I can’t disprove your superstitions any more than I can disprove Mother Goose. I can express sincere doubts however, about the likelihood of a cow making lunar orbit.

I have deep misgivings about the existence of invisible, intangible beings from an alternate dimension who used magical powers to create and interfere in this universe.

Further, I have my doubts that these magnificent beings would need to contact an illiterate, murderous pedophile in a cave to send their message, or, for that matter, make small talk with a would be genocidal conqueror via flammable shrubbery.

Let’s face it, impregnating a Jewish teenager with yourself, then bumping around doing third rate miracles and magic tricks for the primitives , finally getting yourself lynched so you could change your own admission policies for your alternate dimension/cosmic amusement park is a pretty silly notion.

In the end, it’s not about what you are able to prove or disprove but rather how far you are willing to prostitute reason in order to believe any of it…

[Bill Moody]
 

 I think your god is too small for me, too weak, too…human.

He has anger issues, and jealousies. He needs constant reassurance of his own godliness. He’s petty and cruel (just ask Job’s family). He’s a poor judge of character, just look at his favorites, his patriarchs, Murderers, liars, thieves and incestuous to boot.
He’s a sexist, misogynistic in the extreme.  

He seems obsessed with genitalia, snipping, clipping and hiding them. He’s capricious and malign, hardening hearts for the sheer pleasure of meeting out punishments. His sadism knows no bounds (Here, Abe, kill your only son for me…just kidding, slaughter this sheep instead.)

 I Love the Scientific Method…

You get an idea, a grand inspiration and you spend years nurturing it, developing it, testing it over and over and examining it from every angle you can think of. Finally, after exhausting all your physical, emotional and frequently financial resources, you present your idea, your theory;  your baby to the world.

The first thing that happens, the VERY first thing is a whole raft of other people in your specialty, friends, colleagues perhaps even your old grad school room mate do everything in their power, bring all their collected intellects, resources and time and focus it all on ripping your baby to shreds before your eyes .
Before the ink is dry on the publication, before you can say ‘peer review’, your life’s work can lay in tatters at your feet.

And if it still lives… if you can retrieve the pieces of your professional dignity and the remaining bits of your masterpiece… even if it survives the feeding frenzy that is peer review, there will always be critics, trailing like remora, feeding off of any tasty chunks they can pry off.

That’s the way it works… only the strong survive, Darwin’s Theory in academia. Speaking of which…

 How religion came to be.

Human beings have a strong will to survive, an instinct that is ‘hard wired’ into the fiber of our bodies. (1)

We also have certain knowledge of our own mortality; we know that like our ancestors, we are going to die at some point.

This causes a crisis in the mind, which many resolve with a functional self-delusion, that of an Afterlife.

 This expands on a recent comment on a recent posting here...

A lot of people when debating or arguing on this and other forums will toss out the name of a Logical Fallacy as if that in itself is a show stopper.

Some of the favorites are;

Ad Hominem, something that gets thrown in to block any derogatory commentary, but it isn't the game ender people hope for. 

If I say "Your arguments are wrong BECAUSE you are an asshole." 

THAT is an Ad Hominem.

If I say "Your arguments are wrong AND you are an Ass Hole," 

That is an Observation.

Being an asshole doesn't mean one can't be right on any particular issue, just as being right on an issue doesn't mean one is NOT an anal orifice.

Hitler loved dogs and built great highways. (reducto ad Hitlerium)

It's also NOT an Ad Hominem to point out that someone is not qualified to speak on an issue. Kent Hovind comes to mind, a self aggrandizing fraud, who claims educational experience he simply does not have. Pointing out that he is not qualified to speak on scientific matters is NOT an Ad Hominem.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, In a discussion about science, the non scientist simply doesn't get a vote.

  Some may have noticed a certain 'slant' in my postings of late and I feel a need to explain and in so doing, I need to digress.

I've noticed that the words "Liberal" and "Liberalism" have been fairly well 'Swift Boated' in the media and in public discourse.

 It's time for a new round of the classic Blasphemy Challenge!

I will start this one off with a simple petition, with a goal of 1 million signatures.

Join me in damning your soul to eternal torment!

There will be FUN and DOOR PRIZES! Cake and Punch served!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-blasphemy-challenge-part-ii/

LC >;-}> aka Bill Moody

  I get a little weary over the plethora of Christians and entirely too many Atheists who buy into the myth of the ‘Good and Perfect’ Jesus and his ‘earthshaking message’

I can understand that the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn’t report if Jesus had been banging two shekel, boy hookers by the dozen in the back room any more than I’d expect a friendly biographer of Bill Clinton to make a big deal of Monica’s little blue dress… I get it.

Non-Proofs of God;

Warm fuzzy feelings;
A personal relationship with an idea, fear of death, fear of life,  desire for immortality ‘personal experiences’, anecdotes, voices and visions are all non-proofs.

The War on Reality;
Vague and often laughable attempts to disregard or somehow bring into disrepute established scientific concepts.  Often this is accompanied by absolutely spurious claims, very bad research and methodology and outright lies. The idea is that if they can call any part of science into question it allows them to ‘wedge’ in the supernatural as a ‘possibility’.  This is why I say that the magic requires at LEAST as much step by step explanation as does the science we are called on to defend.
Even if the ‘miraculous’ happened, and someone with a nebulous grasp of high school science COULD call any part of science itself into question, that still wouldn’t go one iota in the direction of proving the existence of a god.

Word Weaving;
Philosophy for all its erudite and intellectual charms cannot PROVE that ANYTHING does or does not exist. Word Weaving is akin to Basket Weaving in that it’s a pleasant way to waste time, but in the end, only one pursuit will leave you with something you can use.

There is one simple explanation of why there is no proof that a god exists.

 I have been confronted no less than six times this week with some twit or another regurgitating Pascal’s Wager, the theistic sucker bet. And each and every one of them believes he/she/it was the first one to pose what to the simple minded religious drones must seem like a stumper…

It goes like this (to the atheist);
If you are right, no harm, no foul, we all just die. But if I’m right, you will suffer a torturous eternity at the hands of my merciful and loving sky buddy…

One does not have to have a deep understanding of logic or formal debate to see at a cursory glance why this bit of fluff fails.

First, this isn’t even an argument for (or against) the existence of a god. It’s a pointless threat made to someone who doesn’t believe the basic premise. That makes it a bit of narcissistic metaphysical masturbation, not meant to influence it’s purported target, but rather to allow the theist to ‘gloat’ over the impending fiery doom they fervently hope will descend on the folks who have made them feel so stupid, for so long about believing.