TreesNightly

Religious apologists often overlook secular reasons to be decent to our fellow man in order to make their arguments that morality can only be grounded in God. For them, I present these ten secular incentives to ground one's morality in reason. Points one and two can be seen as a catch all and that all following points can be seen as subsets of one and two. The truth is, by making one and two so broad was the only way to cover all the ways people can come to what we consider good behavior. The rest are just some specifics that are probably obvious to all but the most religious of apologists. 1. To avoid negative consequences. Try to kill, rape, or steal from someone and that someone will be pissed. If the person is able to hurt you, he or she is much more likely to hurt you as a punishment of your previous action. The motivation for the retaliation could be revenge or just to put you on notice that if you try that shit again then you�ll be hurt again. If that person is unabl...

If you claim something is true and intend to convince others, you have the burden of proof. If you claim something is likely and intend to convince others, you have the burden of probability. A strong theist, one who claims God exists, would have the burden of proof when engaged in debate. A strong atheist, on who claims God does not exist, would also have the burden of proof when engaged in debate. A weak theist or atheist, those who claim the existence of God is likely or not likely, has the burden of probability when engaged in debate. Weak theists and strong atheists are rarer breeds than strong theists and weak atheists, so it is accurate to say that it's more common for theists to have a more rigorous burden on their hands. There is no inherent burden to any personal belief, just don't expect it to be meaningful to anyone else without accepting the burden to satisfy reasonable skepticism when engaged in argument.

�Nothing� is a concept that has meant different things at different points of humanity�s understanding of the universe. When our planet was effectively understood as the universe, empty air space was reasonably defined as �nothing.� Upon discovery that space exists beyond our atmosphere, the meaning shifted to exclude air as now the vacuum of space was a valid option. The march of scientific discovery theorized magnetic, gravitational and other fields were �something� that may even correspond to particles that clearly aren�t applicable to the concept of �nothing.� And finally it was realized that space and time itself were dimensions that could conceivably not exist, which they wouldn�t in the case of a hypothetical �nothing.� One might think this speculative absence of everything would be the purest nothing to which both atheists and theists could agree, but of course it�s not. Modern physics has shown that quantum fluctuations can spawn temporary virtual particles out of even this �...

The moral argument for God is very convincing to Internet apologists because they believe in something called transcendent morality. It comes up by many names including objective morality, absolute morality--and as I prefer, cosmic morality and magical morality. Regardless of the name, it is seen as a moral standard that exists somewhere independent of the minds of mere mortals and supersedes alternative judgements. That�s the claim. Is there proof? No. Is there evidence? No. The defense for the claim is essentially finding a moral value agreed upon between the apologist and the non-apologist, such as �murder is wrong,� and using that shared common ground to say all other assessments aren�t just wrong from their perspective, but wrong independent of perspective. What do you think, is murder wrong independent of perspective? In my experience, �wrong� means different things to different people. It is like saying not murdering is better than murdering. �Better,� like �wrong� in this case,...

After so many discussions with internet apologists, I decided to engage a "name brand." The following is an exchange I had with Ray Comfort, who is, no exaggeration, the least effectual apologist I've ever met. The point I tried to illustrate was that, while one may have belief in the Christian God, it is impossible to have certain knowledge of him.  The blue text is me . The red is Mr. Comfort . Shortly after telling his followers that they can only assume God is real... We don't assume there is a God, we KNOW that God exists.? You believe that you know God exists.? No, I KNOW God exists. That's impossible.? "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20, KJV).? It's impossible to know that the bible is valid, so the bible saying that the bible is valid or that God is real is worthless.? ...

The following is my personal assessment of the validity of popular apologetic arguments. The list goes from most valid to least valid. The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Could be valid, currently based on assumptions. There are a vast number of physically possible universes. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions. Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2). Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 and 4). There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5). Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine- Tuner. God exists. This argument, had we jus...

I recently joined a Google+ community meant to educate people on counter apologetics. This was my first post. Here is a way to dismantle the moral argument for God without getting into the subjective vs. objective morality debate. A more traditional take on the Euthyphro dilemma, a classic problem of the moral argument for God: If God chooses what is good, does God have a reason for the actions to which he assigns a good value? If so, why can humans not come to the same reason? If not, then someone (God, in this case) arbitrarily assigned good and bad values, which is exactly what theists think is the problem with subjective morality.  Modern apologists rarely say God decided anything, rather they claim what is morally good is simply part of God's nature. They expect this negates the dilemma. It doesn't. For this reason I recommend presenting a formation more like below to stay with the times. If God's nature is good and it could be no other way...who made God's nature...

At it�s heart, the cosmological argument for God says that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Used in conjunction with the Big Bang Theory , apologists can rightly argue that our universe at least seems to have a point of origin and therefore a cause. As an atheist, I reject a supernatural creator that did not begin to exist...so, what caused the Big Bang? Well, I don�t know (which is a valid response .) I only know of scientifically informed options. Quantum foam. I can�t explain this better than Lawrence Krauss so I prefer that you come back after reading the book A Universe from Nothing or after watching a relevant lecture . The best layman explanation I can provide is that �nothing� (the absence of conventional matter, energy, space & time) is an unstable state and quantum fluctuations will give rise to something--even the singularity that became our universe. Self-Causation. Violated causality is a logic no-no, however, it is a valid interpretation of quantu...

One of the stupidest ideas in the Christian apologetic handbook is that the ability to construct self-defeating statements says something about the nature of reality. For example, I�ve seen posted twice this last week ( here  and here ) the claim that truth can be known because the statement �truth cannot be known,� is self-defeating. Yes, that particular statement is self-defeating, but to say the opposite must then be true is willfully ignorant. I shouldn�t have to explain why, but I will. If �truth cannot be known� is a known statement of truth, then it shows truth can be known making the statement wrong. The statement renders itself nonsensical by its own claim, hence self-defeating. However, if a internally consistent statement is all that is needed to ascertain the nature of valid knowledge, how about �we may or may not be able to know truth.� There is nothing self-defeating here. The two reasonable answers to the question of whether or not we can know all truths is not ...

Atheists usually argue that morality is subjective because, well, theists argue that morality is objective. Some atheists also argue this because they accept the reality that people define their morality in different ways. This is undebatably the way it is, but doesn�t have to be. If everyone defined morality identically, it could be objective sans deity. Apologists claim that God is needed for a moral standard. The way I see it, a moral standard is needed and this standard not only needn't be God, but it can�t be God. I define right conduct as simply that which benefits others more than it harms. Wrong conduct is obviously that which harms others more than it benefits. This is a moral standard. From here we can take any action and determine it�s morality objectively. Going on a shooting spree causes direct harm to everyone hit and therefore is morally wrong. Stopping the shooter benefits all those who would have been hit and is therefore morally right. Even if one must kill the s...

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here . You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One ,  Rebuttal, Part Two  and Rebuttal, Part Three also. Dr. Conway�s wraps-up his post venting his frustrations on a misconception about Christians--that they are stupid. I feel his pain. I spend much of my time correcting generalizations and perverse stereotypes about atheists. Christians, as a whole, are no more stupid then atheists are amoral. That said, it is also a generalization to say that atheists think Christians are stupid. No atheists I know think Christians are stupid (well, maybe Cephus .) More common is the belief that Christians are intelligent people who accept a relatively small set of stupid beliefs. This doesn�t sound like a charitable assessment, but when I hear someone say that a forgiving God is still blaming us for something a distant ancestor did at the dawn of time; or that one guy built a planetary-flood-worthy v...

I�ve been getting more involved in Google+ Communities lately. I�m a moderator for the big Atheism Community (the one with 17931 members); I take part in lively debates in the Religious Discussion Community; and I�ve been involved in a new Anti-Apologetic League, which is a private group of atheists who call upon each other when debates with apologists call for it. For example, I was having an argument with a Catholic defending his opposition to gay marriage when a few of his friends jumped in with gay agenda conspiracy theories--at that point I posted the link to the debate to the League and suddenly five other atheists overpowered the conversation. While I feel quality over quantity is preferred, the AAL argued well. It isn�t something I�d use often, but it�s a resource that works both on Google+ and externally to other blogs and social networks. It�s also worth noting that I was kicked out of the community for the Christian Apologetics Alliance after a month of low-key membership. I...