A quick review of the usual apologetics

A Christian apologetic video called "10 INCREDIBLE BIBLE FACTS to blow your mind" was posted to the "Philosophy of Religion" G+ Group.  Bible click-bait is not "Philosophy of Religion."  But I took the time to respond anyways.

1: So what? Harry Potter sold a lot of books too.  Doesn't make it true.

2: Lots of authors, but "the Bible does not contradict itself" Yes. It does.  Lots. There are whole indices of the contradictions. http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
But even if it were, a cursory understanding of how the Bible was formed (by committee, from a much larger set of texts) shows that it could be just good editing, not good writing.

3: Again. So what? This is just false. Book of Mormon says that god said things too. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng

4: What a cute legend.

5. We're going down-hill here. This is pretty wildly speculative and vague. I wrote a blog about how this sort of post-hoc rationality works. The prophecies of Dr. Seuss
http://www.atheistengineer.com/2015/06/the-of-dr-seuss.html
"Jesus is Coming Back Soon." This has been the Christian claim

6. The Bible is true?! LMFAO. Where are the four corners of the earth? Stop pretending a circle is the same as a sphere.
Wow. Look under the water and you can see rocky formations that resemble what's over the land.
You're doing science just like the Muslims do it!
https://twitter.com/AtheistEngineer/status/671157215210766336
   Step 1: Look at what's real.
  Step 2: Find places where the Bible can be interpreted to suggest those things.

7. Ha ha ha. So there's some facts which agree with history? I'll defer to the usual "Spider Man happens in New York, but it doesn't make Spider Man true."
The Biblical writings are "viable"?  Might not be false isn't a very good basis.

8. Accurate to what?!  Oh. The disagreements between different scribes are "minor" in the opinion of some biblical historians? The 31,000

9. Methamphetamine has also changed people's lives.  People who use it are transformed. They become committed to methamphetamine.  Does that make it true?  The video goes on to cite a few anecdotes about people who were born and raised Christian, then happened to do good things anyways.  Lots of people find Jesus at their lowest -- because that's when they're most vulnerable to indoctrination.

10. There's a corrupted Bible? God hasn't protected "his word" very well, eh?  Imagine if that happened EARLY in the Bible's history. The result would be an unreliable Bible today!

Response to Evolution "News"

I don't know why I wasted my time. My edits are in bold italics. Response to 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/waiting_for_mut099631.html

Many (hardly any) scientists now recognize the insufficiency of the classic Darwinian story to account for the appearance of new features or innovations in the history of life. They focus on other theories to account for remarkable differences between genomes, the appearance of novel body plans, and genuine innovations like the bat's wing, the mammalian placenta, the vertebrate eye, or insect flight, for example (In the same way that General Relativity improved on "Newtonian Theory" and made Mercury's orbit work?). They realize (Inspired by their religion, they believe) that the traditional story of population genetics (changes in allele frequencies in populations due to mutation, selection, and drift) cannot account for "the arrival of the fittest" and not just the "survival of the fittest." (Hugo DeVries, 1904). <--  Wow, they're reaching DEEP into the historical academic work

One of the reasons many (this tiny fraction of )scientists acknowledge the insufficiency of Darwinism is because they know the refuse to admit that the accounting won't works. The mutation rate, the generation times, the strength of selection versus genetic drift, the population sizes, and the time available don't match up just fine.

Here's where they deliberately misinterpret journal results and compare apples to oranges to make the reader think there's something wrong with science. At its core, this is part of a larger argument from ignorance approach, paraphrased as: 'Science isn't right. Therefore God did it.'

For example, supposedly humans last shared common ancestry with chimps about six million years ago. Since that time, we have accumulated significant differences with chimps -- genetic, anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and intellectual differences, among others. The genetic differences between humans and chimps are much more than the (shrinking) 1.2 percent difference in base pairs that is so often quoted in the media. (Yes, there are different ways of measuring similarity.) Add small insertions and deletions and the differences climb to about 3-5 percent,depending on whose estimate is used. Add another 2.7 percent for large scale duplications or deletions, another 6 percent for new Alu elements (a kind of mobile genetic element) and some unknown number for rearrangements of the DNA, other insertions of mobile genetic elements, or new genes, we have more than 11.7 percent of our genome with unique features not present in chimps. (Only when you struggle to exaggerate moves and deletions. For reference, here is the preliminary analysis as published in Nature.) 

There is only so much time for these differences to have accumulated. Mutations arise and are propagated from generation to generation, so the number of generations limits how many mutations can accumulate. The estimated mutation rate is about 10^-8 per base pairs per generation, and we have an average generation time of somewhere between 10 and 25 years. Our estimated breeding population size six million years ago is thought to have been about 10,000 (these are all rough estimates based on numbers currently in use -- see the papers cited below). Based on these numbers, one can estimate how many years it would take to acquire all those mutations, assuming every mutation that occurred was saved, and stored up. (Since the mutation rate is extremely small and uniformly distributed, this assumption is valid.)

But there's a difficulty -- it's called genetic drift. In small populations, like the 10,000 estimate above, mutations are likely to be lost and have to reoccur many times before they actually stick (WTF? It's not like a specific change keeps trying. Many are just lost). Just because of random effects (failure to reproduce due to accidental death, infertility, not finding a mate, or the death of all one's progeny), a particular neutral mutation may have to arise many times before it becomes established in the population, and then many more years before it finally becomes fixed (that is, before it takes over the population and replaces all other versions).

What a strange misinterpretation of the process! The author seems to think that the mutations which fail to reproduce keep trying until they stick. Bizarre! Clearly, lost mutations are simply lost. Just like the 99.9% of all species which have gone extinct. Very few succeed.

How long before a single, new mutation appears and becomes fixed? An estimate from a recent paper (by a Young Earth Creationist) using numerical simulations is 1.5 million years. That is within the range of possibility. (By assuming that there is only a single specific desirable mutation being considered by nature at any given time.) But what if two specific mutations are needed to effect a beneficial change? Their estimate is 84 million years. Other scientists have done this calculation using analytical methods, but their numbers are even worse. One report calculates 6 million years for one specific base change in an eight base target typical of the size of a DNA binding site to fix (In the abstract, the author points out that the sequence needn't be perfect to be valuable, reducing the time to 60,000 yrs), and 100 million years to get two specific mutations. (That work was later amended to 216 million years.) Extrapolating from other published data merely confirms the problem.

Astonishing dishonesty! A brief review of the linked article (100 million years) contains the following quote: "Fortunately, in biological reality, the match of a regulatory protein to the target sequence does not have to be exact for binding to occur. Biological reality is complicated, with the acceptable sequences for binding described by position weight matrices that indicate the flexibility at different points in the sequence. To simplify, we assume that binding will occur to any eight-letter word that has seven letters in common with the target word. If we do this, then the mean waiting time reduces to ∼60,000 years."  Why would Evolution "News" need to misrepresent the author's conclusions in their linked article? Did they think nobody would read it?

Durrett makes a good analogy to the mistake Michael Behe made to reach is 216 million year figure in the linked article: "Behe is not alone in making this type of mistake. When Evelyn Adams won the New Jersey lottery on October 23, 1985, and again on February 13, 1986, newspapers quoted odds of 17.1 trillion to 1. That assumes that the winning person and the two lottery dates are specified in advance, but at any point in time there is a population of individuals who have won the lottery and have a chance to win again, and there are many possible pairs of dates on which this event can happen. The probability that it happens in one lottery 1 year is ∼1 in 200 (Durrett 2009)  

Another paper came up with much shorter time frames by assuming that any 5 to 10 base pair binding site could arise anywhere within 1 Kb of any promoter within the genome. 

Yet in all likelihood many more than two binding sites would be required to change anything significant, and those binding sites must be appropriate in location and in sequence to accomplish the necessary changes. They must work together in order for a specific adaptive change to happen.  (Again, the authors seem to think that these changes are prescribed and can't be happening at random, in parallel, and at different sites.) 

Genes operate in networks, and to shift a gene regulatory network would require many mutations, and not just random ones. Remember there are anatomical physiological, behavioral, and intellectual differences to explain, multiple traits each requiring multiple coordinated mutations. Unless one invokes luck on a large scale, those traits would not have come to be. (Again, all this presumes humanity is the intended end-state. It is because it is.) 

I'm not betting on luck. (Of course you're not). 

Image: Homo georgicus, reconstruction, photo by 120 (Own work (photograph), model by Élisabeth Daynes) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Well that was as much fun as beating my head against a wall. The basics mistakes are as follows:

1. Cite ancient journals from 1904 as if they're still relevant
2. Misrepresent the number of changes
3. Cite letters to journals which explicitly refute the point you're claiming they make (oops?!)
4. Presume that the genetic changes were prescribed
5. Assume intelligent humanity was the universe's desired end-goal
6. Ignore that a neutral genetic change will not survive without a second change that's necessary to the benefit. Indeed, we could have millions of such single-mutations waiting on a second mutation to confer a benefit.

You Are Not Spiritually Blind, The Emperor Has No Clothes

Have you been called "spiritually blind" or told that you "wouldn't believe in god if it stood in front of you?"  It's insulting, right? These phrases and tactics are common in religious and other cultures which Religious culture shames doubters. Whether the language and culture is intentionally designed in that way or simply arose out of cultural evolution can be debated, but the fact remains that it happens.

In some churches, the shaming is overt and explicit, but it's pervasive in the culture and language of even the most liberal and open churches. After over a year of debating on Twitter with theists, this tactic has stood out as a clear and consistent technique that's used in an attempt to shame those who question or doubt.

Responses to Questions

The shaming of in-group versus out-group doubt seems different.  Members of the faith are treated much more friendly than non-believers. The tactic is very effective at stifling open and honest discussion of the most fragile aspects of theism. Depending on their perspective and congregation, many theists will tell you that their church encourages questioning. 

However even in these cases, there exists strong and persistent shaming of a specific type of questions: Those which question the fragile foundation of theistic belief.  These are things like:

• Does a god exist?
• How can a just and loving God condemn anyone to hell for torture?
• Why does God punish an innocent child for the sins of mankind? (A logical follow-up to an attempt to explain away the "Problem of Evil" by saying we live in a fallen world or man's free-will causes suffering)
• Has God ever told you something you didn't already know?
• Any challenge or doubt of the divinity of Jesus (e.g. How do we know jesus really did the miracles in the Bible? None of them left a trace.)

Common responses designed to shut down further questions:

• You're overthinking it (one of my personal favorites)
• Questioner's fault.
• You just have to have faith.
• Implies that the doubt or question is a failure on the questioner's part.
• God has a plan which we are not capable of understanding.
• Rather than specifically insulting the questioner, this one says all humanity is incapable of understanding God's perfect plan.
• Trust the Bible. God wouldn't lie / is not the Deceiver (a reference to Satan)

Responses to Outside Doubt

The most common response to shut down challenges from someone outside theism is to attack their personal character or insult their to imply that god is so obvious that the nonbeliever must be handicapped (e.g. "spiritually blind").

• You're unable to see your own bias against Christianity
• Rather than address the question, the theist charges a doubter with bias and bigotry.
• You must be struggling with faith.
• You and those on your side are completely biased to oppose every argument for Christianity
• You're not really an atheist. You're rebelling against a god you really know exists
• This one is an insult to personal character -- calling the opponent a liar.  It's also based in scripture (Romans 1:20). To a believer who thinks the Bible is infallible, there's no way to even address this belief. You MUST be lying because no part of their Bible could possibly be wrong.

• You are invincibly blind to your own arrogance, hatred and hypocrisy (all this for asking hard questions or expressing reasonable doubt)

• You actually hate god. You're "swine" and I won't cast my brilliant "pearls" in front of you. 
• Also: I'm a good person for attacking you now in the hopes my god won't torture you later.

• You're just like the doubters and haters Paul described in Romans 1 & 18. So your doubt and refusal to accept my claims means my book made a prophecy and is therefore true in its entirety.

Stupid Challenges to Atheists

• You have no morals
• Without God, what is the meaning to life?
• [Insert despot here] was atheist 

I'm not sure any of these even justify a response, but I've got a couple gems:

Response to: "Existence of the God of the Bible"

Introduction

I hate to give away the punchline,
but it's something like this.

This is a response post to "Existence of the God of the Bible". I'll be discussing the original author's points one-by-one.  Usually, I'll quote the text of the original article first, then follow it up with commentary on the quality (or lack thereof) of the presented evidence.  Once in a while, I'll interject with [square brackets, bold, and italics].

Here it goes...

Existence of The God of the Bible

This is only an introduction to the main arguments for God’s existence.  Obviously, much more can and has been written.  First, the question of evidence for God’s existence is not a matter of some evidence being for God’s existence and some being against.  It is whether or not the existence of God explains all of the evidence better than the alternative (that, is, that there is no Being higher than us).

If that's the test for existence, you're already tilting the playing field  strongly in theist's favor.  You've eliminated a huge array of potential gods and lowered the burden of proof to just "better explanation than no god".  Imagine if we applied that same low threshold to a murder trial. "The defendant is guilty if it seems more likely that he did it than didn't do it."

Second, we say that one’s own understanding of the concept of God is one strong piece of evidence.  This is something which most people have no problem understanding even though most people also have a natural tendency to want to reject God (as I once did and all of us actually do by nature).  This tendency shows that belief in God is not a matter of wishful thinking.

I accept that the concept of "God" exists.  That doesn't mean that the actual thing envisioned in the concept exists.  I have a concept of Zeus and Poseidon and Ra and Harry Potter.  Yet no reasonable person would suggest that my "own understanding of the concept of Harry Potter is one strong piece of evidence" for Harry Potter existing, would you?! This tendency does not even remotely show that "belief in God is not a matter of wishful thinking." And I don't even follow the "logic" which would imply to the author that it does.

Third, there is the fact that you or anything else exists, since, as a contingent being, your existence must ultimately have come from some Necessary Being.  

Huh? Is this a feeble attempt at the first cause argument? There are a great many well known problems with it which are commonly taught in Freshman level philosophy.

Fourth, there is the amazing intricacy and capabilities of even simple forms of life.  For example, a common house-fly is a far more advanced flying machine than anything we have been able to design.  To say that the emergence of such life did not require design, but only mindless natural forces operating over a vast period of time violates the principle of Occam’s Razor, which says that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.  The naturalistic explanation can only be surmised, never observed.

False. Evolution is a well established, relatively simple scientific theory that has vast  explanatory powers for complex life. It describes how complex organisms form over time by a process of random mutations and natural selection. The fact that the author thinks evolution is too complicated does not invalidate an entire field of modern science. Evolution is so simple and effective that it is even used in engineering (genetic design algorithms).

But we constantly observe how the application of intelligence on matter produces complex items.  Indeed, in the absence of efforts guided by intelligent purpose, the natural tendency of matter is to go from order to disorder (as anyone who never cleans their house will easily recognize!).

This is tap-dancing near the second law of thermodynamics, which even Answers in Genesis lists in its "arguments to avoid" section.  Simply put, the tendency of matter towards disorder only applies to closed systems. Since the sun provides energy to the Earth, we are NOT in a closed system, and the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

Fifth, the dominant belief today that the universe ultimately consists only of mindless matter/energy in time cannot explain the existence of us as people and any of our knowledge, experience or values (including all ethics). 

Why not?  It's clear that consciousness is a gradient -- from the simple consciousness of a fruit fly to mice, dolphins, gorillas, and humans.  Knowledge resides in our brains, as every neuroscientist will tell you.  Our brains are made of "mindless matter/energy".  Your computer has "mindless energy" too yet it can appear to think.

Sixth, ethics can only be arbitrary unless there is a Higher Standard.  The only reason good and evil are not arbitrary is because goodness is God’s Nature as The Perfect Being.  Anything which contradicts or opposes this is evil.  (I would add that the only reason God can truly be self-sufficient as a Person is because He is relational within His ow/n Being as multi-Personal.  This shows the superiority of Christian Monotheism.)

This is such a mess.

• First, it's not an argument for the existence of a god, but simply an insult to your opponent:  those of us who don't believe a god exists.  It's the age old "where do you get your morals if not from god?" taunt. 
• Second, it shows a juvenile view of right and wrong. "Anything against my god is evil". And I suppose you're going to tell us what you think your god wants. And Islam will tell us what their god wants. And they're not the same. And that's where holy wars come from.

To assert that an ultimate "Higher Standard" determines right from wrong sets aside nuances of specific situations and the limitations of an individual's knowledge / information which all bear on the "arbitrary" judgement of right from wrong.  And of course, each individual's values determine how that person will select the best among multiple good things or the least bad among multiple bad things

Even if one were to claim that all of our experience as human beings is only an illusion, this still wouldn’t eliminate the fact that we still exist as real subjects of the illusion!  And, taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-Theistic alternative absurdly posits an empty universe of objects with no knowing subjects.  In other words, your existence as a human person disproves the Materialism/Empiricism of Atheism.  For example, unless we existed as more than physical chemistry, a person looking at their own brain chemistry could only be described as chemistry somehow viewing itself!  This is the “reductio ad absurdum” of Materialism (also known as Naturalism, which is supported by the equally-flawed epistemology of Empiricism).

This seems to be a straw-man (solipsism isn't atheism) followed by who knows what "empty universe of objects with no knowing subjects" is supposed to mean.  So no, my existence as a human person does NOT disprove Materialism, Empiricism, or Atheism.   Note also that materialism and empiricism are not atheism. Each one is a  unique concept. As an electrical engineer, I see no problem or issue whatsoever with your "chemistry viewing itself" attempt at "reducto ad absurdum". It works just fine and in no way challenges materialism, naturalism, or empiricism.

Downhill Slope

As you'll see, the last couple paragraphs of the blog entry are basically insults to non-believers and preaching. It's crash and burn for this guy.

All of these things point to the necessary existence of The Creator God described in the Bible.  They are not necessary proofs in the respect that God’s existence needs to be established by proof.  God is not a theorem.  He is The Ultimate Fact.  [snort]  In fact, even logic itself is not explainable without the existence of The One True God (as the way His Mind works and the way ours is supposed to work because we have been made in His likeness).  So, God must exist or else we couldn’t prove anything.

You've posited without evidence that your god is responsible for these things, then turned around and made the absurd assertion that their existence is evidence of your god.  This is the logical equivalent of: "Mermaids make seashells so seashells prove the existence of mermaids."
I'll just ignore the baseless claim that "God is not a theorem. He is The Ultimate Fact". I'm sure you believe that's true, but your belief doesn't make it true.
Finally, you've wound yourself around the axle of logic with a Sye Ten Bruggencate style "you're not allowed to have logic unless you accept my god" argument. Next, you'll be saying "I don't do Bible study with atheists."   It's patently absurd to everyone but believers who blindly accept your initial premise: that god is responsible for logic. You've not established that to be true, merely claimed it without the slightest shred of justification.

Thus, all of these “proofs” are not really proofs, [FINALLY, something I can agree with.  Oops. I should finish the sentence … ] but “evidence after The Fact” of something which is above all proof: God’s inescapable existence.  [awwwwwww. It started out so good] But most people “can’t handle the truth!” that God exists because they want to be the god of their own lives [Insult your opponent time?].  The Bible calls this our “sinful nature”, by which we are naturally-inclined to reject God. [Who cares what the Bible says, you haven't proven god exists yet!!]  This is despite the most direct piece of evidence of all: the fact that all of us inevitably and inescapably know The One True God in our hearts, but suppress this knowledge. [LMAO]

Calling this last bit a "fact" doesn't make it an actual fact. Rather, it's just a claim from your particular holy book and doctrine.  As an atheist, I can say with confidence that it's wrong, and so is Paul when he says anyone who leaves Christianity wasn't a Christian to begin with.
Nevertheless, the author has gone off the rails from what started as a rational explanation for god's existence. He is now just spewing his personal dogma. Well, let's see what's next.

Many reading this will undoubtedly deny that you already know God exists, just as you will likely resist where all of the above evidence points. But that is simply you acting according to the basic characteristic of mankind, as the Bible alone explains it: because you were born as a member of a rebellious race of sinners.  Only God can change this, but all of us are culpable for not seeking Him and asking Him to open our hearts, eyes and minds so that we can get to know Him and so that we can be saved and transformed.  The Gospel found in the Bible explains this and has led millions to The Greatest Blessing possible: the peace and joy of knowing that I have been forgiven of my sins and that my Creator loves me with perfect love.

That's silly. The author's argument is bad  because the author's argument is bad. Trying to lay the blame for your bad argument at your reader's feet is just further embarrassing yourself. Your Bible was written millennia ago by anonymous authors you believe to be "divinely inspired" for no other reason than the church told you that's what it is. I reject that claim until adequate evidence is provided too.
Blah blah blah preaching.

I hope and pray that you will truly consider all of this and find the same Blessing which I found 32 years ago.

You've wasted 32 years of your life praying to a god which doesn't exist. I hope you can escape this fallacious thinking some day, but I don't hold out much hope.  You seem to be in pretty deep. 

Authenticating God

1.0 Introduction

How many times have you heard a Christian, Muslim, or other theist say something like:

I know I'm right because my beliefs are grounded in the ultimate truth of the Word of God.

There are a couple assumptions implicit to this claim:

1. Identification: That the claimant has proven beyond any doubt that his particular "Word of God" are actually words of god. There's a long list things which people claim to be the word of a god:
1. The Torah
2. The Christian Bible
3. The Quran
4. The Book of Mormon
5. Personal Revelation
6. A wide range of ramblings from people suffering mental disorders
In my experience, most theists will look at this list and beam with pride over their book, yet scoff at or mock the others as though they're no different from option "f". In short I have yet to meet a theist who can address this problem.   Most don't even seem to understand the issue.
2. Honesty: That the particular god they've authenticated is incapable of lying or  for some reason will never chose to lie.
3. Knowledge: That the particular god they've authenticated possesses or defines "ultimate truth". For example, is it possible that their god resides within a universe governed by another god? Their god might be completely unaware of this fact.  It could be that it knows everything about our universe, but is limited in its knowledge of the god's super-universe.

Complex infrastructure is used to authenticate users
on the internet

Authentication methods have been studied extensively in recent years. It turns out it's not trivial to authenticate a user.  It requires a common trusted agent (the Certificate  Authority or CA), a Registration Authority, which is trusted to store the registered certificates, and complex mathematics. It relies on algorithms which are easy to run in one direction, but difficult to run in reverse.  Specifically, two very large prime numbers can be multiplied together to form the digital key. It's secure because factoring that key essentially requires checking every possible number -- computationally prohibitive at least for the next several centuries.

Authentication is not easy, but it's possible. And even absent a trusted certificate authority, there are plausible mechanisms by which a god could have given evidence that authenticated itself in a holy book. None are present.

2.0 Identification

There's not a long list of ways that a text could authenticate. The most common method theists point to is prophecy. There might be others.

2.1 Prophecy!

The theists among you are no-doubt shouting, "But there's prophecy! That's proof that the Bible is divine." It isn't.  Not even close.  

• Suppose I could successfully predict a set of 5 of two digit numbers that will be drawn at random from a set of two-digit numbers. Millions of people try to do this each day, motivated by the potential to win money and they nearly all fail, but I have succeeded and won the lottery. Is that prophecy?
  No. It's luck. It may seem to ME like it's a prophecy, but it happens to someone regularly.
• Suppose I said that in 2016, there would be wars and storms and floods around the world.  Is that prophecy?
  No. There have always been wars and storms and floods. A person could make this claim about any year in human history and be correct.
• Suppose I said that the country Israel would exist. Is that prophecy?
  No. Israel exists now, it has existed at many times in the past, and will likely continue to exist in varying forms throughout much of human future. (much like the book of Revelation)

But let's imagine that before it happened, I predicted that a meteor would strike Russia in the Winter of 2015. This is an unusual event, I had no means of fore-knowledge. It would sure seem that this is a prophecy.  If I had managed to make that prophecy, would you presume they're god-like? Or would you assume I just got lucky? Or maybe it's just a trick. Maybe I bribed people to say I made the claim earlier but actually made it AFTER. Regardless, does this one astonishing prediction in any imply that every word I say is true?

2.2 Other Options

We often seem to be confined in our thinking to methods which were available to barely-literate authors of the original Bible.  There are lots of other ways that a god could demonstrate its supernatural powers. These are:

• Properly and accurately explain the origins of species and the beginning of the observable universe long before it was knowable
• Be made of an unobtainable material (maybe even not atomic) and readable by all humans
• Be present in all cultures and tribes around the world
• Be unalterable, incorruptible, impossible to deface.
• Be objectively clear and consistent throughout
• Not endorse slavery or genocide.
• Teach a morality where people are responsible for their own actions.   Not their great-great-great-…-grandmother's actions, and not excused by third-party torture.
• Not borrow from earlier myths

These are just some examples I could easily think of.  (I know. The last couple are jabs at the Bible.)

]Finally, the best way that Yaweh could authenticate himself is simply by introducing himself. Now. To all humanity. Maybe a bit like the Vogons did in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

3.0 Honesty

In a relationship of approximately equal peers, it takes time to establish trust in honesty.  It's not something that can be simply declared by one party and accepted by the other. In the Abrahamic mythologies, we are expected to simply accept that Yaweh is always honest. No reason or justification for this is presented.  It's simply part of the traditional beliefs which people are expected to accept without cause.

4.0 Knowledge

The original claim was that god knows all things. This became problematic because if Yaweh knows the future, then it's not possible to do something he hasn't foreseen and free-will becomes an illusion. This result renders original sin even more problematic than it already was since Adam and Eve had essentially no other choice than to commit the sin God had foreseen. 

Worse still, there are problems like:

• Can god know all possible things about himself or just his creation? 
• Is it possible that god (who claims to have all knowledge) is simply deceived? A lot of people seem to fall into this category.

In the end, nobody I'm aware of has validated the claim that Yaweh is all-knowing. I'm not even sure such a thing is possible. If the god is NOT all-knowing, it's possible that this fact is not known to him.

5.0 Conclusion

It's  a long and up-hill battle to demonstrate the "divine and inerrant"  natures of the Bible. In the 2000 years of Christianity's existence no such demonstration has been shown. 

Help for Those who Struggle with Faith

Doubt

Are you "struggling with faith"? Trying to figure out how it is that Christianity seems to make sense to so many people?  The miracles and supernatural just doesn't ever happen in reality, and you can't help but notice that ancient cultures weren't the best at interpreting the things they saw happening around them.

I have great news. You don't have to struggle with it any more! There's an easy way to be done with the struggle for good.  What's more, by never struggling with your faith again, you can live a life that's even more free and fulfilling you ever imagined. You'll never wonder why bad things happen to good people or why God created cancer and malaria.

First, we need to carefully understand the problem itself.  "Struggling with faith" is negative language. It makes people feel shame and guilt over your reasonable doubts. A more neutral phrase might be "doubting your deeply held beliefs."   Put this way, it's not so negative, is it?

Doubts are a natural reaction when we're asked to believe something incredible without supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with your doubts. In fact, they're very healthy. You would insist on reasonable evidence for any other belief in your life.  In fact, it would be unfair or dishonest to give your religious beliefs a free-pass.

Most people learn their religion as a young child.  They accepted stories as truthful before they had the critical thinking skills to fairly evaluate the claims. This isn't just true for Christianity. It's broadly true for all religious beliefs. Now that you're an adult and you've learned to evaluate things rationally, you're entitled to reevaluate.

So what will you find when you rethink things? What conclusions are you willing to accept? Can you give yourself permission to reach the scary conclusion? It's okay if you discover you were wrong all this time.  You're not bound to your religion by some kind of curse. You can change your mind and keep all the values that are important to you. You work ethic, love, and honesty aren't your religion's values. They're your values. You can keep them.

So how do you put an end to your struggles with faith? It's pretty simple. Stop struggling. Let go of the obligation to believe what your parents taught you. You have the right, even the obligation to figure out what's true for yourself. And it's okay if you reach a different conclusion.

So congratulations for your new-found doubt. Congratulations for bravely questioning the things you've always just assumed.  And congratulations for giving yourself permission to reach whatever conclusion is rational.

Speaking for God

I've spent over year now debating theology with Christians and Muslims. One thing that's constant is that they'll make a claim about God without an ability to back it up. Then they get upset when I tell them the claim is baseless. Yet they cannot point to an objective fact or means to validate their claims.

In a nutshell, this is one of the foundational problems with religion: In religion, the church is created to represent an absentee God for the believer. Since nobody can communicate with God, your church, synagogue, or mosque tells you what he is like and what he wants from you.

At this point, some religious believers might be thinking "that's not true! The [Name of holy book] is the word of God!" But of course, that holy book simply supports or is supported by the aforementioned religious organization. Regardless of the religion, there are many different interpretations of the holy book which quibble over details ranging from acceptance of gays to the divinity of Jesus or Mohammed. Of course none of the beliefs are based in objective evidence, so it's impossible to resolve these disagreements. The disagreeing groups simply aren't equipped with (or aren't willing to use) the critical thinking skills necessary to resolve their disagreement. They seem unable to even see the foundational epistemological failures that explain why their groups cannot agree.

The process by which churches make these claims about the nature and desires of God is gradual and subtle. It's done through sermons, songs, and discussions with other church members who also accept the dogma. Through this process, religion is helping to define the believer's expectations for what God is like. When the believer then communicate with God through "prayer," their mind forms plausible responses from this shared vision of God. Humans are VERY good at imagining conversations. The imagined interlocutor is convincing enough that people believe their imagined God might be real.  Of course they're prepared for this delusion by being taught they need to "listen carefully" and "God will speak to them." This handy guide provides a nice template for how the delusion is cultivated.

First, Christians should build relationships with other Christians

The belief spreads best if you're surrounded by people who support your belief.  Since there's no objective evidence, developing a social group is the best way to convince yourself.

A Christ follower should spend daily time reading the Bible, mulling over the messa and praying for ways to make scripture’s lessons into a lifestyle. 

Repetition and meditation helps solidify a common belief

By adding prayer for others and himself to this daily quiet time, the Christian will find it easier to turn away from their own self-focused desires, and advance God’s priorities to first place. 

Believing they're helping other people helps believers feel like this repetitive action isn't as selfish as it really is,

 Christians should actively seek opportunities to tell others about what they are learning from and about God.

The best way to follow through with a commitment is to publicly affirm it.  This makes the believer be more committed to the beliefs. Turning away from the commitment after publicly affirming it is socially awkward.  To avoid this embarrassment, a believer will tend to shun any self-doubt. or at the very least conceal this doubt from fellow believers. The end-result is a community which can more strongly reinforce the religious dogma of the sect.

It is through this mechanism that these God beliefs flourish. Each believer thinks theirs seems rational because they're surrounded by people with nearly identical beliefs. The belief which cannot be supported by any rational or objective means is supported by the echo chamber of the social group instead. When confronted with a differing belief or a different religion, there's no way to resolve the different subject of gods each group has independently created.  

So what happens? Christian theologians review Muslim work and find all the logical and factual flaws in their religion and say, "Ha ha Islam is false!" But of course, Muslim scholars do the same for Christianity. The leaders of each religion are capable of critical thought and logical evaluation of other beliefs. But for their own favorite belief, they're unable or unwilling to apply the same standards. This is the part that I don't understand.  

How can intelligent people be oblivious to their own double-standard? I suppose it takes effort to evaluate one's own deeply held beliefs, but that's an essential part of being an honest person.

The Good News of Atheism

So often, the theist - atheist debate focuses on the basis or reason behind beliefs. Christians like to tout the "Good News" of the new testament as a reason to convert to Christianity.

What's the Good News of Christianity?

Note: When the Christians deliver this message, it focuses on the positive parts, and skips over the absurdities. I assume you've heard the whitewashed message so often that a deliberately jaded and cynical perspective is appropriate to help provide some "balance".

 In this story, their alleged god becomes human, then tortures and kills himself in order to generate a loophole in the morality he originally created. Christians say the "Good News", is that if you just BELIEVE in their claims and beg their invisible god for forgiveness, you can exploit this "moral" loophole and avoid eternal torture that/ awaits you after death.  Only this god doesn't really manifest anywhere you can point to, so this begging for forgiveness happens (conveniently) at their church and to a large ironic idol, like the ones forbidden in Exodus 20:4.

"What do I need forgiveness for?" you may rightly ask.  It turns out Christian doctrine teaches that humans are all wretched creatures deserving of eternal torture. They're not permitted to acknowledge how strange it is that a perfect being would create such a horrible failure of a species. "Free will" somehow plays a role in absolving god of his design failure. Chief among your "crimes" is not acknowledging and groveling before the theist's church (which stands in the place of the conspicuously absent god you're actually supposed to worship). Nevermind that this god failed to give you senses capable of detecting his presence. Nevermind that no scientific instrument has ever detected a god or its effects on the natural world. None of that matters. The blame for your failure to accept and worship the unseen god lands squarely on your shoulders. Refusing to accept the theist's claims that this god exists and deserves worship means you are arrogant and rebellious against their god.

So what is the good news of Atheism? 

I put this question to my followers on Twitter:

I'm starting a blog post on the #GoodNewsOfAtheism. What things did you feel were a relief when you left religion?

— Ατηξιsτ Εngιnεεr (@AtheistEngineer) July 21, 2015

What emerged was an outpouring of positive messages about atheism and what it means to people.  It was a wonderfully uplifting day, and I'm delighted to be able to share it with you.  There were so many wonderfully positive messages of freedom, relief, and empowerment.  I captured many, but not all. I'd highly recommend reading the thread. I find it uplifting.

Corporal Punishment is as Immoral as it Feels

"Spare the rod, spoil the child" was an edict for many of my followers in their youth. This is a doctrine that feels good to dispose of. Physical punishment feels like poison.

@AtheistEngineer The list of painful realizations about my upbringing is substantial. I don't accept corporal punishment as moral, now.

— Pascal's Bookie (@DynoJJ) July 21, 2015

There is no Eternity to Worry About

Sure you'll hear from Christians that you ought to believe "just in case".  But Pascal's wager is a fool's errand. Belief isn't a choice, it's a realization. And pretending to believe "just in case" wouldn't fool an omniscient god anyways.

1. Heaven and hell almost certainly don't exist
2. No just god would force a decision before you die.

If he existed, a god wouldn't be a used car salesman, employing high-pressure sales to make you take a position you're not really comfortable with.  That's the domain of dishonest men -- like clergy.

@AtheistEngineer Knowing that the hell vs heaven story is all bullshit. Feeling free to seek out knowledge without worrying about sin.

— Lucas (@lucasbiccas) July 21, 2015

Let Go of Irrational Fears

There's so much additional baggage associated with Christian doctrine.  The "mark of the beast" has been so played up that it hardly bears any resemblance to the passing mention it gets in the Bible. 

@AtheistEngineer This going to sound silly (and it is) but one thing I was relieved about was no longer having to be afraid of the # 666.

— DeityFree 2.0 (@DeityFree) July 21, 2015

Similar things could be say about other recent additions to Christian doctrine.  Much of our shared vision of "hell" comes from Dante's Inferno.  Satan's portrayal in books and movies has had huge influence over our thinking.  The Bible makes no claim that Satan barters souls in exchange for granting wishes. These are all modern inventions of fiction, adopted into our shared cultural memes.

Sometimes, God is just as scary as that Satan thing!

@atheistengineer Christian for 25 years, son of a theologian. Feeling "watched" by God had put me on anxiety medication. Finally feel free.

— EvolutionisBeautiful (@WyattWelsh) July 21, 2015

God is not Judging You for Thoughts

You are your harshest critic. There's no supernatural deity judging you for your thoughts. You're alone with them. They're yours and nobody knows them without your permission.

@AtheistEngineer Not feeling guilty and like I have to apologise for my thoughts and emotions. #GoodNewsOfAtheism

— Miss Perk E. Goth (@perkegoth) July 21, 2015

@AtheistEngineer In religion sin is sin, & thoughts of sin are sin. That is a huge burden.

— @NoReligiousStalkers (@TheOtherRosie) July 22, 2015

You Don't Owe the Church 10% Of Your Money!

Charitable donations are supposed to be voluntary. But god needs your 10%! The Mormon church is especially brazen in this regard.  Members are basically coerced into "donating" their tithe to the church. Personal finances are actually reviewed to ensure you're paid up, and failure to do so excludes you from certain "privileges".

@AtheistEngineer not having to give up 10% of my income to help a "not for profit" organization further enrich itself."

— jeff (@jrvr1031) July 21, 2015

Nobody Hates You … 

Well no Super-powerful Gods Anyways! There's no god deliberately fucking with you when things go wrong. That's just life. You never know what you're going to get, so enjoy it. 

It's Easier to Understand Your Place in the World

When you first question your religion, it's often a central part of your identity. My parents indoctrinated me into Christianity from a young age, and I thought of myself as a  Presbyterian. Turning my back on those beliefs also meant turning my back on a central part of my identity from which I thought I derived my ability to love, behave ethically, and find peace.  What's worse, it was a central component of my social network! I was very active in the church youth group.

@AtheistEngineer You're also questioning your identity. Who are you etc etc. It's a lot of stress in my opinion. I spent months trying to

— NotATheist (@TheistAmNot) July 21, 2015

@AtheistEngineer figure out who I was and what I should believe. Is that a little better? lol

— NotATheist (@TheistAmNot) July 21, 2015

There's so much intellectual capital wasted trying to reconcile reality with the absurdities of theism. "Why would god do that?" is no longer a concern.

@AtheistEngineer ...also, it was •fantastic• having so much learning to "catch up on" as an adult (evolution, epistemology, philosophy...)

— The Fierce Humanist (@HumanistFury) July 21, 2015

Live your life knowing the connection you have to nature.

@AtheistEngineer Suddenly the universe was so much bigger and more awe-inspiring, and I felt so much more connected to it and to nature.

— Alyssa (@alyssamwbc) July 21, 2015

@AtheistEngineer The freedom to think, to ponder, to question and removing the "because god did it" mental gag. @BlakeSeidler

— Chris Wilson (@Patchlaythe) July 21, 2015

Religion can hinder our ability to think clearly and act decisively. Accepting that we're on our own is motivation to do something to make things better!

@AtheistEngineer @Scott31459 It helped me accept my bipolar disorder and focus on my treatment instead of blaming a goddess for bad days

— Mr. Marlin (@TheShaggyMarlin) July 21, 2015

Disease and Starvation are Natural

Yup. There's no need to reconcile a "loving" god who lets his people suffer needlessly.  Diseases, parasites, famine and drought are all simply events that are to be expected in a world where all species struggle to survive (including our own).

Freedom and Empowerment

No need to defer to "authorities" who ruled over you as a child. No need to reconcile the tremendous range of conclusions that people reach when using religious faith as their process.

at age of 12 I no longer had to obey stupid ppl who claimed to have an imaginary friend #goodnewofatheism @Mwforhr @AtheistEngineer

— Bruce Enberg (@BruceEnberg) July 21, 2015

We have both the freedom and the responsibility to make our world a better place.

.@AtheistEngineer Feeling more empowered to make the world, or at least my little corner of it, a better place.

— Anne Marron (@AnneMarron) July 22, 2015

You're not broken!

@AtheistEngineer The knowledge that I was capable of being a good person, not requiring an external force to "be good" .

— Sir I Hoser (@crazy_stairz) July 21, 2015

@AtheistEngineer That I was not, at my core, a depraved, sinful, eternally damned individual. I didn't need god to be a good human being.

— NI Apostate (@nirouleur) July 21, 2015

Freedom to think clearly and carefully.

@AtheistEngineer It caused me to question everything and opened my mind to new ways of thinking. It was very freeing.

— Paul Morris (@pfmorris66) July 21, 2015

You are Your Loved One's Immortality

When a loved one passes, they no longer exist. There's no magic place where we'll see them again. Your memories of them, including their beliefs, ethics, humor, and mannerisms all combine to form one of the best existing avatars for your lost loved one that exists anywhere.  You can honor that memory by acting in a way they would endorse or simply imagining a conversation with them.

The Suffering of Your Loved One who Committed Suicide is Over

This one really hit a nerve with me.  What a relief it must have been to let go of the fear that loved-ones might be tortured in hell!
After struggling with depression or medical problems, a loved one took their own life. The Good News of Atheism is that their suffering is over. There is no afterlife in which they're being tortured for a moment of weakness. 

@AtheistEngineer No longer believing my little brother is in hell for succumbing to his psychological dysfunctions & taking his own life.

— Tay (@SensiblySecular) July 21, 2015

The mythos which says they'll be tortured eternally in hell is pure fiction. Eternal torture for suicide was probably a response to the rational observation that if you believe in heaven, you're quite literally better off dead.

@AtheistEngineer I wrote a whole post on my relief that the unsaved also ceased to exist :-) No more concern for the lost!

— Life After Doubt (@lifeafterdoubt) July 21, 2015

Conclusion

What  a wonderful collection of positive messages about letting go of the guilt, shame, superstition, and fear of religion. Perhaps these are the messages we should be carrying forward to believers. Maybe these positive affirmations will be more effective than pointing out their lack of evidence.

I have an idea. Let's get some focus groups and TEST it! That's how we get to an answer.

I Didn't Choose to Become Atheist

A Symbol of one of the many Christian sects: The opulent Roman Catholic Church
"Basilica di San Pietro (notte)" by Eugene Pivovarov - Own work. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilica_di_San_Pietro_(notte).jpg#/media/File:Basilica_di_San_Pietro_(notte).jpg

Within religious circles, it's common to move between churches to find the one which best fits one's subjective personal preconceptions about the world. From this social construct, theists often ask me why I chose atheism.

To many atheists, this question is offensive.  Unlike a decision to switch among the roughly 40 thousand Christian sects, atheism is a rejection of the core assumptions central not just the Christian sects, but all religions. I didn't decide the communities were all a waste of my time. It wasn't that I couldn't find a version of Christianity that aligns well with my political and scientific beliefs.

Rather, I left Christianity because there's no convincing evidence that any gods exist.  My own sense of honesty is one of my central cherished values.  I simply couldn't maintain my personal standards for honesty and still tell people I thought there was a god. I continued to attend church for many years as I drifted away.  But participating in the Apostle's Creed became a emotionally painful exercise that left me feeling like I had sacrificed my personal honesty to fit in. Singing hymns became similarly uncomfortable.

Of course, I could just sit out from these major portions of the service,but this seemed like some sort of rebellious protest. That wasn't it at all, and I didn't want to give that false impression either. In the end, I left the church because I didn't want to be dishonest anymore.

What Makes it a Cult?

I have a high school friend who is considering moving their family from one state to another because they found their "spiritual home." This strikes me as more than just a little bit culty, and got me thinking about what's the right definition for "cult."

Of course, my friend thinks this is all positive. It's wonderful that they've found their spiritual home with this group.  All positive goodness. But don't cult members always think like that when they're inside one?

The meme at right floats around the internet, poking fun at organized religion as nothing more than a big cult. And while I'll admit to having chuckled at the image, I don't think it's an
insightful or valuable representation. It bothers me that cult is too easily tossed around as a term of derision towards all religion.  Some are not particularly harmful.

The google definition of cult isn't much help either. Google defines cult as "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." Using this definition, one could easily make the case that Christianity is a cult for Jesus Christ. Then we're right back where we started -- all religion is just a cult.

It seems to me that the connotation of the word cult implies that the organization is fringe and causes significant personal harm at the whim of a single, charismatic leader who dictates the dogma for the group and controls their personal lives.  But again, it's all a sliding scale, isn't it?

One characteristic of cults could be that they cause demonstrable harm to the members. But individual preachers can be charismatic and bilk parishioners out of money without being a cult, right? Here's a few:

• Joel Olsteen has made millions off the "Prosperity Gospel"
• Pat Robertson tells elderly poor people to give him more money so they'll get more from god.
• Creflo Dollar gained notoriety recently for asking for donations for a new private jet.

The Prosperity Gospel sounds SO much like the Nigerian bank scams that it would be funny if it weren't so tragic for the congregants. "Just send your televangelist money and you'll receive even more from god" is just like "Send me money and I'll share my fabulous wealth with you." It plays on people's greed and gullibility. Even though I consider those generally undesirable human traits, they are still people. And these ministers cause them demonstrable harm with this sort of scam. 

So do "Prosperity Ministries" rise to the level of cult? I don't think so. The term in my mind seems to also convey an aspect of self-righteousness and shunning of any people who disagree with the dogma.  

This brings me to a couple religions well known for shunning non-believers or apostates.

• Jehovah's Witnesses - JW's are famous for shunning apostates. Families disown family members for admitting they don't really believe anymore. 
• Catholics  - As recently as 1983, Catholics were expected to shun apostates! Good thing they have a way to revise errors in Catholicism. 
• Orthodox Judaism
• Amish - Shunning is a formalized process for the Amish. 
• Scientology - They even have a formal name for it: Disconnection.
• Islam - Most Islamic Sharia law demands execution for apostasy. Islamic nations have been known to fulfill this law and kill apostates. That's one hell of a shun!

This one seems to be a stronger indicator of "culty-ness".  The end result of this formalized shunning of non-believers is an isolation from mainstream society based on the doctrine of moral superiority. 

In the end, I think it's isolationism in general that I most strongly associate with cults. Closing a group off from the outside world allows radical ideas to persist better than they would if a cult member could tell their friend the crazy things their cult leader said.

So what's the take-away? I suppose it's that we should strive to be as welcoming, multi-cultural, and diverse as possible. The cross-fertilization of ideas will help us discriminate between those which have merit and those which don't. We should be skeptical of ideas that are both secret and sacred. Truth withstands scrutiny.  It seeks publicity and understanding. It never hides because the public isn't ready.

The "Prophecies" of Dr. Seuss

A common refrain among Muslims and Christians alike is that their holy book makes prophecies. When pressed for examples, we quickly find that the believer is favorably interpreting vague scriptures as predictions of known events. This is a sort of after-the-fact fitting reality to the verses rather than the other way around. It permits the validation of all sorts of ridiculous prophesies.

For example, in this post, a Muslim interprets Allah's quote, "And verily, a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you reckon." to be a prophecy of the speed of light. Over here, Sura 55, verse 33: "O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power." is interpreted to prophesize that man will develop space travel! Finally, here you can see that the Koran predicts atomic theory when it says "[ Allah is] the Knower of the unseen." Not absent from Him is an atom's weight within the heavens or within the earth or [what is] smaller than that or greater, except that it is in a clear register"!

Christians do this too.

Since we're starting with the answer, the process becomes much easier. It just requires some creativity as I will demonstrate with the assistance of Dr. Seuss as my prophesy material rather than the Bible.

• "Green Eggs and Ham" was a prophecy about mankind finding value in molds like Penicillin
• "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish" Is a prophecy for evolutionary change in species and the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossils.
• "The Cat in the Hat" foretold the U.S. banking crisis. Thing 1&2 were AIG and Lehman Bros. Off having fun without supervision. The Cat is the US Government, which helped clean up the mess with its big machine.
• "The Foot Book" is a prophecy about your personal (possibly not yet recognized) foot fetish.
• Note: This one uses a prophesy of things that you don't know now but will soon discover. It's similar to the theist's prophesy that you'll tremble before their god on judgement day. This method is great because there's absolutely no way to disprove it!
  … You kinky foot-fetish-freak! (DM me, let's talk)
• "Oh the Places You'll Go"  foretold the rovers on Mars.
• Thneeds in "The Lorax" were a prophecy of the emergence of the Snuggie!
• "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" was a prophecy of the "War on Christmas!"
• "Yertle the Turtle" was a prophesy about the fall of the Roman empire.
• "The Sneetches" was a prophesy about Apple's iPhone marketing strategy.
• "The Zax" who got stuck in their tracks is a prophecy about the two-party political stalemate in America.
• "Hop on Pop" Prophesied women's liberation through the emergence of stay-at-home dads once women bagan having careers.
• "Mr. Brown Can Moo, Can You?" Prophesized the emergence of Mad Cow disease
• "There's a Wocket in My Pocket" was a prophesy about the emergence of mobile phones and the proliferation of intelligent gagets throughout the home.

Twitter Contributions:

• "Green Eggs and Ham" was prophecy of GMO foods. (@harrybulzonya)
• "Through 3 cheese trees" This is a warning against GMO crops. (@AtheistMutt)
• "The Cat in the hat" predicts that Cat and Human DNA will be put together to form a walking talking hat wearing Man-Cat. (@JohnDoe_997)
• Hey!  It could happen!

See how it's done? Simply pick a verse and find something plausible that it could be an analogy for after-the-fact. (post-hoc). There are enough flowery and non-specific verses in the Bible to satisfy nearly any event.

Edit: related honorable mentions: