Death: General

– What should we think about death? Narrated by Stephen Fry. Facebook Video. | Humanistic.


The argument from Quantum Physics

Believers should be more riled up by quantum physics than about evolution. Thankfully, to even understand what quantum physics is about, you actually need to do some reading. The monkey thing is easier to grasp.

– Newton, Farraday, Kepler, all the famous scientists that believers repeatedly claim on their side, all of them died long before the atomic age, and the discovery of the God-confounding mechanisms of pure chance that rule all quantum reactions.

Islam: General

– I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself. — Alexis de Tocqueville, letter to Arthur de Gobineau, October 22, 1843.

The absurdity of God’s judgement

– “Creating imperfect beings and demanding more of them than they are capable is clearly a sign of either ineptitude or cruelty” - some guy
– “Created sick — Commanded to be well.” – Fulke Greville.
– Imagine a fireman, that first sets your house on fire, then comes to extinguish it and expects you to be in his debt, for “saving” you. That’s what the biblical God does to the human race. Created weak and morally vulnerable, then condemned for not being perfect. That is beyond fair, that is abhorrent and repulsive. Or imagine cutting half the tongue of your child, and then punishing him for failing to speak properly.

Presuppositional Apologetics

– Presuppositional apologetics fails because its straight up retarded. We presuppose god exists, therefore he exists, and therefore anything we talk about from this point on is dependent on that fact. that is an absolutely moronic and useless position unworthy of addresing. It fails because its philosophically and logically bankrupt. Read a little about epistemic circularity.
– The presup argument revolves around the idea that the atheists world view is unable to account for truth, logic and reason, and as such is confronted with solipsism. Essentially he is asked to justify he is not a brain in a vat yet all the while the theist is simply “asserting” that God exists, that God, through revelation has “revealed it to him in such a way that he knows God to be true”. But the theist himself is unable to provide a solution of the problem of solipsism other that to simply “assert” God. God told me he’s real, and I know this because he told me he’s real and I know this because he told me… ad infinitum. Does the theist truly understand solipsism ?
– asserting things doesn’t make them true, yet this is what the presuppositionalist stance is. Assert god exists and that nobody can know anything if that one statement is correct. The presup argument is a bunch of wordplay and jargon to get around the inevitable conclusion that the theist ultimately has no real evidence to support the existence of god. They just found an argument to make their god necessary. “Hey let’s debate about the existence of God but before we start he is absolutely necessary and must exist, ok go”. Like wtf? No.

The morality of the biblical God

THEISTS of marked intellectual ability persistently avoid any attempt to defend the Christian’s notion of their God as he is delineated in the Bible. The reason, no doubt, of this is that the character given to the deity by the “inspired writers” is so contradictory and repulsive that no amount of reasoning will harmonize it with modern ideas of justice, purity, and morality. Now is it not inconsistent upon the part of Christians to preach to credulous congregations about the virtues of God, while they dare not endeavor to defend, in public discussion, the same Being before a critical audience? Surely orthodox exponents, to be consistent, should, when they undertake to prove the “existence of God,” confine their attention to the God of the Old and New Testaments. If they feel that they cannot do this, it is their duty to say so; and further, to be honest they should inform their followers that the character of he “Heavenly Father,” as depicted in the Bible, cannot be defended by reason and ethical science. Is it not a sham and a delusion to profess to believe in a being whose nature and conduct are indefensible?
The Existence of God or Questions for Theists – by Charles Watts. Link.

= Christian Apologetics: Hitler can’t help you. Link.