Tuesday, December 25, 2012

"A Sense Of Awe...Reverence...And...Great Mystery"

"I am very much a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influenced in my thinking by the writing of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery."

--Walter Kohn (1923-), American theoretical physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1998

Monday, December 24, 2012

"...Something Incredible..."


 "Somewhere something incredible is waiting to be known."
 ~ Carl Sagan

DNA, the internal combustion engine, aerodynamics, radio, television, computers, artificial hearts, radar, atomic particles, sub-atomic particles, electricity, the light bulb, photography, motion pictures, antibiotics, space exploration, etc., etc. The intelligence behind this amazing universe no doubt has many more astonishingly wonderful surprises waiting for us to discover.


"Square Circles"


A continuation of the discussion of July 10-15, 1999, on Yahoo group
errancyn, between a Christian (TUFLY) and Farrell Till, from July 21,
1999:

TUFLY
Whether you accept the truth or not is up to you, I am just presenting it
to you.

TILL
Why, sure, you are. I have just one question to you. How do you know that
what you are presenting is "truth." A Mormon will tell me the same thing,
and so will a Muslim, and a Hindu, and a Zoroastrian. Please forgive my
stupidity, but I'd just like to see a little evidence to support your
"truth" claim.

TUFLY
Can any of you give me proof that God (Judeo-christian) does not exist?

TILL
Yes, I can, and I have done it before in public debates where the evidence
was not replied to by my opponent. The matter is as simple as this. The
so-called Judeo-Christian god is a logical impossibility. Just as square
circles are a logical impossibility that enable us to know that they can't
exist, the god Yahweh, who is depicted in the Bible as both an infinitely
loving, merciful, and just deity AND a deity who is also petty, vindictive,
and barbaric to the point of killing babies and commanding that children
and babies be killed, is a logical impossibility. An entity that would do
such things as this cannot possibly be infinitely kind and loving.
Therefore, this deity of yours cannot exist. If any deity does exist, it
would have to be one different from your Yahoo. Anyone who can't
see this must have his head in the sand like an ostrich.

This is just one example of mutually exclusive characteristics that the
Bible attributes to this god of yours and enables rational people to know
that he cannot exist. Whether you accept the truth or not is up to you, I
am just presenting it to you.

Now where have I heard that before?

TUFLY
Please consider what is at stake, your soul for eternity.

TILL
I have considered what is at stake. My intellectual integrity is a stake,
which in and of itself is sufficient to make me reject your ancient
superstition.

Now will you please prove to us that any such thing as a "soul" even
exists? Can't do it? I didn't think so. And we're supposed to be the stupid
ones.

TUFLY
What is at stake for the likes of Till (providing he could ever be right)? I
would rather be wrong about christianity than wrong about any other
religion (or non-religion).

TILL
Well, you should be happy, because you are wrong about Christianity.

Farrell Till

The "Witnesses-To-A-Car-Wreck" Quibble

A discussion between a Christian (TUFLY) and Farrell Till concerning the 
alleged evidences for Christianity from the Yahoo group, errancyn, from 
July 10-15, 1999:

TUFLY
Hi guys!
I don't claim to know much, but I do know that if ten people see an
accident in the street, you will hear ten different accounts about how it
happened. This simple fact, which you would be foolish to argue, points
to the authenticity and the fact that not only did Jesus rise from the dead,
but that the separate accounts are merely different perpectives on the
same incident. If we were to have two or more exactly matching eye-
witness accounts, that my friend, would be highly suspect.

TILL
First of all, you are committing the fallacy of false analogy by using
this worn-out example of different people who witness an automobile
accident. Witnesses to automobile accidents are not verbally inspired
by an omniscient, omnipotent deity as they write their accounts of
the incident. If they were, then we could reasonably expect agreement
in what they say. Another point of false analogy is that automobile
accidents are common occurrences and are known to happen. There are
probably few people who have never seen either an automobile accident
or the aftereffects of one.

Resurrections from the dead, however, are an entirely different matter.
There has never been a verifiable case of someone who died and
returned tolife, so there is a world of difference in testimony to an
ordinary, everyday event and testimony to an extraordinary event, the
likes of which has never been known to happen. Second, if the witnesses
to an automobile [accident] are inconsistent in various major points,
then their testimony becomes worthless as evidence of what happened.
If one witness indicated that the accident had happened at night but
another that it had happened after sunrise, if one witness indicated that
she was alone at the scene when the accident occurred but another
indicated that there were two people there and another indicated that
there were several on the scene, and if one witness said that a policeman
arrived on the scene quickly but another said that two policemen arrived
on the scene, and if one witness said that the accident happened in
Podunk but another witness said that it happened in Hicktown, and if
the police didn't even have the firsthand testimony of those who had
allegedly seen the accident but only the testimony of three or four
different people who said that so-and-so had said that she had seen
this or that, what kind of investigators or jury considering the evidence
to try to determine the facts in the case could make a reliable
determination of what had happened?

Is there anyone in this group that can offer reasonable evidence for
the resurrection without regurgitating hackneyed arguments that have
been answered hundreds of time? Is Tufly so naive that he thought we
had never before heard this witnesses-to-a-car-wreck quibble.

TUFLY
The bible is reasonable evidence, as a matter of fact, there are far
more ancient writings of it than anything else including authors like
Plato, etc.. Why do you believe that Plato wrote anything? Perhaps I
say he was an illiterate who had a vivid imagination and his best friend
wrote down his wonderings? Well, that would put me in your camp, and
I do not prefer to be there.

TILL
It isn't a matter of how many "ancient writings" of the Bible may exist or
whether Plato wrote anything. The issue is whether everything said in all
of those ancient writings is true. Just because Plato may have written
something, for example, would not make what he said true, even if it
had been copied a million times. The same is true of biblical writings
and any other documents. Your argument seems to be this: Ancient
biblical writings were copied several times; therefore, everything these
writings say must be historically true. Do you know what non sequitur
means?

Now do you have any evidence to offer in support of the NT resurrection
claim besides false analogies.

TUFLY
IF we cannot use the ancient writings and their near perfect copies over
the millenia, then what may we of faith use?

TILL
Near perfect copies? You've been reading too much apologetic
propaganda. What may you of faith use? Just look at what you're
asking? Faith or belief is something that a person should have as a
result of having examined reasonable evidence to justify the faith.
If there is no reasonableevidence to justify the basic tenets of
Christianity--and there isn't--the intellectually honest person will
not believe those tenets.

TUFLY
The testemony of the Holy Spirit definately will not hold water with
you.

TILL
Well, don't look now, but you are begging the question of whether the
"Holy Spirit" (1) exists, and (2) has given any "testimony" to anything.

TUFLY
Suppose I told you that you would gain an "inner" knowledge and a
vastly deeper understanding of the scriptures when you accept Jesus
Christ into your heart?

TILL
In other words, you are telling me that if I will believe first, then I will
believe the scriptures. Suppose I told you that you would gain an "inner"
knowledge and a vastly deeper understanding of the Qur'an when you
accept Allah into your heart?

TUFLY
I think you would laugh,

TILL
You're right, just as you would laugh (at least inwardly) if a Muslim
told you that you would gain an "inner" knowledge and a vastly deeper
understanding of the Qur'an if you would just accept Allah into your
heart. Don't you ever bother to critically examine such tripe as this
before you try to pass it off as "evidence"?

TUFLY
however you cannot possibly understand what the scriptures say untill
you do so.

TILL
And that's exactly what is wrong with you. You cannot possibly
understand the Qur'an until you "do so."

TUFLY
To the likes of you, unfortunately, the scriptures are a meaningless
prattle.

TILL
To the likes of you, unfortunately, the Qur'an is a meaningless prattle.

TUFLY
Proverbs 14:6 reminds me of you.

TILL
Sura 4:106-109 reminds me of you.

TUFLY
I highly suggest you read 1Cor 1:18, and if you can manage read on
through verse 23.

TILL
No need to. I know what it says without even looking. The fact
that you think that an ancient document that glorifies stupidity should
be recommended reading speaks volumes about your own stupidity.

Now do you have any arguments that you want to post in favor of your
inerrancy beliefs? If so, post them. If not, why don't you go peddle your
question-begging nonsense somewhere else? You'll probably find a
reception for it on just about any Christian list.

Farrell Till

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Going Abroad Without The Camp


























































































































































































A classic post from the late Farrell Till (1933-2012) from the Yahoo Group,
errancyn, May 20, 2000:

TILL
We have seen some of the logistical problems that would have been
involved in setting up encampments for 2.5 to 3 million people and
carrying out the routines that camp life and sacrificial requirements
would have imposed. Probably few inerrantists have ever considered
a wilderness problem that all densely populated areas must solve,
and that is the problem of human-waste disposal. The following
passage made some stipulations in this regard that would have
posed some special hardships on the Israelites during their
wilderness wanderings.

Deuteronomy 23:12 You shall have a designated area outside the
camp to which you shall go. 13 With your utensils you shall have
a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole
with it and then cover up your excrement. 14 Because Yahweh
your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand
over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so
that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away
from you.

This passage clearly indicates that latrines were not allowed inside
the encampment, and so when nature called, one was required to go
outside of the 9-square-mile camp to attend to it. He/she was to take
along a "trowel" (paddle in some translations) to dig a hole in which
to bury the excrement. It is hard to imagine how large this "designated"
area would have had to have been to accommodate 2.5 million people
digging their individual holes to attend to their business. If each hole
were only 6 inches by 6 inches, a "designated area" of 625,000 square
feet or 69,444 square yards would be needed to provide a hole for
each person. Since there are 4,840 square yards in an acre, this
"designated area" would have had to have been 14.35 acres in size
to accommodate each person's going "outside the camp" with his/her
trowel just once per day. Of course, we have to wonder what they
would have done on the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. days.
Would each person have used the same hole over and over again?

In Yahweh's inscrutable wisdom that led him to choose this method
of waste disposal rather than ordering the construction of pit latrines,
special problems would have necessarily ensued. In a time, for
example, when there was no Imodium A-D, diarrhea would have
seriously complicated the problems. It's hard to imagine how that
2.5 million people trekking throughout the day to this "designated
area" could have attended to their  needs without at times uncovering
the holes that others had used. This must have caused many
unpleasant moments. Yahweh may, of course, have anticipated
this problem and instructed Moses to make the designated area
much larger than 14.35 acres. Indeed, this would surely have been
necessary, since the 14.35 acres would have provided for only one
6-inch by 6-inch hole per person per day. Since the Israelites
wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and since Numbers 33
listed only 41 encampments for them, they would have averaged
spending almost a year at each camp site. Unless a big chunk of
land outside these camps was set aside as the "designated area,"
there would have been a lot of unpleasant digging experiences.

Other than that is the problem that would have confronted those
who felt nature calling during the night. Those in the middle of the
encampments would have had to trek at least 1.5 miles just to reach
the "designated area." Men with prostrate problems surely suffered
from sleep deprivation but would have otherwise been in good
physical condition from the exercise they got from walking back
and forth to the "designated area." Inerrantists will no doubt pooh-
pooh (pun intended) this posting, but I didn't put Deuteronomy
23:12-14 in the Bible; I have merely critically analyzed what it
says and found that it presents another problem of logistics that
biblicists need to explain if they expect rational people to believe
that their Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of an omniscient,
omnipotent deity.

Some inerrantists will claim that this requirement concerning waste
disposal applied only to the Israelite army when it was engaged in
campaigns against the enemy, because verses 9-11 say, "When you
are encamped against your enemies you shall guard against any
impropriety. If one of you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal
emission, then he shall go outside the camp; he must not come
within the camp. When evening comes, he shall wash himselfwith
water, and when the sun has set, he may come back into the
camp."

This is more of a quibble than an argument, because when the entire 23rd
chapter is read, it should be apparent that the commandments it contains
were intended to apply to all Israelites and not just to the soldiers. I'm
sure that even inerrantists would not argue, for example, that a man with
crushed testicles or an amputated penis (v:1) should be allowed into the
assembly as long as he wasn't a soldier. Did the commandment against
sodomites (v:17) apply only to soldiers? Could an Israelite lend money
for interest as long as he wasn't a soldier (v:19)?

Leviticus 26:11-12 states that Yahweh had set his tabernacle among
the Israelites and walked among them. The tabernacle was set up in
the center of the general encampment of the Israelites(Num. 3), so if
Yahweh walked among the Israelites where the tabernacle was, that
would have to mean that he walked in the general encampment of the
Israelites. If he didn't want to be repelled by the sight of excrement in
an encampment of soldiers, why would he feel any differently about
encountering it in the general encampment? The statement in Leviticus
26:11-12, by the way, is in a larger context that speaks of Yahweh's
being with the Israelites to drive their enemies out of the land. In other
words the language here is very similar to Deuteronomy 23:14, which
speaks of Yahweh walking "in the midst of the camp."

Consider Deuteronomy 23:9-11 again (quoted above), which said that
one who had become unclean because of a nocturnal emission would
have to go out of the camp, wash himself with water (there's that darned
water problem again), and remain outside till evening, at which time he
could reenter the camp. Are we to assume that this was a requirement
that had to be obeyed only by soldiers? That's hardly likely, because
the Levitical ceremonial laws declared nocturnal emissions to be unclean,
period.

Leviticus 15:16 If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his
whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening.
17 Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls
shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening.

One would have to strain to make this law applicable only to soldiers
who were camped "against an enemy," because it is in a context that
defined uncleanness for women as well as men. In the same way, one
places a strained double standard on Deuteronomy 23:12-14 if he tries
to make the latrine law here applicable only to men on military duty.

At any rate, very little is solved by quibbling that the policy on waste
disposal applied only to soldiers and not to the Israelites in general,
because the Israelite army numbered 600,000, so if the calculations
above are divided by four in order to limit this commandment just to
the army, the logistical problems would still exist. Can you imagine
an army of 600,000 that did not provide latrine facilities within its
camp, but every soldier was required to trek without the camp?
Imagine the hardships this would have placed even on soldiers if
their camps were as large as Kent Loar and David Sparrow have
tried to make them. I warned them that their expansion of the camp
would backfire on them when other logistical problems were introduced,
so after the fuss they raised over this, they can hardly try to make the
camps smaller than my "best-case scenario" of nine square miles.

Farrell Till


Thursday, August 23, 2012

Too Absurd For Refutation

"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation." ~Robert Ingersoll

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

You Do The Math


by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

Herein is the problem stated in simple terms so that you may easily understand it and easily remember it. You do the math. The Bible teaches that Yahweh is:

  1. All loving--He doesn't want people to go to hell.
  2. All knowing--He knew most people would go to hell.
  3. Complete--He didn't need to create man in this situation.
  4. Sovereign--Nothing could have forced him to create man in this situation.
  5. All Powerful--He could have created man like him with the inability to sin.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Men Becoming Civilized

"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
~ H. L. Mencken


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Trained Theological "Reasoning"


"The old lady who said there must be a devil, else how could they make pictures that looked exactly like him, reasoned like a trained theologian -- like a doctor of divinity."
 
~ Robert Green Ingersoll, from "Superstition" (1898)



Saturday, August 4, 2012

An Omni God And His Eternal Hell? (revised 8-4-12)

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne
On July 12, 2011, I presented a challenge (see here "...[God] Doesn't Want Us to Go [To Hell]" ) for readers to come up with questions that might come to mind as a result of the incompatible New Testament doctrine of an all powerful, all knowing, all wise, loving, compassionate, merciful, sovereign, complete and perfect God, who created man with the knowledge that he would be sending the vast majority (Matt. 7:13-14) of his beloved humans to his eternal hell. With consideration given to this claim from a church-of-Christ website: "God has told us about [hell] because He doesn't want us to go there".

We didn't have any takers, and after a few days I posted some questions of my own--no comments have been received on those original questions. All 15 of the original questions had been presented to the preacher from the church website before I posted them to the blog, with no response. I have replaced those questions with the following basically same 15 questions, but with many of them revised to be even more incisive, informative and thought provoking. The first 5 questions were presented in their unrevised form before the above quote from the church-of-Christ website:

1. To what purpose does the New Testament teach that Yahweh created man, knowing that he would be sending the vast majority (multiplied billions) to suffer eternally in hell? (note: the word Yahweh is a transliteration of a Hebrew word for God).

2. How do you explain that an allegedly perfect and complete God (therefore, needing nothing) would allow this ghastly eternal misery to happen for a purpose that was not necessary?

3. Do you think Yahweh made a responsible choice in allowing this horrendous eternal tragedy to happen?

4. You were asked, do you believe that it could be said, with any believability, that I loved a child I allowed to come into the world knowing ahead of time this child would be tortured for eternity? You answered, "No." Do you believe that it could be said, with any believability, that Yahweh loved billions of children he allowed to come into the world knowing ahead of time these children would be tortured for eternity?

5. You correctly said that the Creator is greater than the creature. But since Yahweh allowed this inconceivably horrific tragedy to happen to multiplied billions of children, how can it be said, with any believability, that he is better than a human who wouldn't allow even one child to come into the world knowing ahead of time that child would be tortured for eternity?


The following 10 questions were presented in their unrevised form subsequent to and with consideration given to the quote from the church-of-Christ website, "God has told us about [hell] because He doesn't want us to go there":

1. You say that "God has told us about [hell] because He doesn't want us to go there." But he didn't tell Israel in the Old Testament about hell. Does that mean he wanted them to go there?

2. Since Yahweh knew, before he created the first human, that the overwhelming majority of his flawed human creation would be going to his eternal hell, and you say he told us about hell because he doesn't want us to go there; considering the New Testament (NT) teaching that few will miss going to hell, how much different would it have been if he had wanted us to go to hell?

3. If he doesn't want us to go to hell then why did he create man in the first place, knowing the vast majority would go to hell?


4. The Bible teaches that Yahweh has the following attributes: all powerful, all knowing, all-wise, loving, compassionate, merciful, sovereign, complete and perfect. You said that Yahweh doesn't want us to go to hell. If this is true and he has these attributes, he not only wouldn't have wanted man to go to hell, he couldn't have wanted man to go to hell and could have and would have come up with a plan whereby no humans would have wound up in an eternal hell. However, the NT teaches that Yahweh didn't do this, rather, he chose to create man, knowing that he would be sending the vast majority to suffer in his eternal hell (his "ultimate will", as you have called it). What is your explanation for this obvious inconsistency?

5. If Yahweh knew that the vast majority of his weak, error prone human creation would wind up in his eternal hell if he went with the "plan of salvation" revealed in the NT, and if Yahweh is the sovereign God (def., sovereign: 6. having supreme rank, power, or authority. Dictionary.com), therefore answering to no one, he can't be forced to do anything against his nature, and if he doesn't want us to go to hell, why didn't he create only those he knew would go to heaven and avoid the catastrophe of multiplied billions of his beloved creation suffering eternally in his hell?

6. If Yahweh is the sovereign God and he doesn't want us to go to hell, why didn't he truly create man in his image with the inability to sin, and thus avert an unbelievable eternal tragedy? If it doesn't detract from Yahweh's character to be unable to sin, why would it detract from man's?

7. When a choice is made, it tells us something about what is wanted and what is valued by the one making the choice. Since Yahweh chose not to do either one of these but could have--because of his sovereignty--what is a rational person to understand about what Yahweh wanted?

8. Why do you think Christians extol the virtue of Yahweh for "...lov[ing] the world so much, that he gave his only son..."(John 3:16 Phillips Translation), when he knew that it would be a failed mission, irresponsibly allowing the vast majority of humanity to suffer eternally, when if he has all of the divine attributes the Bible alleges him to have, and if he really loved the world so much, he could have and would have willed that no human be sent to an eternal hell?


9. If Yahweh doesn't want us to go to hell, and he is infinitely "holy" and finite sinning against him is such an infinitely terrible thing deserving punishment in his eternal hell, then how could he, with all of his alleged divine attributes, put what he knew was a humanity that was so flawed and so ill equipped to react to such "holiness" in such an eternally precarious situation--a situational "test" that he knew the vast majority would fail and therefore wind up in "his infinite holiness's" eternal hell?

10. What all of this proves is that the NT has at least one major contradiction in it, and this contradiction involves the impossibility of its god Yahweh being the true God. And because of this, shouldn't a reasonable person believe that Yahweh is, in reality, merely a fictitious product of the superstitious imagination of barbaric, ancient man?

These questions, and more, must be satisfactorily answered if any rational person is expected to even begin to consider Yahweh as the true God. Yahweh's alleged divinely superlative and omni characteristics, and his eternal hell that he will allow the vast majority of his beloved (?) humans to go to are not compatible. It is the most troubling error recorded in the Bible, and it exposes the Bible (at least the New Testament--there are other reasons why the Yahweh of the Old Testament can't be God) as an obvious work of man and man only, laying bare its god Yahweh as a contradictory impossibility.

Addendum:
It is apparent that the New Testament doctrine of an eternal hell is an evolved concept. The fact that there was no warning by Yahweh in the Old Testament of such a place that man was in jeopardy of being sent to, should make this obvious to even the most closed mind (the only hint of such a place in the Old Testament occurs late, in Daniel 12:2. Pre-Babylonian-captivity Jews believed only in a shadowy existence after death in a place called "Sheol", but in Babylon they were introduced to the Persian concept of a final resurrection, followed by everlasting life for the righteous and everlasting contempt for the unrighteous). Writers of the New Testament progressed with this rather recent idea that some Jews had incorporated into their faith. But they forgot that it had not even been mentioned in the Old Testament (until the hint in Daniel). And they didn't think about the contradiction it would present between it and their god Yahweh and his alleged divinely superlative and omni characteristics. 

If anyone thinks they have reasonable answers to these questions that would successfully defend Yahweh's conduct and alleged characteristics, please, let's see them. Your silence will lead us to conclude that you don't. And if you don't, why do you remain a fundamentalist Christian?

(note: Over 3 weeks ago I sent this revised article to the church-of-Christ preacher who is quoted above,  with no reply from him as of this posting.)


Friday, August 3, 2012

"Unequivocal, Unimpeachable, Convincing Credentials?"

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

The following is a reply I made to an article on a church of Christ website. My comments are in blue and the church of Christ preacher's comments are in black (except for two quotes from Thomas Paine):

In a previous article, this writer made the statement: “The message of the Bible is such that any rational person will want to believe it.” (April 8, 2007)

And the rest of the quote was, "And, wanting to believe it, he will look for rea­sons to be­lieve rather than reasons to dis­believe." You admit that you only look for reasons to believe that the message of the Bible is true. But you only use such illogical reasoning when it comes to the Bible. You would never use such a system for investigating the truth of a claim, especially an extraordinary claim, in any other area of life. Is there any wonder that you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that Paul and the rest of the apostles actually performed miracles to "confirm the word"?

What is the message of the Bible? It is, simply, that there is something far better in store for those who believe the Bible than that which is experienced by all mankind in this life.

There very well may be an afterlife, but is the Bible an inspired message from God concerning this possible afterlife? Because of the absence of evidence for it and the abundance of evidence against it, one must answer no. And no matter how much you want to believe that it is--if the evidence is against it--that's just the way it is and you'll have to accept it. Remember BW's Characteristics of Truth? This would be a good one to add to his list: Truth is not determined by how much you want to believe something.
As usual I'm in agreement with Thomas Paine:


"I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body. I leave all these matters to Him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter."(The Age of Reason)

"I consider myself In the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness". (Private Thoughts on a Future State).

But if God can establish order in creation, He can surely suspend order in a miracle.

Of course He can. But is there any evidence that He has chosen to do this after establishing order in creation? No.


Of course, Jesus did not expect anyone to accept the reality of the resurrection on the strength of testimony alone but gave to the apostles “unequivocal, unimpeachable, convincing” credentials so that those who heard—honest or not—would have “no choice but to believe it.” (Acts 4:14-16) 


Okay, let's see these "unequivocal, unimpeachable, convincing 'credentials' " so that I would have "no choice but to believe it." But, of course, the claim is that these "credentials" (i.e., having the ability to perform obvious miracles) allowed the apostles to "confirm the word" in the first century so that it needs no confirmation today. But how can this possibly convince a rational person today? All a person has today is the testimony of biased writers (so we are back to only having testimony, and biased at that) who claim these miracles were performed. No rationally thinking person would even begin to entertain such a claim as being true from such writers. So, again, we are back to needing unequivocal, unimpeachable, convincing evidence--which, alas, is conspicuously missing. Thus, I have no choice but to disbelieve.

Kenneth

Thursday, July 19, 2012

"The Evolution Of Real Knowledge"

"In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory." ~ Alfred North Whitehead


Sunday, July 15, 2012

Bamboozled

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)" ~Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection)

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

No Respecter Of Persons?

"...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas." ~ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

And if Yahweh is "no respecter of persons" as the Bible claims him to be, then I am well within a reasonable level of expectation that Yahweh present me also with ocular and manual demonstration of Jesus' resurrection. Especially when consideration is given to the advantages that Thomas allegedly already had: he knew resurrection was possible; he had seen Jesus raise people from the dead on several occasions and Jesus had given him the power to raise the dead himself!

Skeptical Scrutiny's Winnowing Effect

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." ~Carl Sagan

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Just The Facts, Ma'am

What are the facts? Again and again and again--what are the _facts_? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history,"--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts! ~Lazarus Long

Thursday, July 5, 2012

An Uncommon State Of Mind

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless.
~Leo Tolstoy

Monday, July 2, 2012

Superstition In Power

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. ~Lazarus Long

Saturday, June 30, 2012

The Petulant God Of Flattery

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. ~ Lazarus Long

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

"Pardon Me, My Maker..."


John Adams

God has infinite wisdom, goodness and power; he created the universe.... He created this speck of dirt and the human species for his glory; and with deliberate design of making nine-tenths of our species miserable forever for his glory. This is the doctrine of Christian theologians, in general, ten to one.... Wretch! What is his glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain, tickled with adulation, exulting and triumphing in his power and the sweetness of his vengeance? Pardon me, my maker, for these awful questions.
~ John Adams (1735-1826), founding father and second U.S. president.

Monday, June 25, 2012

"The Illiterate Of The 21st Century..."

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.
~Alvin Toffler

Friday, June 22, 2012

"...Eternal Hostility Against Every Form Of Tyranny Over The Mind Of Man."

Thomas Jefferson

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided in me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly, for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
~ Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, June 14, 2012

"Coded Chemistry"

How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self replication capabilities, and coded chemistry?
~Antony Flew--an atheist who evolved into a deist
 
 

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Quote Of The Day

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~ Aristotle

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

My Favorite Church



Satirical humor from my favorite church: Landover Baptist Church (link)



Q: Can faith be considered a mental illness?
A: Dear Perceptive One,
Only by secular (a/k/a Satanic) psychiatrists. I once had an aunt who told her doctor she believed there was an old man in the sky who lived just above the clouds (meaning the videos from space are part of a government/Hollywood conspiracy) who watches our every move, zaps people he doesn't like with plagues and pestilence, kills their firstborn children, or strikes their crops with locusts, sends bears to maul to death children who tease bald men, drowned the planet during one particularly bad mood, teases men like Abraham by telling them to kill their son and then saying "gotcha!" right before they do it, struck to death a man for refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife, and plans to send everyone who worships the god their parents taught them to worship instead of him to a place called "hell" where they will burn in flames for eternity. After extensive testing, she was institutionalized as either mentally ill or severely retarded. She was released only after the hospital chief of staff took a road trip through several rural communities, visiting churches and reading hotel Gideon bibles. He concluded there isn't enough undeveloped land left in America to build enough facilities to house all those equally deranged.

Praying fundamentalists will continue to retain enough financial influence to avoid being placed on the list of those with psychological disorders,
Brother Harry Hardwick


Q: Why do men make so many excuses for God?
A: Dear Faithless Skeptic,
If a killer invaded your home and held you at gunpoint, then began to converse with you about his life and yours, what would your first inclination be? To butter him up, compliment him and make excuses for him, explaining that every problem he has is society's fault. You would do this in the hope he wouldn't pull the trigger. In the version of this scenario which you have offered, the consequences of not playing along are even worse than gunshot (eternity roasting in Hell). We all know from the inerrant Holy Bible that God is a wrathful and jealous god who has struck people dead for the seemingly harmless act of worshiping another god. Given that violent inclination, any sane person with a commitment to self-preservation, not just in this life but in the next, would certainly be tempted to turn a blind eye to the Great Flood that killed virtually everyone (except drunk Noah and his family), including infants and unborn children (Genesis 6:5-7, 22), the fire and brimstone that killed tens of thousands of people (Genesis 19:24-25. 1 Corinthians 19:8), the wiping out of tribes other than the Israelites (Judges 1:4; 3:28-29) the ripping open of pregnant women (Hosea 13:16), the murder of children for teasing a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24), etc., etc., etc. The problem, of course, is that the Bible attributes so much carnage to God that the excuses eventually lose credibility.

Praying all will recognize that the Bible isn't all chocolate and strawberries,

Brother Harry Hardwick
 
Q: What was Jesus' last name?  
A: Dear Nosy One,
Jesus declined to be called by a last name. He was the first in a long line of those who wear long, flowing robes, love attracting crowds and insist that everyone present love them above all others, lest they experience disaster later on. Later divas with the same traits and single-name commitment, of course, include Madonna and Cher, but Jesus was the original.
Yours in His precious name,
Brother Harry Hardwick

The Wit And Wisdom Of Mark Twain

"Strange...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and invented Hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him! "

~ Mark Twain

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

A Preview Of Hell

The following is taken from:
By Robert G. Ingersoll

In 1208, the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting, as they believed or pretended to believe, under the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world - hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception - these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them with their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries and groans; robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Quotes Of The Day

"The rational mind does not choose the unlikely conclusion when a much more likely one is available."--Dave Matson, Three Explanations for Prophecy Fulfillment

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."--Thomas Jefferson, 1823

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Thinking For Yourself


by Kenneth W. Hawthorne
"...I had allowed other people to tell me what to believe."--unknown.

"I was raised a Christian but I'm now in my senior year at Princeton and am currently going through the phase where I have to stop believing things because I grew up believing them and start believing them for my own reasons."
--from a book reviewer on Amazon.com.

Fundamentalist Christians say that people must make up their own minds about Jesus Christ and the salvation he allegedly offers, but during this process they don't mean look at all the facts. What they mean is look at all the facts presented in the Bible (and when they say that, they really mean "all" the facts that they want presented and in the way they want presented and don't ask any hard questions--and if you do that you will see that Christianity is the true religion and that their version is it).

When I was growing up and even most of my adult life, I often thought how lucky I was that I was born into a family that believed in the one, true religion. I can't help but wonder how many other Billys and Marys, Abdullahs and Aras grew up thinking the same thing--about other religions. Religious indoctrination and a virtual absence of critical thought are common in almost all religious cultures.

Some of the best teaching that parents can pass on to their children, when the children get to a mature enough age, is to think critically and think for themselves; not push them, even if it's only a nudge, in the direction of what the parents believe; even if the parents believe that it is very important that their children believe what they believe. When parents do not do this and only allow their children to get one side of the story, whatever "faith" the children wind up with is really the parents' faith and not the child's faith. The child has put their faith in their parents (and sometimes some other authority figure(s) the parents approve of) and not in any alleged God that might be taught about in the Bible.

Sadly, many people never get to the Princeton student's phase in the quote above of believing things about Christianity and religion for their own critically-thought-out reasons.