A Creationist's Sophistic Argument

While in a conversation with a fellow philosopher, I noticed this exchange slide by on my computer screen and found it interesting, then somewhat disturbing, and finally, typical of the sophistic mind set. But not the mind set of the one I've recorded here, no. The pictured comments that follow are the result of inculcation and indoctrination, not thinking, maybe rationalization, but not thinking.

You make a claim, therefore you need to support it with evidence. It is a consequence of the properties of logical, honest discourse that the one asserting the premise be able to support it with evidence, otherwise there is no case to be made for your assertion. The veracity of a claim is directly connected to, and wholly a function of, the quality and quantity of the evidence. Even in informal discourse there is the need for the one asserting a claim to support it.

This is the first sign that the argument which is to follow will in no way be an honest discussion, but rather an attempt to deride that which shows his world view to be untenable. This is typically a creationist tactic, but of the deluded. Noting the mention of 'naturalistic' very early in the discussion, it indeed suggests a sophist of a creationist bent; this tact is typically their only means of argumentation as the fundamentalist creationist world view has no supporting evidence.

I think it is diagnostically informative to analyze how this person views and defines the atheistic worldview. For instance, his inference in the above claim that atheism has some bearing, one way or the other, on the logical, conceptual, or immaterial is asinine taken at face value. It is merely a feeble attempt at conflating atheism with some sort of philosophical stance (a caricature of an irrational form of materialism supposedly representing evolution, a relatively simplistic strawman, actually) by asserting it holds to some claim. I don't think it's based on his confusing the supernatural with the immaterial. It may be that he has been inculcated into believing that the atheist is in a state of irrational denial of the immaterial aspects of the world. Or, is it because he thinks he can obfuscate the atheistic worldview with something negated by his God's logic? I think it may simply be that he has no idea that the atheistic worldview is comprised of a mere lack of belief, or he is just a creationist sophist conflating atheism with that which negates his creationist view and eliminates the need for a deity, evolution by natural selection.

Now this is the crux of his obfuscation. Not the argument, per say, but I think he is either claiming that evolution (without exactly stating it, of course) while calling it atheism (actually mischaracterized as a worldview), cannot account for logic (a tool of cognition, the function of an evolved brain, a conceptualization, used to discern the logical parameters, limits of material interaction, by which the material universe is integrated), or he is attempting to use his caricature of atheism (elucidated above) to claim that atheistic views of a material universe are incompatible with the existence of thought. Of course, both are absurd.

By denying that logic is a product of cognition in the material world he hopes to both deny atheists their ability to use logical argumentation and claim that logic is only in the realm of his god. Of course, neither of these are true, for I am using logic, the conceptual principles for reasoning, as it is part of the thought process of a material brain. As I just explained without appealing to the existence of any deity, and thereby not contradicting atheism; which is merely a lack of belief in god(s).

Here, he is just making unsubstantiated claims similar to any delusional claims one might hear during a stroll through any asylum full of psychiatric patients. In accordance with the typical fear motif common to delusions based on phobias, in this case theophobia, we are all supposedly in danger from his platonic monster. Notice his immediate attempt to give it force from this delusion's source of propagation and pseudo-authority. A book, necessary for fundamentalists, which is actually a collection of books most of which were written pseudonymously for different Jewish sects. Collected then accepted or rejected based on their political value and ease of conformity through redaction and interpolation to the conscripted mandates of a 4th century Emperor through his church historian, a confessed liar and fabricator: Eusebius.

Remember it is easy to show that this individual's beliefs are basically based on ignorance. Ignorance of the history and evolution of deities and their mythos in the Judeao-Christian tradition. Ignorance mimetically inherited from antecedents professing to know that which is impossible to know.

From this authority, he goes on to mischaracterize the actual stance of atheism which is that there is no evidence for a deity, one version of which is the Abrahamic deity. Again, this is done without his proffering any evidence for the claim; it is merely a bold assertion of his opinion as based on a book of fiction. This is similar to those that claim that the end of the world is nigh based on interpretations of that same collection of fables. Absurd!

Notice that he seems to be projecting the unsubstantiated existence of his deity on the mind of atheists, something that is impossible for him to know, even if he presumes to know every non-Christian has read his delusion's authoritative source, he can't possibly know the level of their comprehension. This is an excellent example of delusion in the mind of a fundamentalist. The authority of his delusion's sacred book above all else. This mind set is truly dangerous.

In the above comment, he is trying to hide the actual authority of an atheist which is evidence. Notice when he did use the word evidence, and then only once, it was seemingly to deride the scientist's insistence upon it. This exemplifies his deceit better than any prior comment. He may be attempting to inject Cartesian dualism (we are all god's automatons) into his derision of, his obfuscation of evolution (characterized as atheism). Science and the naturalistic view are based on reasoning supported by empirical evidence. While his delusion is only extracted by the rationalization of ancient myth.

Again, this comment asserts unsubstantiated claims that seem to stem from his mischaracterization of atheism and misconceptions regarding atheists' use of scientific concepts. This is actually easy to explain when one realizes that he is using the word atheist to represent, first, evolution and evolutionary concepts that contradict his pet belief of creationism, and second, those concepts of logical empiricism in opposition to claims which appeal to the  supernatural. It could possibly be a comment evincing a miscomprehension of the unguided properties of a natural universe, an over emphasis of random and chance, a creationist's favorite effigy of evolution. This would explain his almost insulting caricatures of the atheistic stance as the result of his being excruciatingly ill informed. This is no surprise considering the religiose have an almost disdainful view of evidence and education in the sciences. While there is little doubt this interlocutor is insane, he is at the same time inculcated with enough disinformation that his rationalizations can be somewhat complex in their structure, but nothing that can't be sorted out by an over-achieving fifth grader.

####

Note:

In a discussion with someone else, this fundamentalist expressed a view that scientists' assumed uniformity could not come from chance. In his view it had to come from design. In his view he further evinced a notion that it was an atheistic view that was untenable as it held to that chance. I think he may be using an atheistic view to represent evolution which means he is a creationist sophist.

This confuses a couple of issues as I see it. First, scientific assumptions of uniformity are concerned with the continuity of physical parameters over time and space. A magical friend would interfere with this uniformity in several ways, for instance, answering prayers or intercession, a preference for one life form over another, or one people over another, etc.

Even with the universal application of physical parameters being uniformly distributed through time and space, there is still mostly chaos in the universe. It is from chaos that the universe is formed, and reformed. If this creationist were sincerely pursuing the facts he would know this, at least generally.

Since this individual is most likely a creationist, his main complaint is just as likely to be against evolution, and therefore what he is hiding behind the scientifically supported notion of "uniformity" is actually design. To show the fictitiousness in his assertion with this in mind, one need only point out the laryngeal nerve, the appendix, parasitic worms, or the fact that the world is full of suffering. Animals eating animals, insects eating animals and other insects, in a never ending cycle of feast, famine, or flood.

It is, in fact, his world view that cannot explain these occurrences in a world created by a supposedly benevolent god; the idea is absurd. And as a sophist he would know it, but as a fundamentalist he may not.

In discussions on the theory of evolution, a creationist is commonly found to be fond of over-emphasizing the role that chance plays in the evolutionary process. The truth of the matter is that chance plays a role in the random formation and distribution of mutations, but this is a very small part of the puzzle. By far, the majority of evolving is done by the recombining of well tested, and well utilized, genetic material. But try to tell this to creationists.

####

Now this interlocutor thinks he has disarmed the atheist argument with his unsupported assertions. While at the same time allowing him to presume that he needn't adhere to the mutual concessions of logical discourse. This presumption  can, of course, be defeated in one sentence: Any assertion put forward without evidence can be ignored without evidence, or even an explanation, for that matter.

This is, of course, where it starts getting ugly from my point of view. Following in the line of his obfuscation concerning atheistic supplication

to reason as an ultimate authority, when, in fact, it is the evidence that holds the authority. A point he is loath to admit given that faith is evidentiarily vacuous. Considering that his god is also evidentiarily untenable and definitely a construct of his own ego, whether he realizes it or not, his ultimate authority becomes himself. The power of the creator of the universe which this commenter imagines as agreeing with his own whims, values, and opinions. This is the ultimate in arrogance. In claiming that his ultimate authority—as he imagines it, as supported by equally arrogant writings of Iron Age theologically bent politicians—an authority that is irreproachable, he has set himself up as the dictator and his ilk as his advisors. Hitler did it; Stalin did it, too. As has every Monarch in human history, but none exemplifies the horror of this power better than the Popes: Innocent VIII of witch trial infamy, Nicholas V of industrialized slavery and genocide infamy, and Alexander VI for adding indigenous peoples of the Americas to the genocide and slave trade. Granted, there are far too many despots to mention; but none that contradict the evidence that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now this, astonishingly, is the most powerful argument against an ultimate power of which I can imagine. Imagining—then by some illogical extension of an illusion, claiming to know—the opinion or thoughts of a supreme power, and interpreting the related sacred texts in a way that supports your delusion is mainly why Thomas Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

The question is: how is this supposedly  authoritative knowledge communicated to mortals here on Earth? Answer is, it's not. It's imagined by those that stand to gain the most from their utterances, such as, priests, preachers, imams, bishops and popes. Meaning that this interlocutor's "ultimate authority" is none other than the very same, and all too human, despots who would enslave him with their opinion. Pretending to know the mind of some deity is a short cut to positions of tyrannical power over those with theophobia, the god-fearing or devil-dodgers, as I have seen it written recently.

This is exactly why our Founding Fathers use the words "We the People" in our Constitution so as to give the ultimate power back to the consensus of the people of this country. It is why the power of religion was effectively neutralized by not only religious freedom and a wall of separation, but also, freedom from religion. In this way our Founders took all claims to ultimate power away from those despots who imagined, or pretended to imagine, they knew its opinions; their claims to such knowledge are, of course, absurd for far too many reasons to list. Not the least of which is that this supposed deity is not, nor has it ever been, in evidence. Jefferson knew this, and he also knew that morality came from the people as a cultural consensus that progressed as human intellect improved and understanding increased while evolving over time.

This comes very close to defeating his argument as he actually states it. Then he goes on, shamelessly...

Alas, without the first shred of evidence in support of any of the previous assertions, he argues that Christianity, biblical Christianity no less, is the only source of knowledge of the universe. Ignoring the centuries of history that attest to exactly the opposite; that era we now know, and refer to, as the Dark Ages. (Also, I'm sure it's creationism, to which, he is actually alluding.) But this isn't his approach, as he evinced earlier, he is convinced what he terms an atheistic view (evolution), as he defines it as some sort of unrealistically strict even irrational caricature of a naturalistic or materialistic view, means that atheists (actually scientists and evolutionary biologists) deny the very logic that we use in concert with evidence to support everything from the steam engine to space flight.

His problem is that science works; as evidenced by this very computer with which I am working. His religion's claims concerning the universe have been soundly refuted by the great minds of knowledge for longer than his religion has been in existence.

The point of this blog isn't to refute this person's claims. It is not his inane claims, which, of course, it is beneath me to even give credence to via respectable debate. No! I'm concerned about his delusion coupled with what appears to be a very lopsided education. I don't think I would be too far off in thinking it to be of an extreme fundamentalist bent.

In making this point, he obviously sets himself up for a logical comparison; for he could be said to be a rebel for his imagined deity, and fall under the same claim of bias concerning truth. Only, this is a smokescreen; his whole argument ignores the actual atheistic stance, which states, there is no evidence for the existence of his, or any other, deity. The atheistic stance is a neutral position, as it is the evidence that determines the current view. And, considering he has neither alluded to, nor proffered any evidence in support of his claims, I would say this appears to be an inculcated rationalization that we are to accept a priori from his ultimate authority. Which is, of course, himself. Further, it is, however, his continued denial of the idea that people could actually not see any evidence for the existence of his imagined ultimate authority that suggests his delusion is of a deleterious nature.

Considering that his premises are false, hence the charge of sophistry for this excruciatingly unsound argument, his conclusion, as an extension, is as well. And this is as far as the argument goes. But, it is the cocoon that his inculcators have constructed around his delusion that is the most interesting. By misrepresenting the atheist world view as somehow ultra materialistic and illogical, he has deluded himself, or has been deluded into seeing his imagined ultimate authority as the only possible truth.

The delusion itself need not be dangerous, but it can be due to the protective encapsulation of this particular mindset, and the bigotry that inevitably ensues, in more than a few cases. There will be no debating this individual, or those like him, to a productive conclusion. His fundamentalist brainwashing has done its job, as this poor wretch is thoroughly deluded and all but unreachable with reason.

Stealing Morality Back from a Fence

A rebuttal of Mark Shea's:

Shoplifting from the Supernaturalism 

In another attempt at obfuscation for the benefit of his godhead (which, for obvious reasons, can't clear everything up for itself) this Catholic now claims that, Christopher Hitchens is misreading the Judaeo-Christian tradition by saying,

“the Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay.”

But the claim that we were created in the image and likeness of God, doesn't for a moment suggest that murder, or for that matter—many other immoral acts, are wrong. For this mythological god, incites their practice, as well as, commits many, including murder, repeatedly himself, as its portrait is recorded in the Bible. So, people would not recognize it as sacred from revelation, by reading the holy book or innately, "from the get go," as this Catholic asserts. Again, morality comes neither by this mythological patriarch's example or dictate. Then our quarrelsome Catholic writes,

"Oblivious to the Church’s entire tradition of the natural law..."

while not clarifying what that "law" is, exactly. And, yet again, incorrectly characterizing Christopher's evaluation of the comment as, "a crushing debate point," he is consistent. It is indeed, verified fact, not just a debate point. It doesn't even make sense in the narrative itself, because the society they falsely claimed to have escaped from was a very advanced society with incredible feats of cooperation, so yes, the commandments were at least unnecessary. Societies were cooperating, coexisting, and collaborating with neighboring societies for some 10,000 years, prior to the time this mosaic narrative claims a mass exodus occurred. All cultures have a moral base that vary widely in some details but are very similar in others, and it's obvious which ones are from an evolutionary history that we share with other social creatures, especially primates.

The implausibility of even some spurious historical roots to this myth, the absurdity of the details, especially those connected to the commandments— show it to be patriarchal mythology. Constructed to malign belief in an older matriarchal mythology, related to a fertility goddess. The commandments of this tale were, in fact, redundant at the time of their creation. There is nothing historical about the Exodus narrative. The Jews are, in fact, descendants of Canaanites and were never slaves of the Egyptians. Moses is no more historical than Adam, Enoch, Jesus, Hercules, Apollo, Tom Sawyer, or Superman. The explanation for the general acceptance of the truthfulness of these religious myths is very simple. They didn't have an educational system to curb the myth to fact evolution that critical analysis of the evidence will curtail, then usually eliminate. Even Thomas Aquinas had the education of the average 7 year old today, and the philosophical prowess of a typical Inspirational Channel infomercial talking head, some 1400 years after the mosaic oral tradition took root.

Then this Catholic is once again, I was previously introduced to his various strawman fallacies, drawn to still more deplorable ad hominem arguments. But this pundit has such weak arguments, like any religious argument would be otherwise, that his main tactic is debasement of the opposition, poisoning the well, or the typical false premise. I give you, dear reader, as an example:

"Indeed Hitchens, like all the New Atheists (who are, in fact, creakily decrepit Old Atheists of a school that nearly died out), is ..."

Which is both wrong and irrelevant for many reasons, the first of which is  that atheism is not a "school." It is the absents of a belief in god(s), only. While at the same time based on scientific evidence that is being up dated daily. Therefore, while the concept of skepticism is as old as thought itself, the atheist view is based on philosophies and scientific discoveries that are current. And while I am honored to be numbered among the likes of Democritus, Epicurus, Robert G. Ingersoll, Andrew Carnegie, Katherine Hepburn, Francis Crick, Bertrand Russell, Bruce Lee it is obvious that Mark Shea is intent on poisoning his readership's opinion of atheists, but we are not "creakily decrepit" nor has atheism ever "nearly died out" as is shown by the Pew poll that shows the "no religious affiliation" is the only demographic to grow in all fifty states, not to mention the rest of the civilized world. Civilized world, that's another interesting point, ever notice that where ever the Pope reigns so does poverty and deplorable human "third world" conditions, talk about decrepit.

Every despotic totalitarian dictatorship; indeed every claim to superiority, every genocide, every war, even slavery; homicides committed on the basis of someone's individuality, or opinion; claims of collaboration with mythical creatures or powers over the elements of nature, have had the revelatory backing of some mythical god. For this reason, especially, but not exclusively, I entreat everyone to question claims of authority, especially claims of authority based on religious entities, superstitious beliefs or revelation. This is why;
Ideas, beliefs or opinions are never to be held as sacred, ever, the most heinous acts ever committed by man were the result of self serving ideas, unsubstantiated beliefs, and the opinions of bigoted ignoramuses. The whole concept of the free market of ideas is that intellectual liberty is the ability to scrutinize any belief, every idea, regardless of their holder's opinions or appeals to authority. Like your own personal bigotry toward atheists, is more than likely based on unsubstantiated generalities, opinions that you hold toward our world view without justification. Also, your opinion that Richard Rorty was a "real" atheist is based more on your opinion that he disliked science than on the basis of his understanding of theology and its absurdities. Or his understanding of ethology, the study of evolutionary animal behavior, which would have cleared up the misconception evident in the quote, which is actually concerning his philosophy of epistemology, you have used many times that I know of.

You should know that Rorty's philosophy was dealt with in absentia, in the 19th century in light of idealist philosophy with which his pragmatic ironism has many similarities. And that Karl Popper dealt with the validity of observation in the 50's it's called the scientific method. Maybe the similarity to our evolved morality observed in many social animals might suggest that what ought to be, is based on the evolutionary history of our species. In the sense that cooperation, care and compassion are the traits that were successful in our evolutionary past, Prof. Rorty would be wrong to conclude that it is "theft from a covert belief in something that transcends" when we have evidence of altruism in many different species. But Rorty's rejection of science would preclude his gleaning that knowledge. And his rejection of truth in general would preclude your claim to morality just as easily.

The point is this, morality 'Is' and it is not due to religion or anything supernatural, for there is no validity, no evidence, no reality to that claim, so I think Rorty's choice of the words "well-grounded theoretical answers" may be being over emphasized out of context. Science has made great strides in almost every field of endeavor in verifiable ways. And Prof. Richard Rorty may have been the one holding to a Platonic ideology that the imagined is as real as the corporeal, and even more perfect. But anything can be imagined, doesn't make it real. While Karl Popper's philosophy would suggest that all the failed attempts at falsification of the theory of evolution, substantiates our decision to continue to use it in further inquiry into questions posed by behavioral science and the theory of mind.

How someone can logically correlate "god is not great" and "everyone thinks for themselves," with "Nothing Must Be Held Sacred," boggles the mind. Many different things are sacred to many different people, only it is in most cases, like respect, earned not given. Wherein my mother is more sacred to me, than to you for obvious reasons. Life is, arguably, more sacred to me than to you for I live as though this is the only life there is, for everyone. When I was in the service, I was asked many times, what I thought about dying. To which I replied, "it will be the end of pain." And those that think there is life after death are giving theirs under false pretences. Which is another horrendous property of religions, the motivating force employed by the General that yells, "Charge that wall men, who cares if god is on their side this time!" Oh, wait. Anyway, atrociousness... the problem is:  an atrocity begins when anyone tries to convince you that something they hold sacred is somehow more sacred than what you hold sacred. Which is exactly what religion does. You can either pretend that you agree and subjugate your importance to that of supernatural claims or stand and be counted as holding—as sacred, claims that are just as important as any asserted by those claiming supernatural authority. It's up to each of us to defend our liberty.

And yes, atheists have killed people, so have Buddhists, football fans, painters and Christians, but of this list, only Christians have killed because of their faith.  And again, Hitler was a fundamentalist Catholic (actually go there, Mark, read Mein Kompf, the Nazi program especially #24 do the work). Stalin learned much of his totalitarian Platonist philosophies from seminary school. Marx was sure that religion would falter, and fall out of favor, due to disuse in an egalitarian society.  Mao and Pol Pot killed for the same reason all power mongers kill and never has it been for that "atheistic beliefs" canard, there aren't any. And besides, none of these tyrants actually killed, en masse, the pious peons that worked for them, that followed them, that believed in them—did the dirty work.

So basically this is yet again another misguided, mis-characterization of a world view that only wishes to save people from their own irrationality, thereby helping humanity at large avoid recurring historical atrocities, while hoping they don't become victims of their own ignorance. I personally feel that the recurring atrocities were best summed up by Albert Einstein, when he stated:

" Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The Abrahamic religions have had more than 2000 years replete with misery, and culpability in many—far to many atrocities. The religiose should know, it is now inescapably obvious that this superstition has absolutely nothing in common with "peace on Earth" or "Good will toward humanity," can we stop with the insanity already. Let us give rationality a chance, and superstition the boot. In the spirit of the Founders of this nation, who knew all too well the deplorable state of humanity brought about by the unabated indoctrination, the certainty of the dogmatic and the arrogance of ignorance, in a word piety, we should give humanity back to "We the People," for as Thomas Jefferson said:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

Thomas Jefferson knew then what many know now, it is education that guards the mind from infection through the superstitious mind virus. And this is a critical point because once the mind virus gets in, rationalizations may be all that's left to the host. It is evidence that breaks the circular reasoning the Platonic ontology and the apologetic rationalizations that are everywhere displayed. I do honestly hope that people realize one day that the accusations raise against atheism, are the very crimes religions have spawned for millennia. Atheism is the cure not the culprit, regardless of what propaganda people have been told.
~Brian

A Refutation of A Mis-characterization of What Thomas Aquinas Didn't Say

In the first place, this blog by Mark Shea is very biased with a Catholic slant which is not at all hard to understand since he was Senior Content Editor for Catholic Exchange and a weekly columnist for the National Catholic Register at the time of this writing, which was Sep. 23, 2009.

Mark starts off his diatribe with a mischaracterization of the reasons for similarities in arguments of the so called "New Atheists" with arguments from previous eras, which I'll get back to. A jab at the "Chattering Classes" which is nothing more than his attempt to distance himself from a club of which he is obviously a member by feigning "anti-intellectualism." Why does this nearly always work with the Christians? It even worked in the days of Paul of Tarsus, who was only interested in converting Graeco-Roman gentiles, to Judaism. Maybe it's because, unlike Paul's era when most people were illiterate with the understanding of today's average 4 year old, it's easy for someone to pick up a book on evolutionary behavioral science, ethology. Such as, E. O. Wilson's book, "Sociobiology," Robert Wright's, "The Moral Animal" or any of the work by William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George C. Williams, or Robert Trivers. Where they could find out for themselves the evolutionary origins of morality, without being high-jacked into the transcendent, by those claiming knowledge of revealed moral prescriptions and proscriptions—which I feel, is the origin of evil.

Now what Mark Shea fails to recognize, is the Bible we argue against has only changed minutely over the last four centuries, and the whole concept of religion is a fanatically conservative one. Not to mention, it is very difficult to make progress with, what can be described as an irrational fear or a delusional arrogance, since they are unabashedly resistant to evidence for fear of offending some bronze age omni—totalitarian dictator. Or, Mark is being disingenuous in his choice of argument, its basis and premise. There is at least one more possibility, but I will leave further conclusions to you dear reader.

Because there are, in fact, many arguments that are new and from almost as many viewpoints. For instance; the argument from ignorance, this Abrahamic deity's ignorance of geography and cosmology; the free will argument; and the argument of morality. There are also new evidences for the older arguments that are fatal to the Abrahamic god(s) and all but fatal to any argument for a supernatural being of any kind, time or place.

Mark's own argument exemplifies my first point, by bringing up the 800 year old Thomas Aquinas to highlight the argument from evil and Occam's Razor. But the current atheological stand on the argument from evil, theodicy, is that it is better framed in the context of a religious argument against a religious claim. Take what has been scientifically verified through meteorology, weather, while considered evil by Thomas Aquinas, is actually a direct result of predictable aspects of nature, and mathematically calculable to a degree of accuracy that would have gotten you, Mark, burnt at the stake 200 years ago. So, tornados are no longer considered evil in the same way as they were in Thomas Aquinas' day, along with Earthquakes, etc. Disease is no longer considered the result of sin, either.

So what, exactly is evil? I'm not talking about sin - yet, only evil. Well for one thing, as an adjective, evil describes fallen angels. Those devils, and demons, which are religious mythical constructs that are only as potent as ones belief in them, and by association god(s). And yes, I chose my words correctly, for the general population of those days were more afraid of the bad than in tune with the good of the spiritual realm. Am I saying that without gods there would be no evil? Maybe!  For most of what was considered evil in the pre-enlightened past, was seen as such based on supernatural excuses, apologetics or exegesis, what I call the lack of an intelligent explanation. Quite possibly, I'm suggesting that without supernatural beliefs, actually—supernatural thinking, there is little reason for evil as a description, with its inferred supernatural or transcendental connotations. And, that there is a less metaphysical, less primitive descriptor of the bad things that have happened to all of us at one time in our lives. Don't get me wrong, I know better than most, the atrocities committed by people motivated by greed, want of power and the evil means they employ. I do not deny the incredibly horrendous aspects of man's inhumanity and total disregard for life and health. It's just that we now know, as evidenced in the books listed before, the devil didn't make him do it, as the pun goes.

To be frank, I mean to assert that one of the greatest evils is the very mindset that facilitates the godhead in the first place: Authority from divine sources; unsubstantiated claims of superiority; revelation as a means of divine dictate; divine laws disconnected from our evolutionarily ingrained morality as a species of warm, caring mammals; in short, any barrier to open inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas make up the evil that allows for and has permitted the most heinous crimes against humanity. This is why the foundations for the US democracy, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and the scientific method are so powerfully successful, they discourage the validity of unsubstantiated opinion in inquiry and discourse by insisting upon evidentiary support for claims and conclusions. As I see it, all discourse should adhere to this principle. So, not only does the problem of evil present itself as a fatal blow to the logic of the infinitely good, it seems evil can be the product of the irrationality required for the reliance on, or belief in, the supernatural. It is that evil - hidden in claims of divine authority, as well as what follows, that motivates me to be the activist Atheist that I am.

Now the relationship between Nazism and religion are well documented on the internet (Google - Nazism, Christianity, Pope Pious XII, Jozef Tiso), quotes by the parties in power, books on the subject, a reading of Mien Kompf, even a reading of history will show anyone that is actually looking for evidence that Nazism is fascism (a political movement resulting in corporatism) motivated by Nationalism and racial purity, while inflamed by the imperialism of Christian Supremacy (got to spread the Word). Note that Nazism is perpetuated by self-reinforcing claims of superiority that would have been squelched had anyone bothered to see the evidence (the 1939 Olympics would have been a good start). Hitler's rhetoric concerning the atheistic communists, alone, should be more than sufficient to give most rational people pause concerning his religiosity. It is a case of denial to think that a religiously segregated group were destroyed for other than religious reasons. Reasons that were in fact a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition of the 13th Century, a Catholic persecution of the Jews that inspired Hitler almost as much as his love of the character in the Jesus narrative.

A typical claim of those piously inclined is that Stalin was an atheist, as Hitler himself claimed on numerous occasions including writings, interviews and speeches. But it's a case of correlation confused with causation to assert that it was for atheistic reasons that Stalin ordered the murders as purported in your writing, Mark. Marx himself said that religion would basically fade away do to the lack of its necessity in an egalitarian state. Even Stalin's attack of the Russian Orthodox Church was for political reasons due, in part, to its complicity with the resurgence of a Czarist's revolt. It is reported that Stalin reinstated the Church during WWII, though it never regained the influence it once had, maybe for reasons the clergy have feared for years.

The other despots mentioned ad nauseam in religious diatribes, debates or clerical oratories are guilty of similar atrocities, but again, not for atheistic purposes, or to further an atheistic agenda. Atheism isn't even a philosophy, let alone any reason to kill someone. It is a lack of belief in god(s). Might the propaganda be an attempt to hide something, a misdirection by religionists? Who may have always been afraid of the day people would find out they're not necessary. Or maybe it is something else? There is power in using divine authority or austere revelation, to justify, even incite, bigotry toward a political system that favors, say, the working class over financial elite or a system based on a free market of ideas over dogmatic dictates from pious pundits of bronze age desert goat herder myths. Which might explain why Stalinistic totalitarianism is misrepresented as Marxism or communism in fascist and right leaning political systems, like our Republican party.

As for your assertion, Mark, "New Atheists" have claimed that Nazism or communism are religions, I can only say that I have not heard nor read any such claim and I have heard and read most of their work on the subject. It doesn't even fit their exacting, measured discourse on the subject. Also, that I, or anyone would need to use "transcendent categories" to understand or explain "good and evil" is also a bit absurd since good and bad, right and wrong, etc are temporally relative to each situation, to be judged subjectively, based on evidence, because they are realistically substantial. This is of course, exemplified by our court system.

Then Mark descends to a misstatement of Hume's "ought" from "is" problem in an attempt to bolster a claim that morality cannot be a naturalistic occurrence or is not derived from natural properties of a materialistic universe. Only, the "ought from is" problem which is known as Hume's Guillotine, a problem of knowing the ethical value of a moral choice as opposed to its practice in reference to one's goal is only a problem for those proposing morality as an objective, self-evident truth. But, this isn't even where Mark is going with this "mystification" of the materialistic world view. He only ends up obfuscating the mechanics of thinking with the value of thought, or more specifically the mechanisms one uses in a situation requiring moral judgment, with the moral value of its outcome. Mark actually states:

"In the atheistic universe of Is the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Adolf Hitler” can have no greater or lesser Oughtness than the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Martin Luther King Jr.” They just Are."


In this example of Mark's misunderstanding of "ought from is," thought as a process, and the substantial value of morality he conflates the biochemical reactions required for human thought with the moral value, and then the subsequent results of those thoughts.

The problem with this is, it would only be true in a world where morality were objective. If as asserted by moral objectivists (absolutists) that there is only god's morality as delivered from on high, such as the ten commandments and all that. Then the actions of these objective automatons would be under god's divine authority. If you can't stomach this, imagine for a moment that Hitler had won the second world war. Imagine the mental contortions the Catholic Church would exert upon us in comparing the Der Fuhrer's Final Solution to their very own 13th century Inquisition in subjugating the Jews. Asserting without evidence that their god commanded Jewish extermination. Quoting something like,"vengeance be mine sayth the lord" and command only His retribution, would suffice. See! This is why our Constitution starts with the words, "We the people," because moral value comes from what we humans value, our very own evolutionarily ingrained morality. Ethical principles garnered during our evolutionary history through altruistic cooperation and a simple tit-for-tat philosophy, practiced in an extended family atmosphere. Just in case you were wondering where, when and how our morality originated. I mean before you quote Richard Rorty in his pragmatic ironism, which I disagree with by the way.

I do, however, conditionally agree with the quote you mined. There are in fact occasions where cruelty is understandable. Ask any mother defending her offspring. And note that our evolutionarily ingrained morality is not a hard fast rule (objective or absolute), but as behavioral science contends, and an understanding of its origins and mechanisms will show, morality is relative and moral judgments are subjective. But the reason atheists seem to be unaware of Prof. Rorty's "Why not be cruel?” is because it's based on Professor Rorty's pragmatic ironism, a philosophy, not science and unlike mindless religionists, Republicans and conservatives, atheists don't automatically fall in line—we think for ourselves. Therein lies humanities progress away from the Dark Ages. Thanks to those for which I have great respect; the atheists, deists and secularists of the 18th and 19th centuries. It took admirable courage to publicly defend rationality in a time when religious bigotry could get someone roasted on a spit, and all the more so, since they didn't have the discoveries in the sciences, philosophy, and history that we have today. The scientific basis for morality, for instance, finds it best footing in the 60's. I will say this about your snide remarks, and lame mischaracterizations, they have enabled me to better understand your particular mindset, yes—its fear. But fear of what?

Then there is Occam's Razor, or as you put it, "The Everything-Works-Fine-Without-God Argument."

After more unabashedly boorish and fictitious descriptions that only show the ignorance and bigotry (no it's not too harsh a word, see definition) of this author, he makes a claim that equates Planck's Quantum Theory, the cosmic expansion theory with a myth, an oral tradition of Iron Age desert dwellers. But herein lies the fallacy of this comparison, first 'metaphysical' is a poor choice of words if one wishes to be honest (of course, I don't think Mark cares at all about that) for both cosmic expansion and Planck's Theory are supported by physical evidence and observation. Laboratory work in quantum physics and observation of the universe through telescopes verify the mathematics that supported the hypothesis originally. But Mark would have us think it was a guess, while Hubble, Einstein, Planck, Hawking and Brown would beg to differ.

In comparison the loaves and fishes story isn't supported by any evidence at all while being shrouded in contradictions, like the two differing versions in Matthew 14:17-22 and 15:31-39, differing slightly from their original version in Mark 6:40-46 and 8:5-9 and Luke 9:13-17 is similar to Mark 6:40 and yet another depiction of the Mark 6 narrative in John 6:7-19, when in fact the all of the narratives are a purposeful similitude to II Kings 4:40-44. While showing that this narrative evolved over time, as all oral traditions do (eg. the Father Christmas, St. Nicklaus, Santa Claus), it shows no historical basis for relating it to reality. Which even a cursory apprehension of Pauline theology, especially as expressed in the Epistles will confirm. That is the earliest texts on the "Christos" (excluding, of course, the "Chrestus" and other interpolations, or redactions) portrays a "Son of Man" as "Son of God" once the Sun of heaven in a multi layered spiritual sense that incorporates traits of the Greek mystery cults et al., but doesn't mention an historical "Jesus of Nazareth." Quite damming actually, considering I Thessalonians is the oldest of the writings (books or letters) in the NT. It shows that "Jesus of Nazareth" of the synoptic gospels is a later creation along with the crucifixion which is a fiction within a fiction.

This exemplifies another reason to abstain from making claims of divine authority based on the myths of excessively primitive and superstitious people. It has gotten many people killed for unsubstantiated beliefs, the 927 killed in Jonestown French Guiana, Heaven's Gate suicides, Hawaiians (who died fighting against Christian missionaries about which god) and Native Americans (who's murders were condoned by a Papal Bull from Pope Alexander VI in 1530 CE), people die for beliefs all the time. But contrary to your assertion, Mark, the early Graeco-Roman followers of "Christos" were not ostracized, tortured and killed for their beliefs (no one really cared), but for being obstinate and arrogant enough in their ignorance to incur the wrath of Nero, so as to be framed by him for the burning of Rome, for which of course he, himself, was guilty. For future reference, Mark, except for some accidents and natural causes all deaths can be, to some degree, attributed to one's beliefs generally.

Your next assertion Mark is not a mischaracterization, it's just flat false. You claim that the odds against the universe 10^137 which I'm not sure how you came up with that ratio, maybe some spin off from Hoyle's 7.65 MeV for carbon or maybe it is from your understanding of the concept of constants, but in any case, it's wrong. It is, in fact, possible to have many different universes if certain natural properties are varied to some degree. The possibilities are infinite, actually. But the way you and most religionists wish to see Anthropic Coincidences is in support of the god hypothesis when, in fact, cosmology negates the possibility of a god.

Mark, constants in this universe are constant because they are related, tied, to everything else in this universe. It is the ties, the relationships, that keep them constant. If one variable would change the rest would change proportionally, adjust one constant hypothetically and the rest would find a balance, their equilibrium in that new state, it's quite simple actually. Sometimes I think the confusion comes from the images conjured in some minds, by the idea of  "Natural Laws" which from an anthropic view could be misapprehended as laws to be followed instead of axioms derived expressly for the comprehension of the relationships in the physics of our naturalistic universe. In any case for those who wish to know the facts, Victor J. Stenger is a great place to start.

But as has been excruciatingly evident from Mark's writing, to this point, facts are the furthest concept from his mind. So, as he continues in this vein deriding first Prof. Richard Dawkins FRS and then Prof. Daniel Dennett about a simple idea of increasing complexity which is observed in all aspects of the natural world, contrary to the "Woop - There It Is" crowd's god hypothesis of creation. I guess he hopes I will not mention the multitudes of philosophers, scientists, and the scientifically literate that concur with Prof Dawkins' conclusion. What are you afraid of Mark? It seems as though you want to drag humanity back from some precipice, the cusp of rationality, back into the superstition of ignorance. But why? Is it because you know that no matter how many eyes of, and during, the Dark Ages looked to the heavens, no matter how complex they thought it was, no matter how they supposed it worked or the details involved, our ancestors assumed your god did it for anthropocentric reasons? Well, until Galileo opened the eyes of those so self-centered as to presume the universe was created for their enjoyment, utilization or some sort of entrance test. Or is it because whether one uses words like contingent, uncaused, or eternal the burden of proof is still with those that make such assertions.

Furthermore, your reference to Thomas Aquinas in this context is interesting because Aquinas was not a philosopher in the modern sense of the discipline because he started with the conclusion, "a god's existence" and worked backwards from that assumption, meaning he didn't want know, he only wished to prove that god's existence was as he put it, part of his perfect essence. Basically, an exercise in circular reasoning. Begging the question, if you will permit, which came first —the perfect or the essence? Consequently, his view on this topic is in a similar vein, just as hilarious. Not only does Aquinas contradict the Christian god as portrayed in the Bible, along with the "we were created in his image" concept which is thrown out with the bath water. He also puts a cramp in making a son, being the son then trashing the trinity as a... whole, or should I say, "Hole." Aquinas has depicted "nothing" where something should be. Because, what Aquinas has done, in the attempt to describe his god within the concepts of "uncaused entity" and "simplicity of form," is turn the god hypothesis into a hole. A hole is the only thing that fits the criteria he used to describe this being. A description that is exceptionally vacuous, for even a hole has a cause. So, if Thomas Aquinas' description is even close to your idea of a god, it is impossible for it to have created a universe, in the first place, been the god of Christianity, in the second; or in anyway related to the reason why you're writing this diatribe. Oh, one more point I would like to make concerning Aquinas' description while we are on the topic.

This Part 1, Question 3, Article 7, "Whether God Is Altogether Simple?" is a good example of what I call the despotic power of the unreachable entity as an authority, which is the true power of religion. Instead of just admitting that the, "I'm god and I created myself," claim is absurd, they get even more elaborate with the lies, just like anyone on the verge of being found a fraud. But the lie is in the most obvious, indeed the most abundant concept of this description, Thomas Aquinas calls this entity a He, a Him, with His whatever, not an it without genitalia. And don't give me that gratuitous masculine gender junk, the paintings are a good clue. Aquinas and those he is trying to impress are making this authority icon ever more enigmatic while increasing their power over those who would pose such questions, as, "who created god?"

While religionists cloud the essential concept of 'essence', which has, in this context, more to do with what man accepts from this entity, man's acquiescence to the authority of this entity, this icon, than anything it has as a essential property, they use the term as if to denote some form of mental image. Also, one needs to remember, these people believed in ghosts, witches, and demons, etc. So it's not like they had a firm grip on reality in the first place. This is another point in Aquinas' defense of his so called "uncaused" enigma that I think bears more scrutiny. What was their frame of mind, their reference their view of reality? Because Aquinas et al. were trying to describe some sort of omnipresent non-corporeal mind, maybe thinking that this could never be falsified or not realizing the sheer extent of their ignorance of an organ now known as the brain, they relinquished all the ability of man to think for himself. This during a period when inquiry, discovery and education were so repressed by the church, that the only way to derive insight was scripture. They eliminated the only avenue available to reconcile this miscomprehension, our own ability to reason. This is the historical context of Aquinas' writing that is being glossed over by Mark.

These "philosophers" (I only use this term as a flag, for there is nothing resembling a philosopher among them) had no idea how a mind was generated, even René Descartes' Cartesian Dualism is still 400 years in the future. So, as is so often the case, in their attempt to make their authoritative opinion believable, Aquinas and the church brought out the very property that falsifies their fantasy. A mind is generated by a brain and nervous system, but that was still a mystery to men of that era. Which is why, as science progresses, we can scratch various veins of thought, god(s) being one of them. As all that is left, is the ability to use this icon of authority in justifying absurdities, atrocities, suppression, oppression, and hate through bigotry or xenophobia. Horrendous atrocities are, and have been justified through this icon under the guise of its moral authority, of which it has none. Not an iota! A fossil of this mindset is the quip, "good god fearing people," that can still be heard to this day. Only, morality can not be dictated or mandated, as if it were some objective, absolute or an all encompassing scheme.

As the early Platonic philosophers, Aristotle among the most influential of that period (though personally I am more inclined to agree with Lucretius and Epicureanism), thought that the imagined realm was every bit as real, and even more perfect, than the corporeal reality of our senses. Their assumption from ignorance that the images of our mind were not generated by us, but received by us from a central mind that supposedly possessed the powers, the mechanisms, the ability, to comprehend and then transmit the qualia of reality. The very same concepts of the Platonic era of some 1600 years previous. Showing the incredible magnitude of the Judeo-Christian retardation of human progress, I might add. It becomes clear why Aquinas would, by using and somehow justifying Aristotelianism (again concepts that were already 1600 years old at that time), describe this mask over their collective ignorance in this manner, thereby retaining their authority as those in the know, those in direct communication with this all powerful mind. While at the same time facilitating an all knowing, all seeing central mind that all too human authority figures are in direct contact with, even seemingly explaining - fictitiously - how these humans have an inexplicable capacity to comprehend. But, they were very wrong and it caused problems, very big problems.

This authority as described by Aquinas or even in the bible, did not explain the universal motivation of kindness and altruism exemplified by cultures that did not adhere to the dictates of the Abrahamic god(s). As is typical, exposure to new ideas, emersion into new cultures, and understanding at the human level will open one's mind to long held fallacies almost regardless of education. This is the legacy of exploration in the centuries that followed Aquinas. By exposure to other cultures it was discovered our morality was not contingent on adherence to the Judeo-Christian god of Thomas Aquinas. This, more than any other force, was the reason for the decline in the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. The Renaissance, from the east; the Reformation from the west; then the Enlightenment from the ensuing sciences, this is what brought down the theocracy of the Dark Ages. Because man finally learned that the authority of a central mind doling out altruistic thought, was never needed to justify love, compassion, forgiveness, friendship or trust. Which was found to be a characteristic of every social animal on the planet, of every culture encountered by explorers, even societies more morally advanced than Europeans at the time.


Admittedly, immorality is practiced in every group, a further dramatic demonstration of the evidence against an all powerful central mind, but for authority figures to justify heinous acts to decent people, or sanctify oppressive totalitarianism, say theocratic despots, is the purpose left for this "uncaused" enigma, this "non-contingent" authority. Which is why some activist atheists are so vocal in resisting this fictitious enigma's fan club. This dogma's oppressive powers and unrelenting bigotry, its pursuit of the suppression of freethought and open inquiry that retarded human progress for a millennia, the existence of this, this vacuous darkness, this dulling of the human intellect that simpletons mistake for light, this is the atheist's raison d'etre.

Which brings us to the most blatantly shoddy line in the entire catechism. The one suggesting that there are only two good atheist arguments and everything else is somehow derived from their concepts.

Now first of all, atheism is against the proposition, a defensive position, and as such, we avail ourselves to facts garnered from science, history, philosophy etc. to use against the arguments asserted (the proposition), put forward by theists. Which is the only reason theists get to name the arguments they loose. Like the ontological argument which is an example of circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. Theodicy is a whole line of theological thought contrived to counter the argument from evil which is logically fatal to the biblical god. Only the religiously inclined are in denial about the illogical contrivance that is Yahweh. Which is nothing new of course, the idea of religion is based on a claim of knowledge which is impossible to know. But if there were a single argument for the existence of god that the theists could claim victory with, does anyone think for a moment that they would hesitate, of course not. The only reason religion exists at all, is because in the system of debate one can win, loose or draw to an inconclusive end. But deductive reasoning, critical thinking, reliance on evidence through the scientific method have pushed superstition's influence into some pretty small gaps left by questions that are, as of yet, unanswered. Which means atheist's arguments are the negation of theological assertions as facilitated via various disciplines of inquiry. But more to the point; Can anyone name one discipline of knowledge that has any evidence in support of the supernatural?

Then you fall still further into the abyss of personal attack on some very intelligent men, divulging an ignorance of just how humans learn in the first place. By missing the deeper meaning that is obvious to those of use who have actually read Christopher Hitchens' work (you should try it he is quite brilliant) you display an ignorance, that I could have guessed, of childhood retention of fundament experiences. See, the reason that Christopher "just knew" was because that was the way things added up according to his past experiences. Simplistic? Sure! Mostly on ignorance, I'll grant you. This is the main reason religions start inculcation very young. But the reason he still knows, and has increased his knowledge in this respect, is because he had an open mind to use in investigations and experiments while realizing there are appropriate people to ask the critical questions. It is obvious from Mr. Hitchens' writings that he regards evidence more important than authority and that, more than likely started very young. So, you are in fact, wrong when you assert that his atheism is, "based on faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy." For some that is just how it starts, things just don't add up. Some people just can't suspend disbelief long enough for the delusion to sink in.

But your argument only gets worse from here with strawmen attacks using strawman depictions of Thomas Aquinas (which is why I started by bringing him down to size) and an early 20th century, failing, science fiction writer that found a niche in religious fiction (if you were his agent how would you suggest he broaden his readership).

Then, with all due respect to Thomas Aquinas the person, not particularly your strawman depiction of him, I have an Argument from Intellectual Maturity that goes something like this:

If your god is perfect, and has a perfect plan, why would it suspend such an intricate synthesis? How could even a god suspend natural principles once in motion? Why would it answer prayers that are not part of that plan? Also, why would someone think their selfish reason for asking for the suspension of natural principles would be answered by an all powerful being that created a universe full of life that interacts in such a brutal fashion that no one would wish it on his own pet? Like it would answer your prayers for a new car.

You have got to be kidding me right? Talk about arrogance. This is just one more childish concept that backfires under scrutiny. Not to mention the experiment that showed conclusively that prayer does not work. Or the gulf disaster would be cleaned up already, and the narrative concerning this Jesus character wouldn't be proven mythical by Matthew 18:19.

Mark, in reference to Matthew 12:39, you ask the question:
"First, why would the Gospels record this rather embarrassing incident?"

But only after padding your ego with your rendition of an atheist strawman - again. Which seems to be a problem, for some people can't fathom that— hypothetically asserting they know what a person or group thinks, is fatuous. Possibly clouding the ability to discern what qualifies as evidence.

In trying to see this Jesus character from a Christian perspective is to miss the actual character as originally portrayed in this, and much older narratives. Only barely visible in patches of the NT, is the fundamentalist Jew, most likely Nazorean, that only wished to reclaim the throne of David from the Syrian Kings, pre- Maccabean Revolt (168BCE) or maybe Queen Salome's reign from 76-67 BCE, and the temple for his sect of Jewish fundamentalists. And since this sect followed a similar teaching of the Essene or Sadducean sects, found themselves in opposition to the Pharisee, who were the moderate accommodationists and not well liked by the fundamentalists Jewish sects. Now this character could be derived from an Essene fundamentalist chronologically related to the story, and more visible in it, but I see only speculative inference to such a derivation and much stronger evidence against any actual existence. It is clear however, that this character is an icon made of many messiah narratives, not all of which, are even from the Near East. But to clear up your confusion about what was actually going on in Matthew 12:39, as we are not told what the sign should denote it may be nothing more than sectarian rivalry. Magic not required, but look for what is missing from Mark 8:12, a sign from heaven. Besides, this character preformed many other magic tricks according to the narratives. But then again, in this collection one can find giants, unicorns, fish used as submarines, talking snakes, dragons, witches, demons and angels. The point being, none of it is real, historical, even relevant after the fall of Rome—as it is an apocalyptic fable.

Bringing up Matthew 12:39 wasn't a very good strategy on your part because it gives many in atheology the opportunity to highlight another aspect of Christianity that is probably the most powerful means to atheism short of attending Theological Seminary at Yale one can obtain. As many contradictions in the Bible show it to be a cobbled together collection of apocalyptic fictions, that is, oral narratives that were separated by many years and evolved independent of each other. But, like I said, most were only of any relevance with respect to the Roman occupation. That is until the First Council of Nicaea officially started the process of making "Followers of Christos" the sanctioned religion of the newly reunified Eastern and Western Empires of Rome.

Also, to call the authors of the NT "Chroniclers" or even "cunning frauds" is an extreme stretch by almost any authoritative understanding. The synoptic gospels, especially, are no more than sheep herder sci-fi, stories told to children and slaves, sometimes as moral stories, like Aesop's Fables. Some are more adult apocalyptic or inspirational conquering hero style, but none were meant to be in a canonized collection of books that were to become the basis of a religion - least of all, what would become, Christianity. In fact, Mark is written by a Roman to a Roman audience most likely in a theatrical vein as evidenced by the over dramatized Triumphal March of the Jesus character in Mark 15:15-19. Paul of Tarsus, and Ignatius of Antioch had more to do with your religion than any corporeal, historical or fanatical Jesus. That the verse you mention is in fact a poorly copied verse from Mark 8:12, that then adds the "Jonah and the whale" narrative is enough to raise a brow. But then take a look at Matthew 13:42,50 a simple duplication of verses by careless scribes during interpolation, the addition or subtraction of text after the original writing. But when one is confronted with the evidence that there are literally many hundreds of these errors of an editorial nature, almost as many of a chronological nature, and just as many of a historical nature in this collection of stories, it becomes clear that the scribes that were actually putting pen to paper, put in verses, as they were told, without consideration of context.

Now, is some of this due, at least in part, to a language barrier? Probably, both during transcriptions and later in multiple interpolations and redactions. Is some of it due to politically motivated intervention for exclusion, persecution or retribution? Most definitely. Notice how the Jews are blamed in the four gospels, in a manner that stretches credibility beyond the brink. In short, the books of the bible have been so badly written that it is possible to find justification for anything, claims of anything and contradictions of everything (almost) in this book of Eli, or Elohim? maybe Eloi? or is it Elias? I guess it depends on where one looks, which is precisely the point. Oh, by the way, I have seen more evidence than most, that this Jesus character in the messiah narrative is an amalgamation of many characters, hopes and heroes, both real persons (many claimed to be the messiah, heir to David's throne etc.) and fictitious, a spiritual or dream state, as in Pauline theology, mixed with pagan mythical heroes, Greek mystery cults, even Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern Iron age mythical heroes and philosophers. The Romans were very good at incorporating the cultures they occupied into the Empire, as exemplified by Constantine in 324 CE, when he reunified the Roman Empire.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. But to understand what that statement means, one needs to know the meaning of the words claim and evidence in this context. But as exemplified by your reference to that old "love" canard, you don't know what love is or how to show it. Although you may have some romantic idea of the concept. Maybe some spiritual or supernatural basis for what are actually very temporal feelings generated by the hormones and nervous system. But in a lab, it is quite easy to demonstrate analytically and scientifically that someone loves someone or something with an fMRI or checking a blood sample for elevated hormones. While the best way is still the old fashioned one, someone that loves you will show it. The same system of examination of evidence used in many professions is the very same system used to determine all we can about the Cosmos. On the other hand, what do parrots that reiterate that old trope think divorce is based on? If it sounds too fantastical to be true, it probably is.

Throughout history extraordinary claims have not stood up to scrutiny. Never has any supernatural claim ever been verified, as supernatural, in fact, most have been refuted with the simplest of tests, like your reference to the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, which was nothing more than retinal damage (not spontaneous mass hallucination, as your strawman dogmatist claims), from staring at the Sun to long. This was attested to by people on the scene at the time, at other sites like Eclipses etc., even predictions of miraculous sun events in the U.S. where observational equipment was utilized to measure and record the event. I do find it humorous that supernatural claims aren't of something as obvious as a 60ft. dough boy or an inexplicable planetary alignment. But no, it has to be something along the lines of bleeding crackers as witnessed by those of an obviously loose grip on reality, if not suffering from full blown delusion.

By the way, science rarely happens in a lab, as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey or any of the scientists listed before would attest. And like any other claim, when the evidence is presented the value of the claim increased. One of the main objectives of the Beagle was to bring back specimens, evidence, not extraordinary claims, as you seem to think was brought back from Africa. Evidence is what can be evaluated. This is just another attempt by a religionist to present a strawman that can be railed against, but has no basis in reality. It isn't just the "New Atheists" that debunk supernatural claims, that has been pursued and successfully accomplished by thinking people of all walks of life.

The "New Atheists" don't expect the Bible to be other than what it is, a collection of fictional stories built from pagan myths, Graeco-Roman mystery cults, Near Eastern origin myths of Jewish Yahwists all wrapped around a political treatise for a fundamentalist Jew claiming to be the heir to the throne of David. It is those that profess to know the mind of this mythical deity, claim that "he" is the origin of life and morality, it is these people that push this book off as authoritative, as factual, even historical. There was a time not to far in the past when a person would be burnt at the stake for claiming the Bible was anything other than the inerrant word of this god, how soon it is conveniently forgotten. It is because of this religious dogma (look it up), bigotry, and pseudo-science that atheists exist. We are what keeps the religiose from turning the Crown Jewel of the Enlightenment, these United States into another Nazi state or theocracy.

Even though there are those that try to show the bible is a book of knowledge, and they are just as wrong as you are, Atheists practice rational inquiry in, and the comprehension of, these texts, the word, by which the devout still swear. But for the atheologist it is enough that these writings don't even display a rudimentary knowledge of simple geography, the flow of rivers, the orbits of planets, etc., in fact, this collection of stories shows exactly the knowledge one would expect an Iron Age desert dweller to know. It also shows the ignorance of a desert dweller with regard to the naturalistic claims that are in error in this canon of fables.

The Hebrews still use a lunar calendar to this day. The pagan's cycle you are unwittingly referring to as time, is actually a calendar for planting crops. Certain sects in Hebrew culture tried to get the Hebrews to convert to a solar calendar, but they never did. The pagan cultures were more matriarchal where the emerging religions were more patriarchal. Is that the cycle your referring to? Or is it more in the tidal calendar range that fishermen use? Maybe you should learn more about calendars, Julian and Gregorian versions. Or is the concept you are alluding to, that old ashes to ashes, cycle of life, thing?

Like your claim that Genesis, I presume, states that the universe was created from nothing, ex nihilo as you put it. But it doesn't claim that at all, you only presume the 'nothing', because it was to have created heaven and earth. What you don't understand, is that which you don't wish to see. Your god was standing on the waters, the heaven was the sky and the earth was soil. But you don't wish to see that, so you don't. The god of the creation myth only created that which the primitives knew, air and land. If you read the Hebrew or Latin, or for that matter, KJV, it is clear as a bell that this creation myth is terrestrial —has nothing to do with the universe, not one planet. The whole claim of a god that created the universe, and the anthropic coincidences is based on a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. God is standing on the water as he creates heaven and earth. This god puts the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, domes that separate the waters above from the waters below and the heavens and the earth (small 'e' as in soil) but doesn't even mention planets. Primitive mystics claimed that the lights moving around in irregular patterns were minor gods, angels or demons. Didn't realize the "lights" were galaxies in some cases. The ancient Yahwists had no idea about the universe, so by extension neither did their god as is obvious from Genesis. So, not only can't it be known by revelation as you assert, it seems those that wish to know the universe, can't even read it, in their holy books.

So, with that I say to you my narrow minded short sighted metaphysician, if you stand by what you write, not only do you not understand, it doesn't seem you want to. The information is out there, the evidence is there to stay, facts are eternal, it's beliefs that fade away. Your god is just the newest in that graveyard for gods, mythology.

Then you concluded with more unsubstantiated opinion about "sane metaphysicians," which I'm not sure that I have ever met, for they differ from a theoretician in their reliance on magical thinking. And you assert, "science is limited," but I say, only by our imagination and powers of reasoning. To delve into supernatural explanations is to surrender, to pretend to know. It is to give unto god(s) that which is theirs, ignorance, then prostration, followed by subjugation based on intellectual limitation. In following a thread that you have pursued throughout this monograph that science is "narrow" and the metaphysical is "larger" you are misinterpreting the relationship science has with the metaphysical. You see, the supernatural realm is where human ignorance reigns, using the tools of science, we chip away at the supernatural realm by shredding supernatural explanations to get at the facts, the evidence shrouded within, while discarding the magical thinking and thereby reducing human ignorance and increasing our knowledge. This is why science, our knowledge, contrary to your false statement: "Everything must fit my narrow empiricist worldview!” is actually quite vast, while its potential is unlimited. Because, again contrary to that statement, science doesn't just command that something "must" do anything. Science has been very successful at investigation and evaluation followed by implementation. Symbolized by the difference between how far science has brought us as a species with spacecraft venturing beyond the boundaries of our solar system. While "supernatural revelation" can only take us back into the Dark Ages. A time in our recent past that your fog, your "metaphysic," which, of course, does not transcend anything, did indeed enshroud the human intellect, human understanding, as exemplified by its effects on the human conditions of that era. The men of The Enlightenment, many of which, were this country's Founding Fathers, brought us out of the dark abyss of ignorance where superstitious subjugation held us in servitude, against our will, for far too long. The supernatural realm is that vast fog of ignorance you named god.

One more thing, the insane asylums are full of people who are there based on their beliefs, but not one person is there based on there scientific inquiry. Then you say:

"It should be noted that the operative term here is 'will not,' not 'cannot.'"

In reference to accepting the evidence in support of scientific claims. I could not have said it better myself. But I feel you should use it for introspection, for as this diatribe exemplifies a comprehension of science, philosophy and especially Christianity, that I can only describe as selective—to the point of neglect. Then, again you hit the nail on the head with the following. Bravo!

"There are two sorts of questioners, roughly speaking: those who ask to find things out and those who ask to keep from finding things out."

Only, after reading this, and some other rants that you have written, they seem to be devoid of all but intellectually limited opinion. What have you learned and from where did you glean your knowledge? What evidence do you have for this supernatural realm, entity, or revelation? You have not expressed it here, or elsewhere that I have read. It seems you have not garnered anything from science, philosophy or your religion. You parrot Thomas Aquinas without thinking critically about his perspective, historical context, limited education, motivation or anything else. Only to top this by presuming to imbue Aquinas' theology with hypothetical statements—you put your words in his mouth. Your assertions concerning the "Sun fraud of Fatima" and the "bleeding biscuits of Betania," show that you are guilty of the very closed mindedness inferred by your statement that I quoted above. It is obvious that you will cling to your supernatural security blanket no matter how frayed it gets by facts, filthy it gets through fraud, faded it's found by differing faiths, or how shrunken it gets by science. You Sir, are among those afraid of facts, cautious of questions, and limited in your literature, not to mention, misguided by your mentors. I honestly think you are confused or fooling yourself, because to follow the evidence where it leads does not lead to superstition or a godhead. And this superstition, this godhead has never been good for mankind, as evidenced by every advance of human betterment and individual empowerment has been in defiance of religion, this godhead, and its dogma.

In this review of your blog entry, Mark, I have found nothing to be impressed with, in fact I found it depressing due to your reliance on misinterpretations, mischaracterizations, unsubstantiated assertions, and strawman arguments. To build strawman arguments out of what you or C. S. Lewis think of atheists is, at best, arbitrary. But I can see where it has saved you from learning even the elementary aspects of your religion, while at the same time fueling your bigotry toward those that have gone to the trouble of basing their world view and decisions on evidence, study, inquiry and mastery of many disciplines other than proselytizing. But Mark, I have one question for you on a more personal note; When you looked back on this, this rant and found that none of it was based on fact nor evidenced in any way and therefore fictitious, didn't an alarm go off in your mind?

Are We Able to Quantify the Supernatural?

The supernatural are not exactly quantifiable because supernaturalism is a baseless ideology about imaginary entities that cannot exist in any reality. Here is my simple yet logical argument for this position.

In The Beginning

What are the possibilities for the origins of supernatural entities? 

They cannot just pop into existence, because there would be nothing for them to pop from, nothing for them to pop out of, or anywhere for them to pop into, and that "magic" stuff would need to be generated from something somewhere before there was anywhere. Could these entities be formed from, evolve or developed from, or even be synthesized from natural entities? No! The ability to contravene the laws of nature would need to come from material that was not subject to these laws, but all material is subject to the laws of nature. This material would need to be immaterial, which is impossible. So, from where could supernatural entities possibly come?

Let me break this down. To begin with, the concept of absolute nothing is false. At no time in the existence of reality could absolute nothing ever exist, because from nothing nothing can come. There would be nothing to generate anything and nothing to generate it from. Therefore, if there were ever absolute nothing, there would be nothing forever. So, something has always existed. And, the strongest evidence of any science tells us that this is energy. Everything is and has always been energy. Quantum energy, packets of energy, systems of interactive quantum particles, are the building blocks of everything. Everything. And, since energy has always existed because, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy can be neither created nor destroyed in a closed system. The universe includes everything in reality, which makes it a closed system. The scientifically determinable parameters regulating natural interactions, otherwise known as the laws of nature have always existed in reality. Since these parameters have always existed as evidenced by the facts that, first, energy has always existed, and second, that these parameters exist because the resulting balance, systemic harmony, and stability, to keep the concept simple, are the reasons anything exists at all. 

So, with this in mind, how might the supernatural come about or exist? Supernatural entities would need to contravene these parameters before they have ever achieved the developmental level of quantum particles, before they actually existed. These simple facts eliminate the unnatural, the supernatural, and the supranatural from the realm of existence. They cannot even be logically imagined, which is why so many scary movies are funny when not insulting the viewer's intelligence. From the perspective of logic, the law of identity describes why supernatural entities cannot be a part of the natural universe in the same way it explains why infinite entities cannot exist. Then from the breakdown of what a supernatural entity would be composed of, so that it could escape the laws of nature, we are left with a noncognative construct, immaterial. The immaterial is exactly nothing. Otherwise it would be subject to the laws of nature. In other words, some thing, anything, and everything is subject to the laws of nature. Just how much a misunderstanding of nothing figures into ideologies, especially anthologies of ideologies like religion is a topic for another blog entry.

In short, supernatural entities cannot possibly exist. This eliminates gods, ghosts, demons, devils, spirits, souls, heavens, hells, an afterlife and magic. And this is exactly what the evidence has consistently exposed. 

How Did We Get Here

Now through ethology, behavioral sciences, we know that the time required for primitive perceptual processes with assimilation and interpretation, memory retrieval, thought strings, and motor neuron activation takes too long, so imaginatively suggestive feedback loops initially give intelligent agency to stimuli of unknown origin. Better safe than sorry. It's an ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy), a safety feature we feel as fear of the unknown so as to activate defensive mechanisms. Dumbfounded by the absence of intelligent entities, the inexplicable grew into wild claims of unnatural beings escaping into unnatural realms after performing some imagined feat. Ephemeral feelings generated a story for which there was no evidence and that no one actually witnessed. This story from those feelings about something inexplicable has reproduced so prodigiously that it has evolved into ideologies like supernaturalism and superstition, story genre like myths and legends, and anthologies of mythology and ideology like religion. What started out as the pretense of knowledge in an atmosphere of ignorance (i.e., belief), became the motivation and excuse for the most heinous atrocities ever committed by humans. But far worse, what could be excused as an ignorance of natural properties and their psychology, when they might have just admitted they didn't know, became a habit of deceit, an institutionalized habit of assuming the conclusion from which to build a back story. Belief is not only an admission of ignorance, it was born in an atmosphere of ignorance where it nursed on deceit. There is nothing good about belief.

Eventually, it became culturally acceptable to suppose that supernatural (remember, they were originally only unnatural) beings were responsible for both fortunate and mis-fortunate happenstance. This led to authority figures claiming expert knowledge, then privileged knowledge, eventually revelation as to the concerns of those supernaturally powerful beings (eg. spirits, gods, demons, etc). This was necessary to claim control over these powers (yes, those biblical powers), and then to manipulate fear and thereby control the population for political purposes. In some popular forms of this manifests as anything from racism and enforced conformity to an ideology to tyranny of a majority or the stampede of stupidity that takes humanity into war or over a cliff into extinction.  And while ignorance runs-a-muck, authorized charlatans collaborated to institutionalize their "explanations" as far as their influence would allow. This led to the authorized justification of regional superstitions (i.e., poly- and monotheistic religions, nationalistic gods, and nationalism; see King Josiah and his High Priest Hilkiah and their Pentateuch). These institutions quickly capitalized on the power of unfalsifiable, unquestionable, unapproachable authority figures, like war gods, that hailed from an (until recently) unreachable sphere. Charlatans learn to use this Orphic Abyss as a most advantageous, be it ever so heinous, value of supernaturalism. This value will be used religiously by both religious and non-religious totalitarians, despots, dictators, sadomasochists, pedophiles, preachers, and Sunday school teachers to convince people that some supernatural something-or-other gave them the authority to profess the intimate thoughts and wishes of their immaterial-nothing-whatsoever. Making them, in effect, demigods, to those who don't see them as metaphysical naturalists, atheists, and freethinkers see them: deluded. Oh yeah, the sociopaths love this demigod status every bit as much as they hate scientists exposing their chicanery. 

Then, as if this were not enough, these powerful charlatans persecuted people of discovery and inquiry, burnt libraries, (eg. schools of philosophy, the Library of Alexandria, early geometers, astronomers, etc.) repressed education, limited the reading of, even possession of, holy writings to the initiated (clergy), while at the same time, they forbade reading or public interpretation of much else for more than a thousand years. In so doing, and knowing full well that in the absence of knowledge their superstitious explanations would reign over great suffering, pursued some of the most horrendous acts ever perpetrated against humans (mostly women and minorities), based on ridiculous supernatural claims of witchcraft, demons, devils, magic potions, daemonic possession, biblical dogma, etc.

This fear and ignorance was often found useful in sustaining bigotry against groups of people mentioned in the myths of their holy books. For example, Jews have been held culpable for the crucifixion of the mythical demigod for centuries. These inquisitions had the effect intended with people turning against each other for fear of retribution from their tyrants of interpretation or some unimaginable supernatural tyrant, even when no one was around. The clergy would terrorize nonconformists for the crimes of knowing too much about nature, anatomy, or for possessing foreign knowledge; they would persecute an intellectual gift as fast as a mental impediment. In this way ignorance was maintained, and supernaturalism retains the power of ideological manipulation.

Then science broke through with discoveries from foreign lands, embarrassingly obvious biases against brilliant thinkers like Galileo, upstanding activists like Bruno, the explanations by Newton and Darwin. Laws related to thermodynamics, quantum physics, astrophysics, and chemistry were built on the discoveries of great thinkers and the reemergence of the ancient Greek philosophers, mathematicians, and algebra via the Renaissance Era. The Schism, Reformation, and Enlightenment Eras freed many thinkers; the printing press allowed public scrutiny of Christianity's earlier versions, foundational flaws, and the King James Bible made it obvious that the Abrahamic religions were not the concoction of gods. Then Spinoza, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, works that inspired Thomas Jefferson's realization that dogmatic superstitious totalitarianism imprisoned thinking throughout man's history, the role ignorance played in this, and the function education would play in eliminating it. James Madison's elucidation of Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" kicked the Church to the curb, and boom -- freethinking is the beacon breaking through the black hole of primitive beliefs. A beacon shinning into the foggy blackness of interpretive nonsense, into the depths of the nothing, that is, the supernatural. And there was no there, there.

We learn of our actual origins, thanks to Charles Darwin, genetics, physics, and many other important sciences. Medical and anatomical understanding explodes with the knowledge of these new found relationships. The anthropomorphic gods of the biblical testaments becomes a parlor joke for all but those who pander to the beliefs of the uneducated, while charlatan sophists scramble to find new excuses for the inexplicable absence of these god(s) and their disappearing gaps. And scientific advancements greatly enhance the human experience with advent of modern medicine and technology. We look back at our history with new sight only to see that superstitions, supernaturalism, and those supposed authority figures -- the pundit, the politician, the priestly wannabe demigod who settles for demagogue, and the god-fraud fostering a personality cult of power worshippers -- were not only the wrong people to be followed or even listened to, but also the source of the worst answers to the most important questions. As it turns out, these sociopaths have always been the problem. And don't get me started on business people in government, a member of the exploiter caste in a public service post, really? It is for this reason that pious pundits should not be in government, but I digress.

Of course, there have been religious resurgences since the Enlightenment era. Fear has been exploited time and time again to siphon power from social groups; it's what religion was concocted to do. The single worst thing about a democratic society is that if populism isn't held in check by higher courts, mob mentality turns democracy into fascism. With Christian Supremacy morphing fascism into Nazism (read Mein Kampf), and corporatism into something similar to an Orwellian dystopia, the darkest days of our democracy and the human species are just around the corner. All of this is supported by the vast majority of Christians, including Bishops, the Vatican, and end-times fundamentalists. In the United States, relatively far right organizations, politicians, religious groups and their adherents have partnered with powerful corporations to rewrite history (Texas SBOE recent ruling), revive the Confederacy through the Southern Strategy, and make political footballs of equal rights for women, reproductive rights, gay rights, racial, and immigrant rights. These same far right groups are attempting to redefine political philosophies with some of the lamest sophistry I have ever read (read anything by Murray Rothbard, the oxymorons of Neoliberalism, or the landfills full of religious idiocies). Also they are continually reintroducing fallacious, fictitious evidentiarily unsupported claims as scientific, in an attempt to obfuscate the evidence for evolutionary theory with a rebranding of the same old creationism. Science is expanding our knowledge of the properties and regularities of this natural realm, while our knowledge of the cosmos pushes the boundaries of the old real estate for these supernatural beings beyond known space and its temporal origins.

Then it's realized that in the history of human kind, never has any supernatural claim ever been justified, let alone verified, and poof! The evolution of the supernatural realm has come full circle only to be quantified for what it always has been -- the figment of a primitive mind in search of an explanation for things that go bump in the dark. 

An obvious explanation for multiplicity of claims of supernaturalistic origins would be that all isolated populations imagined supernatural entities in their history and culture, but due to their isolation, these entities developed differently. Their names, likes, dislikes, powers, proclamations, responsibilities, and modes of retribution, even ironically, when it comes to using naturally occurring cataclysms as one of its forms, reflect the era when and area where these entities were imaginatively defined. Even what is considered ethical behavior varies widely between geographically isolated groups. My favorite example of course, is India, but the American Indians are, every bit as much as the Middle East, a study in cultural migration and syncretism through cultural interaction. Also, if one hypothetically travels backwards through time, they will find that the isolation increases with the limitations of travel between these geographically isolated groups. And it is noted by most Cultural Anthropologists that there is a link between language migration and an accompaniment of superstitious beliefs. Talk is cheap and beliefs are cheaper. How is that for a quantification of the supernatural?

I suppose you thought that this would be a blurb on the irrationality of superstition and the supernatural. Well, to quantify the baseless foundation of a baseless ideology that is the cornerstone of so many baseless anthologies of myths and ideologies, I had to expose  its quantifiable value. The only quantifiable value of the supernatural is as a means of emotional manipulation.

Now, I prefer to finish all discussions of problems with my best suggestions for their solution. And anthologies of ideologies based on supernatural claims have caused unfathomable suffering. It qualifies as a major problem. So, here is my best solution. Education. No, not your typical public school education that inculcates compliance, conformity, obedience, and complacency to the point of apathy. You have to possess intellectual integrity and self determination to sift through the fraud and find the facts. 

My next blog will take us deeper.