Sunday, July 27, 2008

An Atheist Apologetics


There is no evidence of a Personal God. Q.E.D.

Some might say, " That's not enough!" Very well.

For simplicities sake, let's only look at the big three Personal God Believers: The Abraham's Faiths. Abraham. . .allegedly. . .was going to stab his son because "The Creator" told him to. . . KILL his son. If "The Creator" ordered me to kill my son, I would say "Kill him yourself". . .Or something. Anything except "OK, right away!". I might start by saying "Yeah, right!". Now, why would I say those things?

Abraham begets Moses.

Moses "gave" us the Ten Commandments. One of those Commandments was Thou Shall NOT kill. Now, Abraham must of known this, for he was a descendant of Adam. Adam, as I assume we all know, ate the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ergo, Abraham had that knowledge. And Moses had that knowledge. Everybody has that knowledge. If not, only Adam knows. If we do not possess such knowledge, then all talk of good and evil must cease.

Abraham begets Jesus.

Jesus declared (all be it not new) The Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have done to you, for this is the law. . ." Evil, therefore, is that which one does to another that one would not want done to themselves. In the case before us, killing another. To wit, Abraham was going to break the law because "The Creator" told him to break the law. Conclusion: God told Adam to kill, then after the fact, God commanded us not to kill. . .consistency is MIA.

Abraham begets Mohammad.

What is there left to say? All I can offer is my theory on why Mohammad "materialized". He got tired of waiting. . .for Jesus that is.

Let's look at it rationally. God presents us with a law abiding universe. If God were to intervene to subvert these laws, then God would in fact be a prankster, especially if these subversions were only done in a seemingly haphazard fashion. Q.E.D.

9 comments:

Quantum_Flux said...

Well put.

Ann R. Key said...

Grazie.

Quantum_Flux said...

Please tell the McCain/Palin Campaign (preferrably politely) why teaching creationism in our public schools around America is superstitious and is not in our nation's best interests. These are the feelers McCain has out there, the way in which Americans can have a voice and be heard by his campaign:

Contact his campaign directly here:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

Or go to his blogs and leave a polite message about the subject matter wherever appropriate:

http://www.johnmccain.com/blog/

Remember, McCain does a lot of things right and is a great heroic war veteran who genuinely puts his country first, but Creationism is one key area where he is completely wrong and could potentially create a major setback for American students and businesses. We can't let America fall behind foriegn countries in the departments of Science and Technology because of his superstitious beliefs.

Ann R. Key said...

quantum_flux,

I may as well tell my dogs not to teach creationism in our public schools. I have written to McCain and all I get back is a form letter politely telling me to fück off.

Besides, creationism has already lost in court. Its not going to be taught as a competing theory to evolution.

As for McCain being a war hero, I don't think dropping bombs from airplanes comes anywhere near being heroic. Have you read any Howard Zinn? He can tell you from personal experience.

Kelly said...

No doubt this comment will fall into sometimes-late-is-no-better-than-never oblivion, but allow me to inject another perspective:

Who is it that decided that the only legitimate profile of 'God' exists solely in the Bible or Qur'an?

For us to agree on reasonable rejection of the patriarchal, vengeful, petty, barbaric & sadistic 'God' as painted in these archaic scriptures--a 'God' who arguably possesses all the worst qualities of humanity--is not, IMHO, tantamount to verified absence of a divine entity nor the intangible divinity which may be realized collectively within the human condition.

I won't elaborate here, but there is indeed a huge gulf of distinction between the 'God'-inspired/directed tenets of organized religions, all too easily manipulated by the interpretive shortcomings of human fallibility (and to my mind, evidence in and of itself that said scriptures lack 'divine' inspiration--don't you think our 'creator' would provide a blueprint that we couldn't f**k up so easily and horrifically?), and the legitimate question of, 'Is this all there is- only that which is proven by my 5 senses?'

As we anthropologically evolve in every other aspect (sociologically, scientifically/technologically et al), might we not also reasonably expect our evolution in terms of our exploration of divinity? That which cannot be empirically explained ... yet?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting viability in absurd fantasy constructs such as Scientology, just a recognition that we may now leave behind our literal and archaic belief system in religions that, arguably, helped us preserve civilization for our evolution.

Time for the next step. Open-minded exploration and its discoveries are not exclusive to science.

Though I do not personally find complete relevance, NDW facilitates mind expansion in this context:

Neale Donald Walsch: Conversations With God Series.

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwnealedonal-20

Ann R. Key said...

Hi Kelly,

Late is always better than never.

Those that believe the Bible or Koran decided.

To be sure, one can neither prove nor disprove God. I am attempting to show there is no Personal God. That is to say, there is no God intervening in the affairs of humanity.

The answer to your question is: all that matters is what we can prove with our 5 senses, since that is all we have.

Why should we have to explore to find divinity? Shouldn't divinity be manifest? This divinity is the Creator, is it not?

Science is open to everything. If it cannot be shown by science, it cannot be shown.

That being said, my local library has some Neale Donald Walsch. I'll be sure to check him out.

Don't be a stranger.

Ü

Kelly said...

Hi ARK,

I re-read my post ... sheesh, I can be long-winded. You have my sympathies.

"Those that believe the Bible or Koran decided."

They decide for themselves, sure, which illustrates my point; everyone gets to decide for themselves. My contention is that no personal, nor collective, religious doctrinal decision should dictate to all- specifically with regards to government policy. This is the very reason Tommy J, in all his Unitarian wisdom, wrote about the need for separation of Church and State.

"...there is no God intervening in the affairs of humanity."

I agree. In fact, if you read NDW, this is a primary point. We direct our own destinies, individually and collectively.

"...all that matters is what we can prove with our 5 senses, since that is all we have."

I disagree.

1) Our own individual sensitivities vary greatly. For simplified instance: my ex had a compromised sense of smell, while my own is enhanced. He mysteriously refused to acknowledge this fact- and when I could smell a gas leak in the house, he called me crazy. I, on the other hand, called NiCor.

That which can be 'proven' by our 5 senses is highly variable.

2) Though I cannot prove it (there are some theorists trying to do just that), I do not believe we are confined by our 5 physical senses. I won't elaborate here, but suffice to say that, because of my own personal experiences, I believe that intuition, or gut feeling, can be equally as useful--if not equally availed--as the other 5.

"Why should we have to explore to find divinity?"

We certainly don't HAVE to explore, but I contend that it is in our very DNA to do just that. We're constantly looking for that which we cannot identify or explain; we're wired to expand our knowledge base and enhance our understanding of the human condition. Our explorations may take different forms: space, oceans, culture, the divine, whatever.

"Shouldn't divinity be manifest? This divinity is the Creator, is it not?"

Many argue and believe that the divine is indeed manifest, though not in the arguably undivine manner painted in the Bible and Qur'an. Other very old scriptures, such as the Upanishads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishad), or Buddhist philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy) paint a more enlightened profile of divinity.

The jury is expectedly out as to whether or not the 'divine' is the 'creator'. I'm of the mind that these concepts do not necessarily have to be one and the same, though they might be. To my mind, it's irrelevant.

"Science is open to everything. If it cannot be shown by science, it cannot be shown."

Agreed, with caveat: our scientific wherewithal is never static, it evolves. We used to believe a lot of phooey until we proved otherwise as our scientific methods and understanding evolved. That said, just because we cannot prove it today, does not mean we will never be able to prove it. It = n.

This is what being open-minded is all about; until theory can be unequivocally disproved scientifically, it remains on the table to discover and explore.

I totally owe you an email- my bad. I've been immersed in my daughter's graduation/college entrance stuff. In fact, I've been so busy I haven't even ventured over to TH, one of my fav places to stir up trouble. ;)

Kelly said...

Hi ARK,

I re-read my post ... sheesh, I can be long-winded. You have my sympathies.

"Those that believe the Bible or Koran decided."

They decide for themselves, sure, which illustrates my point; everyone gets to decide for themselves. My contention is that no personal, nor collective, religious doctrinal decision should dictate to all- specifically with regards to government policy. This is the very reason Tommy J, in all his Unitarian wisdom, wrote about the need for separation of Church and State.

"...there is no God intervening in the affairs of humanity."

I agree. In fact, if you read NDW, this is a primary point. We direct our own destinies, individually and collectively.

"...all that matters is what we can prove with our 5 senses, since that is all we have."

I disagree.

1) Our own individual sensitivities vary greatly. For simplified instance: my ex had a compromised sense of smell, while my own is enhanced. He mysteriously refused to acknowledge this fact- and when I could smell a gas leak in the house, he called me crazy. I, on the other hand, called NiCor.

That which can be 'proven' by our 5 senses is highly variable.

2) Though I cannot prove it (there are some theorists trying to do just that), I do not believe we are confined by our 5 physical senses. I won't elaborate here, but suffice to say that, because of my own personal experiences, I believe that intuition, or gut feeling, can be equally as useful--if not equally availed--as the other 5.

"Why should we have to explore to find divinity?"

We certainly don't HAVE to explore, but I contend that it is in our very DNA to do just that. We're constantly looking for that which we cannot identify or explain; we're wired to expand our knowledge base and enhance our understanding of the human condition. Our explorations may take different forms: space, oceans, culture, the divine, whatever.

"Shouldn't divinity be manifest? This divinity is the Creator, is it not?"

Many argue and believe that the divine is indeed manifest, though not in the arguably undivine manner painted in the Bible and Qur'an. Other very old scriptures, such as the Upanishads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishad), or Buddhist philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy) paint a more enlightened profile of divinity.

The jury is expectedly out as to whether or not the 'divine' is the 'creator'. I'm of the mind that these concepts do not necessarily have to be one and the same, though they might be. To my mind, it's irrelevant.

"Science is open to everything. If it cannot be shown by science, it cannot be shown."

Agreed, with caveat: our scientific wherewithal is never static, it evolves. We used to believe a lot of phooey until we proved otherwise as our scientific methods and understanding evolved. That said, just because we cannot prove it today, does not mean we will never be able to prove it. It = n.

This is what being open-minded is all about; until theory can be unequivocally disproved scientifically, it remains on the table to discover and explore.

I totally owe you an email- my bad. I've been immersed in my daughter's graduation/college entrance stuff. In fact, I've been so busy I haven't even ventured over to TH, one of my fav places to stir up trouble. ;)

Ann R. Key said...

Ciao Kelly,

"I re-read my post ... sheesh, I can be long-winded. You have my sympathies."

I am finding it hard to keep up. How do you do it?

". . .everyone gets to decide for themselves."

I would call that an axiom.

"We direct our own destinies, individually and collectively"

Perhaps, but the road we travel was started by two people we didn't even know. Some roads are smooth and wide from the start, while others are narrow and rocky.

"I disagree."

Very well.

I think prove was the wrong word.

1) Just because there are varying degrees of sensitivity, doesn't mean there is nothing to sense. You smelled the gas leak, that's what mattered.

2) Intuition has value I suppose. Based on my personal experience, I wouldn't give it as much weight as the basic 5.

"We're constantly looking for that which we cannot identify or explain; we're wired to expand our knowledge base and enhance our understanding of the human condition."

I'm just trying to find the bridge. Extra point if you know what song that's from.

"Many argue and believe that the divine is indeed manifest, though not in the arguably undivine manner painted in the Bible and Qur'an."

Why is there a need to argue the point if it manifest?

"The jury is expectedly out as to whether or not the 'divine' is the 'creator'."

Is the divine even more abstract than the creator?

"We used to believe a lot of phooey until we proved otherwise as our scientific methods and understanding evolved."

The phooey was put forth by the so called men of God. Science presents hypotheses. Science disproves the phooey. Again, I think prove is not the right word. Proofs are in math, which is abstract. Can you show me a 1?

"It = n."

?

"This is what being open-minded is all about; until theory can be unequivocally disproved scientifically, it remains on the table to discover and explore."

Indeed, disproved.

Well, I finally got a response out. I am working a response to your latest e-mail and I understand about you being busy. I've been reading some TH, but I just don't seem to have time lately to comment there. Plus, its getting. . .I can't think of the right word. . .like a lunatic asylum over there. Present company aside.

Ciao