The Atheist Blogger

Whilst I vehemently disagree with her deterministic worldview, and find her arguments in support of it almost laughable, Laci (gogreen18) has put together a fantastic video demonstrating the difference between atheism and agnosticism to the YouTube masses. She also delves into the “quad” structure I described in a previous post. Although I would say that her definition of agnosticism is far too narrow and doesn’t include the property of “provability” which is so important to it, the video is a step in the right direction.

I didn’t check my feeds much when away, mainly because I was on holiday, but also because my laptop completely died on me. I’ve only just set everything back up, and whilst I did check the odd website (like Friendly Atheist and Pharyngula), I didn’t check on many of the others. One of the sites I avoided was Ray Comfort’s site “Atheist Central”, and it doesn’t look I missed a lot. For one, he seems to have come up with this idea that because atheists don’t believe in God, they must therefore believe everything came from nothing. Comfort must have had a “eureka!” moment when he came up with that one, because he has proceeded to make several posts all centering around the same idea. I’ll debunk them all now.

From “The Intelligent Atheist is not an Atheist“:

It is scientifically impossible for nothing to create everything. If nothing created everything, then the “nothing” isn’t nothing. It is something, because it had the amazing ability to create everything. Only an unscientific ignoramus would hold to the thought that nothing created everything. We have the dilemma of having everything, so we therefore have to come to the conclusion that something made it. Whatever it was, it had to be non-material (unseen), eternal (without beginning or end), and it had to be omnipotent (have the amazing ability to create everything from nothing). If the professing atheist concedes to such basic logic (which he must or he reveals that he is unscientific and unintelligent), then he’s not an atheist. He is in truth an agnostic (“One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.”). He is someone who believes that there was a creative force that brought everything into existence, but for some reason he denies that it was God.

Firstly, I’d very much doubt that creating everything from nothing would be held as “scientifically impossible”. There are very few things that are labelled scientifically impossible due to recent research in quantum mechanics. Given that the Big Bang is a well supported theory, and we have no definitive theories about what happened before it, then a “nothing to everything” hypothesis is still on the table. Just because the nothing caused everything doesn’t change it being a nothing though, as Ray would like you to believe. He is arguing with semantics, saying that if nothing has an ability to do something, it must be a “something”, but this argument holds no merit because he fails to understand simple concepts like cause and effect. If there was nothing and then the universe suddenly appeared, it doesn’t mean the “nothing” was the cause. Secondly, the whole argument is rather silly as few scientists hold to the theory that “nothing” created everything. The scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as it currently is today, and that before that everything might have been compressed into an infinitely small point (a singularity), which although infinitely small, is not “nothing”.

Ray then goes on to say that the “creator” of everything must have been non-material (why? define “material”), eternal (why?), and omnipotent (why?). Already he is committing a logical fallacy by assigning the properties of a God onto this hypothetical creator. Why does the creator need to be non-material, when we have no idea what was there before the Big Bang? Why does it need to be eternal, when the current scientific argument is that time began at the Big Bang (and therefore there is no such thing as “eternal”)? Why does this creator need to know how to do everything in order to create a universe, which after all is a finite thing? Ray then goes on to a very bad definition of an agnostic (person who holds that the idea of God is unprovable) and how no atheists are really atheists at all. Many people have shown that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and I hold to both views.

From “Atheism’s Best Kept Secret”

An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it’s an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I don’t believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened.

An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of all gods. Atheism doesn’t have a position on how everything came to be, and the atheist is welcome to subscribe to a number of ideas if they so wish. Many do, many do not. I don’t deny Ray’s point because it is an intellectual embarrassment (it’s not though); I deny it because I don’t believe it. I personally accept the Big Bang theory as the explanation of how the universe began, and before that I can safely say I don’t know. Unlike Ray though, I am prepared to look at what scientists are saying, and the stuff concerning string theory, multiple dimensions, and “brane worlds” is intriguing. It’s nice to see the “building means a builder” fallacy again though, and those reading who recognise why this reasoning only works on things we know the process of, can stare in disbelief at how Ray hasn’t realised this simple point yet, even though it has been explained to him many times over the years.

From “Response to the Below Blog”

There is no intelligent response that can justify the embarrassment of professed atheism. It is intellectual suicide. Remember, if you believe that something made everything, then you are not an atheist.

These statements quite astound me when coming from a man who openly mocks Evolution by inventing the “Crocoduck” and claiming that scientists are looking for it to prove their theory, who says that the entire idea is a “fairy tale for grown-ups”, and who keeps on claiming these same things even when presented with as much evidence as his detractors can throw at him. There is misunderstanding; there is utter ignorance; and then there is Ray Comfort, and you don’t get much lower than that.

On his second point in this paragraph, Ray has committed the common fallacy of assuming that there are only two options for everything. Either nothing created everything, or “God” created it. He completely misses the point that if something created everything, it could be all manner of “somethings”, some of which include gods, some not. An atheist can easily fit in the “some not” group.

From “Eternal Everything”

There were a number of responses to the impossibility of the common atheistic belief that nothing made everything.

I bet there were.

They haven’t argued the point, but rather defaulted to the belief that the universal is eternal. But that won’t work. It’s a scientific impossibility. The Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe cannot be eternal.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics only proves that the current state of universe we live in is not eternal, and had some sort of beginning. However, it says nothing of what happened before the beginning, or what will happen when entropy increases to maximum (Big Crunch anyone?). This is thinking outside of the box on a literally universal scale, and the thinking extends to unseen dimensions of space-time, as well as the multiverse. Of course Ray would probably either mock this view or call it “unscientific” (like he actually knows what that word means), all because he has a closed minded view that this is all there is, and only God can explain it.

From “Atheism: the Intellectual Embarrassment”

It’s a matter of definition. If you say of your Ford Expedition that you have no belief that there was a maker, then you think that nothing made it. It just happened. You have defined yourself as having that mentality. So if you call yourself an atheist, you are saying that you have no belief in a God–a Creator. Creation just happened.

It is indeed a matter of definition, and Ray simply moves the goalposts by assigning the “creator” as an actual being. He ignores the creator as a natural process, and says that if a being couldn’t have done it, nothing could have. This is an extremely simple view to take when you take into consideration all of man’s achievements compared to those made by natural processes. As I have already pointed out, the “building means a builder” argument only works on things we know the origin of. I know a building needs a builder, so I expect one. I have never seen a universe being “created” so I have no idea what did it (if anything). Atheists have no belief in a God as a creator, but that doesn’t mean we don’t believe in some creative force, and just as we accept the creative force of Evolution and natural selection, we accept the creative force that brought the universe into being (whatever it was).

So now we uncover theism’s best kept secret; the fact that although theists appear on the most part friendly and welcoming, they will be dishonest and lie to cover up the truth. They will create complex explanations for why science does not reflect their god, and when the explanation looks so silly even to them, they will renounce it and claim that science has got it wrong. For the best kept secret of the theist is that they cannot possibly be wrong, because after all, they have a holy document given to them by their god, and their god just has to exist. Theism is the intellectual embarrassment, and always will be, because without the doctrine, theism is nothing, and boy do they know it.

For those Americans who have no sense of humour, I would advise you not read the following article, which includes several jabs at American culture that are designed to offend. I had hoped not to put a warning on this article, but it seems that some people who read this blog suffer from a severe case of national pride. You have been warned.

On 29th December 2008 I set off to visit my girlfriend in Georgia, USA. This was the first time I had been to America since starting this blog, so I thought I had better write my experiences down on it. My flight left at around midday from London Gatwick, and whilst in the air I had planned to do some work, but “The Dark Knight” was on instead so I watched that (and I really don’t regret it!).

Landing in Atlanta airport was where I first encountered things that made me think to myself “Adrian, I’ve a feeling we’re not in England anymore”. At passport control shortly after leaving the plane, we were asked to scan our fingerprints (all of them) on a special scanner. For whatever reason, the security guy at my desk was having a conversation about thumbs to his neighbouring colleague (I guess when they have to deal with fingers all day, that is all they have left to talk about). He laughingly joked (in a southern drawl):

Opposable thumbs! That’s what separates us from the apes!

I was now stuck with a dilemma. In polite conversation back home, I would have probably corrected the man on his massive error in simple biology (heck, you only have to look at an ape to realise they have opposable thumbs). However, my rational mind kicked in, and I realised that this was (a) the man who was going to let me enter the USA, and (b) a Bible bashing middle-of-the-bible-belt state, where I would probably be lynched as a heretic or something. I decided against saying anything, although I walked away from the booth with a smirk.

Tourists are often the best people to review a country, simply because they have no “national pride” for it, and they can view it objectively. To any American reading this blog who works in some high up position at an airport, take heed. As a paying customer, I do not want to wait 30 minutes for my bag to appear on the carousel, to then walk down a corridor and have it taken away from me. Sadly however, this is precisely what happened, and as I waived goodbye to my bag, the attendant told me I would be able to pick it up (again) at the exit. Proceeding through a security check (because apparently the 20 minutes I spent doing this at Gatwick wasn’t good enough) I caught an internal train to the baggage collection (the real one this time). There I met my girlfriend, and waited at the carousel for my bag. The previous statement is chronologically accurate. The baggage collection was literally by the entrance to the airport, meaning anyone could simply walk in and steal one…fantastic. If American bureaucracy is anything, it is inefficient and insecure, and that is really the best I can say about it (sorry guys).

Yes, I do realise that I’ve just spent the last 3 paragraphs complaining about airports, so I will continue with some good bits. Things I like about America:

• You go all out on billboards. American highways make Piccadilly Circus and Times Square look rubbish in comparison.
• Wal-Mart. If it weren’t for their anti-union policies I think I would shop there all the time…maybe.
• American Cheese. I have no idea why, but those artificial slices of goodness are so much tastier over there. American cheese in England is awful.
• You are gun crazy. I bought my friend Conrad a gun magazine, simply because they seem to have replaced pornography over there. It’s very odd seeing the “top shelf” filled with pictures of guns rather than…well…lady parts.

Suffice to say, my time over there was too brief, and I only got to see a few dozen churches dotted about the place. I did however see a few religion billboards and anti-evolution signs (“Are they making a monkey out of you?”) which was fun. On my last day there, I met an actual creationist (whilst wearing my “Thank God I’m and atheist” t-shirt) who admitted to liking Sarah Palin. I asked her “How can you like her? She thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old!” and she replied “Well, can you prove it isn’t?”. Yes. Yes I could, and then proceeded to tell her about radiometric dating techniques.

The flight back was uneventful, although I had 3 hours to get across London in order to attend my first lecture (I’m never doing that again). In the taxi ride back to my house, the driver was talking about how his wife got annoyed when he gawked at other women, and he turned to me and said “It’s not my fault! It’s just millions of years of Evolution!”. I knew I was home; a place which although quickly falling to pieces as a country, still has taxi drivers who know biology. I let him keep the change.

After 326 complaints, numerous calls of “blasphemy” by Steven Green of Christian Voice, and a bigot who refused to do the job he is paid for, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have decided that the current atheist adverts are not illegal and do not break advertising code. Let’s look over some of the claims made:

“The wording is offensive to religious people”

Response: The wording told you to “stop worrying” and “enjoy your life”. It didn’t say there was no God, nor that you are a fool for believing in God, nor that religion leads to evil. The message was clear; people shouldn’t spend so much time worrying about their “afterlife” when it might not exist, and spend more time having a good time.

“The advert is misleading because you cannot prove there probably isn’t a God”

Response: Neither can you prove there probably is. If Christian adverts can get away with claiming that not only is there a God, but said God will send you to hell for eternity for not believing, then atheist adverts can get away with “there probably isn’t”. The advert isn’t meant to prove anything; it is an opinion on the existence of God, and so like the infamous Carlsberg “probably the best beer in the world” adverts, it is void from objective substantiation.

“The adverts cannot be held as opinion because nobody is attributed to them”

Response: Actually, three groups are held as attributers in the form of links: humanism.org.uk, richarddawkins.net, and atheistcampaign.org. The advert is clearly the opinion of those groups and whoever supports those groups (or agrees with the advert itself). There is no difference between the opinion stated in this advert and the opinions stated in Christian adverts which are attributed to the Bible. Oh wait…there is a difference; the atheist adverts are accurate reflections of reality.

Sorry Christians, better luck next time.

So I’m back from the USA, have shaken off the jet-lag, and ready to delve back into the world of blogging once again. During my absence in America (which I plan to document in another blog post), the BHA successfully launched the range of atheist adverts on buses, trains, and billboards. I have yet to see one of the buses, but I’m bound to be in London one of these days.

One story that caught my attention was how a Christian bus driver, Ron Heather refused to drive his bus because it had an atheist advert on it. His words were:

I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face, my first reaction was shock horror.

…

I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God.

Starkness. Really? So now saying something is more than 50% likely is considered a “stark” proposition? Wow. How stark are Christian adverts that proclaim God does exist then? Having a first reaction of “shock horror” shows that you are someone who has absolutely no understanding of anyone else’s view, and your actions confirm it. Mr Heather, you are a bigot. Thank you for being the reason these adverts need to be shown; the fewer people like you there are, the more healthy society will become. We aren’t asking for dominant views, or for you to succumb to our beliefs. We are asking for equal time to share our opinion.

The real problem I have with this issue though, is that Mr Heather was meant to be providing a service to the community, and he rejected that service in order to feel like he had won some ultimate battle against people who oppose his view. At my first London Atheists Meetup, I met an atheist who was a driver on the London Underground (the subway system). He didn’t mind the number of Christian adverts that are plastered all over the underground network, neither did he refuse to work because of them.

Of course, I think there are probably people behind this entire event. The atheist ads have been on the news for months, and talked about at length by fundamentalist Christians, including Christian Voice. It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr Heather was either asked, or planned to “rebel” against the system, simply to get air time on radio and TV.