Bad Apologetics (Part 2)

"I can't prove the existence of my god, but hey! Why will I bother myself with all that shit! Let me pass the ball to the nonbelievers."

Very typical.

Most amateur apologists like Mr. Rene Jun Alameda loves to play basketball. They love to throw the burden of proof to the other player - which is easier that giving a defense, right? 

You always find amateur apologists ranting "Atheists claims god doesn't exists so they have  a lot of explaining to do and..." 

Wait?

They started the debate saying their god exists, so why is it now my job to do the explaining?

Bad apologetics (Part 1)

Bad apologetic often use faulty logic and misunderstanding of science. Here's a good example of how amateur apologists utilized the wrong end of the stick to prove the existence of their god. 

In the first post, Mr. Rene Jun Alameda had made an analogy between the invisibility of air and the invisibility of his god. 

This is quite typical for amateur apologists. They will ask non-believers if they can see the wind. So, a non-suspecting person will answer no, she cannot see the wind. This will be followed up by another question - "Do you believe that the wind exists?" or "do you feel the wind?" If she will say yes... Got ya! Now, why would you believe wind exists, you cannot see it? So, VIOLA, the same with god. You cannot see god but you can feel him, just like the wind.

Holy Fake

This just in...

Scientists used blood pattern analysis research techniques to study stains on the Shroud, concluding they are inconsistent with a single position.Forensic scientists have once again concluded that the Shroud of Turin, supposedly the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his crucifixion, was artificially created.

Synthetic A Priori

I've noticed that most proof about god's existence rely solely on logical arguments. For me, that is not a very effective way of proving the existence of a "sentient being" (AKA God). R

As one Christian have said, "I want to clarify is that by God I mean the immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause or in simple words a SENTIENT BEING that caused the conception of the universe." (emphasis mine) 

Does giving me a logical argument about the principle of causality serve as evidence that this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" exists? Even if I will accept (without admitting) the principle of causality, it will not established an "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" as existing by fact. Even if I will add the word "Necessary" to  "sentient being," will it still not become a statement of fact. We will only have statements of logic about the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being." And the reason? Dyan papasok ang synthetic description.

Invisible God?

Often, Christians have some funny ways to defend their "unseen" god. Some compare it to abstract ideas such as the mind, love, courage and worst, some equate their god to air. Maybe it's a kind of excuse - You can't see god because he's like air - PERIOD!

I find it hilarious!

Not a very "serious" argument.

Every time I post or encounter arguments about the historical Jesus, I get this reply.

"No serious historians reject the historicity of Jesus."

Really? So are you saying that those who reject it are not to be considered as "serious historians" huh? Looking at the argument, I can smell the foul stench of Ad hominem.

Was there a consensus that to be condered a "serious" historian, you should believed that Jesus was a real "historical person?"

So what measurement are we using to be considered as a "serious historians?" Is it an Apologetics-influenced scholarship, a "mainstream scholarship,” or the "what most scholars think?”

Have we forgotten the science philosopher Thomas Kuhn who said that by the formulation of new interpretive paradigms as by the accumulation of new data and discoveries is the reason why science progress? Can we not apply this in the paradigms of history, specially on biblical/religious claims?

When these so-called "serious historians" speak about Jesus, are they talking about the same Jesus that was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, heal the sick, produced fish and bread out of thin air, walked on water and resurrected after being dead for three days?

Now, suppose we asked, "Have you even read the mythicist's arguments?" Have you really made a serious thought about them?

I really don't expect to get any answers from these questions.

As the writer and historian David Fitgerald said, "Apologists love to parrot the old lie that "no serious historians reject the historicity of Christ," but fail to realized (or deliberately neglect to mention) the the "historical Jesus" the majority of historians do accept is at best no more than just another first-century wandering preacher and founder of a fringe cult that eventually became Christianity - in other words, a Jesus that completely debunks their own."

Demon Possession

According to an African Christian on the issue regarding atheism and demon possession:  ''Demons wouldn't attack their own. They know atheists are on their side."

Me: Really?

According to your own bible, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." - James 2:19

That means demons are theists.
Better start reading your own holy book.

Blame the atheists?

Why not blame King James' 72 scholars who (for the lack of any idea) translated the Hebrew word re'em to unicorn.

Don't expect too much scholarship in early 16th Century England. The KJV was published in 1611 and even without the advised of Richard Bancroft, those who created the KJV used the Rheims-Douai and the Geneva Bible as references (and not so much of the original Hebrew). According to the Puritan Hebrew Scholar Hugh Broughton, the committee that translated the KJV has little understanding of Hebrew words. The language use in creating the KJV is not the language that the Hebrews used and express. It is the language of British poets used to entertain kings, lords and other royal authority. It is the language of Shakespearean expressive style. It was not about accuracy and getting the right meaning of the Hebrew languange.

Early Greek Bibles are also not accurate when it comes to Hebrew words. Not only that they mistranslated the word "maiden" to a "virgin" they also mistranslated the word re'em to rhinoceros.

Today, modern bible scholars  agrees that the right word for re'em is wild ox.

Why not blame King James' 72 scholars who (for the lack of any idea) translated the Hebrew word re'em to unicorn.

Don't expect too much scholarship in early 16th Century England. The KJV was published in 1611 and even without the advised of Richard Bancroft, those who created the KJV used the Rheims-Douai and the Geneva Bible as references (and not so much of the original Hebrew). According to the Puritan Hebrew Scholar Hugh Broughton, the committee that translated the KJV has little understanding of Hebrew words. The language use in creating the KJV is not the language that the Hebrews used and express. It is the language of British poets used to entertain kings, lords and other royal authority. It is the language of Shakespearean expressive style. It was not about accuracy and getting the right meaning of the Hebrew languange.

Early Greek Bibles are also not accurate when it comes to Hebrew words. Not only that they mistranslated the word "maiden" to a "virgin" they also mistranslated the word re'em to rhinoceros.

Today, modern bible scholars  agrees that the right word for re'em is wild ox.

On the issue of Atheists and Bible Burning

Come on guys...

You can call me a coward for not supporting this bible burning activity, but do you think that such an activity will make your "atheism" the talk of the town? Not that I believe in "catching flies" but burning bibles will just make you look too uh... delinquents. I've been in a lot of burning lately in my college life, you guys don't want to look more of an activists in times where people don't trust those that don't believe a god.

Now, why not instead of burning bibles in Paco Park, why not rent a booth and introduce yourselves as atheists in the public? Make an OUT CAMPAIGN. I have done that at Luneta Park for 3 days and believe me, it's fun, pleasant and more exciting. There were even Christians that came to our booth to er... witness us, but it seems there were the one that were tongue tied.

Challenge yourself to come out an atheist and a good person at the same time.

The choice is yours.

Homophobia

I really don't understand anything about homophobia until I become involved with the Filipino Freethinkers - well, that was when I attended my very first Pride March. Before that I hate gays.

Natural Morality or "School Morality?"

Ano ba naman ito? Our morality came from our school that was influenced by our religion? Para naman sinabi na bago nakapasok ng Grade 1 eh wala tayong moralidad? Have the OP forgotten that our first school was our home and our first teacher was our parents. Have he forgotten those young Jose Rizal stiories which tells us how Dona Alonzon teached young Pepe about morality? Surely that's where we get our morals before our schools.

Existence

When we talk about the word "existence" hay nako, napakaraming meaning for a single word. It really depends on what school of philosophy you belong to give a good meaning for this word. OK let's start with the very basic - the dictionary meaning. According to Mr. Webster

ex·is·tence \ig-'zis-tən(t)s\  n (14c)

1 a obs: reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c  (1): the totality of existent things (2): a particular being ‹all the fair ~s of heaven —John Keats› d : sentient or living being : life

2 a : the state or fact of having being esp. independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence ‹the ~ of other worlds› b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect

3 : actual or present occurrence 

Life is so unfair.

The time that I saw this post from a certain Facebook group, I remember a quote from the late Carl Sagan - "Better the hard truth than comforting lies." 

Most theists believe that without their heaven, hell and their Bug-Eyed Deity, life is unruly and unfair. Noticed this post - since atheists doesn't believe in the existence of their god -  immorality, (homosexuality?), crime and (bestiality?) will be on the rampage. Wait a minute. There are more theists than atheists living today, right? Majority believed in a god. Majority believed in heaven and hell. Majority believed in a God given universal law?  So why are there still sin, crime, immorality? Why is it that Catholic priests and Christian pastors become child molesters themselves? Some Muslims still rape goats and sheeps - and don't tell me they're atheists.

Creationists - Keyboard Warriors!

I am amaze of how some people have the energy and patience to debate or discuss evolution to demented religious fanatics - these dorks are not interested or doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the topic anyway. Pero ayun, nagta-tyagang makipagusap pa rin at ituro ang ebulusyon.

Absolute Morality?

When it comes to morality, Christians says it is objective and absolute.

When we talk about an objective morality, it means as Ravi Zacarias have said, "that there must be a Law Giver  - and this Law Giver is God." Too simple?

Let's put it this way...
According to Norman Geisler an absolute moral obligation is:
* an objective (not subjective) moral duty—a duty for all persons.
* an eternal (not temporal) obligation—a duty at all times.
* a universal (not local) obligation—a duty for all places.

An absolute moral duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics p 118)

This mean morality is NOT RELATIVE.

So far, so good.

Now, let's go to one of the sources of Christian ethics - The Ten Commandments. In the 10 Commandments, there are two particular commandments I would like to point at: Thou shall not lie and Thou shall not steal. You break one of the commandments, you sin to God. And, since MORALITY IN NOT RELATIVE according to Christian belief, then whatever reason, the commandment is binding. There are no gray area, no excuses. There is no room for situational ethics.

According to one Filipino tele-evangelist, You break one, just one of the commandments - you sin. Then quoting Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"

Now...

Let's talk about lying first.

So, you shall not lie - the commandment is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - no gray areas, NOT RELATIVE MORALS yet...

We read the story of the Hebrew midwives. If you are not familiar with it, you can get your Bible and read Exodus 1:15-21. It was very obvious that the Hebrew midwives lied to the Pharaoh. And they were rewarded for lying? I thought morality is NOT RELATIVE? Why will this god bless these two liars? Because they lie to save Moses?
But I thought morality is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - No "if" or "but?"

There is also the story of Rahad lying to those who were searching for Joshua’s spies (Joshua 2:3-4). And was even justified (James 2:25)?

Wait? I thought God's morality is  universal, objective, eternal and absolute? From the looks of it, lying becomes justifiable if done in the service of God. That makes lying relative (the evilness of lying depends on where, when or to whom you used it.)

And how about stealing?

According to Exodus 12:35-36, The Israelite, following Moses and God’s instructions, steal jewels and clothing from the Egyptians. Same with Ezekiel 39:10 and Nahum 2:9 So if God commanded you to steal, stealing becomes OK? That's make stealing relative.

Here's another good example:

Jesus ordered his goons to take a colt and an ass. That is in Matthew 21:1-4 ( Now how did Jesus able to ride both colt and ass in the same time is really a miracle but…) the issue here is why Jesus didn't tell his disciples to ask the permission of the owner of the ass and the colt? Getting something without permission is tantamount to stealing.

God attorneys in this group keep on posting their belief that MORALITY IS NOT RELATIVE yet their own bible is dripping with relativism. It seems that when it comes to biblical morality, good and bad depends on what the LORD wants. If god wants you to kill his enemies, then killing becomes good. If you will lie so god can do away with it, then lying becomes morally upright. If god wants you to plunder his enemies, then stealing becomes justifiable.

It seems contrary to god's self-proclaimed attorneys belief, in biblical morality, morality is based on what god commands you to do and ethics has no meaning.

About Satan.

Can someone explain this. I just wanted to know...

According to Genesis 3:14

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

OK, most Christians believed that the serpent in the Genesis narrative is Satan (also see Rev. 20:2). 

Now according to the story, God cursed Satan above all cattle, and above every beast of the field - wait? Cattle? Every beast of the field? I thought Satan was an angel so why the issue with cattle and field animals?

Upon thy belly shalt thou go - So god cursed Satan to crawl on his belly, yet we find Satan on Job 1:6-8 "going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." I though he shall be crawling on his belly forever?

We also find Satan in Matthew 4:1-10 tempting Jesus and bringing him "up into the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple," and "into an exceedingly high mountain" He did all that while crawling in his belly? 

Going back to Job, here's someone that was already cursed by god yet all of a sudden this Satan can just enter god's domain and talk to god as if nothing happened? And take note, he (Satan) even came along together with the sons of God. 

Weird.

Additional question - How can angels sin?

According to 2Peter 2:4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 

Now, angels are heavenly beings - living in heaven (a perfect place according to Christian belief - the abode of God, the invisible realm of holiness and happiness). According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, angels are the holiest of created beings.  Intelligent holy beings who are instruments of the Divine will. They also interprets god's will. God called them as "holy ones" (Job 15:15 ) even though he do not trust them." As Job 15:15 says, "Behold, he puts no trust in his holy ones; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight." Now, holy means morally and spiritually excellent.  Yet they sinned? And god cannot even trust these "holy ones?" 

Why is this "perfect" god (whose work is always perfect according to Deuteronomy 32:4 ) always flunk when trying to create morally and spiritually excellent beings? Free-will? So angels have free-will? Now, if angels came first before humans, and this god already know that "free-will" can corrupt his creations, why apply free-will to humans (his favorite pets)? He already seen how free-will corrupted his "perfectly created, intelligent holy beings" to the point that he can't even trust them diba?

Tanga lang ba talaga?

Pensri Ching-Ching Booncharoen's booty-cheddar.

OK, obviously, the post made by a certain Pensri Ching-Ching Booncharoen (if that's "her" real name) is just one of those unsupported Christian blatant prevarication and I just wasted my time reading and answering it.

First, Intelligent Design is not biology, nor considered a science. Second, ecology is the bane of a certain religious myth - two words: Noah's Ark! 

Anyways, the science of ecology just gave us a good knock in the block in relation to the improbability of the Ark myth. Third, DNA is not "infinite complex" (whatever that means). There is only six feet of DNA inside each cell of our body. Now, six feet is far from being "infinite." Tardigrades? Now what does these cute little water bears have to do with the Ms. Booncharoen's religion and god? To think about it,  these tardigrades were not even mentioned in any holy books nor was ever considered as God's favorite, yet those water bears (whose environment is only as big as a dew drop) are almost indestructible compare to those who claim to themselves as the stewart of this world, created in the form and likeness of a god.  

Now, let's continue...

Astronomy? Good grief! With all the 8 planets in this solar system alone, only one speck of blue dot have life. The other "larger worlds" are just floating rocks and air bags - what so perfect about that? Everything is so far away - a waste of space. Planets collides, stars explodes, galaxies  collides with other galaxies and worst, a super nova explosion  can wipe out planets or an entire star systems (that may even have life!) - again, what's so perfect about that huh?

Archaeology? So what's the archeological "evidence" of the Exodus story, the Fall of Jericho or the massive Israelite invation of Canaan? None? 

Ah! So just because the bible mentioned real  places or people, that makes the bible historical right? Have  you ever read a historical fiction? King Kong mentioned New York, so that means King Kong really happened? No wonder bible  archaeology is known for the tricks of a con artist/fake archaeologist by the name of Ron Wyatt. Anyways, as Yair Zakovitch, professor of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said, "It's just not important, The Bible is for teaching. Its characters, its history are only tools for getting across ideas. The main thing in the Bible is not if there was an event, but the ideas and ideology that it represents. The authors of the Bible knew that history can be reshaped to express ideas."

History? Jesus is historical? Oh my. Now Ms. Booncharoen, can you name a Roman historian that chronicled the life of Jesus before 20-30AD? There are so many historians who lived and wrote in the suppose time of Jesus yet why the silence of historians like Dio Chrysostom, Justus of Tiberius, Hermogones,  Favorinus, Phlegon, Valerius Flaccus and Appian?   There were already historians living and writing at that time when the Christ suppose to made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. They were already there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place - when Christ himself suppose to rose  from the dead, and in the presence of 500 witnesses ascended  into heaven. All those marvelous events - the dead rising from the grave, water turning to wine, a man rising up to the clouds, earthquakes and sudden darkness,  yet not a single historian wrote about it? Strange.

Medicine… soul, afterlife?  So when did the soul and the after-life became a subject in medicine? I never recall studying anything about the after-life while taking BS Medical Technology in FEU. We have Bio chem, analytical chemistry and even anatomy, but a study about souls? 

OK, I stopped. 

The post is not worthy of a highbrow scrutiny. Frankly, what I see here is a bam and scram post, assembled to look like it was written intelligently, but further inspection will reveal nothing but booty-cheddar.  Without doubt, Ms. Booncharoen will not entertain questions and the thing I see about this Bravo Sierra is it was written just to brass off atheists - Well, WOOPIDOO!

*yawn* and I even gave it an effort - HOOREY! But it's OK. When we highlight puerility like this, I'm not the one who's going to look bad. 

Science and history deniers can always post crap like this out of their brown hole into Facebook or Twitter and obviously, the purpose is just to get noticed (as usual)  However,  these kind of posts are not written to kindle academic discussions. They are just jests, noisy rants and baseless dialect threap designed to poke the funny bone and not the thinking mind. Frankly, I’m tired of beating my fingers on kafoosters like Ms. Booncharoen's post.

Gravity Falls

No, I'm not talking about the cartoon.

There's a lot of funny ways theists defend the "invisibility" of their deity. Here's a good example.

According to a certain "Silver Heart," atheists doesn't believe in god, but they have faith in gravity. 

What?

I''ve noticed that theists (like Silver Heart) often compare god to "invisible" things like air, love or gravity. Is it because both can't be seen? 

Is there really a good, valid reason to compare god to gravity?

Also,  does it make a big difference if Newton was a god believer? 

Anyways, let's talk about gravity. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation says that every material object attracts any other material object with a force that varies directly as the product of the masses of the objects and inversely as the square of the distance that separates the objects... Uh, let's make it simple. Gravity is an attractive force between objects that have mass. So there! In other words, when we talk about gravity, we  are not talking about an object, or a person, a sentient being.  We are talking about a force of attraction, a physical phenomenon and this physical phenomenon allowed  scientists to make valuable predictions. For example,  the law  was used to help discover the planet Neptune. 

Is god non-sentient? A physical phenomenon? If not, then why compare god to  gravity?

Faith in gravity? Did those scientists in NASA use faith and prayers to discover Neptune,? We know gravity exists because it can be justified by equations, and by observations - Apples fall. Arrows don't fly forever. Baseballs don't go flying forever after a home run hit.  You can't fly (without any machine to help you). 

The Sun’s can able to holds the planets and other objects

in the solar system in their orbits. Earth can hold the Moon in its orbit around Earth. We can do good predictions on the existence of new planets, stars, galaxies, Black Holes - Thanks to gravity. 

Now, can  we produce Silver Heart's god using any scientific equations? Can we use her bible to predict the movement of heavenly bodies? Can god hold the planets together? Hehehe! And to say that Earth hangs in nothing? Nothing and gravity are two different things - I guess god doesn't even know the difference.  

And what about Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) being a theist? Did Newton wrote in his books and journals that "God did it." when he was trying to find out why planets move in the way they move? Did he wrote "Jesus is the answer." when he discovered that white lights are really made up of different color spectrum? 

And do I really need to have a PhD in Physics to believe that gravity exists? Oh my... If I fall on my bed because of a bad dream, that's gravity.

In addition, the best thing about gravity is that you are not condemned to go to hell if you don't believe that gravity exist. Well, you can fall to your death for believing that you can fly since ( you believe that) gravity doesn't exist, but it's not gravity's fault if you're stupid.

Whether I believe it or not, gravity doesn't care anyway. I will not fly in the sky like Superman just because I don't believe gravity. Things will just keep falling, the planets will just keep on turning and the universe will just keep on spinning. Unlike to a so-called god claiming to be benevolent and all-powerful yet hides in dark clouds - while his self-appointed attorneys forces people to believe with threats of hell-fire and death. 

Ho-hum.

PS: As an added repartee, Silver Heart claimed that, "Historically, god can be proven by the eyewitnesses involved in the bible."

Bible is an eye witness account? Really?

OK.

So...

1. Who witness god when he created the universe?

2. Who was also the witness when Satan went to heaven to talk to god about Job?

3. Who witness god having a wrestling match with Jacob?

4. Who witness Jonah inside the big fish for 3 days?

5. Who witness when Mary was talking to an angel before being impregnated?

6. Who witness Satan and Jesus talking in the wilderness?

7. Who witness Paul talking to "Jesus" in the desert?

OK, OK... I think this will be another story.

Evans In Wonderland

The first time I saw this post from a certain "Carlos Evans" I though it was a rebuttal against atheism. Well, I'm not expecting something new but, at least I can sink my teeth into something different for the coming weekend. So it was. 

Anyways, I am quite busy nowadays due to some comics deadlines so I just took a photo-capture of the said post. I also read some of the comments, and well as expected theists members are cheering so I assume it to be a new argument.

My jaw dropped when I read the post. My gulay! This is not a refutation, nor a new proof. It didn't even address one atheistic argument.

Hmmmm… I think I'm giving these theists too much credit. 

According to Mr. Evan's post, an atheist "don't have a will or control  on what to say or do. There is no "you." The reason for this  according to him is that an atheist is just "an organic robot,"  an intimate slave to chemistry and that it is these "chemicals"  that makes him believe due to the "harmony that programs him  to believe."

Should I just take this as a fact that Mr. Evan's is ignorant with  psychology and neurology? OK… I get it. This is Facebook. Yet then, it dawned to me. This has nothing to do with psychology, or even science. This has something to do with what Mr. Evan's believe.

Platonic Realism! 

Just for some trivia, this kind of Platonistic philosophy was developed by Plotinus (205–270 CE) in the 3rd century CE. A fellow who had been the pupil at Alexandria of a self-taught philosopher called Ammonius, who also taught the Christian Origen. This is the same philosophy that influenced Christian theology.

It was there all written in Evan's post. The belief that there is a separation between the material world and a transcendental, metaphysical, invisible world of invisible things. Where the disembodied mind float freely and merilly along together with the laws of logic, morality, numbers, geometry, angels, demons, and gods.

With this come forth the idea of substance dualism. This philosophy prosper in the medieval period. Thomas Aquinas for  example believed that the soul (mind) is separated from the  material body. Theologian John Calvin also believed this idea.  The French philosopher Rene Descartes suggested that the mind  is disconected from the material body and is not bound by the  laws of physics (and chemistry as what Mr. Evans wants us to  believe.) 

As I said, this has nothing to do with science. Ancient and medieval philosophy, yes - but science?

Thousand of scientific experiments were conducted and not a hint of a so-called "disembodied mind" were discovered to prove Mr. Evan's viewpoint. The mind as was discovered was nothing but the product of a material brain, nothing more. When the brain dies, so does the mind.

Mr. Evan's would like us to believe that there is a "metaphysical" place where the mind (without a body) resides - a mind independent from material physics and chemistry where it do your thoughts, that it has free-will, where truth and falsehood also resides. I call this Evan's Wonderland.

Sadly for Evans, he doesn't have any proof of his so-called Wonderland. So, reading his post, you will see how bitter he was to those people not believing him and his happy, happy place. He call them "mindless robot," mindless organism - just because they doubt his magical wonderland. How sad.

Anyways, the mind is not independent with our material brain. Even Evan's "YOU" is not left-out. Your identity, the "You" that Evans is talking about, can also be affected by chemical change, or physical damages of the brain. That's why we have mental asylums and Prozac. 

Mental dualist like Mr. Evans insinuate that it is impossible for thoughtless matter to give rise to thought. But to assume  "impossible" only suggest an argument from ignorance since he seek the answers from theologians and philosophers instead to those people who has better understanding with psychology and neurology.

So we are all a product of material, chemicals and physical reactions: BIG DEAL.  - there's no issue in that. The mind is a process of a material brain. It can be affected by physical and chemical reaction in its environment. That's why we  have subject like biochemistry and neuroscience. That's why psychology left philosophy and become a scientific discipline. That's why  we  have  MIR and brain scanning equipment. That's why we can  conduct  experiments to study how  our brain works. That's why  we can  objectively study the brain  and all its process  including the  mind.  It's material.  Not some theological,  magical, invisible,  blue rabbit in a philosopher's  metaphysical hat. 

As the late Carl Sagan have said, "Better a hard truth than a comforting fantasy." Reality and science doesn't conform to this  Wonderland and Evan's just can't take it.  That's why he's bitter.

Truth...

Debating With Pigeons

Before having a "debate" with a bird, consider the following first:

Faith?

It's science, bitch

I find it hilarious when Christians present a lot of so-called links from Creationists sites like The Discovery Institute and quotes of so-called creationist "scientists" like William Dembski, or Michael Behe as proof of their god. Or when they "mine quote" palaeontologist like Michael Benton and re-phrase them to sound like it approves their mythlogy.

Oh please...

Remember that science is falsifiable.

All those links and blah-blah-blah are useless if I will accept them as infallible proof. All it just say is that Benton or Behe thinks that this and that and whatever… That they have seen, or discovered proof (while ignoring legitimate scientific findings)that will "scientifically" prove god.

Then what?

Then it all boils down to, "My god magically created life. Accept it or go to hell." No evidence of this god presented. Just a tons of word play, a lot of apologetics and some 5-cent philosophy ( or may I just say excuses.)

Accident?

In the Christian world-view, there are only two choices: Created or an accident. Well, if you don't believe that a god created you, then automatically you believe that you are just an accident.

Hey! When my Mom married my Dad, that's not an accident.

OK… enough of tasteless jokes.

So why an accident? Well, that's because god-believers think that there's a cause for everything. An accident is defined as an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. If you don't believe that a god (which is claimed to be the first cause) created you then VIOLA! You're an accident - A meaningless lifeforms without a purpose. A "thing" that just came from some random event. Sounds bleak.

Fortunately (and unfortunately to Christian belief) Nature both has nonrandom and random components. That doesn't really sound like an accident, does it? Nature is a complex combination of random events and natural process which are not mere chance. Heavier rocks doesn't sink by sheer luck. A combination of physical laws: Gravity, buoyancy… will make a heavier rock settle under finer sand. Genetic mutation and natural selection are not petty fluke.

Does science says life is just chance? No it doesn't. Chance are just random episodes. We don't study physics, biology and chemistry to learn some chance driven events that happen by freak luck. That's a waste of time and energy - and funds. Random accidents cannot be falsified. I think it's the Christians "historical science" which cannot be falsified, but not science. Nature has a process. Life has a process.

But process doesn't mean a "grand purpose." A hammer is a machine, it's a lever. Being a lever is its process - a hammer can hit nails because of the manner how it is use (as a lever)but that doesn't mean that a hammer cannot be use (purpose) in other ways. A hammer may have a purpose because it was designed and manufactured to perform a certain function, but that is not significant from the viewpoint of the hammer. Same as how a mousetrap can be constructed using only 3 parts or a flagellum's tail that can be use other than swimming.

So, was it Ramesses II?

My take on a certain Victor Villanueva (Part 1)

Opium

"We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order." - Charles Kingsley, Leaders Of The Church 1800-1900 (1907), pp. 65-6

Why the Rants?

I've noticed that some Christians are more into blustering rather than giving a good argument. No, not that I'm expecting them to give a good one, but? Ok. So these Christians think that non-believers enjoy mocking them. It's nothing personal. Sometimes, a good discussion becomes unruly if there's nothing to discuss in the first place. Christians always use same arguments- how many times such arguments have been deflated but do these Christians really read or study those counter-arguments? I don't think so.

There's a big difference between proselytizing and looking for the truth. In proselytizing, there's really no reason to look for facts, new discoveries, or to know the truth. It's just about trying to convince someone to believe what you believed. It has nothing to do whatsoever with an intellectual discourse.

Arguing about faith is a futile activity. Religious faith, as we all know has no evidence to present. It is a conviction, a personal belief unbaked by proof. It cannot be falsified. That's why Christians are always saying the same rant. They don't change. They don't upgrade - it is the same thing, over, and over, and over since what? AD 325? 

The real world is all about reason, facts, evidences and these things change over time. New findings are discover, analyzed. It is so big that there are a lot of things out there still waiting to be explored, unlike the fantastic yet small, insignificant world of the theistic god… A miserable, static universe where everything just goes round, and round and round like a broken down Merry-Go-Round.

Goodbye Old Friend...

You will be missed, but not forgotten.

A reason to be proud of Mr. Rico Manuel, an atheist debater in Luneta Park, and a friend.

In his wake, there were no crosses, rosaries, saints, prayers. Just a white coffin and some flowers. At least till the end, Rico never fall to the faith trap. He was born an atheist and died an atheist. 

Kudos to you!

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up.

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Read more to find out.