Yishan Wong: Atheists have gotten free reign for far too long here at reddit. It is time they spread their evil somewhere else, like at facebook.

For the longest time on the internet, atheists have been given fairly free reign when it comes to social networks of all different types.  Atheists have dominated in every place where free speech has been allowed to flourish.  It’s as though the only way to keep religious thinking is to stifle free speech.

While that can be done much easier when the religious are in charge, the internet has proven to be an area where ideas have an equal footing…until now.

For those that don’t know about it, reddit is a place where people can share ideas and where atheists have been dominant, regardless of how many religious people participate in the section of their site known as r/atheism.  This may be a thing of the past though as the CEO of Reddit announced today that they have way too many complaints about atheists domination, and in order to conserve their resources, they have decided that this month will be the last for r/atheism.  Instead, Yishan Wong, reddit’s new CEO suggests that atheists use other social media, such as facebook and twitter to harass believers.

Yishan Wong said:

Atheists have gotten free reign for far too long here at reddit. It is time they spread their evil somewhere else, like at facebook.

Looks like the fun is over guys.

I have decided that too many people make mistakes when they claim a fallacy has been committed.  This will be the first installment of what will necessarily become a long list of explanations of what fallacies are what.

You have probably been sent here because you have called out a fallacy and were wrong about it.

What is an Ad Hominem Fallacy?

An ad hominem fallacy is when a person makes a negative statement about the person making a claim and suggests that because of that statement, the claim is invalid.

Example:

Frank is an asshole, therefore his argument is invalid.

This is to be distinguished from the following:

Frank is an asshole

If someone calls you an asshole, but does not suggest that your argument is invalid, they have merely called you an asshole.  This is not an ad hominem fallacy.  Calling it an ad hominem fallacy will prove that you are indeed an asshole, since you are pointing out a fallacy that has not happened.

Don’t be an asshole!

People like to say that God is “the good”, but that means that everything God does is good. Nothing he does could possibly be bad, as it is God’s nature to be good.

Beyond the question of whether the things God does are good because God does them, or if God is good because he does good things, there is one other question. If God can’t do evil, how can he truly be called good?

Human beings can choose to do good or choose to do evil. Because of that, a person that has the ability to do evil, but does good in spite of that, is truly a good person. If a person had no choice but to do good, could they be considered good? If a person had no choice but to do evil, could they be considered evil?

Now let’s say that you consider a thing that does only good to be a good thing. Would a thing that must choose to do good not be a more good thing than a thing that has no choice but to do good?

If a thing is more good that chooses to be good than a thing that has no choice, would that not make that thing more good than God?

I’ve been seeing Christian propaganda lately on facebook.  Normally I ignore it, but today I decided to comment on one of them.  The original post had an image that said, “I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I am a Christian. I invite you to learn more about my beliefs.”  It then had a link to mormon.org.

I replied with a comment saying, “I am an atheist.  I don’t believe in silly god notions.  To learn more about my beliefs, go to http://godlessons.com”

I looked back a couple hours later, and my comment had been deleted, but the post was still there.  Unlike how I usually act, I realized then that these Christians are afraid to see that atheists even exist, and decided to make this image.

The mere existence of atheists puts Christians’ belief system into question, and that in itself is perceived as an attack.  This is why billboards, bus ads, and any demonstration of atheism puts Christians up in arms.  It makes the other side known.  So much for “teach the controversy” huh?

Anyway, I want anyone that is tired of seeing Christian propaganda on facebook to post this picture to their wall.  Let people know that we exist, and that their propaganda is not wanted any more than they want to see atheist propaganda.

Well, Matt Slick is at it again, but what’s new?

Matt has put out 36 questions for atheists about standards of morality.  He has also asked them in a YouTube video.  Many of these don’t pertain to my view on morality, many of them are extremely redundant, and many of them are laughable because they must also be questions that can be put to his god.

I’m not answering these questions because he is sincere about wanting answers to them.  Based on the questions, he is making them for his followers to think about.  Not a single question here made me think in the slightest.  None of them are particularly different than anything that has been asked a million times before.

The real reason I am answering these is because I want Matt to see that I have put forward the effort to answer his questions genuinely and honestly, without trying to avoid a single part of them.  I would hope that he would have the courtesy to do the same with the very short list of questions I have at the end of this post.

I’m going to make a prediction here.  For some reason, a couple of my blog posts have made Matt flinch in the past, and he totally ignores the meat of what I have to say and makes silly statements about strawmen, and never really addresses my points.  I predict that’s what he will do here as well, if he even tries to address them.

I further predict that he won’t directly answer the questions I have for him either.  He will try to attack the question from the side without even considering the reality that is his inability to demonstrate objective morality exists.

Matt’s Questions

To preface, I don’t claim absolute knowledge on what I think morality is all about.  I am merely explaining how things seem to me, and how they have always seemed to me, even when I was a believer.

His questions are in blue, my answers are below them.

1.  OBJECTIVE STANDARD Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

No, I do not, and I don’t think anyone does.

2.  NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?

I get my morals from my opinions about what things may affect me or the people I care about, and the kind of world I want my loved ones and myself to live in.  It’s not much more difficult than that.

3.  NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

They are just based on my subjective opinions, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t use objective truths to determine what those opinions are.  If I don’t want to be murdered, it is best for me to try and shape a society that attempts to prohibit murder.  If I don’t want my sister to be raped, it is best to shape a society that attempts to prohibit rape.

4.  NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?

What do you mean by “right”?  If you mean why should I have the freedom to express my opinion, why shouldn’t I?  I can determine my own opinion about other people’s actions in accordance with what I think is best.  Nobody has the ability to stop me from doing that, since those opinions are in my mind.  As with all rights, they exist in our minds only.  Freedom isn’t something that is given to us, it is a concept that each individual holds that is totally separate from the society they live in or any authority anyone exerts over them.

I think everyone actually has the right to do whatever they want, and nobody can take that away from them.  They can only prevent them from exercising those rights.  Rights are inherent in the individual, and even preventing the exercise of those rights does not remove them.

For example, you have the right to murder anyone you wish.  I can prevent you from doing so, and incarcerate you if you do, but you still retain the right, even while incarcerated.  This gets muddied, because in common use, a right is something that the government determines that you have or don’t, or in your case your imagination of a god.

So, I’m wondering if you have a different idea of what a “right” is, and if so, what is it, and if it isn’t inherent to an individual, where do they come from?  Even better, how can you demonstrate that your view of rights is objective? (Realize also that I am not saying that rights are objective.)

5.  NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?

They should, only if there are consequences for not adhering to my standard.  When many people get together with the same ideas about morality, they become a society.  That society gets to use their power as a group to force individuals to abide by their standard.  If they want to do something that is prohibited by that society, they run the risk of the might of the collective punishing them.

I know the question of whether or not I think it’s right for a group of people (society) to inflict their opinions on others will come up in response to this.  No, I don’t think it’s right.  I don’t think it’s wrong either.  It’s just the way it is.  Nobody has a moral high ground.  Because of this, it would appear that might makes right (correct), whether we like it or not.

6.  NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you say that people should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?

My standard is of value to me and those that would be protected by me working toward enforcing my standard.  I think the discussion of how societies work in regard to the previous question is applicable here as well, so I won’t repeat myself.

7.  NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you say that people should adhere to your subjective moral standard, then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?

Although I didn’t say this, it’s not anyone’s individual standard that holds any weight, it is the standard of the majority in a society that gives weight, otherwise there is no more weight than ones fist can give.

8.  DON’T NEED OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?

I’ve already answered this.  It is a redundant question, since it is essentially the same as question number two.

9.  DON’T NEED OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?

There is no right or wrong, there is preferable and not.  Nobody has access to any source that would show that their values are right or wrong, which means the same as correct or incorrect.  This is because there is no objective moral standard that anyone can evaluate.  Absent that evaluative domain, nothing can be shown to be more than opinion.

10.  HAS OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?

I don’t say that there is an objective standard of morality.  Not applicable.

11.  SOCIETY STANDARD If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?

I only think that society gives moral standards inasmuch as they have indoctrinating influence.  Many Christians have an indoctrinating influence that tells them that gay marriage is somehow going to inflict harm on traditional marriage.  Although this is completely objectively false, the Christian society is shown here to create a “moral” standard that has no objective basis.

12.  SOCIETY STANDARD If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?

I’ll clarify here.  Individuals make up society, and give society its standards.  Absent indoctrinating influence, society has no bearing on standards.

13.  SOCIETY STANDARD If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its society?

Not applicable to me or my argument.

14.  SOCIETY STANDARD How is having a moral standard based on societal norms not ultimately subjective, since that society is comprised of individuals with subjective moral standards?

Not applicable to me or my argument.  All morals are subjective.

15.  SOCIETY STANDARD If you believe that society produces an objective moral standard, then how does an accumulation of individuals with subjective moral standards within that society produce an objective moral standard?

Not applicable to me or my argument.

16.  SOCIETY STANDARD If society is what determines moral truth, then how is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that a society determines what is right and wrong because a society determines what is right and wrong?

Not applicable to me or my argument.

17.  SOCIETY STANDARD If society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?

Not applicable to me or my argument, although you seem to think the rationale that God derives morals from himself is also irrational, as I will show below in the instinct section.

18.  SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

Not applicable to me or my argument, although societies morality is obligatory only in the sense that you are required by force to oblige.

19.  SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If the morals derived in society are not obligatory then how are they proper morals that should be followed?

Not applicable to me or my argument, but as I said earlier, might makes right.

20.  SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If the morals derived in society are obligatory, then from where do you derive the right to impose them on people?

Might makes right.

21.  SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If you say that society has the right to impose its morals on its people, then how can you legitimately complain against Nazi Germany or the Jews of the Old Testament since both societies imposed their morals on people?

Anyone can legitimately complain about Nazi’s etc. because they live in a society which includes the entire world.  If someone wants to make society more in compliance with their point of view, they not only have a right, but they have an obligation to themselves to try to make all individual societies better as that will make the world better, which is just an extension of any society on earth.

22.  COMMON SENSE STANDARD If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?

This is just a silly argument for a standard.  I’ve never met anyone that seriously argued for common sense when it comes to morality.

23.  COMMON SENSE STANDARD If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?

Not applicable.

24.  COMMON SENSE STANDARD If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?

Not applicable.

25.  EVOLVING STANDARD If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?

I don’t use a non-subjective standard.

26.  EVOLVING STANDARD If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?

I say it’s getting better because that’s my opinion of it.  Since it’s all subjective, no fallacy need apply.

27.  EVOLVING STANDARD If you say your standard is evolving and getting better, then can you assert that it won’t evolve into something that contradicts what you believe now, thereby demonstrating that your moral beliefs now were really wrong?

My moral standards have changed many times to contradict what they were before.  I used to think that gay marriage was a bad thing.  I now don’t.  My current belief contradicts my previous belief.

I personally would never want to meet a person whose moral beliefs don’t change throughout their life.  If you don’t look at the world and realize that some things work better than others, and some ideas you held were just stupid, you’re not living your own life, you’re stuck in a dogmatic situation with no reason to be so, as nobody has an objective source to show you from which you can get a perfect morality.

Now, since morality isn’t a “correct” or “incorrect” issue, but a preference, there is no problem if what I believe now changes, since the only person it should matter to is myself.

28.  EVOLVING STANDARD If your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?

Morality isn’t true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it is a preference, like whether you like chocolate or not.

29.  SELF DETERMINED If you say your morals are self-determined, then are they true for everyone or just for you?

Again, not true or false.

30.  SELF DETERMINED If your self-determined morals are true only for you, then do you have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, such as the God of the Bible, by saying they are wrong?

Redundant question.  Already answered.

31.  INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how are they morals and not simply brain patterns to which you arbitrarily attach moral values?

This instinct part is where it gets funny.  I have talked to Matt before about this very subject.  He holds to the Craig view, namely that God is moral not arbitrarily or because of something outside himself, he is moral because of his nature.

What are instincts if they aren’t the nature of a being?  Why is it a problem for instincts to determine a human’s morality, but not for God?

If you can answer how God’s programmed behavior makes them morals, you can also answer why an individual’s instincts would do the same.  Therefore Matt, I’ll leave this question for you to answer yourself, since it doesn’t apply to me, but it certainly applies to your God.

Realize, if it’s nature, it can’t be arbitrary right?  Remember how you try to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma?  It seems like you hold a double standard.

32.  INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then wouldn’t that mean that different people’s brains would produce different moral values?

Hmm, since different people have different moral values, it would seem completely expected.

Nature is a strange thing.  It causes organisms to act within specifications essentially.  There are a certain set of parameters in which a heart rate can work, or blood pressure can work, or how neurons can work.  This is the same with instinct.  That means that for the majority of things most people would act the same, but there would be certain circumstances where they could act different, but still be totally within their nature.

This is not an argument against instinct, but a showing that you don’t understand that everyone has their own individual set of morals that they act upon.

33.  INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how would you really know if anything is right or wrong?

Again, there is no right or wrong with morality, just preference.  Besides that though, if you stop breathing, your brain will tell you that you need to resume.  If you ignore that signal and don’t resume breathing, your brain will shut your consciousness down and resume its desired result of breathing on its own.

If there is a right and wrong, all it could be is the brain’s desire to be in a certain state, and giving you a strong enough signal that makes you believe some things are right and others are wrong.

34.  INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how does one neuro-chemical state of the brain that leads to another neuro-chemical state produce proper moral truths?

There are no moral truths.

35.  WHATEVER WORKS If you really don’t know what is right or wrong, but just go with “whatever works,” then what gives you the right to complain about anyone’s moral actions anytime or anywhere, since different behaviors work for different people in different situations?

Anyone that actually goes with whatever works would seemingly only think that something is right or wrong if it works or doesn’t.  This would seem like an actual objective standard, at least to get to whatever the person wants to work.

36.  WHATEVER WORKS If you really don’t know what is right or wrong, but just go with “whatever works,” then how is moral stability obtained when “whatever works” can change depending on circumstances and goals?

Are you saying that your morality wouldn’t change based on circumstances and goals?

I’m sure you would think it immoral to allow your family starve to death.  I’m sure you also would think it immoral to steal.  What happens if next month you find yourself with your family in the middle of nowhere with your family in imminent danger of starving to death.  If you came across an abandoned warehouse that was full of food, but no way to find anyone to ask permission of to get the food, would you break into the building and take food that isn’t yours in order to save your family?

How is this question supposed to show anything different than your own morality?

Final Thoughts

Do I know absolutely that morality is subjective?  No, I think professing absolute knowledge of almost anything is a stupid thing to do.  On the other hand, it does seem to be the only thing that makes sense.

I know that people have objective things that they look at to determine their own personal opinions of morality, and many would think that is an objective source.  I think that since the end result is still a subjective opinion, that means that morality is subjective.

People that want to use this moral argument are using what people perceive as being objective against them.  In fact, even if there were an objective source for morality, there would be no necessity for it to be God.  Further, Matt has shown by his questions that he has little to stand on when it comes to the morality of his deity.

In the long run, people like to feel their morality is objective because it makes them feel okay for inflicting their arbitrary values on other people.  I don’t see the reason to worry about it unless you want to fool people into thinking your opinion holds more weight than other people’s opinion.

Direct Questions for Matt

How can you show that morality is objective?  Obviously no two people seem to share the same morality.  There isn’t some book somewhere that everyone can go to and say, “Ahh, this is moral, and this isn’t.”  Even if there was, what authority would that book have?  Why should it be the standard beyond all others?

I want you to point out the evaluative domain that would show that anyone’s opinion on morality is more than opinion, and why you should have the right to demand your morality be upheld above other people’s.

Without being able to demonstrate your source for the morality you consider to be objective, why should anyone take your moral views seriously?

Most Christians I meet talk about being “born again”.  Often, this is a defining moment in their lives that separates two distinct time frames.  You will hear them say, “Before I was saved…”, and “Since I’ve been saved…”  Both of these things revolve around this idea of being born again.

I was brought up a Mormon, so this “born again” doctrine has simply never been part of my mindset, which is possibly why I can look at John 3 and see an entirely different set of facts that flies in the face of the conventional dogma being bandied about as fact in most contemporary United States Christian denominations.

What does “Born Again” mean?

John 3:1 – 8:

1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

This doesn’t seem terribly strange to anyone that has been brought up with this, but let’s examine what the English version says first.

In English, born again means to be born a second time, just as it would have meant in the language Jesus would have been speaking to a Pharisee of the time.  Often this statement is taken literally in English, depending on the denomination of Christian that is apologising for it.  Other denominations realise that the passage was originally written in Greek, and in Greek, being born again can also mean to be born from above.  This double meaning makes sense in context, and is most likely what should have happened.

Now, I didn’t start this to bring up the fact that Jesus probably didn’t say this, since Nicodemus would have little reason to question Jesus if he had said “born from above” in the language he should have been speaking, as there would be no double entendre to confuse him unless they were speaking Greek.  Instead, I wanted to bring up the fact that what people consider to be “born again” simply can’t be what Jesus was talking about.

Jesus speaks about being born of the water and of the spirit.  Some apologists, depending again on denomination, say that this is being born from the womb, referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds a baby.  This can probably be dismissed though for two reasons.  First, it doesn’t allow for people born in “dry birth” to see the kingdom, and second, it doesn’t account for Jesus being baptised himself.

Most contemporary Christians tend to believe that being born of the water is being baptised, and being born of the spirit, being born from above, or being born again means that you accept Jesus in some denominations.  In others, it means to be confirmed.  I don’t think that either of these interpretations is correct for a couple very important reasons.

Jesus tended to be someone that led by example.  He was baptised, which should have not been necessary for a god child.  This suggests that baptism must be necessary for some reason.  Where was the example of Jesus being born of the spirit though.  Did Jesus have to accept himself as his own savior?  Did Jesus ever get confirmed?  Neither of these things happened, so how can we get a clue of what Jesus was talking about?

If you look at verses 5-8.  No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the spirit gives birth to spirit…The wind blows wherever it pleases.  You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it’s going.  So it is with EVERYONE born of the spirit.

Okay, let’s take a look at this.  Flesh and blood can’t enter the kingdom of God according to 1 Corinthians 15.  That means that as long as you are alive, you could never inherit the kingdom of God.  Also, have you ever met someone that you can’t tell where they come from or where they are going?  This might be true of a spirit, but never of a flesh and blood human being.  These two things together make a very strong case that you must first die before you can be born from above.

If we revisit the fact that Jesus never had to accept himself as his personal saviour, and the only thing he could have possibly done after being baptised that would constitute being born of the spirit was when he died, the conclusion is pretty much made for us.

Conclusion

All of this seems rather strange to those that have been indoctrinated into this dogma, but I see no reason that it should be dismissed.  It seems much more logical that Jesus was talking about death than he was talking about accepting him, or being confirmed.

That also means that it is much more likely that all these people that profess to be born again have it wrong, and have a long way to go before they can fulfil the true requirement, which is death.

When I first moved from Canada to New Zealand, the bugs took a bit of getting used to. A week in, we’d already experienced our first earthquake and a year’s worth of rain. Then, my wife found a huge spider in our rental house and the whole incident wasn’t pretty.  Both literally and figuratively:

A tunnelweb spider in New Zealand

Determined to arm myself with the best possible information about New Zealand bugs, I was off to the bookstore to identify this beast. This was my conversation with the teenage bookstore worker:
Me: Do you have a section on insects and spiders?
Her: Ewww… I don’t know much about that… I try to stay away from bug stuff…
Me: We had a spider in the house and I want to know what it is. I’m a bit confused about why none of the windows have screens on them. We have screens in Canada.
Her: But why? What could get in?

In the awkward silence that followed, I tried to process the massive cognitive dissonance that she handled like a cool breeze on a hot day.

I thought that I’d go a long time before seeing that kind of mental schism again, but then it hit me that Christians live with it day-in and day-out. I raised a topic on CARM forums recently about how all religions look ridiculous from the outside. The responses are interesting to say the least.

For some reason, Christians feel that their magic apple and talking serpent make more sense than a flying horse-like creature or a half-man/half-bull creature guarding a maze. I don’t understand how some magic is real and all the rest is just some crazy fiction with no basis in historical fact.

To me, this is the single most powerful argument against religion of any kind, the fact that religions are dismissive of similar beliefs in other religions – they are almost self-dismissive because of this.

Long dead religions whose supernatural beliefs look ridiculous to us today (even Christians and Jews) were, at one time, believed by thousands, if not millions of people. These religions had priests and priestesses, temples, sacrifices and prayers and were, in many ways, identical to modern religions. Why are their beliefs and holy books dismissed today?

More importantly, why doesn’t everyone see that today’s modern religions have the same kind of silly beliefs?

Between going to school full time, working full time, working on other blogs, and working on a programming project, I haven’t had any time to deal with this blog.  Because of that, I am going to start bringing in other bloggers.

In that regard, please welcome the first, Travis Cottreau.  He is someone that I think will add a new perspective to things.  He and I met because of our enjoyment of making fun of the insanity found at the CARM forums.  There are definitely some “special” people there.

I hope you enjoy his posts as much as you have mine.

Many of the arguments for the existence of God are centered around the idea that there are certain situations where God is more plausible than a natural explanation.  The Cosmological Argument claims that God is more plausible for the creation of everything than any natural explanation.  The Teleological Arguments claim that God is more plausible as the cause of order in the universe than any natural one.  Some ontological arguments, such as the one Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig use are similarly assumptions that God is more plausible than no God.

I have been thinking of when a supernatural explanation is more plausible than a natural one, and I can’t think of one.  Everything that we have been able to show an answer for is natural.  Lightning is not magically caused by god.  Thunder is not God bowling.  There is not a single thing that has been shown to be caused by anything supernatural.

As an example, if I were to have a house in the middle of nowhere, where the nearest neighbor was 30 miles away, and I walked half a mile to the mailbox and returned to find random scribblings on my walls, my first suspicion wouldn’t be that ghosts haunted my house and scribbled on my walls.  I would think that a person, or even an animal were responsible.  Even if there were no footprints on the dust outside, I would think that it is much more likely that there was a natural explanation than a supernatural one.  If I never found any evidence whatsoever of a natural cause, I would still think that it is more likely that there was a natural explanation that I couldn’t think of than a supernatural one, simply because there are no supernatural explanations for anything else.

Further, what are we saying when we say supernatural?  Supernatural is not positively defined.  It is negatively defined as something that is not natural.  In other words, when we say that something is supernatural, we aren’t saying anything about what it is, we are talking about what it is not, and if we are saying that it is not natural, that means that every possible natural cause has been ruled out.

So, since it is impossible for every single natural cause to be known, it is impossible to say that any cause is supernatural.

1. A natural explanation is always more plausible than a supernatural explanation, unless all possible natural explanations have been exhausted.
2. We can never exhaust all possible natural explanations.
3. Therefore, it is never more plausible that a supernatural explanation could supersede an unknown natural explanation.

These three simple steps say to me that there is no time where God is a more plausible explanation than no god.

Kacem Al Ghazali needs our help.  It doesn’t matter what you believe religiously, this man is in danger, and even if you disagree with him, you should be appalled by his situation.

Since I let it be known that I am an atheist, I have dealt with tons of bigotry.  I have been yelled at, made fun of, and was even physically attacked once, solely because my mere existence as and atheist is somehow seen as a threat.

It is common for people here in the US to have many such issues.  I know people that refuse to let it be known that they don’t believe because their wives may leave them, their friends may leave them, or because their children may get teased, and I’ve seen people lose their jobs because they had the audacity to get caught not believing.

I look at the adversity I must face, and I know that if I had to come out all over again, I would do it even faster next time, because none of those things is a big enough deal that I would seriously worry about them.

I say all of this because there are people out there that are standing up for their right to be free from religion, but have a much more difficult set of circumstances.  Circumstances that I don’t know if I could overlook in order to speak out against religious bigotry.

Who is Kacem?

Kacem Al Ghazali is a resident of Morocco and an atheist.  Kacem has also received credible and persistent death threats because of his blog at bahamut.blogspot.com.  Recently, he appeared on a news program discussing how his blog has been getting him death threats.  While death threats aren’t that uncommon over the internet, these people also seemed to know his movements, and they even call him on his phone to threaten him.

After this television interview, Kacem was verbally and physically attacked at his school, not only by the students, but by the student director as well.  He had to leave his school, his village, and he is trying to leave the county.

Obviously Morocco has laws against terrorist threats and actions like this, but they also have laws against speaking against Islam, which would put him in trouble with the law as well.  Because of this anti-blasphemy law, he has found it necessary to go into hiding, and to try and find asylum in a secular country.

In light of recent publicity, there are attempts to take Kacem to court, which would prevent him from being able to leave the country, and subject him to the anti-blasphemy laws.

God willing, our appointment in the Court, and we have a large trust in the Moroccan judiciary, because what you say about us as Muslims and our religion has exceeded the framework of freedom of expression, but is desperate Moroccans Muslims against us but against the desperate belief that the rule established by the ”Emirate of menin”, skepticism is unacceptable and sinful against the Prince of menin our king God save him

His situation is desperate.

How You Can Help

There is a petition to help Al Ghazali .  Please sign it.  Share it with everyone you can.  I am trying to find out what else can be done to help.

Anyone that believes people should be able to speak their mind without fear of jail or death should do what they can to help this man.

Thank you