Logical Arguments for the Existence of God

The Incredulity Meter - Get Yours Today

No god in your life?  Are you too wrapped up in your closed-minded materialistic scientific world view to detect the hand of god in everything in your life?  If so, you need the amazing, new "Incredulity Meter(TM)".

The hand of god can only be detected by the Incredulity Meter(TM) - 100% accurate, almost 33% of the time.  Available at your local store for only $99.99, or online at just $69.99 with FREE SHIPPING.  Don't worry about rushing your order, there are enough in stock to supply an infinite number of customers.  When you point your device at something you do not understand, e.g. the tides coming in and out, the meter will point to the red incredulity zone and tell you that because you personally do not understand a phenomenon that god did it.

But wait, for only an additional $29.99 (plus shipping & handling) you can add the optional "Confirmation Bias Package" (patent pending).  This will not only tell you that GODDIDIT, but will also tell you that the god that you happen to hold true is the actual GODWHATDIDIT.

PayPal and all major credit cards accepted.  Sorry, no COD.

100% satisfaction guaranteed.  Sorry, no refunds, all sales final.

Okay So This Is What We are Dealing With...

This is from "The Atheist Experience" with Matt Dillahunty.

The caller asks the reasonable question "How do you know God isn't real?"

The descent into total ignorance is beyond belief.& It seems that our caller feels equipped to argue even though he does not know what "physics" is!

Enjoy, or more likely suffer and cringe...

Nonsense on the Rocks, With a Vitriol Chaser

Legal Victory Raises Profile of an Atheist Group

By DIRK JOHNSON

Published: April 23, 2010

MADISON, Wis. — Annie Laurie Gaylor clicked through a flurry of e-mail messages warning her to repent or she would burn in hell.

“Herod,” one messenger called her.

Ms. Gaylor leaned back and sipped from a cup of tea, unfazed and even a bit surprised at the relative tameness of the attacks. Fresh from her latest godless triumph, she had expected more vitriol.

“It used to be a lot worse,” said Ms. Gaylor, 54, an atheist whose organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, recently won a suit in federal court here that declared the National Day of Prayer to be a violation of the First Amendment. “Things are changing. Society is becoming more secularized. It’s becoming acceptable to be atheist and agnostic. And there are more of us.”

The nation’s population continues to show signs of becoming less religious, according to the American Religious Identification Survey. The number of people in 2008 calling themselves atheist or agnostic, or stating no religious preference, is an estimated 15 percent, nearly double the percentage in the early 1990s. Around the country, nonbeliever clubs are springing up on college campuses.

Headquartered in a former Episcopal rectory in the shadow of the State Capitol, Freedom From Religion was founded in 1976 by Ms. Gaylor — then a student at the University of Wisconsin — and her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, who remains a fierce advocate for “free thought” at age 83. The co-president of the group is Annie Laurie Gaylor’s husband, Dan Barker, a former evangelical minister.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation claims a membership of more than 14,000, the largest group in the country advocating for atheists and agnostics. It has doubled its staff to eight in the last year, publishes a newspaper 10 times a year, Freethought Today, and has a weekly radio show. The group counts among its members and vocal supporters Janeane Garofalo, Christopher Hitchens and Ron Reagan.

Over the years, the group has won a suit to stop Bible instruction in a Tennessee school district, overturned a Madison law ordering businesses to close for hours on Good Friday and stopped a Colorado public school from requiring students to do volunteer work at churches.

The group’s biggest victory to date came last week when Judge Barbara B. Crabb of Federal District Court ruled that the federal government could not enact a law in support of prayer any more than it could “encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.” The law, signed by President Harry S. Truman in 1952, calls on the president to sign a proclamation annually in observance of a National Day of Prayer.

The judge said the ruling would be stayed for 60 days to give the Obama administration, whose lawyers defended the prayer day in court, the chance to file an appeal. On Thursday, the White House said it would appeal and that, in the meantime, the president would sign this year’s prayer proclamation, as scheduled, on May 6.

The court ruling drew fire from the private National Day of Prayer Task Force. Michael Calhoun, a spokesman, described it as “an attack upon the religious heritage” of the nation. He criticized the Madison organization.

“It is a sad day in America when an atheist in Wisconsin,” he said, “can undermine this tradition for millions of others.”

It is still not easy being an atheist in public. No corporate group gives money to the foundation. Ms. Gaylor said she typically avoids making her views on political candidates public, calling it “the kiss of death” to be endorsed by an organization of nonbelievers.

She acknowledged voting for Mr. Obama, and expressed disappointment that his administration has defended the prayer day law. “I don’t give him a pass,” she said. “He’s a constitutional scholar. He knows we’re right.”

As a middle school student, young Annie Laurie would travel around the state with her mother, who barnstormed for feminist causes like legal abortion and access to contraceptives.

Children at school would sometimes look askance when they learned that she and her siblings were growing up without religion. “But there was a little envy, too,” she said. “It was like, ‘You mean you don’t have to get up in the morning and go to church?’ ”

The elder Ms. Gaylor, who wrote a book titled, “Abortion is a Blessing,” regarded religion as the enemy of equal rights for women. “I never liked fairy tales,” she said. “And I didn’t like people passing them off as truths.”

For his part, Mr. Barker, 60, grew up in Southern California and began evangelizing as a teenager. He left the ministry in his early 30s after coming to realize that he did not believe the Bible.

“I just had to fess up and say, ‘This is nonsense,’ ” Mr. Barker said.

He travels the country spreading the word of another sort — doing what his wife calls “reverse penance” — engaging in debates, delivering talks and offering musical performances in the name of godlessness. He plays the piano and sings atheist songs. One of his favorite numbers: “You Can’t Win Original Sin.”

Original source here

Boobquake - We Need A Double-Blind Test

Jen McCreight's "Boobquake" is quite the meme.  On April 26, women all over the globe will wear their most revealing outfits.  The idea is to demonstrate to Iranian cleric Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi that he is full of shit.

The facebook event alone has attracted 14,000 participants (including your truly).

I applaud this effort but unfortunately the experiment is flawed.  If women in random geographies wear provocative clothing, we will no doubt experience an earthquake or two in some of those areas.  Alaska, for example, has multiple earthquakes on a daily basis.  Random statistical clustering is to be expected, sadly not demonstrating that this Iranian cleric is talking arse gravy.

In order to thoroughly test this we need a number of control groups.

Control Group 1:  Women dressed in burqas in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 2:  Women dressed in burqas in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 3:  Women dressed in burqas in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 4:  Women dressed in jeans and sweats in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 5:  Women dressed in jeans and sweats in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 6:  Women dressed in jeans and sweats in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 7:  Women dressed immodestly in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 8:  Women dressed in immodestly in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 9:  Women dressed in immodestly in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 10:  Naked women in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 11:  Naked women in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 12:  Naked women in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 13:  Copulating naked women in an area not typically known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 14:  Copulating naked women in an area frequently known to experience earthquakes

Control Group 15:  Copulating naked women in an area occasionally known for earthquakes

Control Group 16:  All of the above but with men, and then again the above with men engaging in homosexual activities and/or thoughts.

I am volunteering to observe and document Control Group 10, for purely scientific reasons you understand

God: The Great Game of Hide-and-Seek

Science works and here's how.  A scientist will ask a simple question such as "how does 'x' work?".  Scientist will then form a hypothesis (educated guess) as to how "x" might work.  Scientist will then test hypothesis experimentally and the results (evidence) will either support or falsify the hypothesis.  Once scientist has evidence to support the hypothesis, scientist will publish findings and these will be reviewed and tested by other qualified scientists.  These scientists will attempt to find weaknesses in the hypothesis and replicate the evidence under their own controlled experiments.  If hypothesis is not falsified then the scientists will provisionally accept the hypothesis of how "x" works until such a time a new evidence, or more comprehensive hypothesis comes to light.

This process has been repeated many millions of times by qualified scientists, and this is why we have a longer life expectancy, why the internet works, why we understand how life evolves, why mothers usually survive childbirth and many, many more examples of the amazing benefits science has brought to humankind.

During these millions and millions of experiments and tests, not one time has it occurred that in order for "x" to work, god must have performed action "y".  Not once, never!  Scientists have explored and tested and hypothesized and theorized, and it has never been the case that a supernatural cause needed to be invoked.

And as these gaps in our knowledge shrink over time, religions constantly attempt to insert their gods into these holes in our current understanding.  Every single time that a scientist closes one of these holes, god vanishes almost as if he was never needed in the first place.  The holes are shrinking by the day as scientists resolve unknowns and improve our understanding of nature.  God is getting smaller and less necessary as an explanatory power for the mysteries of life.

The religious hold on to abiogenesis as the last bastion of god.  Science has not yet figured out how the first non-organic molecules evolved into self replicating organic life forms.  The religious see this as a massive hole and immediately insert their deity of choice into the gap.  Scientists would never show such hubris and claim knowledge of something that escapes explanation at that moment.  They say "I don't know, but I'm working on it".  The religious will say "god did it, and not only that, I know what this god looks like, what he wants, and that if you don't believe this too, you will suffer for eternity".  That is hubris and at a godlike scale.

The gaps are shrinking and god is neither required nor has a supernatural action ever been detected. God is hiding, but we have counted up to 10 and we are coming, ready or not.

Woo hoo! An atheist Prime Minister?

In 2008 Professor AC Grayling discussed the possibility of the election of a self proclaimed atheist as British Prime Minister as a realistic prospect for the first time. (Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot never being serious contenders for the honour.) Then the atheist in question was David Miliband. Mr Nice, Nick Clegg was an also ran leading a party which hadn’t been in power since 1915. He was staple fodder for ‘’Have I Got News For You” and “Private Eye.” He was anonymous and a joke.

Two years, a plethora of political scandals and a television debate later, the two main parties are running scared as Mr Nice distances himself from the baggage of the existing political landscape, and presents himself as the face of change, and our only hope. In 2007 along with confessing to a minor skirmish with arson and ‘’drawing a veil’’ over his dabbling or not with drugs, Nick replied ‘’No’’, when asked if he believed in God. His low profile at the time meant the comment resulted in barely a ripple in the media.

The two other main party leaders are coy about their beliefs, lest they alienate their core supporters. Dave Cameron presents himself as Church of England, with a faith which he compares to ‘’the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns. It sort of comes and goes.” Gordon Brown’s father was a minister, and he avoids talking about his faith, but does acknowledge that his father’s advice forms his ‘moral compass’. Tony Blair was reticent to talk about his religion, and delayed announcing his conversion to Catholicism until after he left office, fearing people would think him a ‘nutter’. As Alaistair Campbell said “we don’t do God”.

Blair wasn’t a welcome convert to Catholicism. Two weeks before he announced his faith ‘’The Catholic Herald’’ made the mistake of running a front page story with the headline that Blair had ‘’no plans’’ to convert and that was a relief to many Catholics. Why? This was because Blair voted in favour of abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage and other such liberal ideas. Prominent Catholics demanded that Blair repent of these sins and recant.

So does it matter what our senior politicians believe, or don’t believe? Surely the parties’ policies regarding the economy, defence and so on are what we as voters should concentrate upon? Plus, of course, the leader is but one man, not the entire Cabinet or party. That is true to a point, but as AC Grayling shows, these policies are coloured by our politicians’ personal religious and moral views.

Grayling describes the advantages he sees to having an atheist as a prime minister as these:

“Atheist leaders are not going to think they are getting messages from Beyond telling them to go to war. They will not cloak themselves in supernaturalistic justifications, as Blair came perilously close to doing when interviewed about the decision to invade Iraq.

Atheist leaders will be sceptical about the claims of religious groups to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good, getting public funds, meriting special privileges and exemptions from laws, and having seats in the legislature and legal protection from criticism, satire and challenge.

Atheist leaders are going to be more sceptical about inculcating sectarian beliefs into small children ghettoised into publicly funded faith-based schools, risking social divisiveness and possible future conflict. They will be readier to learn Northern Ireland's bleak lesson in this regard.

Atheist leaders will, by definition, be neutral between the different religious pressure groups in society, and will have no temptation not to be even-handed because of an allegiance to the outlook of just one of those groups.

Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation. This is not a trivial point: for most of history those lower down the social ladder have been promised a perch at the top when dead, and kept quiet thereby. The claim that in an imperfect world one's hopes are better fixed on the afterlife than on hopes of earthly paradises is official church doctrine.

Atheist leaders will not be tempted to think they are the messenger of any good news from above, or the agent of any higher purpose on earth. Or at very least, they will not think this literally”.

Professor Grayling goes on to enthuse about the prospect of an atheist PM moving towards the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would in itself lead the way to religious groups en masse being stripped of privileges including the ear of ministers and public funding for faith schools. Regular church goers amount to 2% of the population yet the Church of England has huge influence over the state primary school system, representation of its bishops in the House of Lords and the ear of government.

As an atheist I should be celebrating the possibility of an atheist coming to power, but I’m not simply because I don’t think he is one in the sense that Kinnock or Foot were. Nick Clegg replied to the question if he believed in God with a one word answer. Subsequent to that he’s fudged the issue, saying he is not an ‘’active believer’’ whatever that means, and stating that he has ‘’enormous respect for people who have religious faith”. He is married to a Spanish Catholic, and his children are being raised as Catholics. That bothers me.

I acknowledge that it is a personal issue, but as an atheist I can’t countenance allowing children of mine to be raised as Catholics. He also courts faith schools, cosying up to the Jewish Community when it suits him for political advantage. If he does become PM then how will he deal with the Papal visit in September, and the threat of legal action against the Pope when he steps on British soil?

To me the religious issue shows Clegg is a political pragmatist as much as his competitors. His background is similar to Dave Cameron’s, but he manages to hide the fact. He is an opportunist who benefits from not being the other guy. Not a popular view as the country is awash with Clegg fever, but a realistic one?

If I vote Lib Dem (which I may still do, and in St Albans its anyone's guess who will win it's such a close call), Nick Clegg’s faith, or lack of it, will not be a factor.

We're not going to have an atheist PM quite yet.



Anthony Grayling MA, DPhil (Oxon) FRSL, FRSA is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, and a Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.

Jo Bale isn’t. Please be gentle.

Virginal Blogging. My first post.

10 ways to bring up an atheist child...

1. Force him or her to go to church every Sunday without exception, sometimes twice.
2. Make your child go to Christian youth fellowship group because they will make appropriate friends there.
3. Tell your child every day to be good, otherwise god won't want them in Heaven, and will punish them if they aren't.
4. Make your child pray every evening ensuring there are lots of 'sorry this' and 'sorry that' statements included in the prayer so that they feel they are a bad person and mainly without value as a human being.
5. Use the bible as a lie detector - ie, make your child place their hand on it and state whether or not they were 'guilty' of a misdomeanor, reasserting that if they lie on the bible they will burn hideously in hell.
6. Discourage creative thought. "What should I do mum?" "Well, what would Jesus do?"
7. Remind your child that they can't question whether god exists as he doesn't like it.
8. If your child asks pertinent questions about evidence of gods existence, assure them that they simply have to have faith.
9. Answer every question your child asks about nature with "Because God made it that way."
10. Always invite the Jehovah's witnesses in, when everyone else tells them to bugger off, and have them in the living room with their pamphlets when your mates come round for tea.

This upbringing will guarantee that your child will become a strong athiest, not necessarily immediately, but eventually, and with great gratitude to you for having opened their eyes to all that is total bollocks in the world.

Pascal's Wager - Bet on Reality or the Unknowable?

Excellent video from TheraminTrees on the absurdity of Pascal's Wager.

My Prayers Have Been Answered...

"Dear Lord
I know that we don't exactly see eye-to-eye,
Given that I don't believe that you exist and all that,
But I would like to ask you for something if i may?
It's something that's been irking me for some while now
Although I guess that you already know that
You being all-knowing and stuff
So I'm not really sure why I am asking you this
Because you already know what I want from you
Or do you?
Are you just pretending to be an all-knowing god?
Because if you did already know, then praying to you would be a waste of time
Wouldn't it?
Anyway, just in case you don't know I'm going to ask you anyhow
Actually that brings me to another point.
I was under the impression that you had a big plan
If I am asking you for something that is not in your plan then what happens?
Will you change your plan to suit me?
Or will you just continue with your plan?
If the latter, then what is the point of me praying to you?
If the former, then thanks a lot, but what if someone else prays for your plan to stay the same?
Who wins then?
I think you can see that I am confused about this prayer thing, so any help you can give me to understand better would be appreciated.
But I digress dear Lord.
What I would like is for you to make it that the National Day of Prayer is ruled unconstitutional.
If you could to that for me (even if it's not in your plan) I would be very grateful.
I know your Christian followers will be mightily pissed, but come on, separation of church and state and all that.
Unless you don't think that's correct and that government should follow your Word
In which case I'm fucked then.
But please, if you could see your way to granting my prayer I'll owe you a pint when I get to heaven.
I am going to heaven am I not?
If you could let me know about that in advance I can make sure that I enjoy it down here while I have the chance.
Well that's about it from me, talking to myself like this feels quite weird
But cheers for listening mate
Er, I think I'm supposed to sign off with some kind of ritual phrase like "I pray in Jesus' name" or something like that
I hope I got that right
If I got it wrong, will it invalidate my prayer?
Oh, and if you are Allah, not the one I think I'm praying to, can you just grant my prayer request anyway?
It was an honest mistake
I mean, it's not as if there is any evidence for any of you anyway
Cheers dude"

I must have been praying to the correct god, because he answered my prayers.  Yay the lord.

Atheism: A Cult to Nothing – Debunked

Stuart Schneiderman describes himself as a “Life Coach Executive” and he’s pitched in on his blog “Had Enough Therapy?” on Dawkins & Hitchens mission to hold the pope accountable for the crimes committed under his watch while he allegedly protected the perpetrators.

He is of course entitled to his opinion.  But what he is not entitled to without being called to task is sloppy research and non-sequitur conclusions.

I rest my case with the sloppy research accusation right up front as he claims Dawkins’ real name is “Dawson”.  I doubt it’s a typo as he repeats the mistake.  Just in case Mr. Schneiderman edits his blog post (and I have no reason to suspect that he will), here is the original text which I include as an image for the record.

Let’s be generous and put that down to a simple mistake as he did at least get Professor Dawkins’ name correct in the closing paragraph.

Schneiderman launches into a defense of the Catholic Church and lets his canon loose on atheist societies including Stalin’s Soviet Republic as not exactly being paragons of morality.  My beef with Mr. Schneiderman here is that he failed to go on to erect the usual canards regarding Pol Pot and Hitler.  I hate it when I can’t call him out on Godwin’s Law.

We can begin with his defense of the Catholic church.  I quote Schneiderman’s blog entry;

“I recall a conversation I had with a Catholic friend many years ago. He had been disturbed to discover the sordid behavior of many members of the priesthood in the past-- such predations do not date to yesterday-- so he asked a cousin of his, a cardinal in the Church, how he could justify his belief when so much sin has been committed in God's name.

The Cardinal was nonplussed. He responded: if the Church had not been created by God it would never have survived this long.”

God clearly created the Catholic Church as can be demonstrated by its longevity!  Do I really need to list religions that are older than, or at least as old as Catholicism and that still remain in existence?  Do I really need to remind Schneiderman that Jews still in fact exist?

Schneiderman continues to suggest that the Catholic Church cannot prevent sin (crimes) but it has the ability as ordained by God to forgive them, and this somehow “proves” the effectiveness of the church.  The pope’s now infamous “smoking gun” letter most certainly demonstrates the church’s ability to forgive its own.  I’m not wholly sure that they have forgiven the Jews for (allegedly) killing their Christ yet though.

Let us now move onto Schneiderman’s facile canard regarding the horrors and deaths caused at the hands of atheists, and of course he brings Stalin and Communism into the mix at this point.  According to Schneiderman Stalin was responsible for as much, if not more, death and bloodshed as the Catholic Church.  I quote:

“If anything, communist dictatorships murdered more people in a shorter period of time than any religion has ever done. If communism was competing against religion, it emerged victorious in terms of body count.”

Foremost Stalin was a dictator operating a brutal totalitarian regime, and the removal of the powerful religions from his country served a purpose in subjugating the population.  Stalin is guilty of many atrocities and many deaths, but his regime was not one based on atheism.  He didn’t kill and torture in the name of atheism, he did this to maintain his political agenda.  That’s it, plain and simple, atheism was incidental to the politics of the regime and the removal of religion was useful.

But perhaps more importantly, the “they do it too argument” is not in any way a justification for the crimes committed by an institution that claims God given moral authority.  The Catholic Church abused, molested and raped those under its care, and an excuse that “atheists did it too” does not fly.  If you are going to hold the moral high ground, you must at least act morally.  The argument therefore falls flat on its face under the fallacy of non-sequitur.

Schneiderman critiques atheists as lacking in something by not having a religion, and this is substituted with the need to practice secular rituals such as NASCAR, 4^th July Celebrations and football.

“Be that as it may, we should also note that people who have absolutely no truck with God or the Bible believe fervently in metaphysical entities like ideas and ideals. As I have said, this amounts to a thinly disguised idolatry.”

With this wibble and woo Schneiderman is arguing that holding thoughts and opinions is a religious practice.  Well it’s not and it’s also not metaphysical, it’s otherwise known as living and breathing and getting on with your life.

"Ideas are metaphysical entities, whether you worship them at an altar or not. Once you accept that they exist, though not in anything like a physical sense, you should next ask yourself whether they exist when no one is thinking them. If gravity is an idea that is expressed in the behavior of physical objects, did gravity exist before anyone defined the concept. And if it did, if it was an idea, well then, who or what was thinking it?"

This is as basic as “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, will it make a sound?”  Before Newton people were not flying off the planet, Schneiderman is arguing that naming a concept gives it its reality.

Schneiderman’s reasoning is flawed to the extreme and nothing more than wishful thinking.

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

From the Sunday Times writer Marc Horne RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”. Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998. The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases. Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

Pat Condell's take on the Catholic Church

The Big E is now on The Atheist Blogroll

The Big E has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.