Next up is a video that really isn’t suitable for work, although technically none of these videos really are. But yeah, if you do watch videos at work, you ought to put headphones on for this one! It’s about The Real History of Jesus Christ and will definitely offend believers. I found it quite amusing though, so I’m sure other atheists will.

The next is a video that I personally saw a year ago when it was featured on a load of atheist blogs. However it’s been making rounds again for some reason, and it is a rather funny rap even if it is ambiguous about the position it is taking.

Our penultimate video is from a classic YouTube atheist, The Amazing Atheist, and it is a response to a Christian fundamentalist’s video on “Why Homosexuality Is Against God’s Will”. The response is hilarious, and just really quite surreal. However, it seems that the “fundamentalist” behind the video, Jesusophile, may not be a fundamentalist after all. He may just be a very good example of a Poe, and if he is, his performance is great! Satire or not, The Amazing Atheist does a good job at ripping into his video, and then going off on a complete tangent:

And finally, a video that everyone has probably seen recently. A new “advert” by Answers In Genesis that is rather creepy, and doesn’t really explain itself very well. I honestly have no idea what to make of the message; is it trying to create a link between murderers and atheism? Or is it saying that without God, you aren’t going to be loved by anyone? Make your own decisions about it.

Possibly Related Posts:

• YouTube Thursday -- Fundies’ Words, Fundies Exposed, and Dawkins on Fundies
• YouTube Thursday -- Mr. Deity, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Wiseman
• YouTube Thursday -- Clifford Stoll, Dave Gorman, & Eddie Izzard
• YouTube Thursday -- Ghostbusting, the Easter Bunny, and Anti-Gay Lies

As I have previously mentioned, I was sent a signed copy of Ray’s latest book, and over the next few weeks I will be going over it chapter by chapter; reading and debunking its content so you don’t have to. For now though, I thank Darrin for agreeing to this interview, and for his thorough answers to my questions. The interview is pretty long, so it’s below the fold of this post.

• Since reading Ray’s book, you say you have backslid to agnostic. Could you expand on your beliefs a bit further? Are you using the more modern definition of agnosticism as being “unsure”, or are you more of an “agnostic” atheist as defined by Thomas Huxley?

I have indeed “backslid” to agnostic, as Ray wrote on his WorldNetDaily article, although Ray did not indicate in the article the exact position where I ended up, nor did Ray directly link my reading of his book with the cause of this backsliding. So, in a sense, Ray is absolutely correct, but in a way that’s completely misleading. I wrote him to thank him for the copy, as he and Kirk took their time to sign it for me, but I had just received the book in the mail and had not had time to read it yet. My “deconversion” from atheism came before that time. I mentioned my newfound agnosticism and asked if we could speak on the phone again, but he said he was busy with sixty-odd interviews or something. That response was quite terse and unconcerned compared to the previous times we’d spoken, and that was the end of our contact.

There are certainly many different definitions and breeds of agnostic. Many agnostics (and a few Deists, for that matter) come across as poorly as many of the atheists that I address in the foreword for Ray’s book, and express a wish to do no more than troll Christians, ignore their responses, and fail to check any arguments, so they can simply get a rise from believers.

I am not one of this breed; if I were to specify with an exact label, I’d call myself a “searching Agnostic” – although my personal research is currently centered around the validity and consistency of the Christian faith in particular (I plan to begin studying Islam and Judaism soon, as well), my main focus is discovering for sure the basis of it all: whether or not a creator God exists. All further questions regarding whether such a being designed this hypothetical “spark” of creation and cared about us humans that followed are also routinely considered, but my main focus is currently on all arguments for God’s existence (excepting the Ontological Argument, which has been, even in Plantinga’s stronger formulation, decidedly refuted, and also excepting the Teleological Argument, which begs the question).

I turned agnostic because I recognized three points following a personal meeting in November with Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and debater:

(1) As mentioned, I have not reflected adequately upon the arguments for God, with the greatest strength weighing on Bill’s (Dr. Craig’s) “Kalam Cosmological Argument.” I had heard this as an atheist, and simply recycled such soundly refuted counters like “who made God?” and positing such things as cyclic models of the universe and inflationary models and all that. After discovering that such responses are long in their graves, I’ve moved onto Dr. Morriston and Dr. Quentin Smith’s counters to Kalam, and even after reading those, I still find myself questioning and inventing counterarguments against both sides. This fence-sitting contributed to my agnosticism.

(2) My worldview neither entails nor denies that God exists. I found this out on personal reflection, and since this would take us too far off-topic, I will withhold further comment on this matter.

(3) Most importantly, I discovered that my reason for maintaining my atheism – namely, that “no proof for God is proof against God” – is a logical fallacy. One cannot reach “no proof for X, therefore not-X”; that’s a fallacy called (formally, not pejoratively) the argument from ignorance. I’ve been offered by Dr. Richard Carrier that such a position was, in fact, valid and *not* the argument from ignorance, and I will follow up on the evidence for his saying that (we did not have time before his debate with Craig in Missouri to address it in full personally), but until then, I can neither say God does or does not exist, specifically because I am exploring whether the Universe was or was not created – or, more broadly in the since of Aquinas, at least necessary proceeding from such a being.

• I think most atheists probably know Ray Comfort for his “banana argument”, his new argument that claims “An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.”, and his ignorance on the theory of evolution. Why should atheists listen to Ray when he misrepresents both us and science so much?

Curiously enough, I did not know Ray Comfort that well when I did the intro, and had discovered his link somewhere in the maze of the blogosphere. Noticing the large amount of comments under his top few articles, I figured he was some type of apologist. I’d seen references and Googled links to this “banana argument,” but did not find them worthy of my time, being that his association with my old childhood hero Kirk Cameron piqued my attention more. I did not properly research the man beyond some street-preaching videos on YouTube.

I wrote the introduction shortly thereafter, within a commentary thread linked to a blog post requesting atheists to write potential introductions. I was fresh off of a fight with a YouTube atheist whose name ought to go unmentioned, and still had a bitter taste in my mouth from some comparatively poor “new” atheist arguments I’d read in the popular literature and seen on the Internet (with the bottom of the barrel being the faulty Horus-connection Christ Myth theory as presented by the worst film ever made, “Zeitgeist”). Perusing the other “introductions” in the thread yielded one or two decent ones out of dozens of outright insulting polemics, and I blew my top and wrote what I did. I figured by the spirit of the book that Ray would have chosen one of the many angry polemics to back up the title he had planned, so I was shocked when I received the message that mine was chosen over the others in the thread for printing.

That intro was sparked by anger, but the words weren’t caused by it – I felt the same way while I still held to atheism even after my anger subsided, and I still feel the same way today, so it’s not simply some fire-starting David Berlinski-esque trolling. Like Tony Flew, I’m pretty mad at the state of skepticism today. Thus, in the intro, I invited atheists to read and refute Ray’s arguments, and even though I later discovered that they were not particularly strong, I doubt many skeptics read anything beyond the first chapter available on Amazon.

It may not be worthy of the work to refute even a sentence, some may say, but Ray is a popular voice, and that alone validates some kind of action from the atheist and nonbeliever (I will put in a few of my own counters here, myself). The Rational Response Squad, with whom I’ve disagreed on many occasions, offered a relatively patient response to Ray on national television, and none of them exploded in rage like many of Ray’s readers do.

Rationally tempered frustration for Ray, especially when he does not listen to matters about evolution, is valid, however; but, if Ray does not change and show a willingness to learn, one must (to paraphrase the “Good Book”) simply dust one’s feet and walk to someone more willing to stick to the arguments, as cursing obviously does no good. If Ray is not worthy to argue against, then in your view, wasting too much time on Ray and not approaching the caliber of the works from an Alvin Plantinga, say, will do nothing but further distort your view on the stronger arguments for Christianity that will at least give you a greater respect for those who hold the religion and practice it in a consistent and open manner.

As for the Banana Argument – well, people have to understand something about Ray. Many do not know this, but Ray is being groomed by Calvinists, including the popular speaker Paul Washer and the knowledgeable debater and podcast host Dr. James White. Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, and the hyper-Calvinist Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. are quoted on his back cover, and Ray’s book teems with typical Calvinist approaches (for instance, Ray refers to John 6, a popular Calvinist passage, in his answer to the question at the bottom of page 45 in his book).

Ray himself told me he was “on the fence” about Calvinism – which, for those who are unfamiliar, is a minority, albeit vocal, Christian worldview that holds that man doesn’t have the free will to choose God and that the “truly saved” are chosen by God – and shows nearly schizophrenic signs both for and against the position on his blog and in his book. I don’t know how much he actually knows about this subject (he calls Arminianism, or the general name for the majority of Christians who do hold to free will as commonly defined, “Armenianism” somewhere in the book), but the coaching from his Calvinist friends is clear throughout. Odd, really, given Kirk’s participation in “Left Behind” – a movie series based on books to which Calvinist eschatology (loosely meaning “end times” Biblical interpretation) stands vehemently opposed.

Presuppositional apologetics, a methodology of some subdivisions of Calvinism, is a way of delivering the Christian message without calling you to convert to God, since due to their belief in God’s sole choice in saving one cannot come to believe on evidence or old time “Pentecostal Sunday conversion.” Thus, the presuppositionalist presents Christianity in a way that demonstrates how, if taken as a presumption, “life, the Universe, and everything” is explained. In the (paraphrased) words of my Calvinist friend Ben Maas, presuppositionalism simply says “this is what your worldview says about this matter, and here is the way Christianity explains it. Now isn’t that simpler and more consistent?” Dr. Greg Bahnsen, the late apologist who clashed with Gordon Stein in the 80’s, is perhaps the best known practicer of this method, and used the foundations of logic as his centerpiece for his presuppositionalist take on Christianity.

With that background in place, let’s take a look at Ray’s infamous crown jewel. Unfortunately, the Banana Argument is not as well thought-out as Bahnsen’s position, but when I saw the video I knew exactly what Ray was doing, especially considering his presuppositional Calvinist background that his friends no doubt have given him.

Ray is explaining from the Christian position how the banana was designed to be eaten, so as to better allow for the survival of all the species that God supposedly created with a diet that included that fruit (namely, to Ray, humans who have the means to utilize the “tab”). Now, if I recall correctly, the banana in that format was actually developed by men to be that way, and I still think the example itself is VERY weak despite this fact, but I might be one of few skeptics who know what Ray was attempting to demonstrate. It wasn’t a “proof for God,” and cannot be; as above, it was supposed to be an example on Ray’s part of showing how the presupposition of God’s design better explains the existence of such a fruit rather than supposed “random, blind evolution.” It fell flat, and I’m disappointed to see him call his own argument a joke in his book after he got called out on it – that does nothing more than openly demonstrate that the man’s embarrassed.

Does the Banana Argument stink? Yes. But if you see it from the above approach, it at least demonstrates that the man is not totally insane. Ray has a talent for speaking, as his introductory speech in the RRS debate shows, but (as that speech’s content and his book in general likewise shows) his arguments need strengthening. Listening to his opponents who behave rationally would be a good start for him, but in many cases he ignores these opponents, and many opportunities I witnessed in later viewings of his site, which tackled tougher questions than those which do appear in his book, have been ignored.

• What arguments do you think Ray uses that would most likely convince a non-believer, i.e. what are his most powerful arguments in the book?

None. Ray bases the bulk of his arguments in his book on the Bible, reflecting his aforementioned presuppositionalist grooming. I am not particularly a fan of this method; even from a believer’s standpoint, it drives the nonbeliever absolutely nowhere unless it’s presented in such a way to spark his or her interest in the Bible (negatively or positively). After all, if it is God that does the work, presenting the Gospel the way Ray does is all that’s left for the apologist to do.

I suppose if I were forced at gunpoint to answer, I would say Ray’s “nothing created everything?” argument against atheism, but it is flat-out invalid the way he presents it, since he keeps insisting that, according to atheism, there must have been some big black extant “nothing” (like in the Neverending Story or Heidegger’s depressed writings or something) that pooped out a Universe. But there is no “before the Universe,” since time began with the Universe, and there is no existent state of “nothing” – even an unstable vacuum, which is not the case sans the Universe, is *something*.

• You mentioned in the foreword that most new atheist books demonstrate a “lack of both logic and knowledge” when talking about Christianity. Which atheist books do you think do this the most, and which books would you recommend as good critical reading?

I would like to preface this by stating that I deconverted in the Sagan/Randi/Penn and Teller era, before the “new” atheists were anything more than Richard Dawkins’ (wonderful) book “Blind Watchmaker.” There was still a shred of respect in that era, as Penn’s recent “Gift of a Bible” video demonstrates – a video all skeptics should watch and consider, by the way, before yelling at the next person offering them a New Testament with kind words.

I will not go deeply into this, but like my fledgling days as an atheist, these books typically demonstrate an inadequate consideration of Christian arguments before launching into diatribes. I have not yet read Dan Dennett’s book, but as for the other three “four horseman,” they are not of much comparative worth despite their popularity. Harris has much to say (including a very good establishment of morality very close to my own convictions on the subject), but I believe his attacks on modernism in religion and its enabling of extremism are unfounded, and the book ends on a very sour note with some sort of mystical consciousness-denying exercise.

I suppose Dawkins’ book is the strongest of the three I’ve read out of the “Four Horsemen,” although many books on the back shelf of philosophy and religion are much better and do not reuse many of the old canards that Dawkins states (example: “the even more complex designer” argument). Compare that last parenthetical argument of Dawkins’, for instance, with its fellow arguments in “The Improbability of God,” and you can see how weak the New Atheists’ spokespersons actually grasp the philosophical considerations needed to properly address the reasonable and well-learned believer’s arguments.

Vic Stenger is commonly regarded as another horse, and although “God: The Failed Hypothesis” soundly refutes the Argument from Design, it fails on many other counts, including a well-refuted pile of counterarguments for the nonexistence of God. If you want a New Atheist book to get, though, I guess I would say this would be the one to pick up to begin wading out of the shallow end of the pool.

I’ve saved Hitchens for last for a reason – he’s a hilarious polemicist and probably a joy to meet in person, but after watching his debate with Turek and seeing that he was unprepared for many of Frank’s arguments, I would like some kind of stage here to warn him that his debate in a week and a half with the aforementioned Bill Craig will be much more challenging (even many atheists I know concede this). Craig is no Banana Man and does not launch into the polemics of a Dinesh D’Souza (who Chris did effectively debate). The Hitch needs to do what he can in the time he has remaining to prepare – read some debates Craig had with Quentin Smith or Ray Bradley, for instance, as they are the only two people I’ve seen in many debates who actually beat Craig. I don’t like some of Hitch’s tactics, but I like the guy in general and do not wish to see him embarrassed. I am not joking at all when I say that he will belly-flop resoundingly if he comes ill-prepared.

And as for good material on the atheistic side, pick up “Improbability of God” or “The Empty Tomb” (both various authors) from Amazon. Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness Without God” is a philosophical guidebook that can establish a reasonable philosophy behind the rampant so-called “scientism” today. For the theistic side (and yes, all skeptics ought to at least familiarize themselves!), get “Reasonable Faith” by Craig for the best overview of the arguments, and “Debating Calvinism” by Dave Hunt/James White for an introduction-by-proxy to the depth of the two prominent opposing Christian worldviews today. For good overviews from authors with whom you can easily interact, try “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, opposed by “The Impossible Faith” by his (equally famous) opponent J.P. Holding, both of whom I’m proud to call feisty (but helpful!) friends. Oh, and YouTube the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate I mentioned above before you run headlong into the “Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence” – if you’re an internet atheist, and you don’t know what this means, believe me … you will eventually!

Every nonbeliever, by the way, should read the Bible and understand exegesis and Christian interpretation. Reusing old canards will get you nothing but disrespect, and coming unprepared and angry will get you nowhere. If this is your approach, take up gardening and stay far away from the subject. Nobody should engage in controversial study if he is not willing to at least learn what the “other side” thinks.

Finally, keep away from the Christ Myth and all of its various forms. They are weak, loosely linked, and very obviously designed to do nothing but provide the frothing atheist with nothing but a “Ha! Ha! Your beloved Jesus didn’t even exist!” nose-thumbing type of argument. It’s horrible, it’s invalid, Jesus existed in history (read Bart Ehrman’s chapter on this subject in “Jesus: Interrupted”), so get over it.

• You are a member of the Debunking Christianity blog team. Have you thought more critically about your rejection of Christianity since reading Ray’s book? Would you say you are more open to religion now?

I am not “open to religion” specifically – rather, to be intellectually honest, I am open to facts, and if that necessitates the existence of God, or even of the YHWH of Christianity, so be it. I’ll act accordingly; what is true comes first, and how I act proceeds.

My friend John (DC’s site owner) knows I differ from him on the “Debunking” standpoint, and yet has kindly provided me a platform to critically explore – I come from more of a “discussion” approach, and the only Christianity I wish to debunk out of existence is the Fred Phelps type and those advocating the top-down approach to theonomy and dominionism. My main beefs with Christianity aren’t even religious – they’re political (see: evolution and creationism in schools), and one thing I’ve learned in my studies of the religion is that a good Christian does not have to be a good Republican, as well; in fact, many Christians – including fundamentalists! – vehemently are *not.*

That’s about all I have in response to your thought-provoking questions. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position on Ray and with this whole ordeal, and to let me stand on my own streetcorner for awhile and preach a little at your blog. All comments and criticisms are welcome, but as my parting message to all the New Atheists, don’t engage in polemics when talking to a Christian who is attempting to be rational and is doing the favor of leaving politics out of the discussion. Return the favor and listen to the response, or just take up a new hobby or something. To echo the misquote attributed to Joe Friday, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Possibly Related Posts:

• Jesus Week
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer
• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards

This was the first time either of us had done something like this, and it didn’t help that only one other atheist had so far turned up to support us. Luckily, as the debate was about to start, 6 of our secular student group turned up to sit in the front row, which gave us that boost of morale to get us into the spirit. First up was a Christian who was reading Physics, so I expected him to go on about how the universe was such a wonderful place, fine-tuned to perfection. What I didn’t expect was for him to waffle for 4 of his 5 minutes, trying to explain what he considered “God” to be. As the chair banged her gavel to signify 1 minute remaining, my first opponent stumbled and quickly said something about how the presence of evil was proof of God. Whatever he said, I didn’t understand it at all, and I think my stomach gave a huge sigh of relief.

I was up next, and I managed to get my speech within the time limit, covering all the points I wanted to raise. The full transcript of both mine and Dan’s speeches are included below the fold on this blog post if you want to read them in full. Next up was the second Christian, who rejected a few of my reasons for why people believe in the supernatural, saying he didn’t believe for those reasons. This of course is a fallacy, as it can only be true on a personal level, and there are many people who believe in the supernatural for precisely the reasons I stated. His speech concerned Jesus and the power of prayer (which when I last checked was powerless). Not suprisingly, he criticised the scientific “prayer tests” and held them as an inaccurate way to determine whether prayer works (probably because the results determined prayer didn’t). Dan concluded the speeches with an attack of the fine-tuned universe view, quoting David Attenborough on his recent criticism of Christians, and pointed to the destructive force of nature as evidence against a loving caring God.

So then the floor was open to questions, and boy did we get them. I had to explain why Protazoa were still around “even though we evolved from them” as an American girl put, and how fish could develop arms when a mutation is required to create useless stumps first (clue: fish already have stumps…they are called fins). I also explained a rudimentry version of how we think the eye evolved, although on most of these questions I encouraged people to not take what I was saying without question, but to read up on it themselves (the last part of my speech was an appeal for people to start thinking freely). Luckily, my atheist friends asked the Christians a few questions about their beliefs, including a nice one about whether the discovery of multiple universes with different “tuning” would alter their belief in God.

An interesting couple of questions came from some Islamic students, one of whom asked me if I would mind if he came at me with a knife and killed me. I was expecting at least one question like this, and luckily I have a great response to it:

Let me get this straight. You are asking an atheist, someone who doesn’t believe in gods, the afterlife, or any kind of supernatural events, whether he would mind giving up what he believes is his only life? Of course I would mind! I happen to like life, and I’m not suddenly going to throw it all away because it is the one shot I have.

The same group of muslims asked us how we explained the revealed knowledge in the Koran, like the fact that salty water is separate from fresh water, and the Earth is shaped like an Ostrich egg. I didn’t correct his Earth shape hypothesis, because I wanted to attack the root of this question. I aked him plainly if he would read to me the passages of the Koran that said those things. He told me he didn’t have them on him, and so I told him I was sorry, but I couldn’t answer his question. I mentioned that these “revealed truths” are often simply very complex interpretations that are often extracted after the facts are known to science. The same logic can be applied to the Christian claim that the Bible talks about atoms, when all it says is “so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebrews 11:3).

All in all, I guess the theists reckon they won, and the atheists reckon we won. The debate was concluded and no vote was held (we agreed it would be good to just let people leave with their own opinions). A girl did come up and thank us for talking about what we believed, and that she would look into certain things more, and that’s always a good thing. Dan and I decided that we rather like debating, so we’re going to do some more in the future, and perhaps organise an “Ask an atheist” evening in March. Another friend wants to debate with me against the Islamic society, so I’m trying to get in touch with them. Stay tuned for more!

Adrian’s speech transcript

The question in tonight’s debate is whether God is a delusion or not. When I say “God” I am speaking about the whole “God” idea; that there is some kind of intelligent mind behind the universe, who has concerns for how we live our lives.

It is this idea that I believe is a complete delusion, because whilst it all sounds very nice, it is utterly ridiculous. Almost every religion today puts humanity in a special “chosen” position by their God. We have dominion over all the animals, simply because we have free will and are made in his image. This was all very well for people to believe hundreds of years ago, but the arrival of modern science changed this completely.

We began to realise that so called “revealed” truth contradicted the natural world, and the best way to find out what actually constitutes reality is via the scientific method. Slowly but surely, revealed truth was replaced by observed truth, things that you could actually test for validity, and form scientific theories to explain. The acts of gods that supposedly took a matter of days suddenly became natural processes that took millions upon billions of years; and whilst people still held humanity as divinely chosen, 150 years ago, a man named Charles Darwin changed that view forever.

Evolution is a natural process that tells us where we come from, and how. Through the fossil record, we have seen how millions of species died out, and that we are one of the many branches on the so-called “Tree of Life” that made it. So in some respect, we are “special”, as we are the result of a 4 billion year old struggle to survive. However, every single species of animal still alive today is a survivor too, and they are equally as special as we.

People will object to this though, and say that the evidence points to divine intervention by God on some occasions. The town of Lourdes in France is a major tourist attraction for Christians, some of whom believe that the water from a local spring has healing properties. Only 66 declared miracles have happened in the last 150 years, and when you take into consideration that 80,000 pilgrims come to Lourdes each year, that number seems utterly insignificant. None of those “miracles” involved the sudden regrowth of limbs, or any other permanent affliction being cured, and since a medical bureau was established in 1947, the average number of “cures” people have reported per year has dropped repeatedly. As the popular skeptic Michael Shermer would say, you have to count the misses as well as the hits.

The Lourdes fiasco all started with an apparition of the Virgin Mary, who supposedly spoke to a 14 year old peasant girl on 18 separate occasions. Her eyewitness testimony is all we have to go on, but it is interesting to note that neither her sister or friend saw the apparition, even though they were with her. In the opinion of skeptics, she is either delusional or lying, and the closed nature of the Catholic church on this issue makes investigating harder. Apparitions of various forms have been reported ever since, some turn up on pieces of toast, whilst others are more complex.

There is a great video on YouTube of an apparition of Jesus on a wall, although any sane person watching the video will understand that it is formed by the shadows of tree branches. As such, it isn’t detailed, and it really just looks like a man in a white robe. Only when you have religious people claiming it looks like Jesus does your brain interpret the figure as such. This of course is the key to the whole thing. Our brain is wired so that we notice patterns very quickly, and if you lie on the grass on a moderately cloudy day, you will start to see all kinds of objects in the clouds. They aren’t really there of course, and I don’t notice religious groups claiming them as miracles, so I fail to see how a similar illusion that happens to take the form of a man in a robe means that it is Jesus Christ. The fact is, that patterns occur everywhere, and all it takes is a human brain to recognise them.

What I want to argue is called free-thinking, and it involves throwing all dogma out of the door and looking at the world for what it is, not for what we are told it is. Once you understand that there is a natural explanation for everything, the need for dogma and revealed truth promptly vanishes. While I am sure that a belief in the supernatural was probably important for our survival in the past, and it gives people hope even to this day, I look at a universe for which we can explain some things, and utter “I have absolutely no idea” on others, and that makes it even more wonderful to live in. I think it is time for people to accept that there are unknowns, and things that we may never know, but before we delegate them out of this world, we should make sure they are in this world.

Dan’s speech transcript

There’s been a lot of talk these kinds of debates about the beauty and complexity of nature. I get a familiar response from religious people when I tell them I don’t think there’s any evidence for a god, they sort of stick there arms out and gesture at the nearest groups of trees and flowers like its completely obvious they must have been designed. David Attenborough has been in trouble recently. He’s started a new series called Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, and said he’s had an upsurge in messages from people saying he just hasn’t been acknowledging God’s handiwork enough in his programs. He said:

“They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.”

What goes for worms burrowing through eyeballs follows for everything else unfortunately. I really love his nature programs though; the BBC series Planet Earth which he narrated was amazing, attracting something like nine million viewers when it was first shown in this country. It’s gone all around the world since.

The thing which people tend to overlook when they look at pictures of wildlife is the unbelievable brutality of what they’re looking at. Everyone of those animals you see are in almost permanent terror for there lives, frightened of starving, of disease, frightened of getting an injury which is almost always a slow death sentence in the wild, and mostly frightened of just being eaten. Ultimately, all animals which aren’t kept as pets, and stroked, housed and fed their whole lives; die in one of those ways. They get old and weak and can’t get food or get too slow and get torn to pieces by predators. Think of the endless struggle out on the African plains between the zebras and antelope and the packs of wild hyenas and lions; one side can only be safe if the other starves without food, and the other can only survive by chasing down the weaker of the opposition and killing them. The system is psychopathic; it’s impersonal and totally apathetic to the suffering that’s going on. Any creator that built a system like that would have to be out of their mind.

People in favour of there being a God also like to point out the amount of ‘fine tuning’ in the universe. That the laws of things like gravity and thermodynamics have been ‘tuned’ ideally to create a universe full of life. The thing that really strikes me is that all that ‘fine tuning’ has created a universe that is almost completely empty space. You being present in 99.9 recurring percent of the universe will kill you instantly. We exist on one piece of space allotted to us in all that emptiness, in a thin film of life, on a climactic knife-edge, on a speck of dust.

And even there we aren’t safe. This is a world where more than 200,000 people can be swept off the beaches of the Indian Ocean, one day after Christmas. In fact the people of the western hemisphere were still celebrating, still eating mince pies and pulling crackers as the Asian Tsunami struck in 2004. There were families in America just sitting down and saying grace at their Christmas tables, as thousands of towns and villages were annihilated, and millions turned into widows, orphans and refugees. The universe really isn’t sentimental about its timing. But the devil is in the detail with these things, and one that gets me is some of the eyewitness reports. When tsunamis are coming in, the sea naturally draws out along the coast; people reported the small children from the local villages running out onto the miles of open beaches and laughing at all the stranded fish, totally oblivious to what was coming at them at nearly the speed of sound. The reason why things like that don’t drive us mad is because we know it isn’t personal, natural disasters just happen. We accept that the universe wasn’t designed with us in mind. But if there is a God, every bad thing that ever happens to us suddenly becomes something malicious, an all powerful, all knowing God cannot not be responsible for things like tsunamis and earthquakes, plague and the AIDS virus.

So really, to those of you who see God’s handiwork everywhere in nature what I say is, yes, look around you, but really look and be honest with yourself about what your seeing. To understand that there cannot be a God, and certainly not a benevolent one, is like a realisation of the obvious, it’s just so clear.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Jesus Week
• Atheism Is Not A Religion
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention
• “I Tried To Be An Atheist”

I’m planning to attend all of it, but I am looking forward to today’s lecture on “why does God limit my sexuality”, which I read as “Why is God a homophobic racist bastard?”, and the “grill a Christian” evening which was great fun last year; I like my Christians medium to well done. Of course as I have mentioned, the highlight of the week is the debate my group are having, which should be fun since it is my first real debate. I can only hope they bring up Pascal’s wager or the argument from design, but if not, I’ll just strike them down with the help of my friend Logic.

Anyway, must dash. There is a foot of snow on the ground and for some reason I have regressed to a child and all I want to do is run around in it.

Possibly Related Posts:

• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention
• On Debating Christians

DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS

Of course, this reference will undoubtedly mean a lot of things to different people. I personally think it counts as evidence that Jesus was a great man who managed to perform all sorts of “godly” feats through trickery (magic). A great find for archaeology though.

Possibly Related Posts:

• “On the Origin of Species” Turns 150
• Prayer, Death, and Motivation
• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort
• Charles Darwin 200th Anniversary £2 Coin
• YouTube Thursday – Thunderf00t, Jesse Ventura, & Steven Fry

Thank you for your e-mail.

Laws regarding student privacy prevent us from commenting about
individual UCF students. But, in general terms, when a student allegedly
violates student rules of conduct, his or her student account is placed
on hold.

The student is notified of this action and informed that the hold will
not prevent registration for classes. A student is allowed to register
after making a request to release the hold. The Office of Student
Conduct follows this procedure for any student who is referred to it.

More information about the entire Golden Rule and the student conduct
process is available on our Web site, www.ucf.edu. Please be assured
that UCF is committed to following its standard procedures to ensure
fair outcomes in all student conduct review cases.

Additionally, it is the university’s policy to treat all people with
dignity and respect, without regard to race, creed, color, national
origin, religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual
orientation, veteran status, or political opinions and affiliations.

Amy J. Barnickel
Senior Executive Assistant to the President

From Promise to Prominence:
Celebrating 40 Years

Of course its the standard copy/paste response that was probably sent to everyone, but it’s the last paragraph that confuses me. Firstly I’m happy that Cook and Collard are not going to suffer any setbacks in their education because of this, but the so called “policy” outlined in the last paragraph clearly states

“without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political opinions and affiliations.”

Clearly the university is going against its own policy by regarding the religion of others over the individual. If the policy actually counted for anything, this whole issue would have been brushed aside as “free expression”, the same as any political statement or opinion. The UCF need to stop bowing to demands of evil religious organisations and start thinking of their students.

Possibly Related Posts:

• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• Jesus Week

In this sense, taking a wafer without eating it is apparently equal to the crime of kidnapping Jesus himself. For atheists, this claim is completely ridiculous and illogical; not so much because there is no way of proving any of this transubstantiating actually happens, but because by their own logic, Catholics (and other denominations which subscribe to the process) are partaking in ritual cannibalism of their Saviour.

The whole debacle got me thinking about churches in England, and I found that my “local” cathedral followed a rare doctrine introduced by one of it’s early bishops to unite both Catholics and Prostestants on the issue of transubstantiation. As such, they adhere to the doctrine that the wafer and wine literally become the body and blood, but can only be “grasped by faith”. I decided to mimic the student in America, go to church for the first time in 10 years, and take Jesus’ body home with me.

When I first announced my plan, some people said it was disrespectful of faith and I would be violating someone else’s freedom of expression in order to fulfil my own. Such an idea was not the case, and it was if I had planned to run up to the alter and grab a handful. In my defense, I will tell you exactly how the morning went.

8:30am – Arrived at Salisbury Cathedral. I had a bit of shopping to do before the service, and I was meeting a friend for a coffee.

9:45am – Met up with friend in Cafe Nero and discussed issues of morality, the U.S elections, gay marriage, and Evolution. My friend is a Christian and we differ on pretty much all of those points.

11:05am – Walked into Salisbury Cathedral and found the Morning Chapel where the service would be held.

11:15am – Service starts. I stayed at the back with the prayer book, and said every word in unison with everyone else.

11:30am – I went up to the front and knelt between two elderly people. The wafer was placed in my cupped hands. I raised them to my mouth, and palmed the wafer. I then drank Jesus’ “blood”.

11:40am – Service ends. On my way out  a foreign man who was attending the service turned out to be a Bishop from a Latin American country (I didn’t hear which). He talked to the priest for a few minutes before noticing I was standing there waiting to get out. He let me pass, and on the way I shook the priest’s hand and thanked her for the service.

In my eyes, I was respectful of their traditions and faith. I joined in with the entire process except for one part, and didn’t interrupt or cause a scene. If what I did was “disrespectful” to the people there, then the whole issue of respect has to be rethought.

Anyway, I got home and took a photo of the wafer, another with my thumbnail for scale, and a final one with me holding the wafer. Since I was on my own I didn’t have anyone to take the last picture for me, so it’s probably a bit blurry due to it being on a timer and not set properly. If my memory serves me correctly, this is the first time I’ve put a photo of myself up (not counting the tiny one in the comments). Facebook friends can view all my photos of university life, which includes dressing up, makeup, and general drunken partying.

I’m still thinking of things to do with the wafer but some interesting things have been suggested so far, so keep them coming!

Enjoy!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Taking The Church Hostage
• Jesus Is A Gender-tolerant Sexist And A Homophobic Homophilic
• The Cathedral Of My Lost Faith
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• On Debating Christians

I was sat there thinking “What? You got that from a piece of blood soaked wood?”. It was a massive assumption, but I decided to watch the episode anyway. The scene in question was put in a slightly better context when it mentioned the finding of Templar Knight skeletons, and went around the basis that they were being hunted and wanted to preserve Christian artifacts. Of course it’s still a big leap of faith for an archaeologist.

The story went on, introduced a Christian Evangelist who was getting in trouble for hate crimes against Muslims, and two characters who turned out to be modern Templar Knights (swords and all). The characters were under the command of the Evangelist, who bought the dig site and ordered the Knights to go about killing Muslims. Only one is executed in the episode, and it was a pretty useless scene that was probably included to be politically correct.

Anyway, one of the nurses at the nursing home the dig was next to had helped remove the bit of wood from the ground, and she’d received a splinter for her trouble. Of course, this being the cross of Christ, suddenly she has healing powers, and managed to bring a man back from a coma. She is then asked to bless a boy with leukemia.

The story unfolds, and then manage to trace the cross to some well next to a church, which they descend into and find about 30 odd crosses from the Crusades. They are followed by the Evangelist and the Templars, which turns into a swordfight (!?) and the crosses end up getting burnt. The Evangelist dies along with one of his Knights, and the others manage to escape having deconverted the other Knight.

Everything get’s back to normal, the miracle nurse’s miracle patient dies after all, and she removes the splinter but keeps her faith. To add insult to injury though, there is a shot of the burning crosses, and when the fire touches another one, bright light emits from it and glorifying music is played.

I’ve probably made it sound better than it actually was, but if you want to watch the episode it’s on the BBC iPlayer for a few more days. If they’d taken the ridiculous ending out it still wouldn’t have been good though. They showed terribly unscientific behaviour the entire way through, and whilst it’s all well and good trying to combine a CSI show with the adventures of Doctor Jones, you have to keep the science in or nobody will believe it. Be reckless, have swordfights, but don’t jump to conclusions about pieces of wood when several thousand people were cruxified in Roman times!

Possibly Related Posts:

• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• Religious Child Abuse
• On Debating Christians
• Jesus Week
• Crackergate Aftermath

So much for freedom of expression, but I tell you what, it’s given me an idea.

I’m ofiicially going to be the first English copycat. I’m going back to church for the first time in 10 years, and I’m going to steal a wafer. To top the American student Webster Cook, I’m going to steal the wafer from one of the most famous cathedrals in England. No, not St Pauls, but Salisbury Cathedral. It’s a medieval cathedral that’s celebrating its 750th year this year, and it has the tallest spire in England. It’s a mega tourist attraction.

The schedule for events can be found at their website.

Regretfully I cannot do this today (Wednesday), but I am in town on Thursday, and I will be attending the late morning Holy Communion at 11:15. I will go to the Morning Chapel, attend the full service, receive communion and pocket it.

I will then drive home and hold the wafer hostage, possibly with a plastic toy gun. Heck, I might as well devise some rudimentary torture rack for it. Assuming the plan goes off without a hitch, I’ll be taking photos of the hostage attempt and upload them here.

What I’d like are a few ideas for what to do to the hostage. What kinds of pictures should I do? Should I buy a balaclava or reveal my identity? Should I call the church with ransom demands? Dare I send word to the Catholic league? Hemant Mehta sold his soul on eBay, should I sell my hostage?

Seriously, I’m open to any ideas at this point.

Possibly Related Posts:

• I Kidnapped Jesus
• Jesus Is A Gender-tolerant Sexist And A Homophobic Homophilic
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• On Debating Christians
• Jesus Week

As his comments in a recent sermon show, he seems to have lost all sense of logic:

Jesus is going to be with those who feel the waterlessness of their position, with those traditionalists feeling the Church is slipping away from them, the landmarks have shifted….

He will be with those in very different parts of the landscape who feel that things are closing in, that their position is under threat and their liberties are being taken away by those anxious and eager to enforce new ideologies in the name of Christ.

He will be with those who feel that their liberty of questioning is under threat, he will be with gay clergy who wonder what their future is in a Church so anxious and tormented about this issue.

Presenting Jesus Christ, the perfect electoral candidate in any situation! Able to have multiple contradicting opinions on absolutely anything! Homosexuals? Surely an abomination but also a reality. Women clergy? Well, my dad says it’s against the law but I’m fine with it…sort of.

In a recent article I briefly discussed and discredited so called “liberal Christians” and how they are worse than fundamentalists. Here we have a prime example. So blinded is Rowan Williams that he wants to unify two rival factions of the Church that have nothing in common. He puts his faith over evidence, and yet arrogantly ignores his faith when it is discredited. The Bible clearly states that homosexuals are an abomination, and that women clergy should not be allowed. It’s not even a confusing and cryptic passage either like the one interpreted as proof of atoms. The archbishop would much prefer to pick and choose his passages from the Bible as he interprets the changing society. This isn’t the type of behaviour you would expect from people who believe the Bible is the word of God; he is inconsistent to the point of arrogance.

I might turn a few heads when I say that I prefer fundamentalists over liberal theists, but it is true and quite logical. They are the ones who are consistent, never changing their view even if new evidence comes along to discredit them. This fact alone makes them easier to fend off and destroy in debates. You have no hope of winning any debate against a liberal Christian who likes to pick and choose parts of the Bible that when together might make a slight amount of sense, but cannot be taken literally without consideration for the entire source. Liberal Christians don’t play by the rules. They lie, they cheat, they manipulate. If you force them to conceed a point, you can bet all the money in the world that next time they will find a passage in the Bible that supports your point, and claim it was their own all along.

What really gets me going in “secular” England is the presence of members of Parliament at the General Synod meeting taking place today. One of these senior government officials I have met in person, and had I come of age at the last general election would have voted for in my constituency. Robert Key, conservative member of parliament for my home town of Salisbury, and whom, 4 years ago, had my support. Of course times have changed since then and I’m now a proud supporter of the Liberal Democrats even though they have no hope of getting power any time soon.

Nevertheless, Mr. Key will be using his Christian background to sway the vote whichever way he wants. I have no idea whether he is a fundamentalist of a liberal although the latter seems more likely given his quote:

MPs don’t see this as a theological squabble in the Church of England. They see it as something much broader.

The UK is in danger of becoming dangerously close to a Christian nation if we continue MPs to serve on official church matters. They don’t get a say in what Muslims do, nor Jews, so why should Christianity be different?

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7491829.stm

Possibly Related Posts:

• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• On Debating Christians