I was fascinated by that Zeitgeist segment until I wanted to quote some actual facts about these gods on my blog. I could find almost nothing to support what Zeitgeist was saying. I am so glad someone made a poster like this, because atheism does not need to lie to support its position.
Remain ever skeptical, my friends. ~ Steve
I’ve said this before, but the story of Horus’s conception is actually really cool. When Osiris was defeated by Set, his body was blown apart. Isis was able to recover every piece of him except for his schlong, which fell into the nile and was eaten by a crocodile, so she made a gold winky that she used to attach to his body and get it on with.
“GOD EXISTS!” Argument No. 10 - Miracles
- Miracles are events that violate the laws of nature.
- Miracles can be explained only by a force that has the power of suspending the laws of nature for the purpose of making its presence known or changing the course of human history (from 1).
- Only god has the power and the purpose to carry out miracles (from 2).
- We have a multitude of written and oral reports of miracles. (Indeed, every major religion is founded on a list of miracles.)
- Human testimony would be useless if it were not, in the majority of cases, veridical.
- The best explanation for why there are so many reports testifying to the same thing is that the reports are true (from 5).
- The best explanation for the multitudinous reports of miracles is that miracles have indeed occurred (from 6).
- god exists (from 3 & 7).
And here’s why it’s faulty:
- FLAW 1: It is certainly true, as Premise 4 asserts, that we have a multitude of reports of miracles, with each religion insisting on those that establish it alone as the true religion. But the reports are not testifying to the same events; each miracle list justifies one religion at the expense of the others. See FLAW 2 in the Argument from Holy Books (Coming soon).
- FLAW 2: The fatal flaw in The Argument from Miracles was masterfully exposed by David Hume in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chapter 10, “On Miracles.” Human testimony may often be accurate, but it is very far from infallible. People are sometimes mistaken; people are sometimes dishonest; people are sometimes gullible — indeed, more than sometimes. Since in order to believe that a miracle has occurred we must believe a law of nature has been violated (something for which we otherwise have the maximum of empirical evidence), and we can only believe it on the basis of the truthfulness of human testimony (which we already know is often inaccurate), then even if we knew nothing else about the event, and had no particular reason to distrust the reports of witness, we would have to conclude that it is more likely that the miracle has not occurred, and that there is an error in the testimony, than that the miracle has occurred. (Hume strengthens his argument, already strong, by observing that religion creates situations in which there are particular reasons to distrust the reports of witnesses. “But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense.”)
The Argument from Miracles covers more specific arguments, such as The Argument from Prophets, The Arguments from Messiahs, and the Argument from Individuals with Miraculous Powers.
Forcing someone to sit through church is not a good approach to restoring their faith, Mom.
Moms seem to resort to this tactic because, well, they haven’t got a better strategy. Because almost no one can stand toe to toe with a knowledgeable atheist/agnostic and have any hope of winning a single point.
My dad used to try that
Former English Literature scholar and children’s fiction author C.S. Lewis has come to be venerated as a paragon of Christian apologetics. “Go read C.S. Lewis! He was an atheist who studied the evidence and then became Christian!” is a common slogan I hear repeated again and again by apologists. They of course ignore my return request to go read Bart Erhman, Hector Avalos, and Robert Price – all New Testament experts and former apologists who turned atheist or agnostic due to a lack of evidence – and reason that a cheesy children’s author, whose background was in fictional literature, is somehow a more trustworthy authority.
Major props to whoever wrote this.
“GOD EXISTS!” Argument 1: The Cosmological Argument
- Everything that exists must have a cause.
- The universe must have a cause (from 1).
- Nothing can be the cause of itself.
- The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
- Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
- god is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
- god caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
- Therefore, god exists.
AND HERE’S WHY IT’S FAULTY
- FLAW 1.a: can be crudely put: Who caused god? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking god to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to god himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though god exists, he doesn’t have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that god is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why god must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
- FLAW 1.b: There’s already a more, credible, theoretical explanation for why is there something rather than nothing. “The Universe came from Nothing” was popularised by Stephen Hawking and and some other Physicists and atheists before him, but modern Physicists of today are no longer buying the notion that the Universe came from nothing. “Something, from nothing?”, they said, “It really does sound absurd.” Albert Einstein’s iconic “Energy equation” (E=mc²) explains that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It cycles. It is formally accepted in Physics that, in the early stages of the Universe’s “nothingness”, isn’t really empty, but there are fluctuations of Energy, and from the fluctuations of energy, Matter is produced (E=mc²). Yes, Energy is eternally existent, it was not created by anything or anyone, it cannot be destroyed. From there, the basic of the sub-atomic particles are born, and kept on happening at a rapid rate known as Eternal Inflation Theory. Though, this concept has a much bigger scope to define and explain in terms of Physics and Quantum mechanics, such as the Energy equation is in an “incomplete” state (the complete one being E²=m²(c²)²), and that the process of Energy creating matter gives out a particle and an anti-particle simultaneously and will cause them to annihilate each other, and then cycles the whole matter-returning-to-energy form. Case point is, Scientific theories and calculations are born out of rigorous studies, experimentation, and observation. The god idea? From a book with no definitive author from 4,000 years ago who’s academic credibility on origins of the universe is close to zero to none.
- FLAW 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.
The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe (Will explain this later on the series), are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: “And if there were nothing? You’d still be complaining!”
(most of these excerpts are from Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s (love her) Book, 36 Arguments for the Existence of god: A Work of Fiction.)
Follow me so you can read the next 35 (almost sound) Arguments for the existence of god!
Talking, Legged Serpents: The Downfall of Man
People seem to like pictures instead of text, even when the picture is mostly text, so…
If you believe the ancient Hebrew mythology, it was Samael, the angel of death, that disguised himself as the serpent and seduced Eve, impregnating her with Cain.
Pornography is wrong not because it involves sex and human bodies, but because it is the exposure and commercialization of something that is meant to be intimate (between two people only) and holy (thus, cannot be bought,sold, or valued).
Pornography is a bit like taking the Host out of the tabernacle, putting it on a paper plate with some cream cheese, and selling it at a snack bar.
If you regard sex as intimate and holy, then by all means, don’t look at pornography. These, however, are your personal preferences and feelings. You have no business asserting that it’s objectively “wrong” in itself or amoral for everyone else just because you personally don’t like it.
There are things you do every day that other people would consider obscene, wrong, and offensive to their spiritual beliefs. Yes, you. If you’ve ever even eaten beef in your entire life you’ve committed a grave sin in the eyes of several million people. Get over yourself.
1- Commercialization is not bad.
2- Sex is not always intimate, some people prefer it that way and others don’t.
3- Nothing is holy.
4- “Holy” things are commercialized by the very people who invented them.
5- Pornography need not be cheap exposure, it can for some people be more intimate than the real thing.
6- Most people who think this way have never had sex, and have no right to comment on it. Others have outside of marriage which makes them, if Catholic as your tags would suggest, hypocrites and sinners in their own minds and even more unworthy of casting the first stone. Married Catholics have every right to speak about sex, having been wed by pedophiliac rapists before a god who demands the stoning death of rape victims, or at least their marriage to the rapists. But I have no respect whatsoever for the views of anyone so perverse as to make that bullshit their moral compass.
7- The body of Christ goes better with cream cheese, and that is speaking from experience.
As for you Bogleech, you’re way too forgiving.
The Atheist blogs on Tumblr make me cringe.
It’s like the people who run them all get together, hivemind, and decide to reduce religion down to fundamentalism and attack that.
Well, here’s the thing. If you take a small amount of cyanide and you stir it into a bunch of sugar, you can point at it and say that it’s mostly good stuff. An atheist (please note that it isn’t capitalized), will look at the sugar and say, it really doesn’t matter, it’ll still kill you.
It’s hard to talk about the positive aspects of religion when the negative aspects are constantly trying to mis-educate our children in the most basic of sciences, enslave our women, and force their false moralities up everyone’s butt.
There might be some good things about holding hands, building a community of friends, and singing kumbaya and stuff, but until you can get religious politicians to stop demonizing people with gender differences because GOD hates them, we kinda have to focus on stopping them.
Sorry. That’s kinda the reality.