Just Some of the Stupid Things Ray Comfort Says

DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to insult Christians with this. I am trying to insult Ray Comfort though.

If you have been paying attention to Facebook, you might have noticed the attention given recently to Ray Comfort (a.k.a. the Banana Man) and his Facebook page for just all the hilariously stupid stuff that he says.

I decided to go through his Timeline and take screencaps of the most bizarre and stupid. Unfortunately, that seems to be pretty much everything that he says.

For the vast majority of these, I don’t think I have to say much of anything. I think they speak for themselves.

We will start with the most recent and just work our way backwards.

I’m just not going to say anything…

This actually makes me a little scared to be around you, Ray. Kind of sounds like martyrdom.

With a lot of these posts, he seems to be taking the usual atheist talking points and just adding a little Christian twist.

Then how come Europe is trying to ban porn? No seriously. They are trying to have a continent wide ban on porn.

A little homoerotic there. I think Ray has the hots for Jesus.

Coincidentally, one of my middle names is Thomas.

So you’re admitting there is a bunch of dirt in the Bible then, Ray?

Just… ugh…

Let’s see what Numbers 3-4 actually say.

Numbers 3 starts off with God telling Moses to essentially make the tribe of Levi the slaves of the Israelites (Numbers 3:5-10).

The chapter then ends by God ordering Moses to take a census of the different clans of the Levites, such as Gershonite, Kohathite, and Merarite, and then the entire tribe of Israelites. I don’t know why God would need to take a census, since He is supposedly omniscient, but whatever.

Numbers 4 is entirely about taking specific censuses of the able-bodied men of the clans of the Levites (again, why would God need to know this?) and assigning them different work to carry important religious artifacts and other things for the Israelites, just further insinuating that they are slaves.

Unnecessary censuses and slavery. Why does this make you smile, Ray?

I actually completely agree with you, Ray (except for the part about trying to sell us an “eternal life”).

This statement seems entirely contradictory. God has “everlasting love and mercy” and yet a “terrible wrath” too? Seems like an abusive husband. Loving you one moment, beating you the next.

Yes, I’m going to use the Bible to prove the Bible is correct!

As you can see, I only got to the 21st of February before I finally just gave up trying to find anymore.

I hope you all enjoyed this as much as I hated it. And Ray, I hope you keep doing what you’re doing, because you are the biggest advertisement for godless liberalism since former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said conservatives will never have “smart people on [their] side.”

Geezus: The Miracle Drug

A pharmaceutical company has come out with a new drug called “Geezus.” It’s claimed to give the user eternal life and unending bliss with no side effects as long as they continue to take it and believe that it will work. That’s great news. It really is. With all the terrible things that happen in this world, it’s about time someone found a solution to it all. Despite sounding like a miracle fix to all our problems, we must test Geezus and its effects on people and society before we force it onto children who may not be able to handle it with their developing brains and unconditional trust for authority.

Unfortunately, the company that made Geezus has somehow been able to bypass nearly all government regulations and testing to confirm the validity of these claims, and yet the government is still putting up ads for Geezus all over the country, even on public grounds and government buildings, as well as giving tax breaks to the company that made Geezus, which are paid for by our tax money.

From what has been observed since Geezus was released, most people who take Geezus excessively, or even in moderation, become highly irrational, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist, and overall willfully ignorant douchebags, as well as displaying a tendency for believing the world is about to end and/or taking part in ritualistic cannibalism and human sacrifice. Doctors have diagnosed such excessive use of Geezus and these symptoms as a disease called “fundamentalism.” Some, but not all, fundamentalists have even shown homicidal and infanticidal behaviour.

The excessive use of Geezus, fundamentalism, should not be confused with schizophrenia. Schizophrenics have a problem with their brains that is not their faults where they perceive things that are not there. Without actual medication, they cannot not see or hear these things. Fundamentalists are fully aware of the world around them, but they willfully ignore it and replace reality with their own if it is more comfortable or convenient for them. Geezus use is not a disease like schizophrenia, but an addiction, even if it is not excessive like fundamentalism, similar to alcoholism.

In some parts of the country, people are being discriminated against and harassed for not taking Geezus (or for taking different drugs), especially those that dare to speak out against Geezus and the company that made it. These people feel that the claims made about Geezus are false. They also believe it’s dangerous to take Geezus without knowing the full truth about it, especially because of the multiple cases showing the harm that Geezus use can cause. They believe Geezus and the company that made it should be regulated and taxed like anything else; it should not be exempt from such scrutiny and oversight simply because it claims to be special.

Original idea by David Smalley, owner of Dogma Debate Radio.

The Mosaic Law is Still in Place

It’s one of the oldest lines in the book (I’m not referring to the Bible), that Jesus, upon his coming to Earth as the son of God and eventual crucifixion, created a New Covenant for Christians (then the Jews) to live by, thereby abolishing the Old Covenant of Moses and the laws of the Old Testament, referred to as the Mosaic Law.

This is why certain Christians today claim that they do not have to follow the laws where God commands the stoning of gays (Lev. 20:13), supposed witches (Exo. 22:17), adulterers (Lev. 20:10), fornicators (Lev. 21:9), people of other faiths (Exo. 22:19), disobedient children (Lev. 20:9), entire towns of nonbelievers, including their women, children, infants, and livestock (Deut. 13:13-19), women who aren’t virgins on their wedding nights (Deut. 22:20-21), people who work on the Sabbath (Exo. 31:12-15), blasphemers/infidels (Lev. 24:10-16), and many more.

There are, however, many Christians who would gladly quote these verses and say that we are still bound by these laws, such as the extremely homophobic Kansas and North Carolina pastors that have been in the news recently. Which is it then?

By today’s standards, this is barbaric and disgusting. If someone today tried to kill someone else for any of these reasons, they would be considered a murderous psychopath, not someone who is doing good by carrying out the will of some god, even if those might be their intentions.

This rightfully so should be considered such, because it is barbaric; it is evil and backwards. If God is so loving, how can he ask this of his people? Even if these aren’t in effect right now, which I will get to in a second, what kind of “loving father” would command at any point in time his children to kill others, God’s other children, for just happening to be born in a different nation, for being born into a family of a differing religion, or for being born gay? “God is love,” I guess.

The claim made by Christians is that Jesus abolished these laws. This may be true, and let’s assume that it is for a minute. Now, I’m not going to argue if there is a new covenant. There is. It is laid out in the Old and New Testaments that God was going to create such a thing. In fact, here is a Christian explanation for the New Covenant. My only contention is when people say that since the Old Covenant was abolished, they no longer have to kill sinners, such as gays, supposed witches, adulterers, etc.

One Christian apologist blog claims that it has been abolished in one of their posts “Has the Mosaic Law Been Abolished?“

Since it was fulfilled, its requirements no longer apply. Thus practically, it has been abolished. As such, we are not required to follow it.

The author of the post gives numerous biblical verses that support the idea that the Mosaic Law has been abolished, or at least that we are no longer required to follow it. I suggest reading them all. If this is so, then what are the laws that people should follow? One of the people in the comments had this very same problem, except they were a Christian. They claimed, “According to [the author], we can now have sex with animals, commit incest…” and do all sorts of other things that were forbidden in the Old Testament.

A different Christian apologist site called Truth on the Web, has a different perspective on the matter. Emphasis his, not mine.

The apostle John taught throughout his writings that the law is still to be observed by God’s people.  You could read in John 5:14 & 8:11 where Jesus told people to “sin no more”. WHAT IS SIN? I John 3:4 states, ” …sin is the transgression of the law”. SIN IS THE BREAKING OF GOD’S COMMANDMENTS!  Jesus said not to break them anymore!

More disagreements between Christians on their own scripture and Messiah. Fun.

From what I’ve gathered from the latter of the two apologists, the Ten Commandments are still in effect, because Jesus, the Apostles, and others cite them throughout the New Testament, but the author says nothing of the 600 or so other commandments of God.

Are they the laws that were abolished upon Jesus’ crucifixion? If it is true that we are supposed to follow the Ten Commandments alone, then what are the punishments for breaking them? The Old Testament says to stone and kill people who break them. It is suggested in the New Testament that the same punishment be dealt when Jesus quotes the laws of Moses in Mark 7:9-13.

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

So even if the laws I mentioned at the beginning were abolished, the Ten Commandments were not and are still commanded of Christians to this day. Do not forget too, the punishment for breaking the Ten Commandments “is to be put to death.” Hey, Jesus’ words, not mine (well, technically Moses, but Jesus is quoting him).

Now, God (Jesus’ daddy…who is also him…who is also a part…that is still separate from him…and…what?) did not seem to change his mind about the laws and commandments I have mentioned when they moved into the New Testament, as is abundantly clear in Romans 1:26-32.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I’m going to ignore the part where God just made people gay, fully knowing that they would be punished for what he made them do.

According to this, things like homosexuality and other sins mentioned are to be punished by killing the sinner. Remember, this is not the Old Testament. Romans is in the New Testament, so there is no getting around it. God is telling us in the New Testament that homosexuality, among other things, is still a sin that must be punished with death according to “God’s righteous decree.” God wants us to kill gays (Leviticus 20:13), but we’ve been “released from the law” (Romans 7:6), so we don’t have to, but God still wants us to, because gays “deserve death” (Romans 1:32).

Some verses point towards a New Covenant being established, but there are also verses where Jesus himself is quoting Mosaic Laws, such as stoning disobedient children. Then there are laws and commandments in the New Testament that are identical to those in the Old. This further proves that 1) the Bible can be interpreted and cherry-picked however one sees fit in order to justify their beliefs and actions, and that 2) there are contradictions upon contradictions contained within the Bible.

RE: Love Your Neighbor

So apparently, John Christy, the Christian that was on Dogma Debate recently who I wrote about in my most recent post The Christian Listener, has his own blog. I was unaware of this until I got a call from David Smalley about John’s response to the discussion we had on the show.

After thanking us for having him on the show for half the post, he starts off with this:

Smalley kept using Malachi 3:6 as a reference stating, “I the Lord do not change.” Smalley used this claim as the Bible’s support of killing homosexuals and slavery. What he did not read, and I failed to bring to his attention, was the second half of that verse which also states “So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed”.

Looking at the full context of this verse, which John is so big about, we see that what David said was not out of context.

“I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.

Always, every time, every single time an atheist quotes the Bible, a Christian will say some variation of, “You’re taking it out of context!” Even if they’re wrong, they will say it, because they will immediately say that we are wrong for “taking it out of context” once you say something from the Bible that they disagree with. “I the Lord do not change,” is not taken out of context. I have seen Christian apologists even quote Malachi 3:6 just as David did to prove similar points.

However, there are verses from the Old Testament where God does change his mind on things, as is clear from Jeremiah 18:7-10.

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

This could be construed as changing his mind, but if God is omniscient, then he knows what nations and kingdoms will do what he wanted and which ones will not, so it’s not really changing his mind if he knows what is going to happen.

Then Hebrews 7:21 says, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind…”

So God does change his mind from the Jeremiah verses, but also he doesn’t from the Malachi and Hebrews verses. This is but another contradiction in the Bible for people to cherry-pick all the verses that support their interpretations of it.

Next in his post, John says this.

Smalley also avoided my continual usage of Jesus’ statement to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31). This is why a proper contextual understanding of the Bible is so critical to not only bring balance and understanding to God’s word but also to his nature.

Yes, it is true. Jesus did say the greatest commandments are to love God to love your neighbour. So what? It doesn’t mean the Malachi verse was taken out of context.

“You’re taking it out of context!” is not an argument unless you can show how it actually has been taken out of context. If someone quotes a person as saying, “I want to kill everyone,” and we look at the actual context of what that person said and what they actually said was, “It’s not like I want to kill everyone, but I am angry,” then that is an example of something being taken out of context. Quoting Malachi 3:6 as, “I the Lord do not change,” is not something that has been taken out of context. Please understand the difference.

The Christian Listener

During the most recent episode of Dogma Debate, we had on John Christy, a Christian listener of the show, for David Smalley and the rest of us to converse with. The segment was supposed to be only about twenty minutes long, maybe forty at the most, but we ended up talking to him for over an hour and a half. A reason for that is because 1) we had a lot to talk about, and 2) he takes forever to say anything.

He was a nice guy. I am not trying to hate on John. I like him as a person. I am not a bigot against Christians, as much as Christians (and some atheists) would like to think I am. I do not like his beliefs. I do not like what he stands for. I do not like the source he claims is his moral compass. There’s a difference. If the Christian can say, “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” then we can say, “Hate the beliefs, not the believer,” which is how I felt about John.

A very big problem I did have with him during the show was how when asked very specific and direct questions, he would employ how it takes forever for him to say anything, which derails the conversation to avoid actually answering the question. While the show was going on, I got comments from listeners who were saying exactly that. When repeatedly asked the same question because he was avoiding it, he just continued to ramble on as if he did not hear a thing (which maybe he honestly didn’t because he was calling in on Skype).

Getting onto some specific points from the discussion.

John claimed that Jesus was breaking the Mosaic Laws, such as when he broke the Sabbath, and this is why we shouldn’t follow those laws anymore. The problem here is that it’s not biblically accurate, which is funny, because John kept saying that we weren’t being biblically accurate, neither was the North Carolina pastor who wanted every gay to be put into a giant concentration camp for them to die off in.

The reason John is not biblically accurate is because Jesus was angered by the Pharisees for not following the Laws of Moses, as is clear in Mark 7:9-13.

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Jesus is clearly mad that people are not following the Old Testament laws, especially the hypocrites who claimed he was not. Jesus wants us to follow the Old Testament laws of Moses. Jesus wants disobedient children to be executed. It’s right there in black and white.

In response to when I pressured him about this, John claimed that Jesus was a law-breaker, that he broke the Sabbath repeatedly. This is partially true. Jesus was accused of working the Sabbath by the Pharisees, because he ate grain on the Sabbath, which required work. Also, the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing the sick. However, according to an apologetics site, Jesus was not sinning when he worked on the Sabbath.

When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, He was not breaking the Sabbath, but fulfilling it, because one is not at rest when afflicted, oppressed and bound by disease or infirmity. As many scriptures show, God delights in redeeming and restoring the afflicted, and giving them the rest exemplified by His Sabbath. God “hears the cry of the afflicted. When he gives quietness [rest], who then can make trouble?” (Job 34:28–29).

I’m not saying that I agree with the either John or the apologetics site, but it’s funny to see how Christians disagree with each other so much with their interpretations of who Jesus was, what he did, what he taught, and how we should live our lives according to his teachings.

Now the reason John brought this up was because he was saying that the coming of Jesus, that his time here on Earth, was him creating a new covenant and getting rid of the Mosaic Laws, such as stoning gays, disobedient children, people of other faiths, people who work on the Sabbath, and other people for what today would be considered barbaric and for arbitrary reasons. Well, that same article on Jesus breaking the Sabbath has this to say on that.

Had Jesus Christ actually broken the Sabbath, He would have been sinning. But the Scripture says that He “committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22). Had He sinned, He could not be our Savior. But He, being undefiled and separate from sinners, offered Himself without spot and without blemish to God for our redemption (Hebrews 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18–19).

Breaking the Sabbath, according to these Christians, is a sin even today. John did not say that Jesus did not break the Sabbath because he was doing God’s will or because it was a matter of life or death, only that Jesus broke the Sabbath, because he was creating a new covenant for people to live by. I, if I were a Christian, would spin this to say that the new covenant had already been made, so Jesus was still perfect and had not sinned, therefore he could still be sacrificed to God (who is himself…but is also his father…but is also a part of him…who is still separate…and then there’s that Holy Ghost thing…what?) for the sins that he let happen.

Speaking of, Smalley also tried to get an answer out of John on this one. Jesus was a sacrifice to God for the sins that God was fully aware were going to happen. God knew that Adam and Eve were going to sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. John responded to this by going around the question and speaking for a really long time without really saying anything that had anything to do with the question.

Here is the difference between Christians and atheists. Christians, when faced with the tough questions, will make excuses and/or go around the question itself. Atheists will straight up answer that question.

Another thing he claimed was that Christianity does not command the murder of people for things such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery, working on the Sabbath, etc. This is why he thought, when we played the audio of it, that the North Carolina pastor was being biblically inaccurate for what he said. However, nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus, or anyone for that matter, say that the laws of Moses have been voided, and it is all the more clear that Jesus himself wants us to follow those laws with how he quoted them himself. If he did not want us to follow these laws, then it would be just another contradiction added to the mountain of contradictions found in the Bible.

My favourite part of the interview, the part where you just want to facepalm so badly, is when John said this.

I’m not even allowed now to have my own opinion to myself. I don’t go out and attack homosexuals. I disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church, you know. But I can’t even just think that it’s sin in my own life. Now I have to conform to what society believes, otherwise, I’m gonna be in trouble. I’m gonna lose my friends…

Bigots should be ostracised. Why is the KKK ostracised? Why is it considered a hate group? Because it is! Soon NOM and other anti-gay groups and people will be seen as the same, and they should be. Persecuting others for their sexuality or their gender or their race is not acceptable. Thinking that they are inferior, that they are going to hell, that they are going to be eternally punished because of something that they can’t control should be frowned upon for so many reasons.

However, Christians are not persecuted in America. Christians are not banned from holding public office in several states. Christians are not misrepresented in the media. Christians are not told that less than half of all Americans would vote for them. Christians are not legally allowed to be discriminated against in the workplace. Atheists are. Gays are. No Christian can say they feel persecuted in a country where 80% of the population are Christian.

Superior Morals to Christianity and the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule, as it is called, is commonly coined as saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The actual Biblical verse this comes from is Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Christians believe it should be the way on which we should base our lives on in order to be more Christ-like. The maxim, or basic moral principle, of the Golden Rule is said to be foundation of Christian morals and is claimed, falsely, to be the cornerstone of Western morality. While a variation of the Golden Rule can be found in most world religions, it is not something that is moral or should be used to base our morality on.

There are better ways in which to formulate our maxims and live our lives. Dan Barker, author of Godless and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), liked to call the Golden Rule the “Bronze Guideline” for the problems that he saw with it. Among those, the obvious mistake of making it a positive declaration. What if you are a masochist? Instead of saying “do unto others” we could say, “Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you.”

A different maxim to replace the Golden Rule could be Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, which states, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” While the Golden Rule is a matter of preference, taste, or situation, the categorical imperative is, just that, a universal law of morals founded on reason instead of preference. While I do not personally ascribe to the categorical imperative of Kant, I still somewhat prefer it to the Golden Rule. However, that is like me saying that I prefer the Broncos to the Cowboys when I simply do not care for either team or football in general.

The moral system that I personally adhere to is “Daniel-ism.” I follow what I personally feel is the best choice. Sure I may try to apply different kinds of maxims and philosophies to my choices and actions, such as applying utilitarian ethics to some things or even Kantian to others, but I do not hold to one philosophy or ideology and have that dictate my life and who I am or who I want to be. I believe this is what every human being on the planet adheres to, only replace “Daniel” with their own name.

However, if I had to find a name or source of what does best to describe my morals, I would have to say the Wiccan Rede. When I was going through my deconversion, I studied many other religions, as most people do. For most of that time I studied different Pagan beliefs, including Wicca. Mainly because it just interested me. Now the Wiccan Rede states, “And Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Wilt.” Basically, do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone in the process. When I first found this, I thought it was a great way to express how I had already felt about what my morals were.

I will admit, it does sound somewhat libertarian-ish, and although I am not a libertarian, I latched onto this maxim for its appeal to what I felt at the time. Although there are certain cases I can think of right off the top of my head where the Wiccan Rede does not apply to my life or my morals, but the same can be said of the Golden Rule and other maxims, I would still say that this is far more suitable to today and our way of life than anything Christianity has come out with in the 2000 years it has had so far, such as the Golden Rule.

Whether it be the Wiccan Rede, the categorical imperative, or the greatest-happiness principle, they are all superior to the Golden Rule and Christianity in general, which not only contradicts itself entirely at every moment it can, but also preaches murder, hatred, and suppression of others, including your own family. This is in no way moral or good.

Throughout history, Christianity and Christians have been behind nearly every major atrocity since its genesis (not to be confused with Genesis the book). The Crusades, the Witch Hunts, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust all stemmed from so-called Christian morality and trying to do God’s will. How can it be considered moral to support the killing of gays, supposed witches, disobedient children, people who work on the wrong day of the week, women who aren’t virgins on their wedding nights, people of other faiths or of no faith, and the children and infants of parents of different faiths, among plenty of others?

How is that moral? How is that good? The morality of Christianity is disgusting and evil. And yet, a person is considered a good person today if they are a church-going Christian and a God-fearing man (or woman).

If those were the morals on which Western civilisation were founded we would all be dead a thousand times over from wars, genocides, and nuclear holocausts. If people today still followed those laws, I would have been executed so many times. Most people, whether or not they are atheists, would be too. There is a place where these kinds of laws are still enforced, and it is called the Middle East.

Refuting God and His Fan Club

Paley’s Watchmaker

Paley’s Watchmaker is the argument that says that complex structures require a creator, because such intricate parts working together to form such an intricate design require a designer, and therefore the universe and life were designed by, whom else, a god. The problem with this is that it is comparing organic, or living, things to inorganic and machines. Living things have three intrinsic properties: everything dies (whether it be an accident, old age, being eaten, etc.), organisms unsuited to their environment are very unlikely to survive (natural selection), and life reproduces with variation (how fathers and sons look like one another, but not exactly). Does a watch die? Does a watch reproduce with variation? A better example would be an analogy for the watchmaker:

1. A watch is complex.
2. A watch has a watchmaker.
3. The universe is also complex.
4. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker.

The last step is wrong, because it assumes something that is not supported by the criteria.

1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures.
2. Leaves grow on trees.
3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures.
4. Therefore money grow on trees (which, according to the idiom, they don’t).

And, every watchmaker has a father. So if God is the watchmaker, who’s God’s daddy? If you come back and say that God has always been there, then it is the same if I assume that the universe has always been there as well. Another thing, Paley’s Watchmaker is not an argument for the existence of the Christian God; it is the argument for a god. It very well could be Zeus, Ra, Odin, or Allah.

To finish off, I have a quote from The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

“Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”

Cosmological Argument

“Everything had a cause, and every cause is the effect of a previous cause. Something must have started it all. God is the first cause, the unmoved mover, the creator and sustainer of the universe.”

This I refuted only a few paragraphs ago. If everything had a cause, what caused God? How do you know that God was the first cause? And even if this god was the “uncaused cause,” how do you know that it is the Christian God, or the Muslim God, the Jewish God, the Hindu God(s), the Wiccan Gods, the Greco-Roman Gods, the Egyptian God(s)?

Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager is the idea that having faith is better than having no faith, because it’s covering all the bases. The wager is that if the atheist is right, then there is no afterlife and no punishment or reward, but if he’s wrong, then he will get eternal hell fire for not believing in God. But if the believing man is wrong about there being a god, then big whoop, but if he’s right then he gets eternal bliss, therefore the believing man has nothing to lose in believing.

What if the God Pascal believes in, the Christian god, is not real? What if another deity exists, like the Pagan gods or the Muslim one? This reflects my argument in another post I made a while back before my WordPress days where I mention that getting to Heaven is like playing a game of guessing where the right card is, but there are thousands of cards to represent every religion, ideology, and deity that has ever existed in the history of man. The odds are so slim that any one will go to Heaven, that it is mathematically impossible. I say impossible, not in the sense that it couldn’t happen, but in the sense that it is so unlikely, that it probably won’t happen. It is possible that I could jump from here (Texas) to Alaska, but there is no evidence to support that claim, no one has ever done it, the majority of humans cannot jump more than a few metres. It is totally possible for me to do it, but the odds of me doing that are so unlikely, it is considered impossible. The same goes for getting to Heaven when there are an infinite number of different possibilities, the odds just aren’t that great. For it is completely possible that the Christian god exists, as well as the Muslim one, the Hindu god(s), the Pagan gods, the Norse gods, the Greco-Roman gods, $cientology, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. etc. I digress. The wager simply plays on the fear that people have of being unsure of whether or not there is something beyond this life, so some people who were on the fence may have turned to religion, just to be safe. But why not believe in every god then just to be completely safe? Well, if every other religion says that every other religion is complete bullshit, then you are just as safe in believing in every religion as you are in believing in one religion or no religion at all.

However, there are things to lose by believing. The nonbeliever is not weighed down by dogma and superstition. In Christianity and most other faiths, it is better to go on blind faith and just believe that there is some magical man in the sky than to look at the evidence and sees where it points you. The believer loses all sense of intellectual freedom. The believer’s dogma tells them that certain things are bad, such as being gay. A gay believer feels guilty for being born a certain way that was not understood by primitive, fearful men, and often other believers will harass, beat, and kill gay people, as is instructed in the Christian holy book. Being a woman is also bad. Women in most faiths are considered second-class citizens and not worthy of the same rights, freedoms, and protections as a man has. Women are seen as housewives and home keepers and nothing more, which is why they were denied the right to own land and vote in America up until the early twentieth century. Contraceptives are another thing, especially in the Catholic Church, where the Pope Benedict XVI has said himself to the African people, which is about one-third Catholic, that condoms do not protect against AIDS. The believer has to believe what their holy men tell them, or risk eternal damnation, even at the cost of their own health and safety. Belief is detrimental to this life, the believer, and those around them, even if the believer thinks that they are somehow saving themselves for the second life by doing these things.

“The Bible is Proof of God’s Existence”

1. God is perfect and would not lie.

2. God said that the bible is true.

3. The bible says that God exists.

4. Therefore, God exists.

This ends up being obvious circular reasoning.

However, let us allow them that and say that the Bible, a book, is proof of the Judeo-Christian God. Then The Lord of the Rings is proof of hobbits and elves. Harry Potter is proof of wizards and flying broomsticks. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is proof for the existence of aliens and UFO’s. The list goes on and on. Now one might say that the Bible was inspired by God. Well, Dianetics ($cientology) was inspired by Xenu and alien soul-catchers. It’s a book that had spiritual inspiration. Or what about the Book of Mormon? It was written with the inspiration from the angel that Joseph Smith saw and the golden tablets he found in New York.

To clarify why I use the dollar sign when referring to the cult of $cientology, that is because I don’t see them as a cult, a religion, or anything close to that. It’s used as mockery of how they are obsessed with taking the money of desperate people that don’t know any better. I don’t know why I single out $cientology, though; almost all religions are like that.

Ontological Argument

(This next one I don’t know how to articulate well without simply copying Dan Barker, so I am just going to quote Dan Barker.)

“God is a being than which no greater being can be conceived. If god does not exist in actuality, then he can be conceived to be greater than he is. Therefore, God exists.”

There are dozens of varieties of the ontological argument, but St. Anselm was the first to articulate it in this manner. The flaw in this reasoning is to treat existence as an attribute. Existence is a given. Nothing can be great or perfect that does not first exist, so the argument is backwards.

A good way to expose this reasoning is to replace “being” and “God” with some other words. (“Paradise Isle is an island . . .”) You could prove the existence of a perfect “void,” which would mean nothing exists!

The argument squashes itself, because god can be conceived to have infinite mass, which is disproved empirically. And it is comparing apples and oranges to assume that existence in conception can somehow be related to existence in actuality. Even if the comparison holds, why is existence in actuality “greater” (whatever that means) than existence in conception? Perhaps it is the other way around.

No wonder Bertrand Russell said all ontological arguments are a case of bad grammar!

“You Can’t Disprove God”

This one I could refute with my eyes closed, arms bound, and mouth gagged.

You can’t disprove Allah. You can’t disprove the Greco-Roman Gods. You can’t disprove the Hindu God(s). You can’t disprove Santa. You can’t disprove The Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can’t disprove The Invisible Pink Unicorn. You can’t disprove The Celestial Teapot.

You need evidence to have any sort of validity added to your claims. Just assuming that something exists without any sort of evidence just because that’s what you have always been told is childish and stupid. There is no reason to assume that a god exists at all in any circumstance. Even if you say that we don’t know where the Universe came from, therefore it must be a god, there is still no evidence to suggest a god, so why assume it? You might as well assume that it was Santa Claus. My claim has the same amount of validity behind it as yours.

“Jesus is Proof of God, Because Jesus Was God!”

Circular reasoning never fails to amuse me.

How do you know that Jesus was even real? How do you know that Jesus turned water into wine, or cloned fish and bread, or walked on water, or rose from the dead? There’s no proof of Jesus outside of the Gospels, whatsoever. The Gospels themselves are contradictory to the point where it’s not even funny any more. Some of them say that Jesus’ crucifixion was followed by an earthquake, some of the other Gospels don’t mention this. One of the Gospels says that after Jesus died a bunch of other dead people in Jerusalem rose from the dead and walked the Earth. Where is the evidence for this mass zombie plague outside of the Gospels, or outside of that certain Gospel? Don’t you think if hundreds, possibly thousands of people rose from the dead there would be at least one mentioning of it by the local Roman or Jewish historians, which were plenty at the time? In fact, the Gospels themselves were written nearly sixty to seventy years after Jesus died, and that is what we are told by preachers and apologists, when actually they were written more than a century after the supposed death of Jesus. However, even if they were written when Christians say they were written, this would mean that the Apostles, which were probably young men at the time, maybe twenty to thirty, would be about seventy to one-hundred years old, more than double the average life expectancy back then. That would as if a dog lived to be thirty or forty years old. And if they weren’t written by the Apostles, then the Bible lied, which could mean that all of the Gospels are just some old, poorly written, and often contradictory story book. Even if they were written by second-hand accounts to Jesus’ miracles and life, they would be inaccurate. Memory can be distorted by old age, loss of memory, and many other factors, especially when trying to remember what someone years ago said about someone else’s life. Then you have the whole problem of the Catholic Church editing the Gospels and the entire Bible literally hundreds of times, but I won’t go into that today.

It is safe to assume, that even if a historical Jesus lived (someone who inspired the tales of Jesus), he was not the Son of God, therefore not God, and therefore there is no proof of God in Jesus’ life.

To finish this off, I do not need to prove the non-existence of something. It is the job of the theist to provide me with the proof of their god, or any god, for that matter. Show me the proof. You are making the claim that there is something. Just like I make the claim that I have a magical sandwich that cures cancer. You probably wouldn’t believe me unless I showed you the proof for this magical sandwich, to which there is none. The same, I won’t believe in a god if I see no proof for one. The second I see that, I will stand corrected and firmly believe in a deity, with evidence to back it. Scientists/atheists/etc. believe in something, because of the evidence, theists believe in something in spite of the evidence.