Debates with believers

Over the past few weeks I have been discussing faith, God, creationism, the scientific method, evolution, and the Bible with a few friends on Facebook. Sometimes it feels like it would be more fun to stab myself in the thigh with a fork, but I have learnt some new things in the process.

Many of the same old tired arguments come up which have been addressed by thousands before me, but occasionally I see something new which forces me to research the topic, and I think that’s one of the fundamental differences. I have a genuine thirst for knowledge. On my days off I will read philosophy books, uncover the methods of encryption used during wartime, read about DNA, marvel at advances in astronomy, watch nature shows on Discovery, or just get online and take part in various discussion forums. I feel that many theists are not interested in the world in the same way.

Once a person is convinced that there is an afterlife and an all powerful, all loving God will punish you forever if you do not follow his list of things to do and don’t, then all that really matters is trying to stick to the rules – anything else is a distraction that may knock you off the narrow, winding path to eternal bliss. It’s no wonder that many feel immortally threatened when the foundations of theor faith as questioned.

Well, it’s not so much that the foundations are questioned, but the vague realisation that they really do not have the answers. Admitting something like the big bang is true, or evolution really does occur means the Bible (and many other “holy” books) is literally wrong. If one part is wrong, then it is not the perfect word of God and the house house of cards comes tumbling down. In their mind either the Bible is 100% correct, or it is not.

This kind of atomic thinking make it impossible for them to see that questioning one part of a theory does not falsify it in its entirety. I think that’s one of the key differences. Rational thinkers allows themselves the possibility of being wrong – it makes no difference to them. By being proved wrong we gain a deeper insight into the true nature of reality.

Theists cannot allow themselves to be wrong since there immortal souls are on the line. Who would risk an eternity in paradise? Fundamentalists take it one step further and do not allow the text of their chosen “holy” book to the wrong in any way. There is no room for interpretation of what the book of God says, unless of course it is allegory, symbolic, or a parable.

Wendy Francis on late term abortions

Abortion is an unpleasant business. It’s tragic, messy, traumatising, and unfortunately necessary in some circumstances. Emotions run especially deep in the case of late term abortions since the loss of potential is almost tangible. This is what makes the Kermit Gosnell case so shocking. For those who may not know, Kermit Gosnell was recently sentenced

Read more.

The Bible – Parts 3 and 4

Continuing my twitter review of “The Bible” which is currently airing on the History Channel (of all places). Parts 1 and 2 can be found here. #TheBible recap: People taking to themselves, wandering around lost, ninja angels, and a metric shit tonne of smiting. Abraham has been promised “descendants as numerous as the stars”. A

Read more.

The Bible – Parts 1 and 2

Some of you may have heard of the Bible.  Fewer still may realise the History Channel aired a dramatisation of this holy text.  In the name of science I obtained a copy of this epic series and began tweeting my observations. @markybob00 thought it might be a good idea to keep these in an archive somewhere,

Read more.

Atheism murdered over 100 million

Over at Conversion Points Radio Jared Orme presents his argument for how atheism has logically resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people under the totalitarian regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Unfortunately for Jared he opens his argument with the statement: “These historians put the problem squarely upon the same ideology

Read more.

On the 17 June 2012 I took part in a radio interview with Jared Orme (@conversionradio) of “Conversion Radio” in Minnisota regarding the contingency argument. The invitation was a response to my blog post and twitter conversation with Jared regarding apparent flaws I saw in the argument proposed, so he invited me onto his show for a chat.

I am told this interview went to air sometime later, however due to technical error Jared had lost the original record. I present it here unedited, although I did remove the pre and post chatter and some minor stuff in the middle where advertisements would have been placed. Listening back, there are points I wish I had communicated better and some I should have attacked much more forcefully. Oh well, maybe next time?

Please note there were some problems with the recording on my end as the Skype plugin I used did not seem to capture my microphone. In order to compensate I have compressed the recording, which gives it a rather loud flat sound. I am afraid this was the best I could do with the time, knowledge, and resources at my disposal.