Response to: Proof That The Bible Is True

@InspiredWalk posted the following: http://www.inspiredwalk.com/1804/proof-bible-true
So let's disassemble it point by point.

1. Written By Different Men Over 2000 Years

This got complicated in a hurry.  I'm going to color-code it for you.
Green will be for lies or baseless speculation.
Red will be for fallacies.
Purple will be for non-sequiturs.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books which were written by about 40 men over a period of 1500 years or more. Most of these authors had never physically met but yet their message in what they wrote is structured, consistent, accurate, inter-related and perfectly unified throughout. Though these writers physically penned the 66 books, the individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into one single Book, that we know today as being The Bible.
Interestingly (as we keep in mind the accuracy & consistency of their writings) these writers believed and claimed that they were writing or transmitting the very word of God – or that their writings were as a result of the inspiration of ONE single Supernatural Author – God Himself.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

All we need to is notice that the premise of this claim is laughably false.  The volume of work by Christian apologetics necessary to  "homogenize" the wildly inconsistent and inaccurate books of the bible show just how inconsistent it is.  The wide range of beliefs held by disparate groups, all of whom consider themselves Christians reinforces this fact.
But even if it were as consistent as the author of this blog claims, later authors clearly knew of earlier authors and shared a common religion with them.  Consistency is not without plausible naturalistic explanation.

2. The Scientific Accuracy of the Bible

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ow my sides hurt.

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the
principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before
scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

1. The Earth is round, not flat as once believed (Isaiah 40:22).
2. Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
3. Field of Gravity (Job 26:7).
4. Biological importance of blood to life (Leviticus 17:11,12).
5. The Bible refers to dinosaurs. Job 40:15 and Job 41:1 speak of two such creatures.

 I've converted the original article claims to numbers so that I might taunt them one by one.
1. Isaiah 40:22 says nothing about a spherical earth.  Indeed, it puts "God" above the earth the heavens like a curtain over it.  If you understand basic geometry of a spherical earth, "above" is an irrelevant concept for a spherical earth. It ONLY makes sense for a flat earth.

Edit: original author implied that "God sits above the circle of the earth," a point long since refuted. http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html
2. Wow. Winds blow.
3. "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."  has nothing to do with gravity as the author claimed.  I'm sensing a trend here.
4. I think ancient people understood that if you let the blood out of something, it dies. This is not modern scientific discovery.
5. Or … it speaks of monsters. See how that works? It didn't describe fossils, it described non-existent creatures just like other fairy tales.

3. Over 100 Prophetic Accuracies About Jesus Christ

This is called a Gish Gallop, and since the author doesn't bother to lay them all out, I'll simply point out that the Jews sure don't think that's true, and the Torah is their book so they should know.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, is that from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible consistently refers and prophesies about Jesus Christ who ultimately is mankind’s Lord & Saviour. There are over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

4. The Bible Is Endorsed by Jesus Christ

So we're to believe that Jesus endorsed a book which wouldn't exist for another 300 years after his death? LOL. 

Matthew 5:17-18 – (Jesus speaking) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”When Jesus was on earth at the time, only the Old Testament existed. Jesus read and quoted from the Old Testament. Therefore if the Bible was inaccurate or untrustworthy, Jesus would have not quoted the Old Testament. When Jesus was tempted by the devil, Christ overcame the devil’s temptation by responding with Scripture quoted from the Old Testament. This was a clear indication not only of the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible but also that Jesus Himself was willing to be obedient to do what The Bible teaches.
READ Matthew 4:1-17

First, need to demonstrate that:

• Jesus never quoted anything which contained any falsehood
• Infallibility somehow provides a protective power against "devil temptation."

5. Its Survival

This whole claim doesn't even make sense.  Why would survival imply truth?

The Bible starting from Genesis has survived for over 1500 years. No other book has been so consistently studied, bought or quoted by mankind. Its teachings are still relevant even after 1000 years, a clear proof that God’s word is authoritative and does not change. No other book has been loved or hated as the Bible but yet it still survives and remains the highest seller among all books.
Matthew 24:35 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Yup. Meaningless fluff that has absolutely no relation to the alleged conclusion (the Bible is True). I suppose we're to believe that its longevity implies some sort of magical protection from Yahweh, but even if that were true, it wouldn't demonstrate that Yahweh authored it or endorses it.

6. Archaeological Evidence

Sigh. 

A number of archaeological and geographic evidences exist to prove the accuracy and historic truthfulness of the Bible. Archaeological discoveries have been made which verify the various Biblical stories and events mentioned in scripture.
Romans 1:20-21 – For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

This is the Composition / Division fallacy -- the belief that because some aspect of the Bible is true that this truthfulness somehow applies to the whole. Let's consider the following excerpt of mathematical equations I just made up.

• 2 + 2 = 4
• 2 + 2 = 4
• 2 + 2 = 4
• 2 + 2 = 4
• 7 + 7 = 12
• 2 + 2 = 4
• 2 + 2 = 4

We observe that nearly all of the equations are true, but it's not at all safe to assume that this applies to all of the equations. 

7. Life Changing Power

For thousands of years, the Bible has changed countless lives and has provided a means by which mankind can know and understand who God is and what God says about every life situation that we face on this earth. The Bible also is one huge story about God’s relationship with man. The Bible speaks of God’s love and plan of salvation from sin through Jesus Christ. People of different backgrounds and beliefs can testify of the life changing experiences that God’s word has brought to their lives.
Hebrews 4:12-13 – For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Yup. Just more baseless speculation and dogmatic claims. No real substance. Even if the claims being made were true, it wouldn't demonstrate the truth of the Bible. 

Standard Phases of a Debate with a Theist

I've been debating with fundamentalist theists for a while now, and I've started to notice some interesting trends. In this blog, I'll describe the standard tactics theists use when attempting to squash dissent. I believe many of these illuminate pervasive beliefs among the more conservative believers. Many of them strike me as a defense mechanism or a childish black-and-white view where truth is established by authority rather than evidence.

Denial

This tact seems to me like the believer needs comfort that they couldn't become atheists. Every time I see it, it seems to me like the theist is desperately trying to hold on to a belief that's impossible to validate.  All these denialist tactics will come off as an accusation that you're lying. Try to remember that the theist just wants to feel better about the security of their own fragile faith.

You're not actually atheist

It's insulting when a someone accuses you of lying -- especially when they don't even know you.  Try not to take this tact personally. There are several factors at play here. First, the Christian Bible clearly states that all men know god is real. The most thoroughly indoctrinated fundamentalist believers are taught to accept the claims in that book regardless of the world they observe. Since the book must be true, you must be lying.

• "You're just angry with God, you know God is real. You just want to sin without being punished."
• "You know god is real. It says so in Romans 1:20."
• Nope. I really don't believe it's real.
• "You can't unknow something after you've known it"
• But some of us can realize and admit that we were mistaken
• "You just want to sin so you pretend God isn't real. But he's gonna getcha' in the end." 
• OK. I added that last sentence. But the assertion is ridiculous. It's like saying I can rob a bank if I close my eyes and pretend the police aren't there. It's also a claim to know my mind and an accusation that I'm lying. This is treading awfully close to the block button. I don't take kindly to being accused of dishonesty by someone who doesn't know me.

It Can't Happen to Me!

• "You were never really Christian if you stopped believing. 1 John 2:18-21 and Luke 8:13 predicted this"
• As if people weren't leaving religions back then too.  It didn't take a genius to make that prophecy. Just look around.

Finding Bearings Without Absolutes

It's pretty disorienting to let go of a core belief. I once thought all my moral values were based in Christian doctrine.  When the Christian doctrine started to crumble, I was left wondering how I would make ethical choices in my life. Turns out this wasn't very hard, but before I thought it through it felt terrifying.

Morality

• "For morality to be absolute, there must be an ultimate lawgiver."
• Neither true nor a valid reason for an 'ultimate lawgiver' to exist. 
• This whole line of questioning seems to imply that we are either guaranteed absolute morality or that "absolute morality" is somehow inherently obvious. 
• "Where do morals come from in a godless universe?"
• This question is obvious to someone who understands that genes are common within a tribe, so supporting the tribe reinforces the reproduction of genes. Successful tribes are those where the individuals within the tribe demonstrate  empathy for other tribe members.
• Unfortunately, many of the Christians I talk with haven't got the first clue how evolution actually works, so short of a repeat of high school biology class, they're just not going to understand.
• "Mere humans are not capable of understanding, but it's moral for God to XXX (insert horrific Bible story here)." This is the usual response to the assertion that a bible story is immoral. 

Good and Evil

• "Without a reference of absolute good, there's no way to judge anything as good or evil"
• "Evil must exist so that we can recognize good" (response to the problem of evil)

Science Is Unreliable

Many (not all) atheists accept that the scientific method is the most reliable method for knowing and understanding our world. Some theists feel a need to try to tear down science in order to feel like faith is somehow reliable or at the very least, just as good as science.

• "Science isn't capable of detecting God"
• Science is a process for measuring anything that's objective, verifiable, and logical.  Which of these is your god unable to satisfy?
• 'Scientific "facts" are always changing '
• A distortion of the truth. Interpretation of facts can change.  Repeatable objective measurements do not change.
• "It takes Faith to do science!" Followed by an attempt to label imagination and foresight as the same as religious faith. 
• This is equivocation, a sign of poor arguments. Imagination and creativity are an ability to envision that something might work or might be true.  Faith is concluding that a belief must be true.
• "Great scientists believed in God". this is typically followed with specific examples of famous scientists who believed in God in ancient times. 
• It's worth remembering that people didn't have a choice in what they professed to believe back then. The punishment for apostasy is death in the Bible. Thank God we've moved past that!

Proselytizing

Sadly, many theists aren't really in it for the discussion. They are used to a preaching style of communication and they think it'll help you find Jesus. 

My Version of Christianity Will Fix You

• "How many times have you read the Bible cover-to-cover"
• This one is both a dick-measuring contest and a challenge to believe their special religion.
• "You need to really READ the Bible."
• Many of the atheists I know are former Bible scholars.

Quoting Scripture When Things Get Rough

This is like some sort of incantation.  The specific verses vary, but it's like they're trying to reinforce their own beliefs and ward of Satan when you say something that makes them doubt. It's rather amusing when it happens.  I tend to infer that I've likely struck a nerve.

Thinly veiled hell threats

I think these are a good opportunity to ask the believer if they think it's ethical for their God to torture people based on sincere beliefs. It's often a last-resort tactic when the believer needs to make themselves feel better about the fact that they're completely unable to justify their stated beliefs.

• Every knee will bow
• Some day, you'll be sorry for what you're saying

Begging the Question

When it's clear they can't possibly demonstrate any of their claims to be true, they'll start working their baseless assumptions as presuppositions to comments and questions. 

• You can ask him some day when you meet him

@tristancrockett @isobelletomkins @AtheistEngineer @biblestudies517 The right question would be, who is our Creator? pic.twitter.com/C9rKa17Vw2

— Daughter of God (@WifeNMotherOf3) February 14, 2016

@matthewshute07 @LinuxGal @AtheistEngineer If you're going to deny the lawgiver you need to be consistent and deny a moral law.

— Caleb (@caleb_D_vaughn) February 13, 2016

@AtheistEngineer @LinuxGal Are the explanations as robust as the God who created the minds that were involved is constructing them?

— Polycarp 2016 (@nofury12) October 29, 2015

It's like they're incapable of even recognizing the places where they've made assumptions. Repeatedly asserting as if it's obvious doesn't make it real.

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:

Thoughts on Christian Terrorism in the Black Friday Planned Parenthood Murders

While I would never presume to know before the facts are all in, past statistics and demographics leave very little question as to which religion inspired the terror attacks on a Planned Parenthood health care clinic yesterday.

Suspected mass-murderer Robert Dear's mug shot.

Wildly exaggerated stories about "selling body parts" and exaggerated rhetoric like "murdering babies" from a supposed Pro-Life movement are likely contributors. These are the rhetorical tactics of a group which for good reason cannot form a coherent constitutional argument for why it has the right to impose its religious laws on other people's bodies.

Just like radical Islam, a radicalized Christian lashed out with indiscriminate violence at anyone he saw as part of the "Planned Parenthood evil". The lies and distortions of the radicalized "pro-life" Christian movement are to blame. There are real-world consequences to irresponsible use of violent rhetoric.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/28/colorado-springs-a-playground-for-pro-life-pro-gun-evangelical-christians

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.

In 50 years, Most Conservative Christian Churches will Disown their Unethical Stance of 2015

Time and time again throughout American history, conservative churches have stood on the side of barbaric biblical practices. These examples span a broad range of time and geography:

  • Witch burnings in Salem, MA (Exodus 22:18 "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live")

  • an extensive and well reasoned (biblically) defense of slavery http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html 

  • Opposition to civil rights

  • Opposition to interracial marriage.

And most recently,

  • Opposition to Same Sex marriage.

For all but the most recent, support from churches in modern day America is unthinkable.  There may be a few, but they are seen as more radical and fringe than Westborough Baptist. 

I take great pleasure in the knowledge that like all these past immoral acts on behalf of a "God", in about 50 years, nearly all these churches will disown their former positions and claim they always supported equality. 

I derive a certain amount of glee from the knowledge that some day in the near future, their own religions will turn their back on conservative Christian leaders of today and pretend they didn't exist. 

Congratulations, America. 

If Bible stories were named like Aesop's fables

Now that I'm no longer in the Christian church, it seems so painfully obvious that Bible stories are simply attempts to explain the world around us, and rather juvenile ones of that.

My kids love reading Aesop's fables and "just so" stories so I thought it would be fun to remap some Bible story titles into Aesop's fables titles. So for a little fun, let's think up some new names for classic Bible stories that better fit the genre!

• Genesis 3 (The Fall of Man): 
• "How the Serpent lost his legs"
• "How Survival Became Hard"
• "Why Birth Hurts a Woman"
• Genesis 5-7 (Noah's Ark):
• "How the Rainbow got its Colors"
• "The Old Man and his Boat"
• Exodus 12 (Passover)
• "The Chosen People's Escape"
• "How the Red Sea got its Name"
• Exodus 20 (10 Commandments):
• "How Killing Turned Out to be Wrong"
• "The Twisted Morality of Jealous Inmortality"
• Book of Job: "Why Your Day Sometimes Sucks"

I'm sure there are other good examples. Or better names for the stories I've suggested. Leave some comments in your tweets or in the comments below. I'd love to hear your ideas. Thanks for reading!

Why Louis Pasteur Didn't Prove Abiogenesis is Impossible

Christians often like to claim that Louis Pasteur proved abiogenesis was "impossible."  Here's the first example I came across in my search. It's a pretty professional-looking production. And it's short, so you won't hate me for wasting much of your life if you watch it. Seems like these guys understand the science and have thought it through, right?

Louis Pasteur in his laboratory.

A more careful review of his work demonstrates that he most certainly did nothing of the sort. In his experiment, Louis Pasteur experimented with relatively small quantities of liquid compared to the volume of liquid on earth. Let's pick an absurdly large number in order to give the Christian claim every possible benefit.  Suppose that Pasteur tested a thousand cubic meters of liquid. That's 260,000 gallons, larger than the Giant Ocean Tank at the New England Aquarium. Pasteur demonstrated that no life spontaneously generated in them over the course of his experiment. Let's assume that it was a decade-long experiment.  These would be very large numbers, considering the pictures available of him in his laboratory.  Pasteur's analysis did not demonstrate that life never spontaneously forms anywhere ever. It only showed only that life did not spontaneously generate in the large sample of broth over the time period he tested.  This puts a lower-bound on the mean time until life spontaneously forms in a given volume of liquid.  In other words, we can say with confidence that life sponteneously generates less often than once in $10^4 m^3  \cdot years$ . (for the sake of simplicity, I'm presuming that the spontaneous generation of life would follow Poisson distribution where each infinitesimal unit of liquid volume is as likely as any other to spontaneously generate life per unit time).

Now, compare that volume to the volume of water on earth ($1.386 \times 10^{18} m^3$) and we can then calculate a lower-bound on the global spontaneous generation rate:

$ f_{gen} < \frac{10^4 m^3/yr}{1.386\times 10^{18} m^3} $

$ f_{gen} < 1.386  \times 10^{14} year^{-1}  $

$ f_{gen} < 4.39 MHz $ [ref] 

That's right.  Pasteur's experiment shows that life spontaneously forms on Earth at a rate below 4.4 million times per second.  And that's with the generous assumption that he tested a thousand cubic meters of solution! Life could be forming all around the world at a rate of 4.4 MHz, and Pasteur's experiments would remain a valid measure. In 1000 cubic meters over a decade, life is unlikely to form.

Religion is Like a Cathedral Built on a House of Cards

Note: If you're good with graphics, this is a very visual image analogy.  I'd love to have a better picture to illustrate it! 

"Canterbury Cathedral - Portal Nave Cross-spire" by Hans Musil.

This is a powerful analogy to explain why religion seems so beautiful to the believer but so patently absurd to a non-believer.  Whether you're on the inside or the outside makes a huge difference on your perspective.

What do I mean by this? When I was a Christian, I was on the inside of the Christian cathedral.  I admired the beautiful artwork on the walls, the complex network of hallways and sanctuaries.  Over hundreds of years, great minds had mapped and decorated the hallways of the Christian cathedral with such works as Dante's Inferno (1317), the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (1512), and the Catholic Church's "Immaculate Conception" concept (1854).

Of course, there's some artwork in the Christian church that people disagree on: Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon (1830, older than "Immaculate Conception, by the way"), Cargo Cults (1885), Rastafarianism (1930).  People identify themselves by which of the many sanctuaries in the Christian Cathedral they worship in, which colors how they see the cathedral itself, almost to the point where it seems like they're in entirely different buildings.  Westboro Baptist would never associated with United Church of Christ, and they may not even admit they're in the same cathedral.

When I was on the inside of the Christian cathedral, I only associated with people who worshiped in nearby sanctuaries.  I didn't explore the whole cathedral, much less the outside. But in my late teens / early twenties, I learned about cognitive biases as sources of human error. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that all of Christianity might be well explained by these biases: Ambiguity effect, bandwagon effect, confirmation bias, congruence bias, gambler's fallacy, the observer-expectancy effect, the Semmelweis reflex, and subjective validation. There's a lot of ways we trick ourselves into believing things, and the Church seems designed to exploit them through weekly worship and structures which discourage challenging authority (AKA. blasphemy).

When I first started looking for objective reasons to believe my Christian upbringing, I believed it would be there, but I was careful not to leap to the conclusion I know I wanted to find.  I unknowingly used the outsider's test: Asking myself if I would accept each piece of evidence if it were presented to me for another religion like Islam or Hindu.

Taking the outsider's perspective was critical for me seeing my own religion for what it is: just one of many attempts by early man to explain the world around him.  By taking the outsider's perspective, I began to see the outside of the cathedral.  Still mostly looking up at its beauty, but more and more noticing problems with the foundation: "How could an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god allow evil?" and "How could such a god punish non-believers when their only crime was not seeing the evidence I was having troubles identifying myself?" I decided he couldn't.  That the only moral choice was to conclude that god would chose our destiny based on our behavior, not our beliefs.  I didn't know it, but in hindsight this conclusion was heresy.  And for good reason.  It took away my fear of exploring my faith more deeply and more critically.

As I tore away the facade that concealed the foundation of my religion's cathedral, I discovered there was nothing sturdy supporting it.  What I once saw as strong stone walls, unmovable and indestructible, I now understood were human constructs with no supporting physical evidence. Unable to support or withstand any modern test of their strength.  The walls inside the Christian cathedral can stand ONLY because nobody is allowed to test them.

On the inside, we were taught to look at them but never to test their strength by questioning their validity. Prayer worked. And when it didn't, that was because "we lacked the proper faith" or "God was testing us".  The weakness of the cathedral walls was explained away by instilling self-doubt.

We were taught to take the strength of the Christian dogma "On Faith". As if that was a good thing.

Why Souls Do Not Exist

Poem of the Soul by Louis Jammot

The idea of a "soul" was one of the last things I clung to as I drifted away form the Presbyterian religion. After I realized an ethical god couldn't torture someone for not believing when he's conspicuously absent, and a much more ethical judgement would be based on the values of a person's life, I began to question whether my consciousness would survive my own death. I now firmly believe such ideas are bogus myths for three main reasons:

• The idea originated in a time when thinking mechanical machines were unimaginable.  Today, cell phones are miniaturized, portable, and carried in most people's pocket.
• Any connection to a non-physical world must violate conservation of mass, momentum, or energy
• Studies of brain damage by injury and stroke show that all parts of your person can be affected: memory, emotion, cognition, personality, and values. 

It's easy to understand why someone would like to believe that their consciousness will continue beyond their own death -- even though it clearly didn't exist before their birth.  The problem with comforting or pleasant ideas is that we have a tendency not to question them. But upon a deliberate and rational review of what we know, it's clear that the concept of a soul is very unlikely to be true.  Below, I will discuss each of the three main points.

In the days of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, they believed it was not possible for something mechanical to think.  The psyche was conceived as a model which could explain the apparent problems. The psyche was split into three main parts to explain our ability to both desire and abhor something at the same time (e.g. stealing a toy).  With the advent of modern computers and information theory, it is becoming more and more clear that mechanical (or electrical) things can INDEED think. Modern pharmaceuticals can alter emotions, suggesting these parts of our "soul" are within our bodies.

Landauer's principle states that the minimum amount of energy necessary to erase a bit of information is kT ln 2, which is roughly 0.017 eV at room temperature. Recently, some have suggested that information could be created or destroyed by transfer of angular momentum without affecting energy.  Still, a conserved quantity must be altered.  Now, suddenly, if the "soul" is to convey information in the form of feelings or thoughts or actions, it must also alter our world, seemingly the laws of conservation in of physics to do so.

Finally, it's clear from the medical research into patients suffering brain damage that all parts traditionally thought of as "soul" are affected. What more is there to our consciousness than our memories, personality, emotions, and thinking abilities?  Yet each of these faculties are affected by brain damage int he right location.  I personally watched my Grandfather lose his mental faculties after his stroke. He didn't remember my name. He had been very conservative but was suddenly uninhibited.  He was definitely not thinking clearly, needing a lot of help.  

Medical researchers have also determined that a strong magnetic field can disrupt mental activities in a specific portion of the brain. Finally, functional MRI scans help confirm the linkage between brain damage and specific regions of the brain where aspects of our persona are handled. If our personality were somehow stored outside our bodies, how could it possibly interact with us? Why would loss of certain aspects of our "soul" map to particular areas of brain damage?

Update on AiG's Frivolous Lawsuit

A Couple weeks ago, I posted a blog entry criticizing Answers in Genesis for filing a frivolous lawsuit in response to the Commonwealth of Kentucky denying their request for special Christian privileges. In short, AiG asserts they are entitled to special tax incentives for their first ever theme park to celebrate an act of mass-genocide (The Ark Encounter), despite the fact that as a bigoted religious organization, they intend to discriminate in employment based on religion, sex, and sexuality.

The intellectual dishonesty of AiG just pisses me off. It's one thing to have crazy religious beliefs. It's fine to build a theme park to genocide if that's what your horrific "god" demands of you. But to misrepresent the facts and accuse the state of "religious discrimination" is appalling. In a video released by the organization, Lawyer Mike Johnson, says, “Religious groups, ideas, and organizations can’t be treated with hostility by the government." Apparently, it's "hostility" to deny tax incentives to organizations that intend to discriminate?! This is Christian privilege and persecution complex at its finest.

Despite AiG's stated intention of serving only a select group of ignorant Christian conservatives within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, AiG apparently believes that Kentucky taxpayers should foot the bill for their theme-park-celebration-of-death. Just take a look at the artwork on their announcement page (right). It's a guy behind bars! As if to suggest that the "religious discrimination against Christians" is Kentucky is rounding up and arresting Christians?! The trumped-up persecution complex is just astonishing. How can anyone take this organization seriously?  It's not religious discrimination to reject your tax break when your organization plans to discriminate!

Tax breaks are for organizations that better the whole community, which AiG decidedly does not. Sorry AiG, but if you want the tax incentives, you'll need to serve everyone. Not just the heterosexuals; not just the protestant Christians. You'll have to hire and admit the the following groups of people to your theme-park-of-destruction:

• Gays
• Fornicators
• Catholics
• Jews
• Muslims
• Apostates
• Mormons
• even … Atheists (!!!)