Opposable Thumbs


Table of Contents Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist) Where Are They Now? Darwin's Creek Amazing Transitional Animals Ask Miko The Book of Chances Opposable Thumbs Survey SAYS... Your Evological Horrorscope Advertising Supplement Call for Entries The Evolutionary Classifieds Letters to the Editor The Real Story Past Issues Contact the fools - How you ca contact the us	Opposable Thumbs Steve's list of contradictions: "For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12) "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4) Contradiction? "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31) "Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14) Contradiction? "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18) "the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19) Contradiction? And Jesus said, "For judgment I am come into this world." (John 9:39) "I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47) Contradiction? (Go to #31 on linked page) "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1) Contradiction? "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) Contradiction? (Go to #31 of linked page) We should fear God (Matthew 10:28) We should love God (Matthew 22:37) There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18) Do you get the point by now?! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following is, of coarse, our FAVORITE section! Foolery "But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22 "You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40 "You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17 "How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25 "But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20 "You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1 "You foolish man" James 2:20 (Also - Psalms 14:1 and again at 53:1 - you have to think me a fool because I have said in my heart that there is no God - oops, both of us in hell now!) Contradiction? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The rest of Steve's page dealt more with "hard to accept" passages found in the OT. If you wish to see it, click here. And here are a couple of good sites that deal with such "hard to accept" passages: http://www.christian-thinktank.com http://www.tektonics.org Go back to "Opposable Thumbs" main page. Frank's full list of Humanist contradictions: ······· Humanist Manifesto I or Humanist Manifesto II ······· Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable or We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people ······ Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. or We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. and . . . We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. ······· This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction. or Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. ······· Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. or We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want -- a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. ······· The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. or Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. ······· The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. or Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government ······· The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. or Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live. ······· For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival. or Reasonable minds look to other means for survival. ······· Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life. or In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio- chemical disaster ······· False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. or For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival. ······· Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. or The future is, however, filled with dangers. ······· *And last but not least . . .* Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways. and . . . These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith. or Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. and . . . No deity will save us; we must save ourselves. and . . . We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels -- social, political, and economic. and . . . The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. and . . . But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. and . . . To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. and . . . The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. and . . . This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. and . . . The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. and . . . The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. and . . . Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. and . . . We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. and . . . Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end. and . . . World poverty must cease. and . . . Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. and . . . We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. and . . . Travel restrictions must cease. and . . . We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together. Back to "Opposable Thumbs" main page. Steve's 2nd response: Hello again Frank, << I know all too well that it takes much time and energy proving that something does not exist, and I know you are in the same boat with me on this. >> Actually I don't (intentionally) put any effort into "proving something does not exist." That is not what my site is about. Rather I mostly collate the stories of ex-Christians telling why they left in their own words. I guess I am a "weak atheist" in that I merely do not find theism (or rather Christianity in particular) believable - it's just how I now am given all that I have read, thought and experienced. Once one loses faith in a religion it is quite normal to be pretty sceptical of other religions too, but it is not universally the case. Plenty of Christians move on to other religions. About 9% go on to a non-Christian theism and another 9% onto a non-theistic religion from a poll of 357 respondents I conducted a while back. (An analysis of that poll will appear on my site soon-ish). Maybe I will one day find out I am wrong about the existence of any deities, but I know of nothing to currently make me think I am - despite the best efforts of numerous apologists who write to me. I am critical of Christianity though, as is obvious on my site - more on this below. << Since you say that only "most" people are inconsistent, there must be some who are really consistent. Please forward a list of these to me as I wish to meet them because I am desparately seeking those who are cut out of the same cloth as I. >> You're going to have to give me more credence when you read my email and not assume too much idiocy on my part! I was merely referring to the fact that we are human and who amongst us does not make mistakes? I am painfully aware that at least once in life (and possibly all the time) I have had a profoundly mistaken view of the world, since my view has changed so dramatically. Like you I too got a perfect score on the test I sent you, but I also tried answering it in other plausible looking ways and saw how easy it is to have a conflict without very careful thought. << So I guess you would not be on the list as requested in response number one? And if you are not consistent, how can anyone accept you with any credibility? Then how can anyone accept your ideas (i.e., atheism) with any credibility? >> I am not aware of any current inconsistencies in my thought. When I do become aware (and obviously assuming I also become convinced that I really am inconsistent or have made some other error of fact or understanding) I really do change my thoughts, as you can see at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/jim_moretz.html. I have much more respect for people who do this rather than those who dogmatically hang on to ideas or claim they are consistent and always right when so many intelligent, intriguing and puzzling questions can be asked about life, the universe and everything that have left far greater minds than mine in puzzlement! (See my philosophy links - http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/why.html#notes and study resources http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/study_res.html). Karl Popper did it. He originally thought there was tautology in evolution, but later 'recanted' his claim that Darwinism was unfalsifiable and tautological in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica 32(1978), pp. 339-355. He also makes this point in his essay "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status" (1977). I doubt any of us are clever enough to be right all the time. You can see how good a standing evolution (and macroevolution at that) is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (Editors Note: We suggest www.answersingenesis.org) If I goof up it doesn't necessarily follow that "atheism is false." Imagine how ridiculous a trumped up opinionated 11-year old could make any complex argument sound. It doesn't follow that what he is arguing for is wrong, merely that he hasn't grasped the subject. That's me, but somewhat older and hopefully not that bad at it - and I am willing to learn from my mistakes. << This is the problem with my beloved atheism today - too many self-described atheists being inconsistent! And this is what devalues the credibility of our system of thought. I mean, who can really trust a free-thinker who is tripping over their own ideas? >> No-one need be your guru or anyone else's. The average IQ of 100 is not really that spectacular, so you should expect to find much dross - especially on the Internet! Don't be too hard on your fellows - websites are often an exercise in refining ones thoughts. Neither need atheism be your "beloved" (assuming you're being serious). For me its merely a lack of theism, whilst not being a Christian anymore was a "revelation" as much that clouded my view of the world disappeared. Being an atheist is more about unlearning bad habits for me, rather than joining up with the EAC! I don't personally see atheism as a "system of thought" anymore than my staunch belief in a non-cheesy moon is a system of thought. If someone comes up with a daft explanation of why the moon is not made of cheese (e.g. because all the cheese was used to make the sun, whilst contradicting himself by also saying there is not enough cheese to make a moon and simultaneously claiming the sun is more massive than the moon etc. etc.) then I am not going to be alarmed. I take it you are being sarcastic when you write: << We need leaders like yourself to forge the path of atheism, so please delete any inconsistencies/contradictions/hypocracies from your site. >> I already have done, although they were more in the line of unclear explanations and slightly straw man arguments. When I become convinced there are more I will make further amendments. << And it does not matter what anyone "wants" to find as you point out. >> Actually you are wrong. To Christians who are inerrantists it matters a great deal. That is the big difference between errors and inconsistencies in the bible and those committed my mere mortals. We can be expected to make mistakes or do cruel things, but the Christian god (or Allah, Krishna etc.) is described by his followers as being beyond this. Maybe the "true god" is like the Capricious Greek gods as you say, but few Christians would claim that was Christianity (or Muslims agree that you had described Allah etc.) God killing David's baby and arranged for his wives to be raped for a crime only David had committed (2 Samuel, chapter 12) certainly does matter to those Christians who are also taught that "God is Love" even when tempered with (rather strange) justice. This is the sort of thing that leads people to think religion is a human creation, not a divine one. Christians of all stripes are also very much against believing that their god is cruel. It really does matter to them and they do not like to admit that their god is a sadistic baby killer. See my conversation with Dr. Garrett - http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html where you will see that this can become so extreme that they will eventually argue that killing babies is just, so strong is the "want" to believe their god is like a certain thing - i.e. (for Christians) both "loving" and "just." They will hang on to that as long as they can. Once that bubble bursts it is rare indeed for people to remain Christian. << I'm sure you wouldn't want your site to be compared with the bible in inconstincies - I sure wouldn't! >> I would, I welcome positive and non-sarcastic criticism. We can only learn by having our faults shown to us and having the wisdom to recognise them and courage to accept them and do something about it. << Now it's your turn. Take this test at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/creation_clubs/docs/105evolution ized.asp >> I take it that's a joke on your part. See my feedback with Mark M. starting at (site given) << What you expect from a god is irrelevant. If a god or gods exist, they would exist in whatever form no matter what you would expect. Maybe said gods would be ones who like to create confusion among mortals (and thus giving us a "confusing" bible)? Maybe they also like to incite violence among said mortals? Sounds like the Greeks - lol >> As I said, that would hardly be the sort of god most Christians could believe in. << Why would you expect any better from a god anyway? I think the culture in which you have been brought up has molded this opinion in your brain. I hope that your brain realizes this so that it can correct itself. >> If you want to hold my attention you'll have to drop the sarcasm! << Concerning "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" ... I am really rather surprised that you have fallen into the same trap.... There really is no such thing as justice in the animal kingdom in which we human animals are a part of. >> Maybe - but try discussing that at http://www.philosophers.co.uk/discus/ where you might find it is not so simple. << Said acts are just natural selection (survival of the fittest) acting itself out on a higher level. It doesn't matter what pretenses the people used to justify their actions. They were really just getting rid of "gene" competition. And the ones who lost were just inferior genes being deleted by nature. >> To some extent but not entirely. I rather doubt that consciousness would have evolved if it didn't provide a useful function. << The people who committed "bloodthirsty" acts were molded by their environment. They really had no choice in the matter. >> This is the old saw of do we have "free-will." Again I suspect that we do as a big conscious brain is an expensive organ if it was not doing a useful service. However there are intriguing arguments against free will and I am undecided at the moment - still investigating that one! << Through gene inheritence, they were pre-dispossed to "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" tendencies. >> Agreed - lot's of evidence for that! << If you insist that what you call "bloodthirsty acts" are a reason to disbelieve a system of thought, then you might as well scrap atheism too. >> Hardly. Humans are fallible, the Christian God is not meant to be. Greek gods could well be, but that would not be Christianity (or Islam, etc.) << Just two atheists, Mao and Stalin were both responsible for about 75 million deaths alone. If that is not "bloodthirsty," I don't know what is?! >> Quite so, but I do not have high expectations of pathological and somewhat mad people. Unfortunately Mao and Stalin lived in industrialised times and had a lot of killing power at their disposal. What do you think the world would have been like if the crusaders had nuclear weapons? Christians claim their god is better than that - however I think the evidence is against it. Even Mao and Stalin did not kill virtually everything on the planet in a flood or consign billions to torture for ever and ever. I hope that helps. I will check out your essay later, but time is pressing! Steve Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html Back to "Opposable Thumbs" main page.

Contact the fools - How you ca contact the us

Opposable Thumbs

Steve's list of contradictions:

"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)
Contradiction?

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)
"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)
Contradiction?

"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)
"the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)
Contradiction?

And Jesus said, "For judgment I am come into this world." (John 9:39)
"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)
Contradiction? (Go to #31 on linked page)

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)
Contradiction?

"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30)
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
Contradiction? (Go to #31 of linked page)

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)
Do you get the point by now?!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is, of coarse, our FAVORITE section!

Foolery
"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22
"You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40
"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17
"How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25
"But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20
"You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1
"You foolish man" James 2:20
(Also - Psalms 14:1 and again at 53:1 - you have to think me a fool because I have said in my heart that there is no God - oops, both of us in hell now!)
Contradiction?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of Steve's page dealt more with "hard to accept" passages found in the OT. If you wish to see it, click here.

And here are a couple of good sites that deal with such "hard to accept" passages:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.tektonics.org

Go back to "Opposable Thumbs" main page.

Frank's full list of Humanist contradictions:

·······

Humanist Manifesto I

Humanist Manifesto II

·······

Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable

We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people

······

Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good.

We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders.

and . . .

We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values.

·······

This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction.

Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic.

·······

Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace.

We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want -- a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared.

·······

The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook.

Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism.

·······

The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook.

Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government

·······

The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook.

Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

·······

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.

Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

·······

Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio- chemical disaster

·······

False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities.

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.

·······

Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures.

The future is, however, filled with dangers.

·······

And last but not least . . .

Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways.

and . . .

These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith.

Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue.

and . . .

No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

and . . .

We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels -- social, political, and economic.

and . . .

The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems.

and . . .

But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue.

and . . .

To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies.

and . . .

The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin.

and . . .

This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes.

and . . .

The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources.

and . . .

The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem.

and . . .

Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord.

and . . .

We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human.

and . . .

Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

and . . .

World poverty must cease.

and . . .

Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided.

and . . .

We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers.

and . . .

Travel restrictions must cease.

and . . .

We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

Back to "Opposable Thumbs" main page.

Steve's 2nd response:

Hello again Frank,

<< I know all too well that it takes much time and energy proving that something does not exist, and I know you are in the same boat with me on this. >>

Actually I don't (intentionally) put any effort into "proving something does not exist." That is not what my site is about. Rather I mostly collate the stories of ex-Christians telling why they left in their own words. I guess I am a "weak atheist" in that I merely do not find theism (or rather Christianity in particular) believable - it's just how I now am given all that I have read, thought and experienced. Once one loses faith in a religion it is quite normal to be pretty sceptical of other religions too, but it is not universally the case. Plenty of Christians move on to other religions. About 9% go on to a non-Christian theism and another 9% onto a non-theistic religion from a poll of 357 respondents I conducted a while back. (An analysis of that poll will appear on my site soon-ish). Maybe I will one day find out I am wrong about the existence of any deities, but I know of nothing to currently make me think I am - despite the best efforts of numerous apologists who write to me.

I am critical of Christianity though, as is obvious on my site - more on this below.

<< Since you say that only "most" people are inconsistent, there must be some who are really consistent. Please forward a list of these to me as I wish to meet them because I am desparately seeking those who are cut out of the same cloth as I. >>

You're going to have to give me more credence when you read my email and not assume *too much* idiocy on my part! I was merely referring to the fact that we are human and who amongst us does not make mistakes? I am painfully aware that at least once in life (and possibly all the time) I have had a profoundly mistaken view of the world, since my view has changed so dramatically. Like you I too got a perfect score on the test I sent you, but I also tried answering it in other plausible looking ways and saw how easy it is to have a conflict without very careful thought.

<< So I guess you would not be on the list as requested in response number one? And if you are not consistent, how can anyone accept you with any credibility? Then how can anyone accept your ideas (i.e., atheism) with any credibility? >>

I am not aware of any current inconsistencies in my thought. When I do become aware (and obviously assuming I also become convinced that I really am inconsistent or have made some other error of fact or understanding) I really do change my thoughts, as you can see at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/jim_moretz.html.

I have much more respect for people who do this rather than those who dogmatically hang on to ideas or claim they are consistent and always right when so many intelligent, intriguing and puzzling questions can be asked about life, the universe and everything that have left far greater minds than mine in puzzlement! (See my philosophy links -
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/why.html#notes and study resources http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/study_res.html). Karl Popper did it. He originally thought there was tautology in evolution, but later 'recanted' his claim that Darwinism was unfalsifiable and tautological in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica 32(1978), pp. 339-355. He also makes this point in his essay "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status" (1977). I doubt any of us are clever enough to be right all the time. You can see how good a standing evolution (and macroevolution at that) is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

(Editors Note: We suggest www.answersingenesis.org)

If I goof up it doesn't necessarily follow that "atheism is false." Imagine how ridiculous a trumped up opinionated 11-year old could make any complex argument sound. It doesn't follow that what he is arguing for is wrong, merely that he hasn't grasped the subject. That's me, but somewhat older and hopefully not *that* bad at it - and I am willing to learn from my mistakes.

<< This is the problem with my beloved atheism today - too many self-described atheists being inconsistent! And this is what devalues the credibility of our system of thought. I mean, who can really trust a free-thinker who is tripping over their own ideas? >>

No-one need be your guru or anyone else's. The average IQ of 100 is not really that spectacular, so you should expect to find much dross - especially on the Internet! Don't be too hard on your fellows - websites are often an exercise in refining ones thoughts.

Neither need atheism be your "beloved" (assuming you're being serious). For me its merely a lack of theism, whilst not being a Christian anymore was a "revelation" as much that clouded my view of the world disappeared. Being an atheist is more about unlearning bad habits for me, rather than joining up with the EAC!

I don't personally see atheism as a "system of thought" anymore than my staunch belief in a non-cheesy moon is a system of thought. If someone comes up with a daft explanation of why the moon is not made of cheese (e.g. because all the cheese was used to make the sun, whilst contradicting himself by also saying there is not enough cheese to make a moon and simultaneously claiming the sun is more massive than the moon etc. etc.) then I am not going to be alarmed.

I take it you are being sarcastic when you write:

<< We need leaders like yourself to forge the path of atheism, so please delete any
inconsistencies/contradictions/hypocracies from your site. >>

I already have done, although they were more in the line of unclear explanations and slightly straw man arguments. When I become convinced there are more I will make further amendments.

<< And it does not matter what anyone "wants" to find as you point out. >>

Actually you are wrong. To Christians who are inerrantists it matters a great deal. That is the big difference between errors and inconsistencies in the bible and those committed my mere mortals. We can be expected to make mistakes or do cruel things, but the Christian god (or Allah, Krishna etc.) is described by his followers as being beyond this. Maybe the "true god" is like the Capricious Greek gods as you say, but few Christians would claim that was Christianity (or Muslims agree that you had described Allah etc.)

God killing David's baby and arranged for his wives to be raped for a crime only David had committed (2 Samuel, chapter 12) certainly does matter to those Christians who are also taught that "God is Love" even when tempered with (rather strange) justice. This is the sort of thing that leads people to think religion is a human creation, not a divine one.

Christians of all stripes are also very much against believing that their god is cruel. It really does matter to them and they do not like to admit that their god is a sadistic baby killer. See my conversation with Dr. Garrett - http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html where you will see that this can become so extreme that they will eventually argue that killing babies is just, so strong is the "want" to believe their god is like a certain thing - i.e. (for Christians) both "loving" and "just." They will hang on to that as long as they can. Once that bubble bursts it is rare indeed for people to remain Christian.

<< I'm sure you wouldn't want your site to be compared with the bible in inconstincies - I sure wouldn't! >>

I would, I welcome positive and non-sarcastic criticism. We can only learn by having our faults shown to us and having the wisdom to recognise them and courage to accept them and do something about it.

<< Now it's your turn. Take this test at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/creation_clubs/docs/105evolution
ized.asp >>

I take it that's a joke on your part. See my feedback with Mark M. starting at (site given)

<< What you expect from a god is irrelevant. If a god or gods exist, they would exist in whatever form no matter what you would expect. Maybe said gods would be ones who like to create confusion among mortals (and thus giving us a "confusing" bible)? Maybe they also like to incite violence among said mortals? Sounds like the Greeks - lol >>

As I said, that would hardly be the sort of god most Christians could believe in.

<< Why would you expect any better from a god anyway? I think the culture in which you have been brought up has molded this opinion in your brain. I hope that your brain realizes this so that it can correct itself. >>

If you want to hold my attention you'll have to drop the sarcasm!

<< Concerning "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" ... I am really rather surprised that you have fallen into the same trap.... There really is no such thing as justice in the animal kingdom in which we human animals are a part of. >>

Maybe - but try discussing that at http://www.philosophers.co.uk/discus/ where you might find it is not so simple.

<< Said acts are just natural selection (survival of the fittest) acting itself out on a higher level. It doesn't matter what pretenses the people used to justify their actions. They were really just getting rid of "gene" competition. And the ones who lost were just inferior genes being deleted by nature. >>

To some extent but not entirely. I rather doubt that consciousness would have evolved if it didn't provide a useful function.

<< The people who committed "bloodthirsty" acts were molded by their environment. They really had no choice in the matter. >>

This is the old saw of do we have "free-will." Again I suspect that we do as a big *conscious* brain is an expensive organ if it was not doing a useful service. However there are intriguing arguments against free will and I am undecided at the moment - still investigating that one!

<< Through gene inheritence, they were pre-dispossed to "bloodthirsty" and "unkind" tendencies. >>

Agreed - lot's of evidence for that!

<< If you insist that what you call "bloodthirsty acts" are a reason to disbelieve a system of thought, then you might as well scrap atheism too. >>

Hardly. Humans are fallible, the Christian God is not meant to be. Greek gods could well be, but that would not be Christianity (or Islam, etc.)

<< Just two atheists, Mao and Stalin were both responsible for about 75 million deaths alone. If that is not "bloodthirsty," I don't know what is?! >>

Quite so, but I do not have high expectations of pathological and somewhat mad people. Unfortunately Mao and Stalin lived in industrialised times and had a lot of killing power at their disposal. What do you think the world would have been like if the crusaders had nuclear weapons? Christians claim their god is better than that - however I think the evidence is against it. Even Mao and Stalin did not kill virtually everything on the planet in a flood or consign billions to torture for ever and ever.

I hope that helps. I will check out your essay later, but time is pressing!

Steve
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

Back to "Opposable Thumbs" main page.

Table of Contents

Opposable Thumbs