I really hate the, “Your conscience isn’t physical, so how come you believe it exists?” argument, as if they think they’re making a good point. Something doesn’t necessarily require being physically existent in order for it to be scientifically observable. Evolution by natural selection, for example, is not a physical property, but we can observe its process, as well as the traces it’s left behind from the past to determine it as an existent natural process that is in fact happening in our universe. The same goes for gravity and all the laws of physics. Just because it isn’t made out of material doesn’t mean it’s not observable. We can observe processes, actions, causes and effects, etc. Consciousness is a process. It’s a cognitive function of the brain. Just because it’s not tangible doesn’t mean we can’t observe or measure it. Just as David says in this post; if god(s) intervened, we’d be able to measure their actions (miracles), even if we cannot measure or observe the entity directly. And as a matter of fact, there have been rigorous studies testing prayer, ultimately proving it to be hogwash. So if you religious theists want to continue using this fallacious argument, go right ahead, but you’ll only make a fool out of yourselves.
“But the Bible says…”
Ray Comfort (world’s dumbest Creationist) loses a $100 bet after asserting there is no contradiction in the bible. Ray acknowledges the contradiction and tells the man he’ll give him the $100 dollars. When asked if he admitted that the bible does in fact contain contradictions, Ray denies it. What kind of backwards logic is that?
My response to a Christian roughly asserting that, “if we’re just a bunch of molecules and there’s no god, why does life matter, what reason do we have to be moral, and where exactly does our ability to use logic come from?”:
Processes such as cognition, reason and logic are merely functions of the brain, much like how digestion is a function of the stomach and vision is a function of the eyes. If we’re just a bunch of molecules, that might actually give us more meaning than the simplistic notion: “god did it.” Merely being an immense cluster of atomic particles able to acknowledge its own existence is phenomenal. We got here from natural, cumulative changes; from simple to complex over time. Saying that we require some sort of divine, imperceptible, totalitarian authority figure to govern our lives diminishes the brilliant reality of nature. We fought hard to get here, through the ever-relentless process of natural selection. We can create our own morality through our cognitive functions and our own empathy. If you say that no one can be good without god, then you are implying that EVERYONE who does not adhere to your particular religion is evil and wicked, and that you yourself would go out and murder, rape and steal if you weren’t religious. Not only are you unjustifiably generalizing all people who don’t subscribe to your religion, you also presume you need the concept of a deity watching over you in order to keep yourself from committing immoral acts instead of understanding right from wrong for yourself. If that’s seriously your line of thinking, then you are already immoral to begin with.
What If Dinosaurs Never Went Extinct?
Pretty fuckin’ interesting.
These are Facebook posts from me back when I was still a devout Christian. And no, they aren’t satirical. I seriously said these things and I actually believed them. I know it sounds like I was joking, but I wasn’t. What an embarrassing past… Time to debunk.
1.) No, atheists don’t “attack” only Christians. And “attack” is a misrepresentation of what we actually do: Criticize your beliefs. We criticize all unsubstantiated, supernatural ideologies, not just your particular religion’s. As should we all. Skepticism is key. However, we are more likely inclined to criticize Christianity because we are surrounded by it in society, more so than any other faith. Christianity is the leading religion. We couldn’t escape it if we tried. We’re forced to coexist with people who adhere to archaic Bronze Age texts postulating the existence of an invisible sky daddy, and believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that a 600 year old man built a giant wooden ship containing two of every species of animal during a fictitious global flood, and that prayer is more efficient than modern medicine, while all scientific evidence points to the contrary. Why would someone NOT criticize such claims?
2.) Ahhh… The god of the gaps argument. I already have plenty of refutations regarding this audacious claim. Here are some:
3.) See 2.
Looking back through your Facebook posts from years ago really does make you feel embarrassed, but it also makes you laugh. Oh, how things change…
Edit: Pardon my past self’s abhorrent grammar.