The Ostrich Strategy

Posted on September 8, 2009 by Michael

Apologist after apologist will claim that there is evidence for God. Ya know, if you want to find it. The reasoning for this claim is that those who have found clearly must have wanted it, otherwise they wouldn’t have found it. It’s sort of like how when you find 5 bucks on the ground. You must have wanted to for it, otherwise you would have looked right over it. In the wacky worldview of the religious, scientists don’t want to find 5 bucks.

Of course, it’s all hogwash. There are plenty of ways for science to verify or deny certain claims made by religions. Does faith healing work or is it all a load of horseshit? It isn’t too uncommon a tactic at this point for the religious to use The Ostrich Strategy (TOS). This is where they bury their heads in the sand* and ignore all the evidence against their anti-evidence faith. Jerry Coyne sums it up nicely.

Oh dear dear dear. Russell, I, and others have addressed the idea of science and the supernatural many times before (see here, here, and here, for example), dispelling the soothing idea that “science has nothing to say about the supernatural.” That is, of course, hogwash. Science has plenty to say about the Shroud of Turin, whether faith healing works, whether prayer works, whether God seems to be both beneficent and omnipotent, world without end. Science can, as we’ve repeated endlessly, address specific claims about the supernatural, though it’s impotent before the idea that behind it all is a hands-off, deistic Transcendent Force.

People who deny these facts always engage in TOS. You may say this makes them all a bunch of TOSSERS.

*Ostriches don’t actually do this. At least they don’t do it for reasons that merit the meaning of the phrase “head in the sand”. They do turn their eggs by putting their heads in the sand/ground, but they do not do it to avoid danger or ignore what they don’t like. That may well be a bad survival strategy. Though it is cute when dogs do it under the coffee table.

Filed under: Religions, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Bragging about stupidity

Posted on September 6, 2009 by Michael

Steven Anderson is some crazy, religious windbag. That doesn’t really narrow the field, I know, but his claim to fame is publicly praying for Obama’s death by natural causes.

But that’s not what’s interesting about him. That belief sets him apart from much of mainstream Christianity (though the Bible and theology offer no methods to internally condemn his interpretation of God’s will). What’s interesting is what holds him close to the mainstream Bible thumpers. Of course there are the usual positions: he hates abortion, liberalism (which is just reality), and – of course – da gays. But then there’s this subtle piece that gets ignored far too much.

Pastor Anderson holds no college degree but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory, including almost half of the New Testament.

Today, most Baptist churches are started by Bible Colleges. However, the Bible makes it clear that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not a school. Faithful Word Baptist Church is a totally independent Baptist church, and Pastor Anderson was sent out by a totally independent Baptist church to start it the old-fashioned way by knocking doors and winning souls to Christ. This is the scriptural method.

There isn’t really much reason to talk about not having a college degree. There shouldn’t be any pride in that. But for Christians and conservatives, it’s a point on which they puff their chests. Anderson is actually bragging about having no degree. He’s proud that he’s doing it “the old-fashioned way”, which is through willful ignorance. This should be roundly condemned.

Being proud of having a lack of education or feeling a sense of victory at criticizing intelligent people for using big, scary, intelligent words is why people like Larry the Cable Guy have been successful. (It certainly isn’t because he’s funny.) But this allegiance to stupidity is a blight on U.S. politics, too. Sarah Palin almost got elected to a national office. She’s one of the most genuinely stupid people to be given a voice. Her failure to think critically and to keep up with the clearly smarter people on the left is what lifted her up so high. Her simplicity appealed to the high number of simple people in the U.S. Bobby Jindal will probably become a big star for the same reason soon.

It’s pride in stupidity that keeps the idea that faith is a virtue alive. It’s pathetic.

Filed under: Politics and Social, Religions | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Oh, the glory

Posted on September 2, 2009 by Michael

You’d think this link would make the blogging rounds a bit more often, but here we are. What are ya gonna do?

Anyway, it’s a site offering “Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence”. It pretty much nails all the presentations the religious have.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS
(1) You say there’s no God?
(2) Ah, someone calling themselves Christian must have really hurt you in the past.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM COUNTERFACTUAL EVIDENCE
(1) You claim the evidence for Jesus’ divinity is non-existent.
(2) But if there were lots of evidence, you would still not be convinced.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I’ve especially had that last one presented to me quite a bit. It’s good to see it placed in the derided position it has earned.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Religions | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

Obnoxious as hell

Posted on August 27, 2009 by Michael

I just got through watching a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. It’s well worth watching. Lennox comes across as one of the more convincing Christians, and that’s primarily due to his style of rhetoric. “And so I would like to suggest” is usually his lead from the set-up of his argument into his conclusion/main points. He does it well. Of course, when all seems lost for the atheist position, Dawkins always fires back with an argument that completely defeats whatever falsehood it is that Lennox convincingly said. Watch it.

But I’m not making a post to merely encourage people to watch a debate. I want to point out a specific part. In this part, Lennox obnoxiously says “hmm” over and over. He does it several times between the 3 and 4 minute marks.

In this context, “hmm” is used somewhat in the sense that “really” is used when someone is being sarcastic.

1. Obama was elected president.
2. Really? Thanks, Captain Obvious.

But there’s a little more to it than that. It isn’t that Lennox is saying that what Dawkins is stating is obvious. He’s saying that it’s obvious that Dawkins’ statement supports Lennox’s position. Let me clarify.

The two are discussing the different between faith and evidence. Lennox asks Dawkins how he knows his wife loves him (or how anyone knows someone else romantically loves them). Dawkins then goes on to explain that there are any number of little signs that constitute real evidence. He’s right. “A catch in the voice” or a “look in the eye” aren’t issues of faith. Those are indications of love when given in the proper context. But all throughout this Lennox keeps saying “hmm”, “hmm”, “hmm”, as if Dawkins is describing faith. In the end, it appears Lennox was playing a silly game of semantics and Dawkins recognizes this. But that isn’t what irks me. It’s that I’ve had personal experience with believers using their sarcastic, condescending, arrogant, obnoxious method. It’s as if once an atheist starts to speak of love or sympathy or any other soft, so to speak, emotion, Christians think they’ve won the point. I don’t get it. If anything, the total capacity of love for humanity from an atheist is higher than the total capacity of love for humanity is from a Christian. Afterall, the atheist’s love can be totally focused upon humanity. It isn’t distracted by the faux sense of love a believer feels for his god.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Religions | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

But it's just the fringe!

Posted on August 19, 2009 by Michael

Anytime I’ve brought up the horrors of what religion did to Kara Neumann, my point is always ‘countered’ with the argument that I’m merely giving an example of some fringe lunatics who are motivated through some form of mental illness or insanity. None of that is true. The monsters in the example I provide ran a successful business and were a normal part of their community. Not only that, but if I bend over backwards* and pretend like none of that matters and that, indeed, they were merely fringe examples, it doesn’t matter because there are 30 (!) states which have laws protecting the religious right to abuse one’s child by refusing medical care for him or her. There are rarely limits placed on this besides death. That means 30 (!) states allow parents to forgo medical treatment in favor of prayer or faith healing as long as they don’t kill their children. 60% of the state governments in the United States doesn’t sound like fringe to me.

And so there is yet another example of religion destroying the minds of otherwise reasonable people in the news. It’s a bill in The Bahamas that would outlaw marital rape. You’d think it’d be common sense, yet here we are with statements like this.

“It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?” asked Mr. Sutherland.

Keep in mind, this isn’t a story about a couple people who don’t like the bill. The issue is significant down there. The article states it is a majority of men who do not support this bill. There are even some women. And then there’s this.

State Minister for Social Development Loretta Butler-Turner said that over the summer months, the government would host a number of consultative meetings to better inform the public on exactly what the amendment entails.

Obama needs to go out and sell his health care reform at public events. That’s understandable. Just how to go about fixing the broken system of health care in the United States is a contentious issue with a lot of special interests, concerns for different age groups, bureaucracy, and a whole host of other things which need to be addressed as comprehensively as possible. That calls for nothing less than large-scale engagement with the public. And then there’s this issue in The Bahamas. It isn’t so complicated: Don’t rape your fucking wife, you degenerate, immoral scumbag.

In a secular society, this inanity would only be possible with legitimate instances of insanity. Religion is the pure motivation behind the efforts of those opposed to this bill in The Bahamas.

*It seems like I can give virtually every religious argument huge concessions and still make my point without injury.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

But it’s just the fringe!

Posted on August 19, 2009 by Michael

Anytime I’ve brought up the horrors of what religion did to Kara Neumann, my point is always ‘countered’ with the argument that I’m merely giving an example of some fringe lunatics who are motivated through some form of mental illness or insanity. None of that is true. The monsters in the example I provide ran a successful business and were a normal part of their community. Not only that, but if I bend over backwards* and pretend like none of that matters and that, indeed, they were merely fringe examples, it doesn’t matter because there are 30 (!) states which have laws protecting the religious right to abuse one’s child by refusing medical care for him or her. There are rarely limits placed on this besides death. That means 30 (!) states allow parents to forgo medical treatment in favor of prayer or faith healing as long as they don’t kill their children. 60% of the state governments in the United States doesn’t sound like fringe to me.

And so there is yet another example of religion destroying the minds of otherwise reasonable people in the news. It’s a bill in The Bahamas that would outlaw marital rape. You’d think it’d be common sense, yet here we are with statements like this.

“It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?” asked Mr. Sutherland.

Keep in mind, this isn’t a story about a couple people who don’t like the bill. The issue is significant down there. The article states it is a majority of men who do not support this bill. There are even some women. And then there’s this.

State Minister for Social Development Loretta Butler-Turner said that over the summer months, the government would host a number of consultative meetings to better inform the public on exactly what the amendment entails.

Obama needs to go out and sell his health care reform at public events. That’s understandable. Just how to go about fixing the broken system of health care in the United States is a contentious issue with a lot of special interests, concerns for different age groups, bureaucracy, and a whole host of other things which need to be addressed as comprehensively as possible. That calls for nothing less than large-scale engagement with the public. And then there’s this issue in The Bahamas. It isn’t so complicated: Don’t rape your fucking wife, you degenerate, immoral scumbag.

In a secular society, this inanity would only be possible with legitimate instances of insanity. Religion is the pure motivation behind the efforts of those opposed to this bill in The Bahamas.

*It seems like I can give virtually every religious argument huge concessions and still make my point without injury.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Gary Habermas

Posted on August 18, 2009 by Michael

I’m taking a look at Gary Habermas. Ignoring for a moment that he willingly works for a “university” which openly teaches the idiocy of young Earth creationism, he presents an especially weak case from around the two minute mark until just after three minutes.

Basically, the guy from Skeptic Magazine points out that people having significant changes in their lives due to something they report they saw isn’t evidence of anything. If it is, as he notes, then Habermas should be giving Islam equal footing. Habermas then gives a rebuttal where he says his point “was that the disciples weren’t just changed, they were changed because they saw the risen Jesus”. I hope you watch this video. The very next sentence out of his mouth is “Now, transformations cannot prove what somebody’s saying”. He then proceeds to note that transformations can prove that somebody believes what he is teaching. They actually can’t – it’s the credence the listener/reader gives to a person espousing a transformation that gets one to conclude whether the person is being genuine or not. Take Ted Haggard. He had no problem claiming to be on the path back to righteousness and heterosexuality, but that obviously wasn’t true. But, as usual, I’ll bend over backwards and pretend the argument works. EVEN if I grant that transformations can prove the sincerity of an individual, the mere fact that someone genuinely believes something is not evidence that that something is true. I genuinely believe there is no God. Is Habermas going to take that as evidence against the resurrection of Jesus?

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page