Religious Arguments | The Armchair Antichrist

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

A Defence of New Atheism

On February 28, 2010, In Misconceptions About Atheism, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

New atheism isn’t actually anything new at all. Intellectual atheist thought in the Western world can be traced back to pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. What’s new is the attitude. It is the stance that all matters of discussion are at the same level. Nothing is given preferential treatment or respect including religion. This philosophical viewpoint is called freethought.

Unsurprisingly, some religious people don’t like this new attitude that atheists are adopting. They want the beliefs that they consider sacred and holy to be respected by everyone. And one of the methods they use to try to counter new atheism is by creating labels to demonize atheists. The ‘new’ atheists are called militant even though they maybe considered militant only in their words. Some of the religious even feign persecution when in reality they represent the vast majority of the population and suffer no threat from atheists.

But, the religious are not the only ones to be blamed. There are atheists, some trying to feel more unique and others too resistant to social change who try to distance themselves from new atheism. Particularly, they denounce Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and other atheists leading the charge as too aggressive and as hindrances to fruitful discussion. These atheists have fallen blindly into the trap set by the religious. They have embraced the labels that were created by the religious to demonize new atheism.

The four horsemen of atheism and other prominent atheists have actually opened the door for discussion by destroying the stigma that made discussion of religion taboo. And in doing so they have given atheists a new found voice. Instead of being denounced they should be applauded for all they have done to advance social change.

Think about the labels: dogmatic, militant, fundamentalist and so on that have been given to atheists by the religious. These are only projections of all the faults they find in their religion. It is best to ignore these labels and not be distracted by them. We need to focus on the arguments (as in premises and conclusions) that make debate and discussion meaningful. Playing into the emotional games of the religious will go nowhere.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: Atheism • atheist • dawkins • freethought • fundamentalist • hitchens • militant • Philosophy • pre socratic • Religion • religious

Fail Mail

On February 15, 2010, In Answers to Stupid People, E-mails, Religious Arguments, Religious Stupidity, By The Armchair Antichrist

So, someone came to this blog and sent me a message to try to convince me about the truth of Christianity or something. I will be analyzing it here.

Here we go:

From: Bruce McKeever <labruce1@hotmail.com>
Subject: Let me prove to you that there is a God

Message Body:
Brother you would ask that everyone keep an open mind.I ask this of you.Take a chance.Give me a chance to convince you that God exists.Repressive morals.Wich moral law given to us by God is repressive

Thou shalt not kill(murder)
Love thine enemy
Dont steal
Honor thy father and thy mother
Do unto others as you would have done to you.
I dont feel repressed not so far.

You conveniently left out the commandments which have nothing to do with morality. Cherry picking already? Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol. Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Remember those? These ones only show us that the Christian God is a jealous and petty god. Heck, I even wrote a post about it. You should do a little research about the person you’re trying to convert before you attempt to do so. I’ve already smoked you before you’ve even started.

Anyways, morality has nothing to do with obeying commands. You do not need any supernatural dictator’s commandments to understand that murder and theft are wrong. Goodness is in itself good and whether it is commanded or not has no bearing on its value. Furthermore, commandments are absolute which does not reflect the relative nature of morality. For example, stealing food to feed your starving child would be immoral according to the ten commandments. But, any moral person would be able to see how that is acceptable.

Help me out here.
Are you speaking about all the crimes carried out in the name of Christianity.
They were crimes,they werent operating as truly Faithful.

Don’t play the no true Scotsman please. Also, you can’t have it both ways and say that all the good done in the name of Christianity is evidence that it is true.

Does that mean God does not exist.
Nope ,it does not mean that at all.

Sure, that doesn’t mean God does not exist. But, who here is saying that the fact that Christians have done bad things in the past disproves God? I certainly haven’t. But, I have wrote some posts that demonstrate that the existence of God is very unlikely and show how the concept of God itself is troublesome. Regardless, the burden is on the believer to prove the existence of God, not on the atheist to disprove its existence.

It just means that man will manipulate Faith to suit his own needs.

No, your holy scriptures themselves teach some very barbaric and unjust things. I would like to list them all here, but that would be too lengthy of a list.

Talk to me,Talk to someoneJust for you, I will state that orginised religion has done more damage than good.

You are correct about one thing. Religion has done more bad than good.

Does this mean that God doesnt exist,
nope .It just means that mankind is flawed.

This is getting repetitive.

One thing that is true through all this,
God is real.

That’s one hefty claim you make here. Have you anything to back it up with?

Christ is real and you are painfully and completely wrong.

Again what reasonable grounds do you have for your claims? And please don’t give me that crap about the bible being historical. The bible is as much an account of history as The Flintstones (if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, then even more so). I have a post about this too.

Your Brother in Christ
Bruce

Considering that the subject for your message was “Let me prove to you that there is a God” I am very disappointed. You did not give me even one reason to believe in God. All you did was make a poor defence of Christianity.

*spelling errors and the such were all present in the original message

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: bible • cherry picking • Christianity • faithful • god • historical • jesus christ • Morality • Religion • scripture • ten commandments • true scotsman

God is Weak

On February 1, 2010, In Arguments against God, Nature of God, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

There is just so much mental gymnastics that religious people engage in. It really is a mystery how they handle all the cognitive dissonance so well.This time it is the claim that God cannot do something that is contrary to his nature. His nature is the basis of our morality so it is claimed that God cannot lie or sin. This is such an easily refutable statement that it is a wonder to me that why a large number of Christian debaters including William Lane Craig have used it.

If God cannot do even one thing then he cannot be all-powerful. In an effort to reinforce the ‘morality comes from God’ argument they have sacrificed one of God’s key attributes: omnipotence. Heck, if I can do two things that God cannot then I am technically more powerful than God in some regard. It seems that the concept of God is so fragile that it will fall apart at any moment.

Related to this is the claim that God is bound to the laws of logic. And this is of course to counter the paradoxes of whether God can make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it or whether he can make a square circle. This approach again fails miserably. Omnipotence is by definition ‘unlimited’ power. So, God cannot be limited by anything especially if he is supposedly the author of the laws of logic which is suggested by the transcendental argument (which of course also fails epicly).

First, a weak hell. Now, a weak God. What’s next?

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: all powerful • christian debaters • cognitive dissonance • logic • mental gymnastics • Morality • omnipotence • transcendental argument • william lane craig

Big Bust Cosmology

On January 29, 2010, In Cosmology, Debates, Religious Arguments, Science, By The Armchair Antichrist

In most or all of the God debates that I have seen there is a common use by the theist side of the Kalam argument reinforced by a reference to the Big Bang Theory. I will not be debunking the Kalam argument here. That can be found in an earlier post. With this post I will be showing you how theist debaters have been misusing science, specifically the Big Bang Theory.

Most erroneously, these theist debaters claim that the Big Bang has been scientifically proven to be an act of creation or at least was the moment of creation. This is not true. What we know conclusively through science is only that the universe was once in a much denser and hotter state and expanded into its current form. The farthest we can get to the ‘beginning’ is the Plank epoch up to 10^–43 seconds after the Big Bang, a period which is still very fuzzy.

All theories about the early universe are speculative at best. This is because without empirical evidence (that will hopefully be found by particle accelerators) the only measure of validity for these theories is internal mathematical consistency. Basically, if the math behind the theory works out then it is a possible explanation of the universe’s cosmogony or ‘beginning’.

There are many of these kinds of theories which are all theoretically possible. Some of them include self-creating universes, universes created from the collision of branes, finite spherical universes with no beginning, the list goes on.

So the question is why do these theist debaters only hold onto an account which allows for a beginning (if only they had the same level of confidence for evolution). Well, this is so that they can argue for a ‘creation’ event and therefore, the existence of God. They will even go as far as to quote mine physicists who believe in opposing theories. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias and the overall close-mindedness of the religious.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: argument • big bang theory • cosmogony • Cosmology • creation • god debate • kalam • particle accelerator • physics • planck epoch • string theory • universe

You Are Your Own God

On January 25, 2010, In Arguments Against Religion, Arguments against God, Philosophy, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

I hear this statement thrown around a lot by Christians who try to bring atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers down to their level. They claim that instead of worshipping God which is oh so great, you worship yourself. Sometimes they will change it up and target your interests or hobbies (e.g. Music is your God, Gaming is your God, etc.). But, mostly they use the “You are your own God” line.

The Christians who use this think they are being clever, but really they are just bastardizing Ludwig Feuerbach’s work. In The Essence Of Christianity Feuerbach argues that religion is identical with self-consciousness, the distinctive characteristic of man which separate us from brutes. The divine trinity of human nature is Reason, Will and Love. These three things propel us towards an object which is none other than than our objective nature. Religion is merely the objectification of our own human nature which we call “God”. In religion, we simply take our human nature, objectify it, and call it “God” (e.g. “God is love”).

Therefore, God is only a projection of the ideals of humanity. Humans are the only real subject. Religion, then is a fantasy because it allows man to go beyond his own nature though it is only through imagination which conceives of a higher kind. But, in reality we cannot escape our own nature. We must embrace it and practice self-verification, self-affirmation, and self-love. Every being is perfect and infinite in their own way (perhaps he was the first motivational speakers) and has God within itself.

So, as you can see this is what it really means when you are your own God. But, don’t take it from me. Decide for yourself if this makes sense or not.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: agnostic • atheist • Christianity • feuerbach • freethinker • god • human nature • humanity • Religion • trinity

What The Hell?

On January 15, 2010, In Answers to Stupid People, Heaven and Hell, Religious Arguments, Religious Stupidity, By The Armchair Antichrist

When confronted with the immorality of the concept of hell Christians have been forced to do mental gymnastics. Hell is no longer the horrifying place of fire and brimstone where the damned will endure eternal suffering. Rather, it is only separation from God. And this is moral because this is what the heathens have wanted all along. Essentially, hell has been defanged.

This line of reasoning comes with many problems. First, this concept of hell has nothing to do with Christianity: hell in the bible is a place of torment. And atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and so on do not avoid God or want to be separated from him because we don’t even believe he exists in the first place. Lastly, if God is omnipotent and omniscient and thus necessarily everywhere we cannot logically be separated from him.

I understand this changing of definitions is an attempt by more liberal Christians to make their religion more reasonable and less abominable, but it will ultimately lead to nowhere. If you need to shuffle so many things in your religion around to appease your own conscience you will be doing yourself a favour by abandoning these ancient rules and living by what you feel is right. I have never believed in God in my life, but I hear from those who have deconverted that the feeling of freedom is amazing.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: agnostic • atheist • bible • christian • damned • freethinker • god • hell • mental gymnastics • omnipotent • omniscient • Religion

A Failing Apologetics Indeed

On January 9, 2010, In Christianity, Religious Arguments, Religious Stupidity, University, By The Armchair Antichrist

Recently, I attended the first of a series of lectures by Peter Erb at St. Jerome’s University of the University of Waterloo. The series is titled “Facing a Secular Age: Notes for the Modern Sceptic”. And this first lecture was titled “The New Atheism and the Old Church: A failing apologetics”. More information for these lectures can be found here (http://www NULL.sju NULL.ca/centre/speakers/erb_january2010 NULL.html).

Given the title of the lectures and the lecture series I initially thought that they would lean towards a secular view of the world. I could never have been more wrong. This professor did not only promote Christianity, he promoted Catholicism in particular while putting down Protestantism at the same time as atheism and secularism.

There was a deja vu feeling with this lecture. I was mislead two months earlier by a student ministry called “The Embassy” on the topic of hell. But, with that presentation there was no pretension of scholarly work. It was straight up preaching without apologies. This time around the preaching was disguised behind an air of academia.

He correctly named Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett as the prime movers of the “new atheist” movement. But, he brushed them off nonchalantly without any real critique and said that their books lacked depth. Meanwhile, he held up some books by religious authors which he gave praise to and recommended to the audience. So, much for being unbiased.

Next, he described “new atheism” as a phenomenon that emerged from Christianity itself. And he explained how “new atheism” wasn’t new at all. I don’t know why the religious think this something surprising. Philosophical atheist thought first appears in the 6th or 5th century BCE both in Europe and Asia, before Christianity was even a cult.

Further into the lecture he uses a series of religious paintings to illustrate his point. He uses these paintings to say that there was less of a boundary between the supernatural and the natural world before and later the boundary became more and more defined. This results in people are doing things less and less for God and more for humanity. I don’t know why, but this is something he regards as bad.

He also argues against people who tried to use reason to justify their belief in God. This he says leads to the creation of a deistic God which has nothing to do with Christianity. Instead he says that since God resides in the supernatural world we can only use faith. Apparently, he didn’t feel any pain from shooting himself in the foot.

Not surprisingly he also takes shots at Francis Bacon, the pioneer of the scientific method. He says that Bacon shifted the focus away from the final cause of explaining things by their (divine) purpose or goal to the material cause of explaining things by their composition and the efficient cause of explaining things by the mechanism of how they came to be. Thus, he claims that secularists are obssessed with origins. I guess he never heard of James Ussher.

He even takes a potshot at Galileo whom he says shifted the focus away from God and toward the self. Galileo, he explains did not move the centre of the universe from the Earth to the Sun, but to his own eye (i.e. himself). This is accompanied by a picture of Galileo looking through a telescope aimed at the stars. And since we have turned away from God he says that everything became subjective.

Throughout the lecture he also used many quotes from the likes of Pascal and other religious people to support his claims. These people he collectively calls “dead white guys”.

I was very disappointed in being mislead once again. I expected to hear a progressive presentation, but what I actually got was someone who wanted people to actually take steps backward (e.g. his anti-reason stance). This is a professor who I can honestly say is at the level of William Lane Craig in terms of bullshit. This guy was gifted with a silver tongue. He was a real propagandist.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: apologetics • Atheism • catholicism • Christianity • church • cult • philosophical • secular • supernatural • University • waterloo • william lane craig

Smokescreen

On December 20, 2009, In Answers to Stupid People, Religious Arguments, Religious Stupidity, By The Armchair Antichrist

I have met some Christians who are quite open-minded. Their responses are mostly relevant and try to address the points I have made. And they are more or less genuinely interested in a rational discussion. I have no problems with these Christians. In fact, I even like them.

But, more and more I have encountering Christians who are just despicable to say the least. I am quite sure that one even posed as an atheist to try and attack me. These are the quote miners, the ad hominem-ers, and generally stupid ones who throw a lot of irrelevant things at you. They create a smokescreen and don’t actually address the points you have made.

You know who you are. You accuse people of having no knowledge on the subject they wrote a post about when it is actually you who are the ignorant one. And this fact becomes painfully evident in the comments you make. You think you have responded with something clever and have actually countered everything in the original post in a few sentences. But, in actuality you have only shown yourself to be the pseudo-intellectual troll that you are.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)

Tagged with: ad hominem • christian • ignorant • pseudo intellectual • quote mine • rational • troll

Atheism is Just a Fad?

On December 10, 2009, In Atheism, Debunked, Religious Arguments, By The Armchair Antichrist

You silly religious people. How can you make such an absurd claim? Atheism is not about being unique, trendy, or even rebellious. It is the conclusion that you come to when you follow the evidence and also the lack thereof.

Contrary to religious belief which is based in emotions, I as an atheist try to be as objective as possible. No amount of fear or hope is going to change my opinion on the cold hard facts of life. But, these very same emotional comforts and threats are the driving force behind religious belief.

Furthermore, if you make this claim you must be ignorant of history. There have been countless cults and religions in the past which promised the same things as yours. Today they make up the mythologies children learn in school. But, your religion is no different than those that have come and gone.

In fact, the religions of today can trace their common descent back in time. They have indeed evolved. Old ideas have been incorporated and refined. For example, Christianity is chock full of pagan influences.

Religion has been a fad since the very beginning. All claims of the uniqueness of this religion or that religion are nonsense. Religion has always needed to reinvent itself to lure in followers (even more than Madonna).

But, under all that smoke and mirrors all religions are the same. It is only a matter of time before children will be learning about the myth of the omnipotent, omniscient and personal god, the myth of heaven and hell, the myth of salvation and all the rest.

Share this:

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Link HTML:

Permalink:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed (http://feeds NULL.feedburner NULL.com/TheArmchairAntichrist) or Email Feed (http://www NULL.feedburner NULL.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=67ph9hkenfoe0cqvkb5f56sj1o&loc=en_US).

Powered by Bookmarkify™ (http://www NULL.bookmarkify NULL.com/)