rational thinking vs religion

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2324005980922&id=1272787049

main post by ED:
Is god all powerful, in that he can do anything he wanted to? If so, then he can create a plan where all his children could return to live with him WITHOUT having to murder one of his children to make it possible. Christianity FAIL. Reason wins.

Nick Humphrey: and what kind of "loving father" lets his kids rape and murder each other? i dont know of any. i usually step in and stop my kids' from fighting when it gets violent. i am really forgiving too and certainly wouldnt ban them from ever being in my presence again if they were to deny the existence of an invisible spirit. =)

TB: So E, let's say "Christianity fails, reason wins". Now what?

Nick Humphrey: ‎TB "Now what?"
* tell your friends =)
* lobby for teaching of rational thinking, skepticism and logic starting in the public elementary education level
* study to build your own repertoire of rational arguments to use in debate with theists
?

TB: What makes you think that reason alone, or empirically justifiable beliefs alone, can ever serve as a substitute for religion, Nick? Haven't you met any of your fellow humans? They don't operate that way. Your war is a war against humanity itself, because humanity is innately religious.
Besides, there is no historical basis for assuming that cold, hard reason cannot itself be made into an idol and worshipped, with its worshippers acting as wickedly as any religious believers. The French Revolution is only one example.
The bloodletting there was orgiastic, and was done entirely in the name of reason and atheism.
If I could have told my friends in France 220 years ago anything, it would have been to continue on as believing Catholics, because they were much better as believing Catholics than as atheists.


Nick Humphrey: ‎TB "What makes you think that reason alone, or empirically justifiable beliefs alone, can ever serve as a substitute for religion, Nick?"
you incorrectly assume at least 2 things:
1) that humanity needs to replace religion with something, instead of just doing away with it.

maybe *you* personally need to "establish contact with a perceived higher power". i dont.

2) that religionists are completely DEVOID of rationality.

they at least put it aside when it concerns their views of the existence of supernatural entities and interpretation of sensory perceptions and coincidences.

your argument is a straw man.

"They don't operate that way. Your war is a war against humanity itself, because humanity is innately religious."

this is known as the "naturalistic fallacy", but what IS does not imply what OUGHT to be. if homo sapiens are inclined towards religion, it doesnt mean we *should* be religious.

"there is no historical basis for assuming that cold, hard reason cannot itself be made into an idol and worshipped with its worshippers acting as wickedly as any religious believers."

this behavior IS *religious* just without an extra-terrestrial deity. assuming that rational thinking alone leads to such behavior is simply fallacious.

book review: friedrich nietzsche, beyond good and evil

things i found interesting in friedrich nietzsche's book beyond good and evil:

page xv

In Beyond Good and Evil he maintains that original Christianity represents 'an ongoing suicide of reason' (p.44; 46), ascribing it to an Oriental slave revolt against Roman antiquity. Like Freud after him, Nietzsche considered religion a 'neurosis' (p. 45; 47); it involves an unnatural self-denial and sacrifice. In one of his most interesting observations, Nietzsche compares the history of 'religious cruelty' to a ladder with three important rungs: the first entails the sacrifice of one's loved ones to the deity; the second demands the sacrifice of one's own instincts or inner nature; and the final rung, which we are now coming to know, involves the sacrifice of God himself for the worship of 'stone, stupidity, heaviness, fate, nothingness' (p. 50; 55). Nietzsche here suggests that our modern penchant for science or nihilism, as atheistic as it appears at first glance, is merely a replacement for religious belief.

page xvi

Nietzsche is not unaware of the advantages that religion has brought to human society,
even as it has debased human nature. It has helped humankind to endure an otherwise intolerable existence and has assisted us in constructing a viable social order by demanding that we love each other. But religion also has other essential socializing functions. For a particular group of people Nietzsche mentions the Brahmans by name--religion provides a spirituality that permits them to remove themselves from the mundane and crude world surrounding them. For those who are destined to be rulers it is one means for overcoming resistance in their subjects, since it forms a common bond with ordinary people and pacifies them into obedience. It also serves as a pedagogical and disciplinary device for the ascending classes, teaching them a certain abnegation that ennobles their spirit and allows them to rise above the common rabble. Finally, for the vast masses, religion provides a solace for their suffering and the meaninglessness of their existence, 'something that justifies their everyday lives, all the baseness, all the semi-animal poverty of their souls' (p. 55;61). In general, however, Nietzsche's attitude towards religion is that it represents a stage of human development that must be overcome. Christianity, in particular, has led to a 'degeneration of the European race' (p. 56; 62), and the persistence of Christian belief is a sign that the human being has not developed into a creature that is strong enough to achieve the type of self-contained nobility of spirit Nietzsche envisions.

page xvii

The Jews, he asserts, 'brought about that tour de force of a reversal of values' (p. 83; 195); they negated a noble order in which richness, excess, cruelty, and sensuality were validated, and substituted for it a value system in which poverty, godliness, timidity, and spirituality hold sway. This 'slave revolt in morals' (p. 83; 195) disdains as evil the beast of prey and the man of prey, for Nietzsche the 'most healthy of all tropical plants and brutes' (pp. 834; 197), while affirming abstinence, pity, and a tolerance for suffering. The institution of the Judaeo-Christian 'herd' morality has made modern Europe possible even as it has meant an impoverishment of possibilities and human potential. Nietzsche reasons that there have always been rulers and subjects, and he recognizes that a morality preaching docile obedience is a necessity for the masses.

page xix

He [the free spirit] will rid himself of moralities that preach equality, democracy, the general welfare, and utilitarian values, and affirm instead the natural hierarchy Nietzsche captures repeatedly in the term Rangordnung.

page xx

More problematically Nietzsche propagates a human being that will not feel compassion with the oppressed and the unfortunate in society, and that will not seek to do away with suffering, including his own suffering. Rather, the pity this future man feels will involve the disdain for the manner in which the human race has made itself small and petty, and he will nourish suffering as the aid to 'depth, mystery, mask, spirit, cleverness, greatness' (p. 117; 225). In a controversial aphorism Nietzsche even ventures a reconsideration of cruelty as an essential part of human nature. All higher culture, all great tragedy, everything sublime, all knowledge, he contends, are ultimately based on cruelty, either towards ourselves or towards others. ... The task Nietzsche assigns his free spirits is 'to return man to nature; to master the many conceited and gushing interpretations and secondary meanings that have heretofore been scribbled and painted over that eternal original text homo natura'(p. 123; 230). In terms of present values Nietzsche's free spirit will thus prove to be an 'immoralist' who affirms life and aspires to the heights of culture and creativity.

page 7

We do not object to a judgement just because it is false; ... The question is rather to what extent the judgement furthers life, preserves life, preserves the species, perhaps even cultivates the species; ... Admitting untruth as a condition of life ... and a philosophy that dares this has already placed itself beyond good and evil.

this review is ongoing (not finished)...

creationist/theist: "how could the entire universe simply pop into existence magically for no reason at all?"

atheist: "how could *God* magically pop into existence magically for no reason at all?"

"We can believe or reject evolution, it doesn't matter, the church has no official position."

i've been recently messaging back and forth with a somewhat brainwashed and non-rational mormon who goes by the youtube username TheSkepticChristian (NOT!). he wrote the following claim to me:

"We can believe or reject evolution, it doesn't matter, the church has no official position."

and a personal-christian contact of mine on facebook wrote something similar to me today:

"I am rather conflicted because of understanding both views (atheism and Christianity)."

here's my response:
evolution by mutations, genetic drift and natural selection and the literal, young earth, old testament creation by YHWH are mutually exclusive models.

furthermore, a key element of natural selection is death, (the survival of the fittest). according to the old (genesis 2:17) and new testament (romans 5:12), death was introduced with the fall about 5800 years ago. according to the current model of evolution, we are but one of millions of interrelated species. the old testament tells us that we're not related to any other lifeform on earth whatsoever, but that we are created in god's image and are his children and he is our father.

an exmormon named chulotc (on exmormon.org) responded to me with the following:

When I was a kolobian it was easy to rationilize evolution and maintain my core belief system. Elohim organized matter which already existed (preserving thermodynamics), that matter coalesced into stars, supernovae, smaller stars, planets, moons, etc.

The conditions were such that biological life manifested and eventually evolved into higher primates, two of which elohim placed in a garden and put kolobian spirits into.

wherein i responded:

the problems with this are that the book of genesis claims:
1) adam was the first man, the father of humans.
2) YHWH created adam from the dust, he wasnt an evolved, living man, plucked from a group of other living men and put into a garden of eden. he didnt have a homo sapien father and mother and neither did eve because YHWH created eve from the rib of adam.
3) adam was immortal to begin with and death entered the world after eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
4) creation of animals and man happened on different "days" or iterations, whereas with evolution, homo sapiens and animals (and plants, etc) have been evolving side by side in one long continuous process.

then there's the anachronism in genesis 1:1-5 that the earth was created *before* the sun and then in verse 16, that the stars (the rest of the universe) were not created until the fourth day, long after the creation of the earth and sun.

according to nasa, about half the stars in our milky way galaxy alone are older than our sun.

my response to a mormon questioning her faith

today i got a mail from a friend who is still in the church:

So Nick. How are you? I have to say that I was pretty surprised to see that you left the church. You always seemed so devoted to me when we were kids. I was hoping you would be okay if I asked you a few questions. You've been pretty open in a more public discussion, but if you aren't comfortable with a more private one, I understand.
I kind of always thought of church as a fun place to mingle, basically. My dad is, well.. I'm not even sure what he is. He neither agrees or disagrees with the idea of God. Whatever that means. And my mom is like yours. Or at least how I remember yours.. fighting for the church even though everyone else in her life seemed to be against it. I never really cared for or against it until I was 17. I started going back to church because I started dating a member who wouldn't marry a nonmember. Long story short, 13 years later I find myself wishing I had 13 years of my life back. I decided years ago to make my peace with the church and fake it til I make it. It's not really working for me real well. So now I want to learn. Being that you were so devoted and then walked away, I kind of feel like you are a good person to ask questions to. Right now, my questions are pretty basic. I just want to know why I have always felt so creepy in church. How can something that seems so good and pure envoke these feelings in a person? Joseph Smith. He's never really set very well with me. Historically and reasonably, the Book of Mormon seems like such a fairy tale! And I would LOVE to kow why this church is the only church that insists on striking so much fear in a member and then chastize them for being less than faithful if they have fear in their hearts. The principles of the church are very scary and intimidating! How can you not be afraid? Any member who truly believes in the gospel and claims it doesn't frighten them, is a liar.. in my opinion. Anyway, as you can see, I have a lot to learn. I'm having surgery tomorrow and will be down for 6 weeks. It seemed like as good a time as any to start reading!
Thanks Nick!

and here is my response:

Hi, it was great to read your message =) yes i was the most devoted of all my brothers, probably even more than my mom. there were always things that didnt make sense to me, but i tried to either rationalize them away or just hope for an answer some day. for someone like me, i "needed" an experience that conflicted with my values down to my very core and that happened when our bishop here in norway told me and my wife that we needed to repent of oral sex. the church deciding what me and my wife could do in our bedroom? that was it. i started on a major study of church history and to see what other people were saying about the church--members who had left. i started reading about psychology. i quickly saw how the church (mis)uses principles of psychology to influence and control members. i read about cults and cult psychology and found that the church easily fits the cult profile. for example, in this list of 100 attributes:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html
i could immediately identify at least 65 traits found in the church:
1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98

i started reading about science (archeology, anthropology, dna, cosmology, etc) but the most important issue is this: the old testament claims that homo sapiens began in the garden of eden. the christian world puts the date to around 6500 years ago. if you ask the jews, the ones who *wrote* the old testament, they put the date to around 5800 years ago. this is around 200,000 years off by what scientific evidence shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens

this one fact alone disproves all religions based on the old testament (abrahamic): judaism, christianity, islam, etc... -- 38%-61% (low/high estimate) of religious belief in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions_or_belief_systems_by_number_of_adherents

it disproves everything that follows--all their creeds and claims to revelation, the whole shabang. anything else i tell you now is just additional, supporting evidence against the church.

i started writing my exit story here:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1jBgSzf90ONPlif_jNHu_pV0UKZQQ3pFNpAgX-YsYW94

there i've listed a LOT of additional evidence against the church. the hardest thing for people questioning the church is the feelings and spiritual experiences they think they've had. the church uses this for all it's worth to get people to prioritize that over fact and reasoning or even conflicting feelings/emotions. up until recently, it has been quite difficult to help people realize that these experiences are merely psychological and are a result of preconditioning, brainwashing and social psychology techniques, BUT then i found something wonderful:
http://www.bonneville.com/?nid=32

bonneville is the church's PR firm, and when i say "church's" i mean *owned by the church* and *started by the church*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_International

on that bonneville homepage you can read about their product called HeartSell:
"Our unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of our audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. We call this uniquely powerful brand of creative "HeartSell"® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response."

if a member reads this and still cant see that he/she is being duped, then there seriously is no hope for that person. this is the church's MO in black and white--and for sale even =)

when i realized that the church was a sham, it was seriously like waking up from a bad dream. i have never enjoyed life more than i do now and have never known what *true freedom* really is until now =)

i am totally here for you, you can contact me whenever you like and ask me anything you like =)

i hope your surgery goes well and it might sound odd, but i totally envy you that you will have 6 weeks to just sit/lay and read! (my favorite thing to do)

here are some great videos to watch while you're resting:
the stanley milgram experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1MJeHYlE0
the stanford prison experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_LKzEqlPto
the asch experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw
christopher hitchens (the best of):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w
christopher hitchens' ten commandments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-63cTYJDCA
sam harris - religion as a failed science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkTTCgECCoc
richard dawkins (pascal's wager - what if you're wrong?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

and really anything by any of these people is great:
richard dawkins on youtube
christopher hitchens on youtube
sam harris on youtube
dan dennett on youtube
michael shermer on youtube
victor stenger on youtube
james randi on youtube
pat condell on youtube
richard feynman on youtube
carl sagan on youtube

if you want a good book to read, i suggest reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0618918248?tag=truthinthemul-20&camp=213761&creative=393545&linkCode=bpl&creativeASIN=0618918248&adid=195X0238GED74BR8XQNV&

if you want specific lds stuff to read then you should read the research on the book of abraham:
http://www.irr.org/mit/bhoh-order.html

irr.org will send it to you for free! (you only pay 5 dollars shipping). watch the video first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE
=)

if you want to read other people's experiences then hang out here for a day:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/list.php?2

"life after death is true" and "theists are happier and atheists are more self-destructive and negative"

just posting my reply to a theist's comments on facebook:
@mindy

"I completely believe in life after death."

but you stated as a fact that 'no life after death' *isnt true* in an earlier post.

"In the end, my heart chose for me."

feelings are a poor basis for a successful decision making model--it's not the way of science, it's not the way of economics, it's not the way of the judicial system, it's not how we earn our university degrees, it's now how technology is developed, etc. even when choosing a lifelong mate--a decision where feelings actually play a huge role--most people ask themselves practical questions like:
* is this person responsible?
* does this person have any addictions/problems that might be difficult to break?
* is this person good with money?
* does this person have goals and a plan for the future?

yet the only thing mormon missionaries try to get people to do is to feel good about the message. they dont encourage people e.g. to read in depth about church history or to think critically about their message...

"It's interesting to me how truly happy people are once they fully embrace God and after life."

you say happy, i say delusional =)

"It's also very interesting to me how self destructive and negative people who don't tend to be."

utah leads the nation in porn usage and anti-depressant usage =) there are so many happy and funny atheists and so many racist/gay-hating theists as to completely destroy this claim. the lds church for one fits both the racist and gay-hating qualities even in recent history. and just look at the word "gay"--it means "happy" =)

i've never been happier than after i left the mormon church. when i finally realized it was a sham, it was like waking up from a terrible nightmare and realizing i was safe in bed on a warm, sunny, first day of a 5 week vacation =) now i've got more money, more time, less stress, less responsibility, more friends, more things in life to enjoy, etc... i can choose, if i want to, to do anything a theist can do:
* go to church
* pay money to the church
* read scriptures
* fast
* pray
* love my neighbor as myself

but a theist cant do everything an atheist can do =) i love that distinction =)

my response to a user named cats from utah about why people leave the lds church

my response:

@Cats i concluded the mormon church was false when i compared the scientific claims of the old testament with actual evidence. the first homo sapien offspring didnt appear 6-7000 years ago (adam and eve). it was more than 100,000+ years ago. i concluded the mormon church was false when i realized that all of my "spiritual" experiences could be explained by psychology and biology. i concluded that the mormon church was false when i read about cults and could quickly identify the church in at least 65 points out of a list of 100 elements of a cult.
i am also way happier now after leaving the church. i have more money, i have more time, i am less stressed and our family life is more harmonious. all the things the church promises to the faithful, but simply cant deliver...and i get it for free =)

to this user comment:

Cats | 7:43 a.m. April 4, 2011
Somewhere In Time, UT
Once again, this article is RIGHT ON TARGET.

I have seen many atheists who claim they don't believe in God because of rational or intellectual reasons. That fact is, they reject faith because they have had some bad or hurtful experiences regarding religion--i.e. they went to Catholic school and the nuns were mean....or their mother made them go to church and they resented that. The president of the American atheists said that she hated the church because her mother spent all her time there. It all involves emotion and NOT logic. The fact is, if they were being logical and rational they WOULD believe in God.

Former Mormons leave the Church because they just don't want to bother with the requirements....or they had something bad happen and just don't have the maturity to deal with it...or they've done something wrong and they don't want to repent so they try to justify themselves.

These people have the right do anything they want, but I hope no one is fooled. There's no logic or rationality involved with it and I hope everyone has the insight to see that.

on this article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705369908/Challenging-Issues-Keeping-the-Faith-Emotion-is-part-of-testimony-2-and-decision-making.html

NOTE: my comment was not approved by deseret news. shocker.

sam harris puts religion/god into perspective

sam harris' opening remarks in part 2 of the "does god have a future?" debate are simply hilarious, the way he puts religion into such a ridiculous perspective:

01:23 the god that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person. it's a creator deity who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate. lucky us. and he's got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to, but he's especially concerned with what we do, and he's especially concerned with what we do while naked. and he almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality. and he's created this cosmos as a vast laboratory in which to test our powers of credulity, and the test is this "can you believe in this god on bad evidence--which is to say on faith?" and if you can, you will win an eternity of happiness after you die.

"the largest group of suicide terrorists are the Tamil Tigers, a group of atheist Marxists." DEBUNKED

i saw an interesting claim in the comments of bill maher to Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison: The Qur'an Is A 'Hate Filled Holy Book by user ProIndividual

largest group of suicide terrorists..are the Tamil Tigers, a group of atheist Marxists.

according to time magazine "The Tigers ... include 5,000 to 10,000 guerillas".

how many muslims are there? about 1.5 billion. obviously not all of them would carry out a suicide bombing, but you can see the ridiculous difference in numbers. and just look at some of the suicide bombing statistics:

according to the wikipedia article LTTE: "between 1980 and 2000, the LTTE carried out 168 suicide attacks".

and the wikipedia Suicide attack article: "In 2004 in Iraq alone there were 400 suicide attacks".

it's quite common, irresponsible and incorrect to cite atheism as a key source and motivator of violence in non-religious political ideologies.

atheism+'no afterlife' is completely incompatible with suicide.

religion+'salvation/glory/rewards after death' is an important motivator for islamic suicide bombers. non-religious people also carry out suicide bombings, as in the case of the Tamil Tigers, but they are doing it because they are influenced, persuaded and coerced by the political ideology, NOT because of their critical analysis of the existence of god (i.e. atheism).

LTTE is a political ideology.
atheism is the disbelief in deity. period.

the two-tongued "mysterious logic" of christianity

sent to my by email from a good friend:

You proclaim with certainty that if I use my mind, I can see, with clarity, the truth of the Bible. That with intuition from my heart, and the soundness of my brain, the word will be revealed as truth, because truth is clear and illuminating. You insist the existence of God is clear to any person who, logically, thinks it through.

You tell me that the world around us evidences a creator. That without a cause, there can be no effect. That entropy demands the complexity of life proves its own impossibility, therefore necessitating a transcendent God. You plead with me to use human reason to "see" that the precision of the Universe demands that there must be God. That it is the only, "scientifically" plausible conclusion. You base your arguments in logic, and arrive at conclusions with linguistic ingenuity worthy of the finest debate . You explain the inner workings of cells and other precise scientifically derived mechanics which evidence profound design. You stand confident on the shoulders of great scientific giants whose works form the basis of your arguments. You understand that to convince, it is pristine facts, logic, and reason which must form the basis of human communication as otherwise we would be lost in an ocean of falsehood and uncertainty.

But when 15,000 innocent men women and children die in a Tsunami, you tell me that God works in mysterious ways. When I ask about babies who were not fortunate to receive the "word" being "saved" or "damned" you explain that we shouldn't expect to understand with our limited minds things in the heavenly realm. Things, like - God. You tell me that God doesn't have to be logical. You assure me there is no problem since the great mystery of God is his beauty.

You use "logic" when it suits you.

You use "mystery" when it suits you.

This, Christian, is called duplicity and according to you, it is a trait of the devil.

good atheist videos about science and religion and superstition

http://ted.com/talks/tags
http://ted.com/talks/tags/psychology
http://ted.com/talks/tags/brain
http://ted.com/talks/tags/consciousness
http://www.ted.com/talks/tags/science

richard dawkins on youtube
christopher hitchens on youtube
sam harris on youtube
dan dennett on youtube
michael shermer on youtube
victor stenger on youtube
james randi on youtube
pat condell on youtube
richard feynman on youtube
carl sagan on youtube
eugenie scott on youtube

http://ted.com/talks/tags
http://ted.com/talks/tags/psychology
http://ted.com/talks/tags/brain
http://ted.com/talks/tags/consciousness
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+dawkins
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=christopher+hitchens
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+harris
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=dan+dennett
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+shermer
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=victor+stenger
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=james+randi
http://youtube.com/user/patcondell
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+feynman
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=carl+sagan
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=eugenie+scott

deepak chopra on belief and science

The Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future? (1 of 12)
Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston

"i am not here to discuss belief. i think belief is a coverup for insecurity. you only believe in things that you dont know the truth of and you want to know the truth of. if i asked you "do you believe in electricity or electromagnetism?" you would say "what kind of a ridiculous question is that?" if you want to know the truth you must have the experience, you must have a theoretical basis and you must have the rules of science to either falsify what you are saying, experimentally prove it or at least submit to what is called occam's principle, the theory or parsimony--the simplest explanations are the best explanations. so i'm not here to defend the god of primitve theology...we are here not to argue the validity of science. science is the most impeccable way of understanding the rules, the laws of nature. it is science that brought us the rules of mathematics, physics, chemistry, cosmology, evolution. so we're not going to argue about that."

as a side note, i really love michael shermer's comments:

if there really is a god, then obviously he or she has a future. if there is no god then we're really only talking about the future of the belief in god.

conversation between me and my tbm mormon friend

his comments begin with ">". my response comes beneath that line.
------------

> I believe that the world is surrounded by proof that God does exist. Alma 30:44 - "...all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

because things exist, god exists? how about the dairy cow or the dog or giant strawberries or...? these are things designed by man. because something exists doesnt equate to PROOF that there is a supernatural god, yahweh--one of a thousand different gods we have "scriptures" about.

> God does exist. My belief in Him does not take away freedom or pursuit of happiness. My belief system does not infringe on others ability to believe how they wish. I believe that others have the God given right to believe and worship how they choose. My understanding doesn't remove or impose upon the free will of others.

one word: prop8

> God does exist

stating something as a fact doesnt make it true, even though boyd packer tells you so:
"A testimony is found in the bearing of it." (from "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55)

this implies:
If you don't know whether something [we Mormons teach] is true, just bear your testimony of it anyway, as if you knew it, and eventually you will come to find that you 'know' it.

this is called self-brainwashing.

> The creation of life cannot be explained by science. Sure, there might be a process explained through the use of combining DNA from a man and DNA from a woman. Chromosomal Pairs from each combining to form a new entity that then begins to replicate and "create" a new human. But how does science explain how each individual body part is created through that replication process.

science can sure explain A LOT about the creation of life and is finding out new information all the time. what is religion doing: god created life. period.? doctors and scientists know how to clone biological organisms, regrow tissue and manipulate the human body in many ways. you can technically choose the gender of your baby these days. geneticists KNOW how cells reproduce based on genetic encoding.

> Science does explain some things, but it has the inability to explain all things. That is why both Science and Faith are important.

you keep trying to marginalize science, when religion explains nothing. saying "a miracle happened" explains NOTHING. saying "god created the universe" explains NOTHING. every comfort and technology you have is the product of the scientific process.

> I take that same understanding through science, combine it with my faith and knowledge of God, and increase my peace and understanding.

sorry, but this sounds really pompous.

> I do not impose my belief system on others.

missionary work, temple ordinances for the dead, indoctrination of children. can your kids stay home from church whenever they want to?

> Neither of us will ever be persuaded by the other.

tell me something persuasive =)

my response to john gray's words about atheism and nazi germany/adolf hitler

this is my response to john gray's remarks about atheism and nazi germany/hitler.

"Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible."

> He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree.

exactly. he used religious ideology, BELIEF IN GOD, to justify his persecution of jews, not a DISBELIEF in god.

> But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history.

race IS a scientific category whether you are theistic or atheistic. the OPPOSITE however is the more dangerous belief, that one race is divinely appointed to rule over another race!

> Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion.

this completely contradicts hitler's use of religious belief in god and biblical antisemitism as grounds for persecuting jews.

> There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

type of atheism? atheism is merely ONE SINGLE aspect of a person's psychology--non-belief in deity/supernatural. period. it doesn't have any "types". what made nazi crimes possible was shown by the stanley milgram experiment on obedience and philip zimbardo's standford prison experiment.

theists reaction to a friend saying he wrote himself out of the mormon church

here's the facebook conversation so far:

"Atheist A"
Da er det gjort:))
January 25 at 9:15pm · · Comment · Share

*
*
You, "Theist LW" and "Person B" like this.
*
o
"Person C" Flott;)
January 25 at 9:16pm ·
o
"Person D" what?? :)
January 25 at 9:25pm ·
o
"Person E" Hva har du gjort nå....?
January 25 at 9:25pm ·
o
"Theist LW" I det stadiet du har vært den siste tiden, så er nok dette for tiden kanskje det beste for deg. Men på lang sikt så er jeg lei meg for denne avgjørelsen din. Evigheten er myyyye lengre enn den lille tiden vi flyr rundt her på jorda å virrer rundt som bortkommne insekt.
Sunday at 8:28pm ·
o
"Atheist A" Hva har du fått i deg "Theist LW" ??;))
Sunday at 8:37pm ·
o
"Theist LW" Litt cola bare ; ) he he he
Sunday at 10:14pm ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey da er det gjort her også =)
Sunday at 10:27pm ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey "Theist LW", you are stating a belief as a fact: that the soul exists eternally. there is no scientific and testable proof of anything other than the fact that we are primates.
Sunday at 10:30pm ·
o
"Person E" Fortiden og fremtiden er bare en illusjon, det eneste vi vet helt sikkert er at vi lever her og nå!
Sunday at 10:34pm · · 1 personLoading...
o
"Theist LW"
I am not one who needs scientific proofs. I Get my answers, I have found peace, and Need no DNA proof, that is written on a piece of paper. Verry scientific by the way.....
And i already knew that you wrote yourself out. I guess I can refe...r to a great Metallica song, "sad but true" ; ) Wich also leads me to another great song by Whitney Houston " I will always love you" : DSee More
Sunday at 10:45pm ·
o
"Person D" geez!!!!
Sunday at 11:08pm ·
o
"Theist LW" Jeg er veldig nysgjerrig på hvordan du får fortiden til å bli en illusjon. Sier du da at jeg egentlig ikke var på Kongsberg skisenter på lørdag ???? Og at jeg ikke hadde taco til middag igår ???? Veldig interresant tanke......
Yesterday at 8:37am ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
"Theist LW", listen to yourself. these are the classic words of what is called "a science denier". dont you want scientific proof that a medicine works and doesnt have dangerous side effects before you take it? dont you want scientific proof that... a new airplane model has been thoroughly tested before you get on it for a transatlantic flight? if you were accused of rape, wouldnt you demand scientific (dna) evidence and rely on that evidence to get you acquitted? did religion make your video camera or your computer? no, it was made using the scientific process. did religion make your car or your clothes or the birth control you use? religion only takes people's money, tells them to be nice while at the same time telling them to hate certain people and gives people false hope. homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. the bible claims the first offspring (cain) was born around 6000-7000 years ago.
"Theist LW", can i suggest a video for you?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6wSee More
23 hours ago ·
o
"Person D" Nicholas: Signerer innlegget ditt!!! ;)
23 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
o
"Theist LW"
NO NICK, you listen to yourself. Three years ago you where preaching this stuff that you are now in total denial of, 15 years ago you knocked down thousands of doors in Norway for two years and spent either your or the Church`s money to sha...re the Gosspel. I gotta say, you`ve come a looooong way since that. Until last year, And unfortunatly I feel it`s the wrong way since then. Money will always be a temporary state of luck, and the past year or so, that`s been your quest, to see how "gold diggin" the lds church is. And how much money you`ve "lost".
I could share tons of links to proove you wrong, but you can search em up, just like you search for everything else ; ) www.google.com
True happyness, comes without the dough $$$$
And I know this, since I`ve experienced both sides of good and bad economics. True happyness is something you gotta earn spritualy. Not with your wallet.See More
23 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
exactly "Theist LW". i was raised in a cult that told me NOT to think outside the box, i.e. church, who controlled what information i had about them by telling me NOT to read anything contrary to their teachings, who told me what to think and wha...t NOT to think, what to feel and what NOT to feel. i was brainwashed by a cult.

> you`ve come a looooong way since that

no shit =) thank science and reasoning for that!

> True happyness, comes without the dough $$$$

and who do you think taught you that "Theist LW"? this is EXACTLY the kind of shit they WANT you to believe.

> True happyness is something you gotta earn spritualy. Not with your wallet.

true happiness starts with financial independence: the ability to do what you want, when you want and not be under the control of anyone else. true happiness ends with/is completed by doing what makes you most happy.

> Money will always be a temporary state of luck

have you heard of economics? fiscal responsibility? controlling spending? investing? education? do you think the church just "got lucky" with their money? no, they implemented a law requiring people to pay them 10% of the income in order to be saved. you can't NOT pay tithing and be "saved in the highest celestial kingdom".

listen to what hinckley says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxClKTZj5Fg

(in any other context this would be considered a threat and extortion)

you still haven't responded to the science denying and i hope you watch that video i suggested.See More
22 hours ago ·
o
"Person D" And what are members of the church doing on the internet anyway??
members of that church really needs a wake-up call!!!!!
22 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
sorry "Theist LW", but its easier for me to type on my keyboard than an sms so i'll post the argument you just send me on my phone. you wrote:
> "if anyone is in denial it would be you. reason number one: you keep calling me a denier"

i fail to see... your logic.

> "reason number two: if you never had a doubt about god or his existence, you would never choose to walk the path you are now on."

i dont have a doubt that god (YHWH, the god of the old testament) doesnt exist. i want my friends and family to realize this too and stop letting themselves be controlled by a corporation pretending to be a church. and what can i say? i was raised to tell others about my "beliefs". who can blame me? =)

> "which leads on to reason 3: your constant need to "prove" that you are right"

it's my need to destroy organizations who control and rob people of their freedom, joy and money. see also my response to "reason 2".

> "the fact that you wrote yourself out of the church was wise though. this means that there's still hope, after this life at the latest"

by baptizing me for the dead? =) i'll pass. i hereby deny god/elohim/yhwh, jesus and the holy ghost as false, monstrous idols. see, nothing really happens "Theist LW" =) all the church's threats are empty =) the godhead can suck my dick =) see? god's not striking me down =)

> "hugs and squeeze"

the same to you =)See More
22 hours ago ·
o
"Theist LW"
So just live it up then, and leave the rest of us LDS in peace. You have no power over my beliefs, even with your links and "proofs". I just gotta wish you the best of Luck. ; )
Post one of my personal SMS messages out on FB again, and we'l...l just close our friendshipp with that.See More
22 hours ago ·
o
"Theist LW" And where would we get that wake up call ???
22 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
‎> leave the rest of us LDS in peace.

if i'm not mistaken "Theist LW", you commented on bårds status on his own page. the fact is that LDS and other religions dont let the rest of US live in peace. they're out there proselyting and meddling with p...olitical affairs, e.g. Prop 8, lobbying for teaching of ID in schools, trying to stop non-believers from living the way THEY want to live, trying to take away THEIR joy. reread your 11th article of faith:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

hugs and squeezes =)

> "Post one of my personal SMS messages out on FB again, and we'l...l just close our friendshipp with that."

goddamn your love runs deep =) sorry "Theist LW", wont happen again.See More
21 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey i love you "Theist LW" despite our differences in opinion =)
21 hours ago ·
o
"Theist CL"
Your arguments are horribly framed "Theist LW". As someone that is LDS I'm asking you to please give independent thought to what it is Nick and everyone is saying. Faith is not something that can be explained. There is no "proof" we can offer.... If people are better w/out their faith, let them be and be happy that they are "better". All of your post make you seem so threatened by what other people are doing with their lives. Let your faith in God give you comfort that his plan includes what Bard and Nick do with their lives and let it support you in your endeavors to better your own.See More
9 hours ago ·
o
"Theist LW"
You are right "Theist CL", and I suck at anything that has to do with explaining, it is not ment as judgmental or anything, I am actually trying to tell them to leave us LDS in peace as well, but as long as I see a fist, I guess I suck at turnin...g the other cheek. But yeah I do it wrong, and it always ends up looking like a mess. But thanks for the heads up l ; )
Pluss I love these guys like they where my own brothers, so it gets complicated realy fast.See More
7 hours ago ·
o
"Theist CL"
I agree about the brothers thing but your ARE making judgments left and right (both sides are btw). I just don't know what you mean about being "left alone". Athiest have an agenda just as valid as any religion does. If they feel they're... making the world better by helping people think a different way then great. No different than what we did for two years in Norge...right? Like me I assume you still support the LDS missionary program because you believe in what it has to offer. You can't be "left in peace" unless you tell your sons and daughters to let people be "left in peace" regarding the LDS missionaries. Do you watch the stuff Nick posts? It's actually quite interesting. Food for thought and such.See More
7 hours ago ·
o
"Person TKP"
It's great to see that there finally has come some sense to this discussion.

A religion (or the lack of it) should tolerate critisicm, so a discussion is sometimes good. I just felt that this one wasn't a constructive one, so I didn't want t...o participate.

We should all respect each others standpoints, either way.

Scientific evidence does exist, but is man-made and hence a good, but artificial one. Absolute evidence cannot be communicated because all our information comes through our senses, meaning they are all illusions one way or another. And even if The Holy Spirit did exist and did speak to us, without our normal senses, we wouldn't be able to prove it. So it all boils down to beliefs.

I think Bård is brave to make his standpoint clear, the same way he was brave to make his standpoint when he attended the church earlier.See More
7 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
o
"Theist LW"
"Person TKP" I am glad you joined this little debate here, cause what you say, is pretty much what I think, but like I said earlier, I suck at getting this right. And having a strong belief in one thing and seeing great friends such as Nick and Bå...rd, take a stand like this is a great mixture of feelings. But it all comes down to Respect. And I do respect the choice they made. I will work at the Judgmental part, and show some love : )
Peace out for now ; )See More
6 hours ago ·
o
"Person TKP" Peace :)
6 hours ago ·
o
Nicholas Christian Humphrey
‎@"Person TKP"

> It's great to see that there finally has come some sense to this discussion.

please point out the things that i wrote that DONT make sense.
...
> We should all respect each others standpoints, either way.

religion deserves NO respect. it is dangerous and counterproductive to progress, understanding of the universe and all that humanism stands for; teaching people:

* that it is a good thing to believe in things they cant see or prove (funny how believers dont apply this principle to any OTHER part of their life like buying a house, car, stocks, legal matters, flying airplanes, taking medicine or medical procedures. for all those things they want evidence that their decision is correct and safe and guaranteed. but if a guy comes and says give me your money and let me dictate exactly how you should live your life and in return i'll give you eternal life, then suddenly they DONT NEED evidence!)

* to hate, kill, and judge others who dont share the same beliefs and lifestyles. e.g. issues like homosexuals and marriage, suicide bombers killing infidels, killing abortion doctors, hating jews

* to accept non-answers about our existence like "if it can't be explained, god must have done it" and "his ways are higher than our ways, we can never possibly understand why". we would still be living in the stone age with no computers, no medicine, no machines, no advanced technology whatsoever if everyone still thought like that.

> Scientific evidence does exist, but is man-made and hence a good, but artificial one. Absolute evidence cannot be communicated because all our information comes through our senses, meaning they are all illusions one way or another.

"Person TKP", is it an illusion that you are a man? that you have a penis? is it an illusion that somebody raping your sister is a bad thing? is it an illusion that the world trade center was destroyed along with thousands of lives? is it an illusion that surgeons can give women artificially larger breasts? is it an illusion that you can open a web browser and talk with someone on the other side of the planet in real time?

scientific claims CAN be tested and PROVED with a high level of accuracy by several independent parties. this is HOW we have the technology that we do: medicine, computers, skyscrapers, telecommunications, etc! some religions make scientific claims and can be disproved using the scientific method, religions like christianity, islam, judaism, all based on the old testament which claims that homo sapiens began 6-7000 years ago and that there was a global flood that wiped out every living thing except some people on a boat about 4-5000 years ago.

the old testament also teaches such irrational, inhumane and destructive and, in religious terms, "evil" things like that homosexuals are evil, that genocide, stoning children and raping women is justifiable.

richard dawkins' response to pascal's wager

i think the key points dawkins makes in his book the god delusion are:

* one is not just betting on one god, there have been hundreds/thousands of gods throughout homo sapien history. if you bet on yahweh and baal turns out to be "the god", then you're also screwed.

pascal's wager doesn't "work" in a polytheistic scenario.

* you can't fake belief. if an omniscient god actually existed, those who really don't/can't believe, but only say they do, wouldn't be able to fool him.

my comments on the victor stenger vs william lane craig debate

part 1

they're using the word "god" as if it is something/someone everybody agrees on about who/what he/it is...its easy to disprove god of the old testament at least: simply disprove the scientific claims made by YHWH through his prophets or his own mouth, e.g.:

1) first human offspring was Cain (genesis 4:1) approximately 6000-7000 years ago.

2) global flood during noah's life


part 2

0:15 is william lane craig's mind already made up? yes. hypocrite =)

at first it sounded like he was saying this in an accusatory manner, but i found out later that he just talks like this....really tiring.



part 3

08:09 "if dr stenger wants us to believe atheism instead, then he must first tear down all 6 of the reasons i presented..."

did you submit these 6 reasons to dr stenger before the debate or should he just do it on the fly? if on the fly, would you submit to the same challenge from dr stenger? =)

01:54 craig: "there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone". i think an atheist person being raped can objectively disagree.



part 5

0:45 "NONE of these scientists would NOT believe if they were presented with sufficient evidence" <-- yes, the difference between scientists and theists. well put. part 6

he keeps harping on about the resurrection as if it is some provable/undeniable fact. jeez. i like how most atheists "argue" so calmly, while most theists seem to take an aggresive and "loud" stance, it is tiring to listen to this craig...

07:24 "there is abundant evidence of god's actions in the world. in fact what i would say is the very existence of the universe itself is abundant evidence for the existence of god...the origin of the universe out of absolutely nothing"

hmm, i'm pretty sure craig is referring to the big bang, a scientific "revelation" and is nowhere a part of biblical scripture. religion hijacking science, trying to prove science wrong, with science. genesis only alludes to the creation of earth and stars, ie MW

ironic how the american flag is placed next to craig's podium instead of stenger's =)

craig is complaining about assertions from stenger, well, 06:38 craig: "if god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist". an assertion. "objective values do exist". also an assertion.



part 7

it seems like stenger could have just left it at the cyclical universe model, there was no cause to the universe, it has always existed, just expanding and contracting, big banging and big crunching =)


part 8

01:29-01:51 whammy =)
stenger points out that in genesis, the earth was created BEFORE the sun ( 01:29-01:51 ).

genesis 1:1-3
"
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
"

the very first verses of the old testament are at odds with science!



part 9

03:27 craig: "the bible teaches that god's moral law is instinctively written on the heart of every individual, so that we have an instinctual moral knowledge that we ought to love our children rather than torture them and abuse them"

stenger already showed that there is no objective morality: different religions have different versions of morality

03:53 craig: "if you dont have a god as a transcendent anchor or basis for morality, then moral values are purely ephemeral byproducts of socio-biological evolution"

since there ARE NO objective morals, we simply reverse what you just said to prove that there IS NO transcendent god.

04:55 moderator: "how do we know, objectively, that we're being objective?"
craig: "i dont think any of us are totally objective, uh, that is one of the few (nervous laugh) insights of post-modernists, i think, i dont think they have many good insights, but one of them would be that all of us are historically conditioned, we're midstream so to speak, and therefore the search for pristine objectivity, and neutral point of view, view from nowhere is really impossible"

ok, you just killed the objective morality assertion

stenger makes a good point about "covariance": morality is not the same from all points of view



part 10

00:24 craig: "any thing that exists has to have a reason why it exists, either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature"

does god exist? if so, then what was the external cause for gods existence (i dont understand what he means by "in the necessity of its own nature"). what was the external cause of the external cause of gods existence? ad infinitum.

if god doesnt need an external cause for its existence, then why should the universe? why should anything at all require it?

01:48 craig: "now dr stenger also says 'but you dont need to believe in the big bang theory, there could have been some pre-existing universe, a cyclic universe, but notice how he admits you must have an equally plausible model, but the fact is that these cyclical models are not equally plausible with the standard big bang model"

no, stenger says in part 7 at 04:56 "the universe need not have *begun* with the big bang...there are many prominent physicists and cosmologists who publish papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the big bang appeared naturally out of a pre-existing universe that need not itself had a beginning. one such recent example is a cyclic universe". since cyclic models (e.g. steinhardt-turok, baum-frampton) *incorporate* the big bang and additionally provide an explanation for the big bang's appearence, they are equally plausible models, if not more plausible, supported by the fact that it is an active field of academic inquiry.

04:45 craig: "as for the moral argument, dr stenger agrees, there is no evidence for objective morality. if you agree with me however that things like racism, the holocaust, rape, child abuse are really objectively wrong, then you will agree with me that god exists."

first of all, dr. "twister of words" craig, stenger DOESNT AGREE that there is no evidence for objective morality, he DISAGREES with you and has shown that there IS NO evidence for objective morality, while you maintain that objective morality is "instinctively written on the heart of every individual" as stated in part 9 starting at 03:27.

secondly, even if stenger might agree with you on these points, others DONT! not everyone does. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY, thus, by your own reasoning, THERE IS NO GOD.

05:35 craig: "you've got to believe that a contingently existing universe inexplicably exists for absolutely no reason at all"

not sure what he means by "contingently existing", but why does god exist then?

"you've got to believe in a logically incoherent model of the origin of the universe which no other scientist in the world accepts"

what model is this? certainly not a model stenger made proposed himself, so what about its author? i'm sure the author(s) of a cyclical universe model (e.g. steinhardt-turok, baum-frampton) believe it to be plausible along with the peers who have reviewed it and allowed it to be published?

"or else you've got to believe in an infinite number of randomly ordered parallel universes without any evidence for their existence"

stenger never proposed any model consisting of parallel universes

"fourth you've got to believe there's no moral difference between a mother who loves and nurtures her children and a sexual predator who preys upon them"

again, it's already established that there is no objective morality, and some people *will* (and do) find a difference here and others will not

"five, you've got to believe on the basis of your own authority that the majority of the world's historians who have studied the life of jesus are mistaken about the historicity of the empty tomb"

so what? christians claim that all non-christians are mistaken about the the right way to be saved (jesus).

"six, you've got to believe that everyone who claims to have a personal experience of god is deluded"

again, christians claim that all non-christians who dont have a personal experience of god are deluded or deceived by the devil. and atheists could simply respond "no, not deluded, simply human, simply wired to believe in the supernatural/unseen"

"and still leaves you without any solid case for atheism"

like i've said before, disproving scientific claims made by the bible is a great place to start. also theists are the ones who bear the burden of proof of their claims of the unevident and invisible.

08:12 stenger: "in each of these cases we can give a plausible, natural explanation that violates no known principles of science and requires no divine action. dr craig does not succeed in proving that these natural explanations are wrong. he tries to argue that they're implausible, but in fact everything i've talked about is consistent with all the knowledge we have in science and in perfect agreement with existing experimental and theoretical facts. so i dont think dr craig succeeds in proving that god exists."



part 11

05:27 stenger: "finally, an all good, all powerful, all knowing god, if one existed, he would have the power to comfort a child dying an excruciating death from leukemia. he chooses not to do so. is there a person in this room who would not ease that child's suffering, given the power? i would do it. jesus christ could appear before me and tell me not to do it because it has some ultimate purpose, but i would STILL DO IT! even if i faced eternal damnation, i would DO IT."

how can atheists use the words "moral" and "immoral"?

people say (says christopher hitchens) "how can you talk about morality and say something is immoral if you reject god and the bible--the source of morality, the source of the ten commandments?"

well, atheists can, for at least two reasons:

* the bible/yahweh doesnt own morality. just look at all the non-believers in the world who do good, not to mention people in other cultures who may never have heard of yahweh or the bible!

* it's using the language of theists so they understand what you are talking about. speaking to them on their own terms.

christopher hitchens == jesus of atheism

christopher hitchens, with all his wisdom and ability to crush any theistic argument in a debate is like the modern day atheist jesus

doing good without religion

atheist: X is bad about the church.

believer: but what about all the GOOD that the CHURCH does?

atheist: its PEOPLE who do good, and they can do the same good WITHOUT the church.

believer: but they do good BECAUSE of the church.

atheist: if they do good ONLY because of their church, then they are terrible human beings, worse than the "godless", "evil" non-believers they despise. there are plenty of atheists, non-theists, and agnostics who do good WITHOUT the need for a god or WITHOUT the need to be told to do good.