You debunk a theistic website: submissions
Offline This thread is part of The Great Big Submission drive, any debunkings of theistic websites should go here. If you made your doc in HTML code you can send it to us via email, or host it on a page and simply link us.
A debunking of any creationist or theist site. Also debunkings of specific arguments of theists. Example here
Every theist website on the internet deserves a debunking. They need to be outed for their dishonest, absurd, and false claims. Some sites are much worse than others. RationalResponders.com carries a high weighting with the search engines and it's likely that your efforts will show up high in the search engines when someone seeks out the theist site you choose to debunk. Make clear and factual arguments, point out as many flaws as possible in as much detail as possible, debunking as much of the site as possible. If you are an author or simply have a freethought themed website, this would be a great way to help us and draw traffic to your site at the same time. Articles can be as short as two paragraphs and as long as you want. Here is a good example of a page you could debunk from http://www.josh.org/.
Atheist, Atheism, Agnostic, Rational Response Squad
BURNING BULLOCKS
A commentary on:
Kyle Butt's, DOES PICKING UP STICKS DESERVE THE DEATH PENALTY?
In Dan Barker’s book, “Losing Faith in Faith,” Mr. Barker highlights many examples of God's whimsical penchant for excessive punishment. In one example from Numbers 15, a man is stoned to death by Moses' henchmen (at the command of God) for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Mr. Kyle Butt has attempted a rebuttal (www.apologeticspress.org/scrspeak/2003/ss-03-72.htm) with the statement, “In truth, there is no way that Barker could know what would have happened if this man’s disobedience was not punished as it was.” He then tries to justify Moses’/God's condemnation of the man in Numbers 15 with a military metaphor that demonstrates the correct relationship between God and humankind, a relationship that stresses the importance of unwavering obedience. He follows the metaphor with a number of examples of bad things that might happen if one in an inferior position doesn’t obey his superiors, who apparently ALWAYS know better. Mr. Butt spends most of his rebuttal trying to justify the punishment for disobedience rather than give a straightforward answer as to why picking up sticks on the Sabbath is so bad in itself. The pettiness of the Sabbath commandment in itself (let alone the harshest punishment for breaking it) is Mr. Barker’s main point and Mr. Butt has missed that or chooses to ignore it.
, doesn't it follow that They are still pretty upset about humans (especially Christians) breaking these laws? Why do Christians seem to take the more obscure laws so lightly, when even Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot and one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, ‘til all be fulfilled. Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, ye shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:18-19)? Even if the whole Draconian mess of the OT were cleaned up with the magic broom of Jesus' (Paul’s?) atonement plan (“we are delivered from the law, that being dead” Rom. 7:6), weren’t these laws originally created because these particular sins are extremely offensive to God? Did God change? And under the same reasoning, aren’t practices, such as animal sacrifice still pleasing to this unchanging God (e.g. burning seven lambs, one bullock, and two rams makes a “sweet savour unto the Lord,” Lev. 23:18? In the next verse, a goat is sacrificed for sin and two lambs of the first year for peace. Two verses later [Lev. 23:21] God declares of this work, “it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations“)? Is the modern-day neglect of these lesser known laws and commandments because Christians are not aware of these verses? Is the modern-day neglect of these lesser known laws and commandments because Christians take advantage of being easily forgiven under Jesus' (Paul's) “grace plan,” OR is it because modern ethics have generally evolved (when allowed) beyond the bible's archaic ideas and Christians have let time and cultural differences trump God’s unchanging tastes? Probably a little of each. In any case, the truth remains: God is still pissed off (Lev. 26:14-39!) that instead of making the pleasing smell of animal sacrifices, Christians everywhere are eating shellfish, letting the handicapped (and people with flat noses!) into church, and doing yard work (picking up sticks?) on Sunday. It’s time to bust out the Weber and pile on the bullocks.
Mr. Butt’s main parallel concerns a military trooper/cadet who decides that he wants to wear red boots instead of black ones. This is against the will of the Commander in Chief, but tolerated (to prove his point). The fashion catches on and soon half the troops are wearing red boots, because in his example, there is no real discipline concerning supposedly inconsequential matters like fashion. The next thing they know, the troops are on the battleground... when suddenly they realize that they are wearing the same colored boots as the enemy, and that it is the only distinguishing feature between the two sides. They have invited the potential for friendly fire upon themselves because they didn’t listen to the Commander, who knew this would happen.
Mr. Butt writes, “Often, disobedience to the commands of one who is in a position to know more about a particular situation could result in harm or death for multiplied thousands. For instance, why does the United States military insist on obedience to officers even in the minutest details?” Judging by the long list of killings that God has ordered or committed in the Bible (including drowning the planet!), I think Mr. Butt gives Him a little too much credit as a merciful entity that is trying to potentially “prevent harm or death for multiplied thousands” by ordering the death of a guy who was probably just trying to build a fire.
Nothing is more effective at controlling the people than associating the fear of death with the most trivial tasks, and this was Moses’ immediate need. Still, even in OT times, execution for working on the Sabbath seems pretty harsh when compared to some of the other threats of punishment, such as in Deut. 22:28, 29: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father 50 shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; for he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” The punishment for raping an unbetrothed virgin and getting caught?! Paying 50 shekels of silver and marriage for life!!! If we can rate the crime by the punishment, then working on the Sabbath is obviously far worse than raping an unbetrothed virgin and getting caught.
Mr. Butt’s military metaphor is inconsistent and incomplete. He hasn’t followed through with the implications and consequences. What Commander (in a civilized nation), especially if he knew that the enemy would wear red boots on the war field, would put a trooper to death for wearing red boots without at least explaining why he shouldn’t wear them beforehand? The fact that the Commander even had a practical explanation for not wearing red boots (which, in THE REAL WORLD would have been made clear before the troops were shipped off to war) makes it a bad parallel to a God who is frequently remiss in practical explanations. Even Mr. Butt might agree that if the trooper in his military metaphor was properly informed of the risks of wearing red boots by his Commander, he would probably have behaved in everyone’s best interest. In the same way, shouldn’t God inform His people of why working on the Sabbath is such a bad idea that it deserves the death penalty?
It’s no surprise that Mr. Butt would use a military metaphor for the psychological profile of the relationship between God and humans. It unintentionally shows the conditions of free will and critical thought for the “troops” who must bring “...into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Mr. Butt’s situation of warfare, where a superior needs the quick obedience of his troops, is an example of a very particular, unusual situation. He puts us all in a foxhole where there’s no time for explanations from the Commander- where he shouldn’t even HAVE TO explain himself, where if he DID have to explain himself, the whole orderly chain of command would crumble and chaos would ensue... But we are not in a foxhole... we are in the people’s court of life, where there is time to rationally conclude which laws are helpful and harmful. Isn’t Mr. Butt’s Commander in Chief more accurately portrayed as a petty dictator? Yes, an insurrection would probably eventually occur in a situation where a dictator mandates impractical orders and punishments that appear to benefit only his ego without any good explanation. Insurrection may not be a bad thing in this case, depending on the severity of the dictator.
Mr. Butt’s position is that the threat of capital punishment (as opposed to the resulting harm from the “crime” in itself) for an unexplained reason is a justifiable deterrent to general ethical entropy (“laxity”). In reality, it advocates moral slavery and inherently betrays the foundation of free will for salvation. A law must have a purpose and it must be made clear or obedience to it has no moral value. The purposes of common military directives in this country have been well explained and adjusted by and for the people involved- we’re still waiting for an explanation from God concerning the severity of the Sabbath commandment (and others). The truth is, all persons in the United States Armed Forces are still expected to exercise their ethical judgment when following any command. And every action of ANY military person, up to and including the Commander and Chief, are subject to the review of the courts when there is an issue of ethical dissonance. In addition, any civilized court would also require an explanation for such a killing that goes beyond simple disobedience. None of this works in favor of Mr. Butt’s example. Accountability? Not for God. Ethical scrutiny? Not for Christians. At the end of the day, the scariest idea in Mr. Butt’s rebuttal is the inference that he would accept the death penalty for something like wearing red boots as a perfectly plausible law, as long as God ordered it.
The point that Dan Barker made in his book is that the Sabbath commandment is flawed from the root, and therefore, such harsh punishment is excessive. How is the Sabbath commandment justified in itself? Again, God is unclear on its practical nature. Sure, we need to rest, but hasn’t God already designed our bodies to indicate when this is necessary? Does He need to threaten to kill us in order to make sure that we rest on that particular day? Paul certainly didn’t like the idea of it ("Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon; or of the sabbath days” Col. 2:16, see also Rom. 14:5). It’s almost as absurd as saying that our hearts continue to work to pump the blood that keeps us alive on the Sabbath, so they should be “plucked out” to save ourselves from hell (or stoning!), like the guilty eye or the offending hand that we are supposed to dismember in Matt. 5:29, 30 (although this verse is in a... gasp... sexual context). If we plucked out our offending heart, we could be with God sooner, with less sin on our record, AND deny our evil flesh and the world around it in the ultimate manifestation of faith! Sound reasonable? More reasonable than capital punishment for breaking the Sabbath? We are aware of the obvious risks and reasons for some of the other commandments, why not this one? Because there are no risks. It’s an impractical law designed to flatter God’s ego (the first four commandments are all ego driven) by celebrating His day of rest... wait a second... ummm... God needs to rest (Ex. 31:17)?! Why?
For perspective, it’s important to consider the implications of a small sampling of God’s outrageous laws and punishments: God demanded that whoever works on the Sabbath be executed by stoning (Ex. 35:2, Numb. 15:32-36). God demanded that stubborn and rebellious children be executed by stoning (Deut. 21:18-21, Lev. 20:9). God demanded that a woman who marries who is not a virgin on her wedding night be executed by stoning (Deut. 22:13-21). God has demanded that the handicapped (and people with flat noses!) not be allowed in church, so as not to profane His sanctuary (Lev. 21:16-23). God has declared shellfish, rabbit, and pork "abominations" (Lev. 11:5-11. Locusts, grasshoppers, and beetles are fine, Matt. 3:4). Jesus commanded anyone who loses a lawsuit to automatically pay twice as much (Matt. 5:40-41). Etc... it goes on and on...
Now, if God is forever the same (“For I am the Lord, I change not...” Mal. 3:6) and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:
(please send me any helpful critique for revision if necessary, Thanks!)
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Evolution and the origin of morality with consideration of Christian theological ideology.
(An argumentative response to religious views on the origin of morality.)
When one considers morality, it is most usually thought of as an integral, innate portion of our personality and thought processes; with the same or similar moral code reflected in the words and actions of others, further investigations into our perceptions of right and wrong may at first seem superfluous. Nevertheless, our everyday decisions are based on our personal moral code so based on this apparent significance, it becomes equally significant to ask ourselves, where did these codes originate? Many believe our morality has a strictly theological origin, our morality being constructed by a divine being, or at the very least, our morality being a direct result of our personal religious beliefs. This is supported by the various tenets of various religions which reflect what we often perceive to be right and wrong. Religious texts are abounding with moral instructions supposedly from a deity. However, many scientists, most notably experts in the fields of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology believe morality to be the product of evolution. To support this, they cite the ideas of kin selection (actions which are contrary to self survival but support the survival of relatives, thus allowing copies of their own genes to survive) and reciprocal altruism (mutually beneficial behavior in which an individual helps another because of expected reciprocal behavior.) These concepts support that idea that humans are biologically predisposed to cooperative behavior that benefits the species.
First, a quick definition: morality is defined as "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct." When we do something "good" we are doing something considered beneficial for ourselves and/or society. When we do something considered "bad" it usually refers to the opposite.
Proponents of a theological origin of morality claim morality is a creation of a god. They wonder how we have come to perceive something such as murder as wrong, and conclude that these ideas were provided to us by a morally perfect creator. The Ten Commandments provides the central laws provided by the God worshipped by the majority of the American population. The commandments reflect many of our moral perceptions, and provide what would appear to be guidelines for a moral existence. Biblical verses pertaining to the notions of right and wrong are certainly not miniscule in number, and ideas such as "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself"(The Holy Bible, Matthew 7:12) are central themes in Christianity. Many point to these verses, these thoughts, and the laws contained in religious texts as proof that our morality has its source in these ideas, that our morality was given to us by a god through religious belief and religious law. The obvious conclusion is that people who lack a belief in a god, or do not adhere to religious principles, also lack morals. It can also be asserted that this lack of religious belief and the morals that come with it causes non-religious individuals to engage in excessively immoral and pernicious behavior.
This conclusion presents the first problem for those who argue for the necessity of religious belief in terms of morality. If we assume that non-religious individuals are not moral individuals, we can assume that, since our laws reflect many of our moral standards, these people will break the law more often than religious people. Following on that assumption, we can assume that our prisons will have more non-religious prisoners on average than religious prisoners, and this is not the case. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, non religious individuals comprise about 0.209% of the prison population (the majority of prisoners being Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim.) So if our morality comes from our religious beliefs, why is it that it is religious individuals who commit the most crimes? (Federal Bureau of Prisons, March 5th, 1997)
But if our morality really doesn't have roots in theological sources, how would these ideas come to exist in human thought? To answer this, we should first examine what it means to be human. Humans are a mammalian species of animals, as animals, we are driven to reproduce and spread our genetic material before we die. But humans are also social creatures; we are driven to come together into groups, which have obvious advantages for a species (protection, specialization of tasks). Knowing all this to be true, we can begin to draw conclusions about how morality comes into all of this. Charles Darwin puts it nicely: "In order that primeval man, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general disposition."(Darwin, Descent of man, pg. 147) So if morality is a product of evolutionary process developed to allow social animals to exist and cooperate in complex social situations, we should be able to find examples of what we could deem "moral behavior" in other social creatures on earth, and we do.
It is common knowledge that honey bees possess a complex social existence, worker bees protect the hive, attacking and stinging intruders even though the very act of stinging kills the bee. If bees are also a product of evolution, their goal, like ours, is to spread their genetic material, so sacrificing itself and thus eliminating its chances of reproducing doesn't seem to make sense. But if you take into consideration that these worker bees share 75% of their genes with fellow workers, it begins to become clearer. By sacrificing itself, and saving the hive, the bee is still ensuring that copies of its genetic material survive and are passed on. This concept is known as kin selection, and we can see this within humans as well, what human mother or father would not sacrifice their life for their child? Are we not inclined to protect those we love, even if it means putting ourselves at risk? When someone you love requires aid, do we not experience a sense of pride after providing aid? Do we not feel guilty if we are unable to help, or unwilling? (Alexander and Tinkle, Natural selection and social behavior, Eusociality in insects)
We can see social behavior in the vampire bat, which feeds at night on sleeping mammals. Obviously, not every vampire bat is going to be successful, it has been observed that bats create sort of a "buddy system" where bats who are unable to successfully hunt, receive nourishment from the regurgitated blood of the "buddy" bat, and the favor is returned if the other bat is unable to hunt in the future. This is a concept known as reciprocal altruism; it is also the origin of the "golden rule" for humans or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."(Science and nature, BBC)
These two concepts are biologically intertwined within our minds, and define how we act in social situations. So why do we as a society look down on murder? Why do we create laws to forbid it and punish those who commit the act? Murder is harmful for a society because if we are killing each other, we are open to threats from the outside, if murder is allowed; it is a direct threat to our families (and of course, our ability to pass on our genetic material.) Murder is "wrong" to us because it is harmful for our social existence, because we don't like to see others in our species killed, and we ourselves do not want to be killed. Murder does not help us as a social species, and so, it is contrary to our social instincts.
We can also not ignore the fact that if evolution is true, and we can explain through these ideas how humans came to exist physically and mentally as they do now, the need for a divine creating force disintegrates. It can be asserted, then, that if there are no gods, and it was humans who wrote the bible, created religion and the moral rules that go along with it, than all of the morality that supposedly stems from religious thought comes from humanity. Therefore, we can then say that the morality instilled in religion by man comes from our preexisting moral perceptions and instincts. In essence, religion is the creation of our morality, not the reverse.
So we are still left with the opinion of the majority of the American population that God created our morality and those without religious belief are not moral people. I argue that the exact opposite is true. Those without religious belief are taking moral actions because they want to do so; they do things based on what is best for them, as well as the rest of society, they are acting on their social instincts and freely admit it. Religious individuals claim to do things because their god tells them that is what they should do. They assume they will be rewarded for actions considered "good" in their religion, and punished for things considered "bad" what they have is a set of religious laws and guidelines, it is not morality. And that is why wars have been fought, countless people have been slaughtered, and the rights of humans continue to be repressed in the name of a god, even when such actions are contrary to our social instincts. Religious thought, maybe once was a way to enforce our moral codes, but now it threatens to overrule and destroy them. Our social instincts exist to bring us together and help us cooperate, but what has segregated humankind more than the idea of a god? Religious thought is not only not required for the existence of our moral perceptions, it constitutes the largest possible threat to our morality, and to our survival as social creatures.
As a species, those that ask the questions haven't done a good enough job of explaining the human condition and what it means to exist enough...
That seems like a blanket statement, but if you TRULY seperate yourself from whatever "faith" you hold...
How can anyone actually believe in an order of faith - when the tools to disprove yourself and your beliefs (a public library, history books, anthropology, archeaology) are readily accessible?
The very FACT that you can read about previous civilizations of man that already lived and died believing in a certain dogma of religious faith or existence should be enough evidence in and of itself to dispel the notion of any one particular true god.
When confronted with these obvious facts, why are we still engaged in the conversation of whether or not a god exists?
...If "god" did exist, and was the one true god - why have our beliefs changed so much over time - from the beginning of human civilization?
... ... ... ... ...
As we pass-on through the timeline of one insignificant planet, why have we continually created gods that are eventually destroyed once a new group of settlers or "followers" arrive upon a particular moment or event in time...?
After confronting these obvious truths of life - we have numerous books of religious peoples that have lived and died; continuing to the present.
...So why is civilization still creating the idea of any one true god?
CONTROL...CONTROL...CONTROL...CONTROL...
-JL Wallace
JL Wallace
0.5882352941176470
¤ Broken Symmetry ¤
There is no greater expression of human vanity
Than the Judeo-Christian notion of the immortal soul
It says:
“I am too important to be temporary.”
Might it not be that one cannot conceive of a world without oneself,
Because one must necessarily exist to conceive of any world at all,
And cannot completely entertain the thought of being unable to entertain thoughts?
The one thing that the mind cannot let go of is itself.
Try this experiment:
Think of all the parts/aspects of an individual or their personality that could be attributed to the soul.
All of the things about yourself, as an individual, that you believe would or could possibly exist after the death of your body.
Now consider how many of them can be explained in terms of changes within the body during its life.
Whether it be changes in the brain, hormonal system or any other part of the body.
Adrenalin, Serotonin and other hormones, neurotransmitters and the electrical pathways of our brain and their reactions to what is external to us constitutes our personality
Courage, valour, empathy, love, hate, sorrow, guilt
All accounted for
There is no doubt that we will one day be able to,
Through progressions in neuroscience and physiology,
Explain, and even recreate, the conditions required within the individual
To create any emotion or personal trait.
Our continued self trapped within the confines of our brains
If we are asked to define ourselves
We do so with a combination of our emotions, personal traits and memorised habits and opinions.
All of which would cease to exist with the death of the body and brain.
The purely chemical nature of our emotions is easily proven.
Ask anyone on antidepressant medication.
The elated MDMA user
Is his lifted mood not chemically induced?
If one can be saved from the depths of suicidal despair or propelled to ecstasy
By introducing a chemical into their body by means of a tablet
Does this not suggest that even the most profound feelings are merely due to chemical fluctuations?
Thoughts subservient to our emotional states with diminished powers of objectivity
Believers will object to this idea
Claiming that the changes in the body are merely physical reactions to the movements of the soul
But, please, show me this individual soul and where it is moving to and from
Ochams’ razor will easily dispatch of any notion of this individual soul
If every time I feel emotion X,
Hormone Y and neurotransmitter Z are observed being released,
Then it is by a combination of Y and Z that I shall define emotion X.
The release of Y and Z are involuntary responses
Such as the instant retraction of ones hand from a very hot object
With determination one can hold ones hand to a hot item regardless of instinct
Emotional response can be shaped in a similar way.
If the word soul is to be that described by the Jews, Christians and Muslims
We are soulless
It is exceptionally hard to accept that one, as an individual, will be completely annihilated upon death
But even the most fervent wish will not obtain you a soul
And for that I am truly sorry
What a question, you'd say...
Well, man has always been tried to demystify the secrets of life and death. There has been quite a few scientific research, theories and findings on this too. But all that aside, as a reality of life, the soul concept has been accepted in one form or other, in almost all the religions of the world, and because of this, even some scientific researches have been said to be initiated at many places. As a given, science always accepts only the truth and thrives to find the reality out of every theory or belief, thus in turn bringing to light the real truth.
Thus before starting on with any sort of research on the soul concept, it should be mandatory that we examine the truth behind the existence or non-existence of the soul in the first place. To get the real picture of the same, all we have in hands are the scriptures written over the ages and followed more or less blindly by various religions of the world.
Lets start with the chief religion of my country, Hinduism. A holy scripture, Geeta, clearly describes the soul as nirguna (Devoid of any properties/character), and so does most of the holy scriptures of other religions as well. While some other holy scriptures also mention that the soul of every human has a character of its own(saguna). So there's a clear case of contradiction within the different holy scriptures of a single religion. This definitely calls for an immediate attention towards study of the gunas (Properties/characters) and nirgunas(lack of properties/characters) of the atma (soul).
The Hindu scriptures describes the soul as that of two types: jeevatma (soul of the living) and paramatma (soul of the almighty). Even the jeevatma is divided into two types: duratma (the bad soul) and the good soul. Well, this shows a define 'character' of the soul in the first place.
Post demise rituals
Almost every religion of the world makes it mandatory to perform some or the other sort of a ritual to bring peace to the soul of the dead human. This clearly indicates that the soul has a direct connection with these rituals. Now, if the soul is said to have left the physical body (as THE cause of death), then how exactly can it possibly be affected by the 'worldly' rituals, would be a definite question?
Moreover, these post-demise rituals are only performed for the dead human beings, which is biologically just another species out of the millions of species of living beings on this planet. Does any religion specify the necessity of any such rituals for a dead animal or (duh) plants as well? I guess nope. Does that mean only the human beings have a soul? If yes, then how on earth do those other millions of species live, soulless? Oh well, coming back to the Hindu scriptures, many deities and other great priests are said to have had their reincarnated avatars on the earth as animals other than humans. So the animals must also have souls, otherwise this could not have been possible at all. But again, even in those scriptures, there is absolutely no mention of any such post-demise rituals for these so called animal avatars as well. Point to ponder.
Again, in the same rituals, there has been clear distinction between souls who've 'received' these rituals and those who haven't, 'cause only those who do, can attain the heaven and not those who
didn't. That's the primary reason for the necessity of such elaborate, costly and sometimes even painful series of rituals to bring peace to the souls of the dead and to ensure they reach the heaven. This can clearly be stated as one of the 'properties' of the soul.
Digging even further, every religion (and even communities with a religion) have a more or less different series of rituals clearly defined in their own holy scriptures, i.e. the souls 'belonging' to a specific religion will attain peace and heaven, only if they are treated with the ritual defined in that religion. This indicates, that the soul is well aware of the community, language, caste, religion etc. that it comes from and understands these pretty well. Otherwise it wouldn't have been affected by those rituals. Another clear 'property' of the soul.
In some religions, like Hinduism itself, the post-demise rituals also involve sacrifice of some animals and dedication of its meat to soul along with many scented floral decorations and incense
sticks. Oh, do the souls roaming out of the bodies also have their senses of smell, vision, taste, etc. well intact? That'd make another nice 'property'.
Hindu scriptures also mention clearly, that if a person of the lower caste (shudra) touches the corpse of a high caste person (like brahmins), then the brahmin's soul can never attain the moksha (heaven). Ok so the soul, that is obviously caste aware, doesn't actually leave the brahmin's body even after his death and closely monitors the caste of every person touching the body. Or even if it has left the body, it still has a physical existence out of the body to be able to monitor the whole ritual process being performed with the body. This shows a definite 'character' of the soul.
Polymorphism, the soul way
Moving ahead, it is said that the ghosts are nothing but either the unsatisfied souls or those with some unfinished business. And quite obviously, as the souls cannot perform any task on the earth on their own, so they can 'possess' some human bodies. Well, has anybody heard of any animal (other than human) being possessed? Perhaps not, 'cause apparently souls can also recognize the species it wants to possess. And then, this possession theory also leads to a clear inference, that at a given point of time, a human body can 'contain' more than one souls. Isn't that amazing?
You must also have heard of cases when some Siamese twins are born, who have more or less portion of their bodies joined together. Sometimes even the whole two babies have a single body with just two heads with two different brains. So, do they also have a common soul? If so, then it can mean that just like above inference, its also possible that a single soul can be shared by two bodies. In fact, many of these twins don't survive the separation operation by doctors. Is it because the single soul couldn't decide which body to take after separation, and thus left the bodies in confusion?
Reincarnation
This is again said to be one of the 'properties' of the soul only. Its written in many scriptures, that the souls are born again and again on the earth, or in other words, get recycled repeatedly. Even some religions, like Hinduism, takes this concept to the extent that the souls can be reincarnated in any form, even animals or humans (no mention of the plants, though). A human soul being reborn as an animal is indeed mentioned in the shastras (Hindu scriptures), but not elaborated enough to get many meaningful inferences out of them.
Coming to the real life, we do hear about numerous claims of reincarnation around the world. But all of them, amazingly, happen to be reincarnated in the same country, religion, and even caste, as their so called previous life. Is there a single claim of a person being reincarnated in Iraq, while his previous birth was as an American? Or anyone who was a Christian in the UK in the previous life, got reborn in a Buddhist family in Thailand? Nope… This again leads to the obvious inference, that the souls are well aware of the religion, caste, and even region they are born again and again. They never change these and always get recycled within these constraints. Another amazing 'character' of the soul.
Moreover, it is said that whatever deeds we do in life are actually done by the physical body on earth governed by the free will, and the soul, which is governed by god, is devoid of all the deeds done by the body. In that case why does the soul have to suffer in hell or enjoy in heaven depending on the physical body's deeds? Moreover, the scriptures also say, that the person suffers the punishments of the wrong deeds of his/her previous life and will enjoy, in the next life, the fruits of this good deeds done in the present one. That means the soul does carry forward all those deeds from one life to the other. One more 'property' of the soul.
You know, that as a part of the marriage rituals in almost all the religions, the man 'promises' that "I'll be your husband for many lives to come, and you'll be my wife for all the lives". How do you know, you're going to be reincarnated as a man in your forthcoming lives, and she'll be a women? Does soul has a gender 'property' too? Similarly, according to scriptures, kings get reincarnated in royal families only, and the same with priests, etc. A man who cleans your drains today will never get a rebirth in a royal family. Another clear case of carry forward the caste, religion, etc. 'properties'.
Conclusion
These were just a few examples of the properties and characters of the soul, well described in the same holy scriptures that also claim the soul as being nirguna (devoid of property/character) and nirakar (devoid of shape). With all these open contradictions in the same scriptures, how can we even think of going ahead with any scientific research on the concept?
There is surely NO proof of the existence of the soul other than in those contradicting scriptures. The first question should then be, how did those writers of the scriptures come to know of the existence of the soul?
The only answer I can think of is, their imagination. The same imagination of a human being that gave birth to the invisible pink unicorn, and for that matter, the god.
All the hoopla over Dan Brown’s novel ‘The Da Vinci’s Code’ has proven it yet again, that no matter how much they worship the truth, the religions neither know the truth nor want to know the truth nor do they want anyone to ever try to research the truth that the religions claim and advertise. The churches couldn’t digest the statement in the story, that Jesus was married and had children whose generations still survive. If Jesus was just like a common man, then how can he be the son of god, or how can his mother Mary be ‘Virgin Mary’?
Even a seed of doubt about these can shake the very foundations of the church. And that’s the reason why the keepers of the religion are demanding a ban on the movie made on this novel, especially in countries where Christianity has to compete continuously with other religions of the country. The demand has even been fulfilled at some places, while at other places some scenes have been cut off the movie.
Now, what’s written or claimed in the novel or movie isn’t really as important as the question that why do the religions, being followed by millions over the world, get so paranoid over such petite books or movies? Why do they feel that, due to any such claim or research, their religion might crash, beliefs might get hurt? Why do they want such people to be strangled, their mouth shut forever?
The only reason I can think of is, the religions are scared of the truth. Almost every organized religion is based on a huge lie. The lie is simply that the giver, founder and regulator of that religion is some form of a god, who’s also responsible for the creation of the universe, the heavenly bodies in it and even the humanity. And the fact of the matter is, nothing, except these religions’ own books, claim that the religion is made by that god. Neither today nor ever in history has anyone really witnessed any gods. So the people who fabricate these stories into the absolute truth, know it deep under how the stories like ‘The Da Vinci’s Code’ can expose their lie.
What’s even more funny is the fact that even though Dan Brown believes (or so he claims) that there’s no truth in his novel, the religions still have the morbid fear that people might take that ‘lie’ as the truth. Church is scared thinking, if a few more such Dan Brown’s come up, who start writing more interesting stories than the religious books, then their playing card castles would be devastated.
Speaking realistically, this fear seems so baseless looking at the deep rooted history of the religions. Such allegations could actually never deter the blind beliefs of the superstitious believers. As it is, the strong religious leaders have a habit of blowing such things away like a feather in the air. Even if Dan Brown is trying to expose the church, he’s not going open his own church, is he?
Unless that happens, every priest is safe, their kingdom, their money is safe. Religion is anyway for the feeble minds; the priests don’t have to bother about them leaving the blind beliefs just by reading a book or watching a movie.
Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It explains things we can observe in the real world through a process called the scientific method. It is responsible for medicines, genetically enhanced foods, and all of the technology you observe everyday. You might not realize it, but almost everything that you do in your life, whether it's drink a glass of water or fall down a flight of stairs, science can explain everything that is happening down to the minuscule details. Intelligent Design does not fall under the category of science and should not be taught in science classrooms, nor alongside of Evolution.
The theory of Evolution describes the complex descent of all species known today from a common ancestor through the process of natural selection and the genetic drift. Natural selection states that when certain traits of an organism give it the advantage of survival over the rest of it's species, that organism is more likely to reproduce and create more organisms like itself. Then, over time, the organism will have evolved into a new species. The genetic drift is when traits that have no positive or negative impact are eventually expressed or not expressed by all in the absence of other mechanisms affecting trait distribution. These changes can happen in several ways such as mutations, genetic recombination, and gene flow. Of course this is all a very general explanation which leaves out the overwhelming amount of observable evidence.
To some, this theory may be confusing, which is why many people choose a simpler alternative, Creationism, or as it is so conspicuously disguised, Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design states that everything in the Universe was created by an Intelligent Designer, or as he is so conspicuously disguised, God (the Christian God, Yaweh to be exact.) This theory lacks any observable evidence, unless you count the Bible of course, but the Science community does not consider 2000 year old folklore to be reliable evidence. The main argument of Intelligent Design is that this world is far too complex to have happened by chance. At first, an average minded individual might agree, but when given a little extra thought, this argument makes absolutely no sense at all. In order for an individual to create a Universe as vast and complex as our own, would he not be far more complex than we? This "intelligent designer," in his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience would have to be infinitely complex. And there are only two explanations for where this "intelligent designer" came from. The first is that he was created by another superior being, however I did not know one could achieve more than omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. This explanation would also just lead us in endless circles of creators creating creators. The second explanation is that he always was, he always has been, and he always will be. Hopefully, you already see the flaw in this explanation. Since we have already established that this being is far more complex than we, then why would this being be able to exist without a creator while we, far less complex beings, cannot? This issue brings us to another, where did the first life come from?
In 1953, the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted by Stanley L. Miller. In this experiment, Miller recreated the hypothetical conditions of a young Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical Evolution (the chemical reactions that synthesize organic compounds from inorganic matter.) At the end of a week, two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used in modern living cells to make proteins, with glycine as the most abundant. Stanley Miller proved that in the conditions of our young Earth, with the presence of inorganic matter that has the potential to create organic matter, life could easily have arisen. Scientists have also experimented with this under a wide range of different conditions and many of them still produce organic molecules from inorganic materials. Intelligent Design explains this in much simpler terms, simpler than the simplest explanation I could provide. God made everything using magic. Incantations to be exact, He spoke it and it was.
Once Creationists have come to realize they actually don't have any evidence they drastically change their strategy. Instead of attempting to prove their beliefs, they acknowledge their beliefs have holes; then they point out the holes in Evolution. They have come up with many reasons why Evolution is incorrect, however, none of their claims are upheld very long. The amount of claims they have attempted to make are far too many to include. I will cover a few more popular accusations.
Many will say that Evolution cannot be observed, therefore it is no different than Intelligent Design. This is either a straightforward lie, or an extreme expression of ignorance. Evolution is conducted every day in laboratories. Scientists genetically modify food to make it bigger and to make it last longer. Viruses evolve constantly which is why we are in need of new vaccines. The Influenza Virus for example requires new vaccines every year because it is evolving into new strands such as the new deadly Avian Bird Flu. Mutations occur all of the time resulting in deformalities amongst people. These deformalities are not usually beneficial, but sometimes they can be. Science and technology has allowed us to evade the laws of natural selection and keep ourselves alive and reproducing no matter how unfit our bodies may be. The human race is in a way, devolving and getting weaker.
A very common argument is that "Evolution, like Intelligent Design, requires faith." The only problem is, it does not require faith. I do not have to have faith that evolution is possible, it occurs every day in viruses and in laboratories. I do not have to have faith that the transitional fossils that show species evolving into species exist, I can observe them myself. I do not have to have faith that mutations can occur, they happen everyday. I do not have to have faith because I have observable evidence. Faith is merely believing in something regardless of the lack of evidence, and with Evolution that is clearly not the case.
Creationists often ask "where is the missing link?" The simple answer is, he's dead. Scientists have already discovered the fossils of the ape to man transition, Australopithecus. This species emerged in East and South Africa between 4.4 and 1.4 million years ago. This is your missing link. He died out and gave way for the new breed of man, the homo Sapiens. If you find it hard to believe that his entire species is extinct, then consider the fact that 99% of species every to walk this Earth are extinct. This is not the only transitional fossil we have. We have the fossils of the fish to first develop legs, Osteolepis, the first step towards becoming an amphibian. We have the marine to amphibian transitions such as Eusthenopteron, Icthyostegids, and Labyrinthodonts. We have many more such as the amphibian to reptile transitions, reptile to bird, and even reptile to mammal, however I do not wish to bore you by listing off scientific names of the fossils of transitional species.
Another aspect in the belief of Intelligent Design as that the Earth is relatively new having only been created roughly 10,000 years ago. This is the weakest belief in the belief of Intelligent Design. Carbon-14 dating alone can disprove that aspect. So can the existence of dinosaurs, unless of course you don't believe in dinosaurs, in which case you are an idiot. Some say that Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate due to the experiments of creationist pseudoscientist lobbyists. However, the particular experiment often referred to is when Carbon-14 dating was conducted on a muscle inside of a clam and the results said the muscle to be much older than it possibly could have been. This, however, is merely the result of the carbon in the limestone that consists of the muscles habitat. The carbon was absorbed from this limestone into the muscle, which produced irregular results. This is the same for almost all living matter. Take trees for example, if you ran Carbon-14 dating tests on the bark of a living tree it would give irregular results because the tree inhales CO2 from it's surroundings, and the carbon found in the CO2 could be as old as the atmosphere itself. Not to mention Carbon-14 dating is a very delicate procedure which requires precise actions in order to produce accurate, reproducible results. The rather humorous hypocrisy of it all is that while Creationists denounce Carbon-14 dating, they use it to authenticate their own ancient documents to help back their claims.
Do you still believe Intelligent Design to be more likely than Evolution? Despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence to support Evolution, many say it is still just a theory. This is a common argument used to try and lobby Intelligent Design into the science classrooms of our public schools. It has been surprisingly successful in some states, how I do not know, although I have noticed that the states it is being taught in school in are states where I'd assume most of it's citizens are the product of incest. Evolution is most definitely a scientific theory, it can never become a law because we will never have the fossils for every organism to ever have existed. Unfortunately, few understand the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory does not imply uncertainty, it is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). It is a theory which takes the facts: Life appeared on Earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from on or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change; and uses a single theory to explain all of them. The theory of Evolution explains many more facts than I have listed. Intelligent design is not a fact. It is not a theory. It is a belief based upon faith. It fails to explain anything. It should never be taught in public school, and most certainly not alongside Evolution in science class. Requiring students to learn Intelligent Design is, in my opinion, and the opinion of many, a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In America we have the right to believe whatever we wish. We can choose to believe in Evolution or we can choose to believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution may conflict with your religious beliefs and you may reject them and not want to learn, or have your children learn, them. However, I will not give any sympathy to those whose faith is in conflict with the facts. I will not apologize for having facts and logical conjectures based upon overwhelming observable evidence conflict with your unreasonable, unsupported, and primitive beliefs. And I will not agree with sacrificing public education to adhere to your religious dogmas.
Theist Argument 1: The Watchmaker Argument
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 127, Theist Argument #1: The Watchmaker Argument
I've done several blogs on theist arguments in the past, but now I'm going to go through them all in another blog series I'll just call "Theist Argument."
You see, theists want to explain reality just like you and me. However mostly they don't want it to be a reality they don't like, they'd rather it be something they would like to be true. And as intellectual liars, cowards, and frauds, or just as morons who can't think of a better explanation, they use "God" for the answer to several of the universe's biggest questions.
They did it a lot more often back in the day when science was weak at best. God explained everything, everything. Now, as intelligence increases, we are finding other answers, better answers. Some proven, others still unproven, but still better.
Yet still the desperate, the cowardly, and the stupid fail miserably to grasp it. God still is, God still must be the answer to "how" anything is in the first place. They don't prove it. No. They just make it up as an explanation. But just having an idea is not proof. Especially when there are better ones.
They even cling to their "theories" when they contradict scientific fact. And what they do is very funny. They make the logical fallacy known as "ad hoc." When their theory runs into yet another wall, they have another magical explanation to avoid it. And yes, they do, in fact, make it up on the spot.
The average, if not every theist has done this and will do this. They have no choice whatsoever. They will have to pull a new amazing fact of the universe... Out of their ass. These people actually think that because they think of it, no matter how amazing, improbable, and ground breaking it may or may not be, it's correct. Making something up doesn't make it true. It is ad hoc logical fallacy. A well documented fallacy. A well known logical error; a mistake. You're making it. Text book example.
God himself is ad hoc. He was an oh-so-magical explanation for things theists could yet understand. He was literally made up and pulled out of someone's ass. There is the famous question, "Where did God come from?" There's the answer for you. Out of someone's ass. He, and his attributes, are continued to be pulled out of the asses of theists even to this day. Realities of the universe are made up and asserted as true. Shocking, amazing, magical, extraordinary realities you wouldn't think possible to know. They aren't yet possible to know. These average Joes are so God damn stupid they truly believe what they make up is real. Magic, to them, is reality so long as they think it.
"Oh, but there is evidence of God! Look around, don't you see how complex life is? It needs an intelligent creator!"
I've refuted the Watchmaker argument I don't know how many times on my blogs and messages. I have annihilated it.
But this blog is created just for destroying it again.
This is known as the watchmaker argument because it was a famous theist (I forgot his name) that first put it elegantly in popular book, using a watch as an example. He said imagine that you are walking down a path and you come across a watch. You pick it up and look inside at all the complex working parts, all coming together to make a well working device. You therefore assume it was made by a human, that it had an intelligent creator.
He said humans, and all animals and life, was like this. It's the most complex stuff in the known universe. There must be an intelligent creator.
Well, this fool was wrong. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it had an intelligent creator.
Now the theist will blabber about how random chance can't possibly create something so complex that works.
And they're right.
But the truth isn't random chance.
For you see... There is another explanation aside from your ad hoc made up magics. And there is another explanation than random chance. You were just too bullheaded, ignorant, desperate, and plain stupid to even consider other theories. And that has obviously cost you the remainder of your intellectual dignity. To be blunt.
As you may know there once was a genius man who had the intelligence and courage to think past all the other pathetic humans around him. And with one simple, elegant, genius idea he was able to forever put the church in its place of ignorance and denial. And what was different about this man, aside from his sheer courage and intelligence, was that his idea, unlike the idea of God and creation, was formed by observations and evidence. It wasn't ad hoc magic. This man was, of course, Charles Darwin. And thanks to him I can completely destroy the Watchmaker argument. Again.
To further illistrate, let me appeal to an argument I once heard from another atheist that went something like this:
Find the watchmaker.
Go to the shop of the watch, ask for the watchmaker.
You'll be sent to a shipping company.
From there to a factory.
You'll find that at that factory they simply import several complex parts from other places and assemble them.
Okay, go to these places.
Look at these parts, seek the designers.
You'll find models based on older models that several humans have worked together advancing.
You'll find that they based their plans off of older plans of older watch designs.
And those plans were improvements from older ones.
And those watch plans were improvements from even older ones.
And hell, you'll go back so far you'll reach the sundial.
Discovered due to the natural phenomena of light and shadow.
By a human mind, which, same as the watch, evolved.
So instead of their being an intelligent designer, we have several intelligences, several designs, all the way back to natural forces. The watchmaker was not a single mind, but many. It was not magic, it was evolution.
Stepping away from the metaphor, let's look at animals. The most complex things we know of. Start with a rabbit with gray fur. Let's have it mate. The genetics that get passed on differ slightly, due to the other mate, and do to little occasional errors in the coding transfer from parents to the young. The young have different DNA. Let's now say one half of the rabbits have the code for slightly more white fur, and the other half have the code for slightly darker fur.
The rabbits live in a snowy forest.
Now here come the wolves.
Today, the rabbits that live in snow have white fur.
How intelligent! Look at those rabbits hide from wolves in the snow with their ever so convenient white fur!
It must be intelligently designed, right? Only intelligence could know to have an animal with white fur instead of dark brown in a snowy area - so that it may hide, right? God did it, right?
No. You obviously know what happened.
It wasn't God.
It wasn't magic.
It wasn't intelligence.
You know, with common sense, that the rabbits who the darker fur were spotted by the wolves easier and killed. They didn't pass on their genetics of darker fur. The rabbits with whiter fur hid better and lived longer to pass on the genetics for whiter fur.
All dating methods agree that the world is 4.5 billion years old.
That's a lot of time to gradually get the rabbit's fur to snow white.
No intelligent designer is necessary.
Re read that last line a couple more... Hundreds of times.
Now tell me, is the way working complex creatures, suited for their environments, evidence for your made up magical guesses?
No. And just in case you are not convinced, we have billion fold fossil record to prove evolution being the case.
Whether you and your God like it or not.
You're going to need a lot more "proof" to justify your position, theists. Not only was your explanation a bald guess with no evidence, but we have a better one now, and it is proven. Magic is not an answer. It does not exist. You should have learned that when you were 5, at the oldest.
But I guess some people just never grow up and take responsibility of their worldviews.
"Where did the universe originally come from then? Where did life originally come from?"
Well, gee, I don't know. But you know what?
Neither do you.
Don't lie to me; don't lie to yourself, shut up, and think.
Magic isn't proving or explaining anything.
Neither are you.
But I'll tell you what... The more false you destroy, the more room there is for the true. Let's preserve our veracity and dignity a little this time, folks. Don't claim yer right until you know yer right.
Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 127, Theist Argument #1: The Watchmaker Argument
Theist Argument 2: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog #140, Theist Argument 2, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Listen, folks, I feel like Crap right now, I really do. It's late, I've had a lot of work to do, a lot of emotional bullshit to wade through. I'm really not in the mood to mess around with theistic stupidity. Unfortunately what gets me angry is always what gets me happy. That is to say - What gets me happy is destroying what gets me angry. But I really just want to get to the happy part right now if you know what I'm saying.
An argument for theism is misunderstanding the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Like most arguments for theism, it's a misunderstanding of something.
This one isn't even an argument for theism; it's just an argument against evolution. And a bad one I hesitate to call an argument. But, of course, by trying to denounce evolution theists try to uphold their shitty idea. So I'll attack evolution attacking "arguments" as well in my "Theist Arguments" blog series.
*Rubs his forehead.* Alright...
To put it simply, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the law that states everything tends toward chaos. Energy fans out, spreads out. Heat cannot (by itself), move from a cold object to a warmer object, for example. Heat fans out. Comprende? Comprendamundo? Things tend toward disorder, entropy increases, yatta yatta yatta...
Here is the basic law:
"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Get it?
The theist doesn't.
The theist, well, the willingly ignorant theist, will try to tell you (as two have tried to tell me so far on myspace), that this means evolution must be impossible. Well, evolution happened. Logically it must have, for over 4.5 billions years it'd be impossible for greats amounts of evolution NOT to occur, and we have the fossils that show it did occur, and we have done it to plants and animals ourselves. It happened. So clearly, if the Law of Thermodynamics is true, it must not actually violate evolution.
And it doesn't. It doesn't at all. You see, the theist is trying to ask how complexity can arise at such degrees, how things can evolve, increasing in complexity, if energy fans out? Wouldn't all the "useful" energy be used up? Wouldn't we reach a maximum value of equilibrium?
No. You see, the theist here is ignoring something. The little part about the "isolated" system, aka, the "closed" system. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only holds true in a closed system of energy. If more energy comes in from outside of the system, constantly, then there won't be that much fanning out of the energy. The energy will not be "used up" because there is a constant supply. It won't be drawn out over the planet equally because there are constant deliveries of such heat and energy. The theist ignores this. Completely, truly, sincerely ignores it.
When confronted about this, they try to pretend the earth IS a closed system. Where the energy for the animals comes from is god.
No. No, the earth is not a closed system. Sorry. And God is not necessary here.
We have the little thing in the sky I like to call the SUN, you stupid f**king morons!!
I know! It's hard to miss! All big, bright, shiny, and life-givey it is and all.
Jesus Christ - I mean, you're probably the kind of theist who argues that he knows there is a devil because "how else would anyone know what he looks like?"
I can't even give you kudos for a "nice try." I can't even say "nice try" as a joke. That's like laughing at a retard when he gets his hand caught in a machine. I'd feel guilty if I was sarcastic or laughed about it. You can't even read the very law you're talking about, can you? You can't even look up into the sky and wonder where the light comes from, can you? What is wrong with you? I really, really want to know. What's wrong with you?
Energy and heat rains down like all hell from our sky. It has every damn day for the pay 4.5 billion years. Tell me we're a closed system. Tell me that. Look me in the eye, put your hand on the Bible (the one NOT chewed up by the machine you stuck it in), and tell me we are a closed system.
You know what? I don't have time for this level of dishonesty anymore. It is truly an art to be that stupid. An art. It's like poetry! You must have planned that fiasco out for months. I honestly cannot think of any way you could have f**ked your dignity more. You know, aside from being a theist in the first place.
*Rubs his head.* Okay... Calm Down... It's not their fault their mother's drank when they were pregnant...
JESUS CHRIST! What is wrong with you?! You look into a math book and go, "Hah! See! One plus one is three! I know because it says one plus one is two right here!"
I mean--You were--
Please don't mate. Please. I'm begging you. I am on my knees. What more do you want from me?! Don't pass on your genetics. If there is a soul anywhere in that black hole of your hell loving heart... Don't mate...
And don't drink when you're pregnant.
Oh, and one more thing, just in case, even IF the law violated evolution: "The second law is actually a statement about the probable behavior of an isolated system. As larger and larger systems are considered, the probability of the second law being practically true becomes more and more certain."
But it doesn't even violate evolution. So... You're screwed. Completely. I mean there is literally nothing you can do about it.
Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog #140, Theist Argument 2, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
This old blog of mine both debunks the argument that a devotion to God is nessessary for good citizenship, while also technically debunking th BSA and their website. So I thought it might post it here. You can remove it from this location if you don't feel it belongs here and I won't be offended.
Boy Scouts of America
Category: News and Politics
"Duty to God Scouting maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise, the member declares, " On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. ""
-- www.scouting.com , the BSA official webpage
"The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual can not serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law..."
-- www.scouting.com , the BSA official webpage
"
Atheists and Other Non-theists in Scouting
The Boy Scouts of America requires its members to believe in God and to recite an oath to God at every troop meeting. They do not permit membership to anyone whose convictions do not allow them to recite this oath and they terminate membership of anyone who is discovered to be an atheist or agnostic, even if it is discovered inadvertently. Consequently, over 20 million Americans are excluded from the Boy Scouts due to their religious beliefs. This includes not only people who identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, but also includes other non-theists such as secular Jews, non-theistic Buddhists, some Unitarians and animists (animists believe in spirits but do not believe in God). The exclusion applies to both children and adults.
The Girl Scouts of America also have an oath to God that they recite at every troop meeting; however, they do not prohibit membership to those who do not profess belief in God. They allow non-theistic members to substitute the word "God" for a word of their choosing. In this way, the Girl Scouts have maintained their oath and duty to God while accommodating non-theists at the same time. To allow all American citizens the opportunity to be in the Boy Scouts, BSA leadership should make the same kind of accommodation for non-theists.
Why are non-theists excluded from the Boy Scouts?
Non-theists are excluded from the Boy Scouts on moral grounds. On every application form and in the Boy Scout handbook you will find the words "you can't be the best kind of citizen without the obligation to God." This is another way of saying that you can't be moral without belief in God. While this is a commonly held belief, it is in fact a myth. Those who do not profess belief in God do not have any higher a propensity towards acts of immorality than anyone else. While about 10% of the U.S. population does not profess belief in God, less than 1%