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!

I Don't Understand What You Think God Is. And Neither do You

What is God?

This is definitely not God.

Ask google, and you'll be flooded with thousands of sites which exude confidence. But dig a little deeper and you'll see that they're peddling platitudes.

God is the creator of mankind and He loves you.
You were created by Him and He knows everything about you.

Note: Some of them seem to have identical content: http://myranchlandchurch.com/god-is-real and http://mastersmen.com/who-is-god-answers-about-life-and-god/ haha.
The site contains claims about the things we ought to credit god with, but not a single observable property of this god.

• “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’” (John 14:6).
• “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
• “You have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:15-16).
• “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him” (John 1:18).
• “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27).

These are presented by one of the more credible articles as "very logical answers to what is God, and what is He doing." Yet even the most cursory review and it's clear that they're empty dogmatic claims, not observable properties of a anything.

You don't know either

So here's the hard point. Not only are Christian apologetics and ministries unable to articulate any tangible properties of their god, but neither are you. Most Christians think of god as a personality they can interact with and a place-holder for the unanswerable questions of the universe.  But can you identify any tangible properties? Before you get angry, consider some practical questions:

• If a person introduced themselves as god, how would you know if they're lying or honest? 
• When a fortunate event occurs to you or a loved one, how can you tell if it's an action  of a god or just good fortune?
• Suppose find yourself in a place devoid of features. There's a person-like entity there which knows your name and speaks to you. The implication is that you've died and are in some sort of afterlife. The usual cues are missing.   No puffy clouds and halos, no firey pits and horns.  How do you determine if the entity is a god or a demon?
• That voice in your mind seems to always know what you need to hear. How can you tell if it's a god or just your own imagination?

In short, there's no good way to tell whether these characters are gods or someone else. I don't understand what you think god is, and neither do you.

Epilogue

In researching this post, I came across this post, which starts out surprisingly well. It's not the usual hateful misrepresentation of atheists. But it makes the usual mistakes regarding their own beliefs. Once they start describing the Bible, the claims quickly go from "the authors said" to "it's true."  Here's the paragraph where it happens:

There is a book that has existed longer than the philosophies of materialism and humanism. Those who wrote this book claimed that they were personally in contact with the one, true Creator God. They say, in fact, that this God actually inspired what they wrote, and they claimed to know Him personally. Furthermore, they wrote that God has a plan—a purpose—for each human life. They claimed that what they wrote in this book called the Bible is truth—from the God of truth. They staked their lives on it! 

Another way to understand God is to be willing to take a close look at what He reveals about Himself in the only book that can be seen as a legitimate source of information about Him. Most people own a Bible, but most people—even Christians—have never really honestly or thoroughly examined the Bible to see what it reveals about God. You will likely be very surprised to see what God says about Himself!

Oh well.  It's  a train-wreck from there.

God Doesn't Exist. Here's why.

Theists often ask me for proof that God doesn't exist. As if that's my claim or even a relevant question from an epistemological perspective.

One of my favorite memes when
theists ask for proof there's no god.

This is one of my favorite memes for such instances because it attempts to highlight the absurdity of their request. As Bertrand Russell showed with his celestial teapot thought experiment, it's not possible to falsify an unfalsifiable claim. Still, some particularly stubborn believers chose to focus on the choice of a unicorn rather than the logical failure it demonstrates.

So let's set formal epistemology aside.  These people clearly aren't asking for an epistemological demonstration of an unfalsifiable assertion. Let's just stick with colloquial usage. Consider the following simple questions:

• Do fairies exist?
• Do zombies exist?
• Do elves exist?
• Do vampires exist?
• Do unicorns exist?

Most people have no problem answering these questions with a flat "no."  (I offer several in case you answer "yes" to one of them.) The basis for that "no" is the fact that there's no convincing evidence that one of these creatures exists and absent that evidence, it's almost certain that they don't actually exist.

From this point, it's pretty darn simple: 

God has all the same evidence as fairies, zombies, elves, vampires, and unicorns. 

Most people say no to any or all of those mythological creatures above. I say "No" to the question of god for the exact same reason.  

Does this mean I'm actively opposing evidence for god or spiritually blind? Not at all. I engage with discussions online openly and honestly looking for someone -- anyone with:

• A clear definition of what their God is
• A reasonable explanation of how they know it's real

Unfortunately, many people just get mad that I have the nerve to ask hard questions and challenge fallacious responses. But my interest in knowledge and  truth is sincere. That's why I had the courage to question Christianity and discover that my basis for belief was untenable.

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. 

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.

Ideas for an atheist billboard near the Ark Encounter

We need your inputs.

I'd like to see atheist (or maybe just rationalist) advertising near Ken Ham's monument to ignorance and genocide (A.K.A. "The Ark Encounter") but I'm not sure where to start or what the right message should be. Here are some ideas:

• Did it rain in Antarctica?
• How did all the marsupials get to Australia?
• What did all the animals to to deserve death?
• How many babies drowned in the "flood"?
  Good thing it never really happened.

There's more detailed arguments against it but they involve some math, which requires some thought that doesn't fit in the freeway-Billboard timeline.

My goal would be to plant some seeds of doubt in the minds of those attending. Other ideas are either more abrasive or more mathematical.

• Does your God commit genocide?
• Need to fact check this: Most Jews and Most Christians understand the Ark is a myth. (Optional: But most Muslims accept it as truth.)
• Show a valid quote from a Pope stating that the Ark is a legend, "Even the pope admits it never happened"
• Where did the food come from? Where did the poop go?
• Fire code limits Ark Occupancy at X. That's only X/2 species.

Goals of such a sign:

• Raise awareness that lots of people think this is absurd
• Advertise an atheist / secular / skeptical event (leverage media coverage as advertising)
• Plant a seed of doubt in the indoctrinated
• What else could we accomplish? Not gonna convert anyone.

In any case, I think a WAG for such a billboard is about $5k. Not sure if that includes the design or not. Please share this article if you'd support the idea. And share your thoughts in the comments section below or via tweet to @AtheistEngineer.

Edits and Updates:

• If at first you don't succeed …
  Drown everything and try again [link]
• "Would a loving and all-powerful god REALLY annihilate all of humanity on the planet for the purpose of a do-over?" [link]
• We don't celebrate death (images of Ark, Abraham/Isaac, Passover, and Jesus).
  Atheists are better without gods.
  Meet-up / event information.
• Ark Encounter: Were the only evidence necessary is proof of admission. [link]
• "Ark Encounter": Science-free zone ahead [link]
• "Ark Encounter": Proven wrong by geology, archaeology, genetics, and common sense
• If you think Noah and his family cared for millions of animals, you've quite obviously never kept a horse.... [link]
• Rear view: God carrying set of golf clubs walking toward the "19th hole" caption reads: Noah's Ark: God's Mulligan [link]
• Noah's Ark: Why would you want to spend eternity with the worst mass murderer in "history"?  [link]
• @AtheistBigfoot: @AtheistEngineer The passage should be "Others will know this BS is crazy, but not you. You're gullible" 
• @wildy412: @AtheistEngineer want to drop out of school, stop thinking for yourself? Visit the Ark, where stupidity welcomes you.

A Letter To My Loved Ones After I'm Dead

I'm sorry I couldn't be here forever for you. But that's not how life works.  If my death is recent, many people will likely tell you that I'm "in a better place now". Some smug assholes will probably say I'm in hell for my rational beliefs. Both these assertions would be upsetting to me, as I'm sure they might be for you. Try to remember that those people (even the assholes) think they're doing the right thing.

I would like to discuss life after death from my perspective. You might be surprised to learn that both my consciousness and body will live on through purely naturalistic means. Lights out at death is far too trite of a description compared to the reality of what happens in death. What's more, I can point to specific evidence to support these claims.

Immortality of the atheist mind

I used to live only in my brain, but through our friendship, You built a little copy of me in yours.
(PET Scan from Wikimedia Commons)

I have good news for you which doesn't require supernatural beliefs. I still exist in a way that's very real. As one of the people who knew me best, I live on in you. This probably seems trite at first, but I'm quite sincere. Please let me explain.

Your memories and knowledge of my personality and values are such a reliable copy of me that you can imagine interactions with me, playing out imagined conversations we've never had as though they were really happening [1]. Of course I'm not really continuing to live in some nebulous "spirit realm". The fact is that our human ability to develop a mental model of other people is a very successful evolved trait. The model we develop of close friends is such a good approximation that many people (especially theists) are prone to believe it's the real thing. Maybe that's where this "afterlife" nonsense originated.

So I'm asking you to use your mental model of me. Imagine conversations with me and don't feel ashamed or embarrassed about it. Even though I'm gone, I live on in you. I know it's not exactly me, but at this point in time, there is no closer approximation. There's no shame in summoning my "ghost" for a conversation whenever it would help you. I wouldn't be bothered, but proud. In fact, It's the closest thing I will ever get to immortality. I trust that your model of me will be faithful to my true personality, and I hope it's useful to you.

While this "virtual me" won't be able to help you solve linear algebra problems, it will be there to listen to your thoughts and fears, and even give the same kind of advice I might have given if I had been able to. I sincerely wish I could. It's not exactly my mind, but it's close. This is the immortality of the atheist mind.

But what of my body? 

With any luck, I will have lived a long and joyous life. My body was hopefully pretty worn out by age. Both the heaven and the hell camp will tell you that I'll get a new body. The former to enjoy my eternal life. The latter so I can be mercilessly tortured for eternity. Both are pretty absurd, don't you think?

One like this is just fine. Don't even splurge on poplar. It's just going to decay! Honestly, it's just a convenient way to lug my dead ass around. 

I'd like a natural burial. Make something natural and beautiful from my body.  A tree, not a cement vault. Don't waste formaldehyde or expensive coffins on me.  A pine box will do just fine (Just don't put a fucking cross on it!). You can even make it yourself. Do it as a Boy Scouts project. Shouldn't be more than $500 in lumber from the hardware store. If you want to wait to have the funeral service when more family can attend, just put my corpse on dry-ice or have me refrigerated commercially. I won't mind. I'm not using it anymore.

Once I'm back in the ground from which my molecules came, you can come visit the nature that takes hold of my nutrients and reuses them. We did this as a family with our dog, Barley in 2014. The tree we planted on his grave was a present and beautiful reminder of his life. Keep me close if you wish or put me in a natural cemetery if you prefer. You could even donate it to forensic science [2].

Don't feel like you have to obey my wishes. Simply honor my memory for your own gratification. I'm done with these molecules.  I was just borrowing them from nature for a while, and I trust you to chose a fitting method to return it to nature. At this point, my corpse is nothing more than a token of my life to help you remember me. I'm done with it. It's yours.

Regardless of your choice, I take comfort in the knowledge that the molecules that once formed my body will eventually rejoin the web of life on earth. That is the immortality of an atheist's body.

End Notes

1. Some "religious" or "spiritual" people misattribute our capability for accurate imagined conversations to an ability to legitimately communicate with a living spirit of someone who has died. I wonder if such an attribution wasn't a contributing factor to the mythology surrounding "souls". This is the sort of unfounded model of the world that I found irritating. So I suppose like all good myths and legends, there's a kernel of truth near the bottom. 
2. I could help detectives learn to identify the age of bodies discovered under various conditions. That'd be kinda' cool. Maybe my body could help solve a murder. 

Coming Out Atheist Message

I'm toying with the idea of a short & sweet coming out message to my friends, many of whom went to Christian youth group with me. This would probably come as a minor "huh" moment for most of them.
I'm not sure how serious I am about posting this on Facebook. Probably not very, because I'm not really the type to make a big stink about my beliefs. I thought this might be helpful as a Coming Out Atheist letter for others. Here's a draft:

About 20 years ago, I started sincerely exploring the reasons why I believed in God. True things withstand scrutiny, and it was important to me that I be consistent in the things I accept as true. I considered the strength of the foundations of my religious beliefs. The reasons I thought had for believing in a God were not at all convincing when examined honestly. 

Absent a defensible foundation for God belief, I considered the only honest conclusion would that God is not likely to exist. Looking across the history of human religions, the progression from polytheism to monarchy-polytheism to monotheism is all too clear. I'm quick to dismiss all those silly ancient beliefs like Roman and Greek pantheons. What objective evidence could I point to when asserting that Christianity is somehow different?

The magical beliefs surrounding Christianity fell as well. It's clear from our understanding of the brain that my consciousness resides there in. And that its demise will surely mean the end of my consciousness. There's no rational reason to believe that I will somehow survive the death of my brain. In short, it's wishful thinking that directly conflicts with everything we learned about consciousness.

This last realization took some time to come to grips with. I was raised to believe that my religion made me immortal. That loved ones lived on in a magical place where there was no pain or suffering. Where they were aware of the happenings here on earth. They could possibly even read my mind. I believe that such would be my fate as well, and coming to grips with my mortality was by no means trivial.

I've lived my last 20 years without any sort of God belief and couldn't be happier. My version of immortality is the influence I have on those around me. It's rewarding to realize that I can be inspirational to those around me and that they will carry forward my vision, my joy, and my curiosity to others.

 #NormalizeAtheism

Are You Smart Enough to Convert to Atheism?

Graduation Cap, Used under Creative Commons License

Theism is easy. Answers to all your questions are readily available.

• Where did we come from?
• What's the meaning of life?
• How do I know what's right or wrong?
• How can I be sure I'm raising ethical kids?

There's a great deal of comfort in believing that we have answers to all these questions. 

Yet if you ask the hard question, "How do you know that's true?", it becomes quickly apparent that we religion doesn't really know. Rather, it gives you a consolidated group of individuals willing to attest to the dogmatic answers, with each individual largely relying on the attestations of others in the group as validation for his own attestation. In short, religious answers arise from group-think, with core assumptions reinforced by weekly group recitations of the "creed".

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

This isn't to say that all religious answers to the life's hard question are necessarily wrong (that would be committing the "Genetic Fallacy").  There is no shortage of religious people who understand the origins of the universe and of life. And some churches may indeed have some good ideas about how to raise ethical kids. The United Church of Christ was quick to recognize the injustice of marriage inequality, and take legal action based on freedom of religion to advocate for equality. Many churches like the protestant one I grew up in are comfortable with skepticism about everything -- except of course the central creed.

In the end, church dogma and answers are subjective group-think opinions. If left unexamined, some of these opinions are damaging. For example, church inspired sexual repression leads to sexual ignorance and higher teen-pregnancy (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024658) in religious communities.

So why do you need to be smart to be atheist? Well you don't really. You just need to recognize that the answers you are getting aren't really reliable and be willing to set out on your own to investigate the important answers as objectively as you possibly can. It takes mental effort and discipline to identify the beliefs that are unsubstantiated group-think and reconsider them. It requires a level of intellectual self-confidence and personal discomfort to admit the truth: "I don't know," and to qualify statements with phrases like, "it seems to me" and "as far as I can tell."  In the end, your statements and views are more accurate. Pretending to know something you've never validated is fundamentally dishonest. 

If the Bible Were Really Divine

Bible in Candlelight by Vishnu gs

If the Bible were truly inspired by a benevolent, omniscient god, it would be filled with advice that was valuable for the peoples and times that wrote it.  For example, we know that sanitation was a huge cause of death and disease in ancient times, up through much of the 1800s. A more plausible Leviticus would instruct the people to take the precautions that would have prevented the  plague:

1. thou shalt always wash thy hands with soap and water after thou poopeth. 2. for The Lord thy God hath made thy feces unclean and he shall make thee sick if thou breaketh this commandment. 3. Also shalt thou wash thine hands before thou consumeth food. 4. Before thou drinketh water, thou must boil it for 10 minutes. 5. For The Lord, thy God hath filled the world with teeny-tiny parasites that shall consumeth thee from thine insides if thou consumeth them with thine food or drink. 6. Praise be to God, maker of all things including disease and parasites

Amen.

It wouldn't even need to explain the germ theory of disease -- only demonstrate that the inspirational source of the book had knowledge of these things.

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?

How my Cub Scout Outed me as an Atheist to my Parents

My parents knew I doubted religion long before I left their home.  I was confirmed as a Presbyterian, but my "statement of faith" was weak.  I wonder if my mom still has it.  I attended church from time to time when I was away at college -- mostly to appease my mom.  Christmas, Easter, and the occasional special event.

My wife and I were married in my parents' church, but we'd likely make a different choice if we made it again. We chose the church for all the wrong reasons: tradition, family expectations, comfort.

For almost a decade after that, I was something of an apatheist. Of course I didn't believe there was a god, but I didn't really care much either.  But as my kids entered grade school and started to be able to ask coherent questions about religion, I realized they needed to be prepared for the sorts of indoctrination they would no-doubt get from their religious classmates here in the Bible Belt of Ohio.

I started taking an academic interest in atheism. I started watching debates, reading books, and listening to podcasts like The Thinking Atheist and Dogma Debate. For the first time, I discovered atheist authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I started talking with my kids about what I believe and why. My kids know what I believe and they know that I will love them no matter what they believe.

My kids know that their grandparents (my parents) hold Christian beliefs. And I've told my kids that they're welcome to ask and discuss with grandma and grandpa. So when my Cub Scout son was reading a Bible story in a Boy's Life magazine with my conservative Christian father, he simply said, "Dad doesn't believe in God". No biggie. Very matter-of-fact. He had no idea that I hadn't really discussed my atheism with my parents.

As I've come to hear more apostasy stories, I've learned that I'm pretty fortunate in how well my parents behaved.  My parents are Presbyterian, one of a handful of American churches that has taken the first steps to supporting same-sex marriage where it is legal. I never once thought that my parents would disown me for my beliefs. My relationship with my parents was somewhat awkward for a couple weeks, but in the en it started a more open dialogue. I took the opportunity to thank them for raising me to know that love is more important then faith. But after listening to a podcast titled Coming out Atheist by Seth Andrews and The Thinking Atheist, I learned that I shouldn't take such things for granted. Shunning is still quite common in fundamentalist religions. Extremist parents actually cut ties with their children who turn away from their religion. It's appalling to me to think that religion could trump family. Of course, that's what Jesus demanded, isn't it?

After the "event", I discussed boundaries with my parents. I said that they're welcome to share their beliefs with my kids, but threats of eternal damnation are off limits. They told me that they don't believe in hell. I was glad to hear that. I've come to believe more recently that people chose the Christian sects that agree with their personality.  The relationship may be reciprocal (with religion also influencing personality), but I suspect with the broad range of Christian Sects, from United Church of Christ to Westboro Baptist, there's a Christianity for everyone.

Overall, I think it's a good thing that my son just laid it all on the table like that. I've been able to share with them the challenges I face as an atheist in conservative Christian community. From my role as Cubmaster in an organization that openly rejects my conclusions about the nature of the universe to my career in a conservative business where most of my coworkers are Christian. 

Resources for Atheist Cub Scouts

As a Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Cubmaster, father of a Webelos scout, and atheist, I'm frequently struggling with how to deal with the scout's bigoted policy regarding atheism and homosexuality. It's an unfortunate part of life that otherwise good organizations fall victim to the glorified bigotry of religion in an attempt to teach "values."  Rather than reject the whole organization over one disagreement, I've thus far decided to work within the organization.  Note that I discovered that atheists weren't welcome after I'd already accepted the Cubmaster position, and I've stayed on because the pack needs me.  Though our pack is sponsored by a church, they have been very hands-off, allowing us to run a secular pack that largely serves the local schools.  Few of our scouts members are members of the church that sponsors us and provides us with meeting space.  I can't help but wonder how they'd respond if they ever asked my religion -- I wouldn't lie, but it's never come up.

But this isn't about me. It's about my 10 year old son in Webelos Scouts.  Ten is too young to have a firm and defensible opinion on the nature of the universe. But since he's close to me and I talk about my beliefs with him often, he identifies as atheist. This could wind up being a problem for my him since BSA doesn't consider it an acceptable to admit honest, rational, and reasonably skeptical world views. I've been looking for a good solution, and I found a few useful tidbits to share.

Unitarian Universalist (UU) Fellowships are not merely tolerant of atheist world views; my atheism is welcomed as the perfectly rational worldview it is and there are many other open atheists in our local fellowship. I know that some atheists consider UU a religion, but I think of it more as a socially conscious club to which I'm a member. There's no dogma (no creed to join), and a very wide range of beliefs are welcome.

Why am I talking about "church"? Because to earn the Webelos badge, scouts MUST accomplish a religious requirement.  The Unitarian Universalist Scouters Organization UUSO Answers the mail for atheists by providing a comfortably secular perspective on scouting in their "Religion and Family" program (note the lack of "god" in the title).  They've done the hard work of getting a dogma-free curriculum through the scouts religion panel. http://www.uuscouters.org/ hosts PDFs of relatively simple workbook you and your scout can work through to complete his religious requirement without being brainwashed into accepting absurd and indefensible claims of magic sky wizards. The material focuses on values and the role of religion plays in society. By helping your son understand what other people mean when they say "God", it's possible to get all the valuable aspects out of scouting without the spiritual woo.

There are two main charitable organizations I regularly donate to that are working to solve this problem over the long haul. 

  Scouting for All: http://www.scoutingforall.org/

  Scouts for Equality: https://www.scoutsforequality.org/

Unfortunately, LDS, Catholic, and Baptist influences hold substantial sway and their closed-minded one True™ answer worldview makes them difficult to work with. 

AiG Files Frivolous Lawsuit Over Not Getting Their Christian Privilege

Here's their press release:

• https://answersingenesis.org/religious-freedom/religious-discrimination-lawsuit-filed/

I'm sorry, Ken Ham, but it wasn't "religious discrimination" that led the state of Kentucky to reject your request for a tax incentive.  It's that your bigoted Answers in Genesis organization intends to discriminate in its hiring based on religious affiliation and sexuality.

You can't have it both ways, Ken. If you want our secular society to invest in the success of your monument to mass genocide, you'll need to demonstrate that the economic benefit will support all citizens, not just your fellow religious kooks.  So build your homage to horrific destruction with the money you bilked out of the gullible. But don't come asking us for a hand out.

And fuck you for wasting our money on a frivolous lawsuit.

A Response To: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The Original Article

This was written in response to my dad, who as a Presbyterian Christian shared Eric Metaxas’s article from the Christmas WSJ Op-Ed page. Dad and I haven’t really discussed religion much since he found I’m an atheist. He is the treasurer and has served as a deacon in our church.

It’s behind a paywall, but here’s the link:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

Eric Metaxas

Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

My Response:

Dad,

I hope you're feeling better.  We were all sad that we didn't get to see you and mom this weekend.

I also hope you wanted an honest and thoughtful response to the article you sent. I've taken an interest in philosophical debates over the last year or two, so I'm quite familiar with this particular style of god claim, as it's in fashion right now.  I'm happy to have these discussions any time.  Here's a sampling of my current thinking on this subject.  I'm sharing my thoughts and opinions on the article, which aren't going to be supportive. Keep in mind that I'm criticizing the article here, not you.  I'll do my best to be respectful to Mr. Metaxas, but I think he's been sloppy in his argument and in the claims he makes.

For starters, the headline is just plain wrong, and striking in its ignorance of the scientific method.  It's common to have flashy headlines in the media, so it's not surprising.   Nevertheless, science most certainly does not "Make the Case for God", and I'm not sure how to restructure the scientific process such that it actually could make such a case.  Science deals with the construction of models which accurately predict the observable behavior of the natural world around us.  To do this, science requires verifiable, repeatable experimentation to demonstrate the validity of clearly stated, falsifiable hypotheses.  Theistic claims of a god generally place the god in a nebulous "super-natural" or "spiritual" realm which is firmly outside any ability to test and validate. By definition, this is outside the realm of science. Furthermore, as an intelligent agent, a god with "the omni's" (omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence) would not follow pre-definable orderly rules we seek to establish with science. As far as I know, there's no reasonable way to study any god claim using science.

In his article, Mr. Metaxas lays out a well known philosophical argument for the existence of god.  The fact that the philosophical argument cites science as its evidence doesn't make it scientific.  There is no "god hypothesis" presented, much less actually tested.  The particular philosophical argument is in the category of "Fine Tuning" or Teleological arguments for the existence of God. The teleological argument on physical constants is one of the best arguments I've ever seen for the existence of God.

Hardly any cosmology scholars are making teleological claims of god's existence as the author seems to want his readers to think.  This sort of claim comes from Christian (and Muslim) apologists. I've studied the teleological argument and I find it unconvincing for several reasons.  I'll outline the four biggies here:

1. At its core, it uses what's called an argument from ignorance fallacy. The argument from ignorance fallacy is when a debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn't know the answer but Aclaims to know the answer, therefore A is right.  In this case, the statement goes, "We don't know why these constants are balanced, but our religion claims God did it, so our religious dogma must be true."  To see just how absurd this debate technique is, notice that the argument works equally well for any conceivable creation myth: a creator pixie; the Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent; or the classic modern parody, Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• Aside: The fact that there are aspects of the laws of nature that we don't yet understand never implies that any god did it. This is called "God of the Gaps". It's an attempt to spread the deity / deities into the ever-shrinking bits of the natural world we don't yet fully understand. We no longer need Ra, Apollo, or Helios to explain why the sun moves across the sky each day, or Zeus to explain lightning, or Poseidon to explain storms at sea. God of the gaps is asymptotically approaching zero.
2. The teleological argument is often presented as an argument for the Christian or Muslim model of an intervening (or theistic) God. In the cosmological constant form, it's AT BEST, a argument for deism, not theism — an intelligent "first cause" with no demonstrable continuing affinity towards humanity, and certainly no "personal relationships" as the Christian and Muslim traditions teach.
3. The argument fails to address the elementary "what created God?" Question. At it's core, this argument implies that the things around us (e.g. cosmological constants) appear to be "designed", so they must have a designer. But surely such a designer must be even more complex than the thing it designed. Why then do we not insist on a second designer to design that first designer?  Apologists, and indeed most Christians I know, get around this by something called "special pleading" – the assertion that we should make a special case for God that they refuse to grant for the universe. Namely, that a complex, all-powerful god could simply exist without needing a cause. Yet for some reason, the universe and all the things within it cannot.  Without special pleading, the intelligent creator deity requires his own creator, which requires a creator, and so on to infinity.
4. The teleological generally starts from the foundational assumption that humans are the ultimate "goal" of the universe, a strikingly arrogant position in my opinion. This is a problem for all religious apologetics I've seen. As a human, it's tempting to to take this position.  After all, it makes me feel special. But on the spatial and temporal scales of the universe, our entire species is insignificant, so we're left to assume that the universe was made just for us?  Seems like an tremendous waste of effort -- particularly the meteors and inescapable eventual destruction of our sun.  

Very few modern cosmologists consider these numbers evidence for God in the way that the article seems to suggest. There are several potential mechanisms whereby these constants could be "tuned" without an intelligence. The Multiverse is one. Very long time scales is another. There are not any fundamental problems with our understanding of the universe that ONLY a god could explain.

In my opinion, these sorts of articles, and apologetics in general, serves only to help believers feel more justified in their beliefs by giving the appearance of a solid foundation for religious beliefs where there is actually none to be had. The argument makes brilliant sense if you read it starting with the assumption that an intelligent creator god exists.  But it doesn't actually provide any clear or compelling evidence that such a creator deity exists in the first place, much less indication of what properties such a deity would possess.  So the honest truth is that:

• We don't (yet) know why the physical constants are balanced, but that doesn't mean a god did it.
• We have no way to determine how likely it is that they would be balanced, but even if it's extremely unlikely, that doesn't mean a god did it.

In the end, religion is based on faith. There is not, nor will there likely ever be any "proof". Until such a time, I remain very skeptical.  But I'm always happy to discuss. I'd like to know if I'm wrong, and I'm not going to find that by navel gazing.

With Love,

• Me