Atheist Starter Kit #08

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train. --Ray Comfort

Ray just accused atheists of believing that truth is subjective. Maybe some do, but I most certainly do not. Truth is what it is. Truth does not care if I believe in it or not. If I believe something other than the truth, then I am in error.

What Ray has done here is to introduce another classic example of a straw man. Here's what wikipedia says about it.

To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent.

The truth that Ray has skirted here is that I do not believe in Hell. The position that superficially resembles my actual view is that Ray says that I don't believe in Hell to deal with the threat of eternal torment. Of course, that kind of logic is easier to refute than to prove that there really is a hell.

The second sentence can also be thought of as a straw man too. Ray seems to be saying that belief doesn't have to follow truth. I believe that way too. But, he accuses atheists of believing in subjective truth, knowing that not all atheists may believe that way. As a matter of fact, I don't know of any atheists who believe that truth is subjective. That's actually, an argument that I use against Christians.

Just because you believe that the Bible is without any error, doesn't make the Bible free of error.

At least I can prove that there are mistakes in the Bible. Ray has yet to prove that there is a hell and that atheists believe that truth is subjective. These are things that Ray can never prove.

I'll leave with this one thought.

Atheist Starter Kit #07

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself. --Ray Comfort

There's lots of things that are 100% certain. Death being one. I was born, I will live , then after a time, I'll die whether by accident or natural cause. That is 100% certain.

One thing that's not 100% certain is evolution. It's the best explaination we have right now, but it's not a 100% certainty. If a better theory came up, then science would abandon evolution in favor of the new theory. That's what science does. One thing that's certain is that creationism is not a better explaination. Just saying, "God dunnit!" is not a good explaination at all. It doesn't answer all the questions. Instead it dismisses them all in one fell swoop.

I remember my dad telling me that foxes and dogs were related. He based this assumption on the number of things that dogs and foxes have in common. My dad is a creationist and would deny that foxes and dogs have a common ancestor. However he recognized the similarities and would say that dogs and foxes are closer realted to each other than either one is realated to cats. Cats share a few thing in common with both foxes and dogs, but foxes share more things in common with dogs. This is because foxes and dogs share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either does with the cat. Even my dad saw the evidence. He just refused to admit it.

As far as believing in evolution with all my heart, I don't. Biology is just not my strong subject. I can't debate anyone on evolution, because I just don't have the biology background to answer any challenges on it. There are some good websites though. Check this out. This too. It seems to me that Ray is pointing at me with one finger while three are pointing back at himself. He accuses atheists of believing in something with no proof, while he champions the same attitude towards God.

One thing I never understood is the connection creationists make between atheism and evolution. There are christian churches that do support accepted science. Episcopals and Catholics both support science education. I even know a few Baptists that dismiss creationism as pseudoscience despite that church's acceptance of creationism. It's obvious that you can be a christian and an evolutionist at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. If creationism is added to the requirements for salvation then it becomes legalism. That's something that Ray would not admit to.

Well, I'm going to close this post. I got to go pat myself on the back saying, "Man! Are you busted!" That always makes me feel good.

Atheist Starter Kit #06

6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'" --Ray Comfort

Ray may be right for one reason and wrong for another.

Ray may be right in so far that I consider myself a natural free-thinker. I tried to be a good christian. I really did try. However, I couldn't wrap my mind around the fallacious logic I was being taught. I never really bought creationism. My dad is a gap creationist. It just never made much sense to me. Also, the brutality and barbarism in the bible sickened me. I couldn't justify God as being merciful and just after reading Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and many other verses.

Ray is also wrong because I was raised by a pastor. I grew up believing in Jesus. When I was young, I believed what my parents told me. I believed in God and Hell. I was even saved at the age of five (like many, many children are) because the stories scared me horribly. It wasn't until my early twenties that I really started having problems with christian logic. I even rededicated my life to God during my early adulthood, because I was afraid that maybe I was too young to be saved at five. I rededicated my life again at age twenty-seven, and again at age thirty-six. Did God ignore those times that I sincerely came to him in prayer, asking him to come into my heart and to guide my life in a way that would glorify him?

Of course, according to the second sentence, I'm obviously lying. My honesty has been discredited before I could even start. It's a strawman. The sentence assumes that because I'm an atheist, I don't believe in objective morality. That couldn't be further from the truth. Moral objectivism deserves a post of its own.

I am a christian who became an atheist at middle age. If you say, 'No true christian would become an atheist in his late thirties' then that is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.' It is a fallacy. The only reason someone would fall into such a fallacy is to avoid admitting that he's wrong.

I'll close with this thought. How dare someone tell me that I was this or that without knowing me. Ray does not know me personally. He has no right to say that I wasn't a true christian. I do however agree with him on one thing. He would say that I was never saved. I agree, I was never saved because nobody is ever saved. The magic words do not work.

Atheist Starter Kit #05

5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn. --Ray Comfort

Ok, I'll give. Maybe, the Bible isn't full of mistakes. There's not a mistake in every other verse, but I found three. I found those three in a half an hour of study. I bet I could find more if I tried. As long as there is at least one mistake, no one can claim that the Bible is inerrant. Creationists would agree with me. That's why they defend Genesis so strongly. If the creation narrative in Genesis is wrong, then the Bible is not inerrant. In my mistake search, I purposely avoided the creation story for that reason. I wanted something other than the creation/evolution debate, which for me is getting old.

There are several verses that hint at a belief of a flat earth(see 1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4,6,13, and Ezekiel 7:2). As far as flat out saying that the earth is flat, I don't know that the Bible says it. I never use that argument.

I am an ex-christian. I am also a PK (preacher's kid). When I was younger, my Dad rewarded me with a few bucks for each book of the bible that I read. Over the course of my childhood, I have read the entire Bible. Also, when I was considering going into a ministry, I read the Bible front to back again about 10 years ago. I do have to agree with Ray. Reading the Bible is a big mistake. It made me an atheist. The Bible may not be full of mistakes, but it is full of brutality (see Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Richard Dawkins? Who's that? Just kidding. No Ray, I don't imitate anyone except for myself. I would never call God a "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." It just wouldn't sound the same if I said it. It is best said by the master himself.

Jesus Said It #05 and Atheist Starter Kit #04

Here's Ray Comfort's fourth item on his list of hints for the new atheist.

4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.

I think it's interesting that Ray didn't provide "Book Chapter:Verse" when quoting Jesus. I'm really suprized that he didn't. Here's the pertinent scripture reference.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28

Well Ray, There are several ways I deal with this verse, but denying that Jesus ever existed is not one of them.

Ray also posted this verse as an atheist memory verse on his blog. The 14th comment in the thread is mine.

It's one of my favorite verses. No longer are you guilty for actually commiting a sin, you're guilty for having a passing thought about sinning.

Consider how harsh this statement is. When Jesus said this, people were being stoned to death for commiting adultery. IOW, he may have been implying that just by thinking about a bueatiful [sic (my bad)] woman, you could be worthy of death.

Of course, Jesus may not have been implying this. The scripture does not say. What is important is that with this statement, Jesus introduced a "thought crime." IMO, Thought crimes are against your personal freedoms and are impossible to enforce.

Better to just repeal any thought crime and just concentrate on the things that people actually do. It's much easier to prove that something was done than to prove that something was thought about.

Of course, I had a few replies to that. Mostly claiming that God has the right to judge you for your thoughts because he knows your thoughts. (sigh)

Thought crimes are victimless crimes. Nobody is actually hurt. If you don't act upon your thought, why should it matter?

I'll close this post with some more absurdity from the Bible. The next two verses from Matthew.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29-30

I'll talk about these verses in a later post.

Atheist Starter Kit #03

Here's Ray Comfort's number three piece of advice.

3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'"

Hey Ray! That is Pascal's Wager! Just like the last item, you are critisizing someone for using the technical name of the argument.

Wikipedia defines Pascal's Wager like this.

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.

IOW, since the existence of God can not be proven with certainty, we should bet that he does exist on the off-handed chance that he does actually exist and will throw us in heck if we do not believe.

I have several problems with this wager.

First, the wager assumes that I can flip a switch in my head and magically believe again. It wasn't that easy for me to believe in God when I did actually believe. What I was being told to believe stretched credibility to the breaking point. I was always asking questions and receiving no good answers. Why would anyone think that I can believe again just like that?

Secondly, the wager assumes that God would reward someone for just going through the motions. Most evangelicals I know would not expect God to reward a man for not believing, but coming to church every week just so he wouldn't go to heck. They say that you must actually believe in Jesus with all your heart, to be saved. I don't see how you could slide on into heaven on Pascal's Wager according to evangelical theology.

Thirdly, Blaise Pascal is not a good role model for evangelicals. He was catholic during most of his life, but he had a few beliefs that strayed from the mainstream teachings of catholicism. The wager wasn't even invented by Pascal as an argument for theism. He was doing a thought experiment on probability. He even recognized some of problems with the wager. I doubt that Pascal would have approved of the wager being used as an argument by evangelicals (whom he would have concidered as heretics). Which brings up the next point.

There are several other problems I have with it, but I'll end with this one. The wager can be used by any religion. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a religion that couldn't use it. Evangelicals use it as a reason one should follow their faith, but what about islam? The wager works well with islam as well. What about judaism? Hinduism? Sikhism? For the wager to work, I'd have to consider every one of these religions. That would be impossible because most religions exclude salvation to anyone practicing other religions. It just wouldn't work to try practicing all religions.

Atheist Starter Kit #02

Here's number two in our Atheist Starter Kit.

2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."

Technically, Ray described the teleological argument not the watchmaker analogy. They're both essentially the same with some subtle differences, so I may be picking nits here.

The obvious point to make here is anytime anyone uses creation and design as an argument it is automatically the teleological argument. That's just what the argument is called. It's not an insult. If you were to give me an argument and I recognized it and said, "Hey that's the X argument," I wouldn't nessecarily be calling it a fallacy. I just knew what to call it.

When a person uses something in nature (like clouds, trees, the sun) and says how beautiful (complicated, useful, "fine tuned") it is, that is the teleological argument. I have been given this argument many times. It is used by all of the religions I've had contact with. (Possible exception being Budhism.) Usually appended with a question like, "You don't think it all happened by chance, do you?" I usually answer it with, "Maybe it did." because they don't expect an answer like that. The problem I see with the teleological argument is that it assumes that complexity implies design or a sentient superbeing that was the designer.

A missionary for a local bible camp used to visit me every week. He was very fond of the watchmaker analogy. Usually, he'd take off his cap and observe that the cap obviously had a designer. Of course, how could I say no to that. Then he'd speculate that my cat (who loves everybody and likes to sit in his lap) also must have had a designer. The problem I have with that is that the cap was constructed. It came from a factory where millions of the things are made each week. The cap was built. It was stitched together. It's beginning was it's design. The cat on the other hand wasn't constructed. It was not bolted together by a factory worker. The cat was born from another cat. Like I was born from another human. Our designer and builder appears to be our own species.

So Ray, if you don't like me telling you what your argument is called, don't give me an argument I've heard before.

Atheist Starter Kit #01

Ray Comfort of banana fame has his own blog called Atheist Central. I now have him in my blogroll to the right. ---->

Don't let the name fool you. He's a fundy through and through. However, I do like him. He has a sense of satire that can be humorous, though he goes overboard sometimes. (Don't we all.) He's actually the one who motivated me to open this blog. I've wanted to write my own blog for awhile, but was never motivated to until I wanted to comment on Ray's blog. He allows only blogger members to comment. Well, I really wanted to comment, so I opened a blogger account. Now I have my own blog. Thank you Ray!

On his blog, on the righthand panel, he has an essay called The Atheist Starter Kit. Here's his introduction.

If you are a beginner atheist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice:

I'm going to go through each of the ten suggestions in order. Today we'll look at number one.

1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."

First, I have yet to be presented with credible evidence according to my standard of quality. I have been given genuine straw man arguments as proof of God. Usually, the christians will try to debunk evolution, thinking that belief in evolution is the reason for my atheism. It is not. Evolution is an easier idea to refute than the lack of evidence of God's existence and my mistrust of biblical scripture (the real reasons I'm an atheist). So, they attack something I know little about, instead of answering my questions about the bible.

Secondly, circular reasoning is abundant in christian theology. The thought behind bible inerrency is circular reasoning.

Anything the bible says is 100% true, because it says that everything it says is 100% true.

I could write a book that says it's 100% true, but that doesn't mean that it is.

Thirdly, Ray himself is a great quote miner. He just recently wrote a post where he suggests that Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) may have recanted in his later years. He uses a quote from Twain to prove his statement. However, the evidence from most of Twain's writing suggests that Twain actually became more anti-religious as he got older.

To close, I'll say this. If you can give me some actual credible evidence for the existence of God, I wouldn't be calling it quote mining, circular reasoning, or strawmen. I'd call it credible evidence. Also, I wish proselytizers would just give me evidence instead of trying to argue. I've heard all the arguments. Just because you are the one arguing doesn't mean I'd believe you over that last guy that gave me that argument. Also, Ray is painting all atheists with the same brush. That's a silly thing to do, because unlike christians, atheists have no doctrinal statements to adhere to.