether the decision of the Chinese was smart or dumb. This is true irrespective of whether or not the Chinese contributed to their own deaths. And it is especially true for those people who did not get to make their own decision in the first place, namely the babies inside the womb as well as out of it and the children who needed to obey the authority of their parents who decided that their family was not gonna book their travel.

Maintaining otherwise is the textbook example of victim blaming and we should not do it in my case or God’s.

 

Christians maintain that God is good. I think most of them would agree that needless suffering is not good. As I think I have demonstrated there are countless ways in which God could have spared billions of lives of both humans as well as animals had he opted to remove the wickedness of certain humans from the planet in another way of simply flooding the planet.

As a very wise man once said:  “You will know them by their fruits.”

 

I suggest you take a close look at them and evaluate for yourself whether you wanna take a bite. But be careful:

If you are Christian, then you should know how things can end up when people eat fruits that are best left untouched,

 

Goodbye from yours truly,

René von Boenninghausen @Renevelation

 

The Fail of man

Today I want to discuss a specific issue. For those who follow me on Twitter you might have noticed as of late that a lot of my discussions involve the (supposed) Fall of man into sin. I have come to realize that at a certain point the arguments from Christian apologists just keep repeating themselves so I decided to post this as a set of arguments which shows that the doctrine around sin (specifically Genesis 3) is irrational. I do this, if for nothing else, than that I can just bypass their bad arguments and get to the ones which are actually sensible, though I doubt they even exist. I also hope that this might inspire some of the readers out there to succesfully argue what I am about to argue. That said let’s kick things off:

The first question we have to ask ourselves is the following: If God is supposedly perfect (Matthew 5: 48 among others) then why did he create humans which have flaws? Perfection means that you are without any flaws. Yet it is self evident both under Christian doctrine as well as the real world that humans do have flaws. Now you might attribute this to the Fall but this is merely shifting the problem back to another level: If Adam was created by a perfect being then it stands to reason that he himself was perfect. As was Eve. Why then was it possible that both could be corrupted by a deceiving snake? Flawlessness implies great amount of wisdom as well as knowledge and intelligence. Why would man in any way shape or form be deceived by a snake with but 2 sentences? This implies a great flaw within the thinking capabilities of Eve and it reflects upon her maker who created her to have such an embarrasingly gullible nature. If a perfect being created her we ought expect better and the fact of the matter is that him not making her immune to deception of a snake is a flaw and a direct result of his work.

Even if Christians could bypass this objection though there is still the following issue: Why make us physically capable of sinning? I have said this before and I will say it again: Humans are physically incapable of flight. Try as I might, no amount of moving my arms up and down or whatever direction would work is gonna make me able to reach the clouds. Evidently this status of my existence does not violate the free will of man which Christians often elect to attrbiute the Fall to. Otherwise Adam would not have had Free will from the outset and would therefore not be elligible for blame. Who would then be? God (but we’ll get to that). If me being physically incapable of flight does not violate free will (it clearly doesn’t) then me being physically incapable of murder, rape stealing does not violate free will either. Yet God, from a Christian perspective, did create us with an ability to commit those actions despite him disapproving of them. Him not doing so would have prevented the suffering of millions nay billions of living entities which, as Christians tell me, is desirable for God. This has not been accounted for and it is in dire need to be accounted for.

Furthermore let’s move the discussion back to the topic of Genesis: What would stop God of simply planting the tree of knowledge on the moon or making us physically incapable of eating the fruit? Let’s say the fruit was simply too large to fit into our mouths and it was made of elements which are simply not penetrable by our teeth. This would have prevented the Fall and it would have spared billions of lives. Why not go that route, God? Planting the tree on the moon would be another way: We only have been able to go there after close to 6000 years after the supposed Creation and as the story of the tower of Bable teaches us, God has no issues with corrupting our projects when we wanna reach for the sky and beyond (which makes me wonder why planes exist but that is another issue).

 

But let’s just say that the apologist has reasons which allow him to circumvent this issue as well: At the very least God would be responsible for the wiring of our minds, no? For our desires, our goals and all of that stuff. He could have gone a different route even then: Why create us with even the slightest desire to rebel against him? Think about it: We as humans have no desire whatsoever to cut our arms off. In extreme situations we might if we have no other choice but generally speaking the prospect of this is not something which we would speculate about. Why not make disobeying him, and by extension make murder rape etc. equally undesirable as cutting off our arms? Again this would spare billions of lives and billions of rape victims and this would most definitely have prevented Eve from eating this darn fruit. It would not even have crossed her mind. Let me reiterate again: Nothing about this violates our precious free will. Me being unwilling to cut my arms off does not violate my free will so Adam being unwilling to disobey God does not and cannot violate his free will.

 

I see no way around these three objections but one objection which I frequently hear from Christians to rationalize this is the following: God planted the tree as a way to test us. He wanted to make sure that we chose him in favor of sin. Well aside from this issue clearly falling prey to what I already brought up, namely why not wire our minds such that not loving him would be akin to cutting our arms off, why would he devise such a test to begin with? What do we need one for? We are already in Paradise in eternal allegiance with our maker. All the animals which Adam named are there. Goal accomplished end of story. This was the desired outcome. This is what heaven is supposed to be like. Why allow for the possibility for this to be screwed up? This runs opposite to God’s desired outcomes.

Furthermore, why allow the animals to be affected by this? The animals had no way to get themselves out of the predicament which Adam supposedly created. Nor is Jesus sacrifice elligible for them. They play no part in this. Man (and God) are to blame but they are innocents in all of this. Yet God sees it fit to kill them by the millions if not billions in a gigantic Flood and he sees it fit to kill them by way of drowning and of course he pays them no mind when they end up as our lunch. If you wanna turn a blind eye to this then be my guest but I will shift the blame squarely where it belongs under Christian theology: on the almighty himself.

 

Finally when all is set is done there is good news isn’t there: A man without sin died for us, so that might save us since we are not capable of it. But why? Why the need for a savior? Why can we not save ourselves? Sure we are under sin but so what? Well yes okay we might not be able to be in HIS presence otherwise but why is the only other option hell. Let’s talk about landlords: God is capable of simply making another dimension and build a few houses so that we might live there absent his presence. He can build infinite amounts of them no questions asked. We woul not be in his presence and yet live our comfortable eternal lives. We wouldn’t even need to pay. If I had an infinite amount of houses I’d be gracious enough to let people live there for free. Especially if I myself have no need for any money at all since I am omnipotent. Sorry God but the myth of you being oh so forgiving and oh so gracious has resided long enough in our heads for free and as far as I am concerned, rent is due Bitch!

Additionally why is it that we cannot save ourselves? Why can we not  do it on our own? Why devise a circumstance in which we have no control? Analogy:

If I had a son who was 3 years old and I made him take a chemistry exam which typically takes 3 hours but yet I give him 5 minutes then I’d be unreasonable. If I said that he needs to get an A or he’ll be spanked and grounded for an entire month then I assuredly would not be Daddy of the month. On the contrary I’d be arrested for child abuse if this comes out. Yet Christians hold God to a lower standard than that. We are expected to live perfectly. No lies, no sexual thoughts no nothing? Despite the fact that I can easily generate a picture of you seeing two hot women kissing within your imagination just by me telling you to. I made you sin. It’s that easy. For that you supposedly DESERVE eternal torture. Why? Well because God made you that way. Is that just? Didn’t think so.

 

Sin as a concept and all the doctrine surrouding it is irrational. I am open to counter arguments if you have any. For your own well being: Emancipate yourself from your myths. There’s life after God and you do not need your shackles. Be free.

 

Goodbye from yours truly,

Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation

Resurrecting Atheism: A rebuttal to an embarrassing obituary

Today I want to an article as a response to an article I was provided with on Twitter. The person in question challenged me as well as others to rebutt this and while this is not necessarily worth my time, I haven’t written on here for a long time and the article has some very popular misconceptions which need to be taken care of.

First the author introduces us to what Atheism is:

“Atheism is not “a lack of belief in God,” as atheists are so fond of saying. If you lack belief in God, but don’t deny God’s existence, you’re agnostic (neutral position), not atheist (negative position).”

He supports this by citing various sources such as the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy as well as other unnamed dictionaries.

Well that may all be true and well but we who identify ourselves as Atheists choose how we define the term. When I say “I am an Atheist” then what I mean is that I do not believe in deities or the number of deities I believe in is zero. You may think of us as agnostics in that case if we are not willing to defend positive Atheism but the arbiter of the label are those who embrace it. Whether you rebutt an agnostic or a self described Atheist whom you’d put in the category of “agnostic” isn’t really of any relevance now, is it?

He moves on to say this:

“There is zero compelling evidence for atheism. If there were, then atheists would be quick to point it out. When asked to defend it atheists must play make-believe agnostics, retreating into the safe space of neutrality. This allows them to dodge their own burden of proof: offering a stronger explanation for existence than God. (this isn’t to say theists don’t also have a burden of proof. Of course they do.)Anyone who’s ever had debated an atheist knows exactly what I’m talking about.

Atheist “God does not exist, you stupid theist!”
Theist“If you say God doesn’t exist, what evidence do you have for God not existing, and for a better explanation for existence?”
Atheist“I don’t need evidence, I merely lack belief in God’s existence.”

Explicit denial of God’s existence (atheism) when on the attack. Then they get challenged. Then they retreat into lack of belief in God (agnosticism) when on the defense. It’s a textbook bait-and-switch tactic. There is a secondary motivation for conflating atheism and agnosticism: to inflate the number of atheists.

Think about it . . .

If simply lacking belief in God makes one an atheist, then all agnostics are atheists. And if all agnostics are atheists? The U.S. (and the world) has a lot more atheists than we thought.”

Well in reality there actually is compelling evidence for Atheism (we’ll get to that) but the main point is this:

One need not offer alternative explanations to god(s) in order to be justified in not believing in god(s) or for that matter to even be justified in believing that no god(s) exist. Allow me to present an analogy mirroring the dialogue from his article:

R: “Whales aren’t birds , you scientifically illiterate buffoon!”
J“If you say whales aren’t birds, what evidence do you have whales what not being birds, and what alternative do you have to offer?”
R“Well long story short there is no evidence to suggest that whales are in fact birds. That is something you need to demonstrate and since such a Hypothesis as whales being birds was never warranted to begin with I need not lend it more credence than the existence of Santa.”

The God Hypothesis has not been shown to deserve its spot on the table of ideas. The same is true for fairies, Santa, Unicorns etc. . It is up to you to first of all define what you mean by God, show that such a thing is logically and physically possible and that this thing of yours has any more basis in reality than any other fantasy I could just randomly dream up.

 

He goes on with the following:

“Atheism Offers No Positive, Testable Argument. To be credible, a worldview must offer a positive, testable argument. You can’t say it’s true and leave it at that, you’ve got to show it’s true. If I told you that a purple alligator named Hector had created the universe, you’d demand positive evidence for this claim. If I couldn’t produce it (spoiler alert: I can’t), you’d reject it, and rightfully so.

“What does this have to do with atheism,” you might ask. It’s simple . . .

Atheists claim God does not exist, yet offer no supporting evidence. It’s a bald assertion; a claim with nothing to back it up. As the late atheist Christopher Hitchens was fond of saying:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Lots to unpack here. There is positive testable evidence against God’s existence. There are various arguments I have written down hereherehere and here which disprove various conceptions of God among which would be the Christian version. There are various other arguments in deductive atheology which demonstrate various God concepts to be incoherent. Yahweh, Allah (who is defined to be a merciful humiliator in the 99 names of Allah) as well as other deities have been shown to be impossible. We also have positive evidence for the proposition that deities are man-made. It is therefore unlikely that deities have a basis in reality. Is this conclusive proof? No. But the existence of a god has been dreamed up and invented by humans and is therefore improbable.

As far as his following assertion goes:

“Ah, but there’s more, folks. In claiming that God does not exist, atheism logically entails that something other than God must be responsible for why something (rather than nothing) exists. If God didn’t create existence, then something else had to. Makes sense, right? And if you deny that God created existence, as atheists do, then you must believe something else did, right? Let’s break it down in point-by-point fashion:

  • Fact: existence exists (if I didn’t, you wouldn’t be reading this right now).
  • There must be an explanation for this fact.
  • Atheists deny one possible explanation: God.
  • In denying the God explanation, atheism entails that some explanation other than God must be true.
  • Atheists refuse to say what this other explanation is, let alone offer evidence in support of it.
  • Thus, we’re left with a cold, hard conclusion: Atheism is a blind faith; a position with no evidence supporting it.

 

It is simply not true that something must explain existence. It may just be that existence is a brute fact. Existence just is the same way that God just is in a theistic worldview. In his argument then I reject P2 right out of the gate. There need not be an explanation. If he insists that I must account for existence then he must maintain that he must account for God (he can’t). P3 has not been established. It has not been shown that God is a possible explanation and dependent on the God in question, P3 might actually be outright false rather than just unsupported. P4 is rejected for the reasons already stated. P5 is kinda true: We have various Hypotheseses some Atheists would support but in general we tend to be humble about the claims we make.

 

As far as science from the perspective of theism goes he has this to say:

“Don’t Believe The Hype: Atheism Has Given (Almost*) NOTHING To Science

Atheists like to pretend that science is their domain. And sure, a lot of modern scientists are atheists (relative to the population as a whole).

But the claim that atheism and science go hand-in-hand? It couldn’t be further from the truth.

Atheism is anti-science, and anti-reason.

Before any atheists reading this scream at me, please allow me to elaborate.

Science “works” for two reasons:

  1. The universe is comprehensible. That is, it follows a set of orderly guidelines (laws) which allow it to be understood by cognitive observers (that’d be us).
  2. Cognitive observers exists (hi, mom!).

This makes perfect sense from the perspective of theism.

Theists believe that God is the designer of the universe; a “cosmic engineer,” so to speak. Most theists also believe that God wants to be discovered. This would mean that science is the reverse engineering of the cosmic engineer’s work.

Sure enough, reverse engineering the universe perfectly described what science is and does. We study the various parts of nature and figure out how they work. That’s reverse engineering.”

 

I agree that science works but this does not make sense from the perspective of theism. At least not if we posit an interventionist God. If God can mess with the laws of nature as he sees fit at any given time then we cannot be sure of our results: Is this gravity really a thing or is it just God messing with us constantly? Sure the results may be X but how can we tell that God not simply intervened to make it X because he just enjoys this outcome over the natural one? Notice how uniformity of nature goes out the window here.

Then he goes on to pontificate on Atheism:

“None of this makes any sense from the perspective of atheism.

Atheism entails mindlessness. Mindlessness entails chaos. Chaos is the opposite of science. Our minds are not chaos, and our universe is not chaos. If they were, science would be impossible.

Is it any wonder, then, that God-fearing men have built science over the centuries? From the scientific method, to nearly every branch of science, they’ve all came from the blood, sweat, and tears of God-believers. Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Max Planck . . . name a great scientist throughout history, and I’ll show you a believe in God.”

 

I am not convinced that mindlessness entails chaos and am not aware of any argument in support of this. He acts like nature can only be uniform if it was designed to be uniform. But why would he do that? Why are we to assume that utter chaos is the default position for everything and that there needs to be an agent to order things? Why assume that the force of gravity would change by whim every second if there’s no deity making sure that it doesn’t? There is no good reason to assume this. Is it so inconceivable that gravity just has the properties it has and that they do not change and that we can therefore describe its behavior through science and mathematics? That’s an atheistic account for science and it seems much more sensible than saying “Goddidit” .

 

Then he puts out a challenge:

“If you question any of the above, then I have a challenge for you:

  • Make a list of all branches of science founded by theists.
  • Make a list of all branches of science founded by atheists.
  • Compare the two to see which is the more impressive list.

What did you find?

If you did the above challenge, and did it honestly, you’ll find exactly what I found: Science was built on the foundation of theism, and in particular, Christianity.

Atheism, on the other hand, hasn’t given science anything of note.

It turns out that believing all of existence is one great big directionless accident isn’t a great heuristic for discovering truth. A shocker, I know.

But science isn’t the only area atheism has failed in. Oh, no . . .”

 

Well I think we ought to ask ourselves whether this is due to Atheism itself failing or whether it might possibly be….. and I am just spitballing here…… due to the fact that Atheism has not exactly been a prevalent view throughout the centuries. Let’s be real here: Christianity has had the western world in a stranglehold for the better part of 2000 years so it should not come as a surprise that most scientists during that period were Christians.

I will skip the next bit titled “Atheism Has Given Nothing To Humanity (But Taken A Whole Hell Of A Lot From It)” as this is merely the Atheist atrocities fallacy and really has nothing to do with whether Atheism is reasonable or not one way or the other.

Then he argues the following:

“Atheism Shrinks As Knowledge Grows

As I demonstrated above, atheism lacks a positive supporting argument. This is because when you dig in and really examine atheism, you’ll find that it’s little more than an argument from ignorance.

Atheism, in a nutshell:

  • I know of no evidence for God. (this is the ignorance)
  • Therefor, there is no evidence (here’s some more)
  • Therefore, God does not exist. (atheism’s argument from ignorance)
  • Therefore, the universe self-created via magic. (the logical consequence of atheism’s argument from ignorance)

The problem with this sort of argument is that it becomes weaker the more we learn.

Atheists once claimed the universe was infinite. If the universe was infinite, than it had no beginning. If it had no beginning, then we don’t have to explain how it came to be; it was always there.

This worked for a while. Then along came a little something you might have heard of: the big bang.

What the data behind the big bang proved was that the universe had a beginning, which meant something had to precede it; something had to cause it.”

 

This is a profound failure of Big Bang cosmology. The Big Bang does not entail that the Universe began. It is a popular misconception but simply not true. The Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe as well as time and space as we know them. However let’s say it did. If the Universe began then time itself began with the Universe which means that nothing could have preceded it. Not only is it not necessary that something had to precede it is not possible that something did. But what the necessity of it being caused?

Well it may seem intuitive to us in daily life that things which begin to exist are caused. But when we talk about the Big Bang we talk about something we have no experience with. Things within the Universe require a cause to begin existing but we do not know that this principle within the Universe applies to the Universe itself and to maintain otherwise commits the fallacy of composition. Watch this:

argument 1:

P1 Humans consist of atoms

P2 Atoms can‘t talk

C Humans can‘t talk

argument 2:

P1 Finite things within the Universe are caused

P2 the Universe is finite

C The Universe was caused

 

If you can see the flaw within argument 1 you should be able to see it within argument 2.

 

The rest of this section he spends on arguing against evolution by citing Dr Wells from the discovery Institute. Now I accept evolution but evolution does not pretain to Atheism. I could in theory accept Intelligent design and remain as atheistic as I ever was. Likewise nothing about evolution goes against the idea of a god in general. So in essence this is little more than a red herring.

Finally he has this to say:

“My Challenge To Atheists: Either Put Up Or (For God’s Sake!) Shut Up

Show us the evidence for atheism. You claim to be rational, logical, and only accepting of things proven true, so this isn’t an unreasonable demand. Don’t hide behind the “lack of belief” lie, which is just intellectual cowardice. Don’t try to change the subject and demand evidence from theists (we have overwhelming evidence, which you ignore).Most of all, don’t shout out how you “don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!” (especially not with spit flying out of your mouth; it makes you look insane) Instead, just show us a better explanation than God for why something, rather than nothing, exists.That’s it. It’s that simple.If you want to go into even deeper detail, then great!Explain to us how nature arose from whatever it is you believe nature arose from. Explain to us how the laws of nature came to be. Explain to us the origin of life. Explain to us the origin of the laws of logic and of mathematics. The more atheism can explain, the stronger it will become, and the more people who adopt it as their worldview.If you can do these things, and do them compellingly, then you will have taken atheism from an irrational blind faith in a what appears to be little more than non-testable magic, to a legitimate, credible worldview on par with–maybe even superior to–theism. I’ll abandon my theism and proudly wave that scarlet A flag, as will all other reasonable theists. But you won’t do any of those things. You won’t do anything of those things because you can’t do any of those things. And that is why you get so angry when you’re asked to. Unlike a man named Jesus Christ, atheism won’t be rising from the grave. Atheism is dead, and it’s staying that way.”

 

Well it seems like I did just that within my article. Unlike belief in Jesus acceptance of Atheism is reasonable and while the author may think he has buried Atheism it is his mythical Messiah who shall remain dead.

 

Goodbye from yours truly,

 

Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation