Disproving God

Mark Adams

     I had a Christian friend tell me a few weeks ago that I had not made a decent argument against there being a god.  I could list off any number of arguments for atheism, from the random and delicate nature of life, to the problems inherent in evil with the presence of an almighty being, but I think this misses the underlying point.  No decent argument has been made FOR a god, certainly not any specific god, none that can hold up to any level of logical and/or empirical scrutiny, so there has never been any requirement of any higher level argument against the claim of a god.  Lets make it clear that any argument against a god, or against any “thing”, is a rebuttal of a claim made, i.e. the existence of said god or “thing”, such that if there is no claim there can be no rebuttal, and in the same regards, if no logical claim is made then obviously no high level of logic is required for a rebuttal.  There is not much logic required to respond to talking serpents, men living 900 years, men living in the belly of whales, global floods, pregnant virgins, et cetera, because these are not logical claims.

     The most logical arguments for god are those of the agnostic, or from the agnostic position. From those of Aquinas to Anselm none of them spell out any one god, just A god, they do well to stay generalized and leave out specific qualities.  This is because the ‘what-if’ nature will always appeal to our reason because we realize there is much out there that we have yet to learn, and rightfully so, but because something could be does not mean it is.  Any theory or hypothesis deserves to be questioned and studied, it is degrading to the very notion of science to satisfy one’s self with an answer when one has not been empirically shown to be true, and until such time a skeptics approach is only the most honest.  This means to take on without offense or pre-held belief any theory or hypothesis, and to not take belief on faith, that is if we wish to progress in learning at any decent pace.  This means that because there is no reason to believe in god, we should have no belief in god, but that as long as there are arguments for god, we should play them out to their conclusion, and not be afraid or have our ego offended by the answers that we find.  This means that while we are human, we may and must strive to be objective.

     The more a god is defined, the more those attributes can be tested for; the farther one drifts from agnostic ideology and beliefs, the level of faith required becomes higher.  If that which can be tested for is not found, then in the mind of the theist there must be some reason it is not there (aside from the obvious of that which is being tested for is not there itself), thus the need for faith, and the apologist as well, the latter of which is another topic for another day.  In the former we find complete abandonment of argument in lieu of belief, the very notion of which is itself illogical, for belief should follow argument not be in lack thereof.  This is, at its heart, a dishonest belief, for belief is an declarative affirmation of truth which should not be subject to flaw, and that which has not been questioned is at least capable of being flawed, therefore no affirmation can logically or honestly be made.

     What we CAN do is refute the claims made.  A scientist does not say “’x’ exists, prove me wrong”, he provides his evidence for “x”, and so any rebuttal to a claim is made by debunking that claim.  This is the most common mistake made by believers, prefacing a claim as evidence alone, and expecting that if it cannot be refuted then it is true.  The theistic man also often makes the mistake of thinking his claim is made true by debunking other claims, which is simply not the case.  One theory or hypothesis is not made true by another theory or hypothesis being shown to be untrue, for one theory or hypothesis being shown to be untrue only shows that particular theory or hypothesis to be untrue, simple as that.  The latter here is the entire crux behind atheism, it is neither a religion nor any set of beliefs, it is simply the rebuttal to the claim that there is a god.  Had there been no claim of god, that is to say had there been no theist, there would be no atheist. 

Refuting Common Anti-Gay Arguments

Mark Adams

     Anti-gay arguments are easy to refute, because they are simple minded at best.  They reflect misunderstanding, ignorance, bigotry, religious bias, and/or hate, and it only takes a little application of reason to unravel them and watch them all fall apart.  I’ve posted blogs covering this or that on this issue before and would like to go through the most common arguments that I’ve heard and give you some easy and basic refutations, please feel free to use them yourself, or add to them, or add more, or even try and argue them with me, I welcome each and all.

1. Gay marriage/gay rights goes against tradition.

     Just because something is tradition does not make it right.  This is an example of a weak analogy fallacy, even ‘affirming the consequent’.  Many examples of immoral tradition can be found throughout the ages, the most glaring of them in our lifetime was slavery, as well as the lack of women’s rights.  It was tradition for only white men to vote, does that mean that women and minorities voting is wrong because it went against tradition, of course not.   In many countries today, arraigned marriage is still tradition, does that make it right?  Argument refuted.

2. Homosexuality is a choice.

     Sexuality is a complex part of the human makeup, and no one in affect chooses what turns them on or who they are sexually attracted to any more than they can choose to enjoy the taste of different foods.  Straight people do not choose to be straight, gay people do not choose to be gay.  The thing that makes this one of the silliest arguments is that those people who really think that being gay is a choice are telling you that they themselves could choose to have gay sexual relations and be stimulated by it to the point they could achieve orgasm.  The problem is, I don’t know many if any straight people who would say they could choose to have sex with the same sex and be sexually stimulated, usually that makes them mad when you point this out to them because they know they cannot place themselves in this situation and thus their argument is fatally flawed.  Argument refuted.

3. It goes against the bible.

     So what.  We don’t live in a theocracy, we live in a representative republic.  We do not make laws in this country based on biblical/mosaic law any more than we make laws based on Sharia law, our laws are designed to protect the rights of all, the majority AND minority. Besides, most people will quote from Leviticus the one statement they say somehow applies even though all the other laws around it they do not follow, or perhaps worse, they will quote the woman hating, gay hating Paul.  If you believe Paul on that one, do you also believe him that women should not be permitted to speak in church?  Argument refuted.

4. Allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

     This is probably one of the most absurd arguments, as well as casting a negative reflection on the relationships of the one making it.  A marriage is between two people, if something that another couple is doing affects the relationship of you and your spouse, you and your spouse have issues.  If the mere fact that two people who got married that you disagreed should be married has an effect on YOUR marriage, then you have a very weak marriage, a marriage with no solid or healthy foundation.  Apparently the sanctity of marriage is still intact enough for you to speak of it even with close to a 50 percent divorce rate between straight couples….   Argument refuted.

5. Homosexuality is not natural.

     If it were not natural then it would not be inherent in orientation, nor would it be as prevalent in the rest of the animal kingdom as it is.  Homosexuality is found even thousands of different species that do not have the cognitive ability to choose in such matters.  What is not natural is not found in nature, and homosexuality is found in nature.  Some will make the argument that nonsensical things like eating of one’s young is also found in nature, which again is playing to the absurd, because we are speaking of traits found in humans that correlate with the rest of the animal kingdom of which they are a part, and not picking random things that humans do not do and trying to make them fit, again this type argument is a classic logical fallacy.  Argument refuted.

6. If homosexuality/gay marriage is allowed, then so must marriage to animals/pedophilia.

     This one is about as absurd as number 4, and another logical fallacy.  What they are saying is that if we allow two consenting adults, following the same lines as any straight couple, to be married, then we should therefore allow a human to marry something that cannot consent at all…. There is no correlation there; it’s a false analogy.  It is just plain silly.  If we allow two consenting people to have relations we must also support child rape….what?  This is a cheap example of trying to tie something natural and normal in with something that is obviously way wrong, and the one making this argument is either ignorant or full of contempt.  There is a clear difference between two people in love, and an individual exhibiting perverse and lewd behavior on the unwilling or unable.  Argument refuted.

7.  Homosexuality goes against evolution.

     Completely wrong.  The only way that this argument could even dream of holding any weight is if we had a declining population, which we do not.  Reproduction, while the greatest and key of the methods of survival, is not the only one, and obviously homosexuals are as fully functioning and just as capable people in society as any other, and therefore fill just as many roles if not more than the heterosexual individual or couple that decides not to have children.  In many cases they provide a wonderful family environment for children who’s (straight) parents were incapable or too irresponsible to care for them, in the form of both fostering as well as raising through adoption.  This all taken into account, it is perfectly obvious why this is not something that would be weeded out by natural selection, but only kept in check percentage wise with the population, and is reflected in that with the ever growing population you have a close match in growing number of homosexuals.  Argument refuted.

     The time is fast approaching where we will look at those who fought against homosexual rights and privileges in the same light as those who fought against rights for minorities, and rightfully so.  To be a free person, to believe that we are all equal, whether created or evolved, to have respect and love for your neighbor, we cannot do these without saying we do them for all.  It is sad to even have to be typing this, that people are oppressed on such an illogical basis in this day an age, but the positive side is shown in the continual decline of such dissolute attitudes.  Intolerance in a world of reason is decadence.  It is far beyond the time to have cleaned even our shadow of this dirt.

On the Principled Nature of Man

Mark Adams

     Religion and reason have sought out for ages whether man was inherently evil or inherently good, at times at odds with each other on the conclusion.  That there is both in the world, that the individual itself can be capable of the greatest and least of each, and especially the differences between one individual to the next, each make this a hard question to come to one summation that is in any way accurate.  Taking the big picture, with humanity as a whole, it is near silly to conclude any one way or the other, for in the end man is, and thus is both.

     Christianity wants us to believe that we are all sinners, that we all fall short of perfection.  In this concept they are right on the crux of the issue but paint a negative light on what is nature, namely the fallibility of man.  They take from this a sense of evil, which can be true but is far from absolute in any instance.  Think about the many ways in which humanity progresses, learns, and builds, and one of the greatest of these is from mistakes made.  From honest mistakes to deceitful mistakes, others and ours as well, these have shed the light of experience on how to do things better, how to do things right.  What does it do for progression to take fallibility, one of the great tools of learning, one of the great catalysts of progress, and label it as evil?  Here we also stumble upon the intrinsic conflict of religion and science, the search for fallibility vs. a dictated absolute.  Some would confuse this with a lack of an absolute, which there is no reason to conclude that other than some self-serving agenda, but lets be honest because there is a huge difference between searching for absolutes and just declaring one.  There ARE absolutes, even with morality, and we CAN know them.....but any who claim to know them all is fooling themselves and has taken a shortcut to thinking, and think the world far more black and white than it is with that huge gray pool of circumstance.

     Man has sought out right from wrong in any thousand of angles, any thousand of religions, and still we learn.  Those that do not, those that are stoic in their stance, always run afoul of some circumstance they are thus ill-equipped to deal with, and we end up with any number of “absolute” moralities, each contradicting the other here and there, with each as fallible as the whole.  Perhaps more so, because they deny the chance of being wrong, which is self-deceit at best.  I have had many good people over the years who have told me that they knew “truth” in regards to religion, and while each of them had the best of intentions and really believed themselves, still yet each of them had different ideas and opinions on this “truth”, which goes to show that none of them are certain, they just chose to believe something and declare it as “truth”.   Here is a good rule of thumb, if you cannot show it as truth, do not try to pass it off as truth, lest you degrade the very notion.

     A fundamentalist recently told me that it was silly that I could think I could know “truth”, because that would mean that he didn’t know “truth”, and that thought was silly to him.  How does one respond to such complete mental stagnation?  Those are the words of a man desperately clinging to a belief, and unwilling to listen and thus learn.  There is also the Episcopalian minister I had as a college philosophy teacher who told the class that if there were no god, we could not walk from class to class without getting mugged and raped, to which I told him that it really scared me that the only thing keeping him from mugging or raping me was a third party telling him it was wrong.  How is it that people who believe in totally different gods or people that believe in no god at all can come to the same conclusion that raping and mugging people is wrong, if this wonderful nugget of knowledge was privy only to those who believe in the Christian god?

    The principled nature of man lies inherent in his ability to recognize fallibility, for without such there would be no concepts of morals at all.  In this respect, they who rely on dictation have no principled nature at all, but are like guided children, part of the herd mentality.  Morality relies on admitting fault as much as science relies on the indication of falsification.  Our solution is to keep our knowledge expanding, to keep learning, and to keep challenging.  Let us dismiss dictation for that is only stagnation, and do not let this allocate your knowledge, for a dictated knowledge is a limited knowledge, especially from something that has not been updated in over 2000 years….Man is capable of the greatest good and the greatest evil, that is, man has the capacity for both.  We can be the most beautiful or the most hideous creatures on this planet, for each is in our grasp.  In the end the question really just becomes, which would you like to focus on in your life?

Faith and Objectivity

Mark Adams

     Faith and objectivity will always be at odds.  This is because a thing must be verifiable with evidence in and of itself to be objective, at the very least, and while faith can be verified with evidence, it is not in and of itself verifiable by said evidence.  That is to say, faith can be backed by evidence, but faith itself implies a gap of evidence that eventually leads to the conclusion one then is able to believe in.  Faith is the glue holding something used as evidence to the belief at the end of the connected dots.  Faith not only implies belief, but belief as truth, in the face of things that contradict it and show otherwise with equal or more validity.  This differs from a belief based on the highest available validity that is subject to learn and admit fault (most importantly admitting fault outside the boundaries of any faith), which is required of objectivity.

     While faith can be defined any number of ways, let us not restrict ourselves to any one definition of it, but on the other hand let us not be so semantically open that we allow it to define all of belief, for there is a reason that it differs from other belief based words such as hope.  Faith can be based on evidence, it can be based on no evidence at all, and faith can be rational or irrational, faith can be hopeful but not hope itself in that hope does not imply belief, only a wish.  One has faith that their evidence, be it the bible, or the Qur'an, or the Talmud, or perhaps the Samhita, is the truth over all the others, this implies that in face of the same basic amount of evidence given by each of the other religions, the person of faith has chosen one absolutely over the others and declares it as truth, absolute truth nonetheless.  One has faith that their god died and rose from the dead because a book tells them so.  One has faith in 72 virgins awaiting them after death.  These are the gaps in evidence that faith accounts for.

     Faith is textbook subjectivity.  Not only is it an explanative statement for the unknown, be it connecting dots of evidence or not, it is not repeatable or verifiable by any other means than the self through choice.  Faith is rooted in the thoughts and interpretations of the self, be they rational and well formed out, even perhaps correct, it matters not for they are by definition interpreted by the self.  Ask any person about religion, they will tell you of many gods, each of them, all of them perhaps good well-intentioned people.  Ask any Christian about god and they will tell you of many gods, each of them, all of them perhaps good well-intentioned people.  There are always idiosyncrasies in belief, most Christians even of particular denominations will pick and choose what they believe in.  Now to the opposite side of the spectrum, faith from the fundamentalist, who go by the word presented them, and who lets face it are the more honest of believers and more honest and rational in their faith, because they follow to the letter the evidence they claim to be true.  The problem is, be it true or not, still they choose to believe and choose to have faith over any other answer of equal or more validity, and as such they still require faith to declare it as true.  The questioning has stopped, belief has set in, and other explanations are nil.  Objectivity does not deny critique, nor does it deny complete disproof.

Direct Contradictions in the Bible

Mark Adams