NO Answers In Genesis

Refuting bullshit apologetics and illogical nonsense!

[noanswersingenesis]

“Morality Comes From God”

If you’ve been alive for more than a millisecond, you’ve likely heard some imbecile droning on about how THEIR God - really, their particular idea of God -  is the basis for morality. They’ll likely wax philosophical on how you can’t justify YOUR morality, because you have the audacity to not believe in their particular imaginary friend. They’ll tell you with the iron clad assurance and conviction that only comes from dogmatic belief that - even if you don’t admit it - you get all your morality tangentially from their God. He’s written His laws on your heart, so even if you don’t believe in Him, He’s responsible for your morals. They say that you can’t explain where your morals come from if God doesn’t exist. And then they’ll give you a satisfied, smug little smirk as if they’ve just invented the wheel.

Let me draw a line in the sand here.  I want to make sure no one misconstrues my words, so I’ll highlight them in this fancy, bold italics text: 

These people are fucking stupid.

Yes, I do mean that. Yes, I can justify that. Don’t like it? Tough shit. I’m pased the point of caring if I offend any of you. I find your willingness to pontificate and philosophize about ideas you don't even begin to understand offensive. I find your willingness to vomit those undigested, half formed ideas down the throats of children who don’t know any better offensive. I find your insistence in regurgitating illogical nonsense that has been shown repeatedly to be fallacious to be offensive. And I find your refusal to educate yourselves when the information is at your fingertips EXTREMELY offensive. In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. And, sadly, it's one that those of you who continue to make these arguments choose. Every. Single. Day. 

So honestly, I could give a fuck if I offend you. I hope I do.  To quote Joh Stewart:

I make no apologies about this. Not even a small one. The rebuttals to every one of these bullshit ideas has been readily available and easily accessible for anyone with a double-digit IQ to comprehend for quite some time. If you’re going to make broad pronouncements of certainty without looking at available contradictory evidence, you are a fucking idiot.

So where does morality come from, if not from a spooky, timeless Sky Wizard? It’s got to come from God!

Well, first off, that question in itself is disingenuous. You’re making the assumption that if I can't conclusively show where my morality comes from, you can simply postulate your version of Douglas Adams’ “42″ and pretend that it’s been conclusively proven to be true. See, in Adams’ fantastic The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything calculated by an enormous supercomputer named Deep Thought over a period of 7.5 million years. The believers have their own version of “42″ in God. He’s the answer for them to life, the universe, and everything. If you have a question that doesn’t have a simplistic, pre-packaged answer, they're more than happy to insert God into the answer spot and call it a day. This is known as the God of the Gaps Fallacy, and I'm sad to say that it is still a major source of theistic argumentation.

Besides that, even if you could show that God is AN answer to the question of Morality (and I don’t believe you can), you have to go further and show that God is THE answer. That means that no other path to morality can even be plausible. If I can show reasonable evidence that morality evolved over time, and is still evolving as a human construct (and I can) then it falls to you to disprove that assertion (and i’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts you can’t even BEGIN to do that). But you can’t stop there. Then you need to prove that God exists. Any God. Just prove that there’s something we can call God and define it. But don’t stop there. Now you need to prove that the God you’ve proven is YOUR God. You need to prove all of his characteristics. You need to show evidence that He’s good. That He’s loving. That He answers prayer. All of it. And maybe not those specific things. Those were examples. Whatever your idea of God is, you need to show evidence of that SPECIFIC God, not just a generalized idea of God. If you want to make pronouncements on behalf of an eternal being you need to ABSOLUTELY define that being as narrowly as possible and prove that you - a mere mortal - can speak on It’s behalf. You need to show your qualifications. And don’t stop now! You’re so close! NOW you need to show that your SPECIFIC God has authored Morality. The same way I would need to show authorship of a book, or a song, or any other creative venture. I can’t just plagiarize something that already exists and try to pass it off as my own. If someone were to show that to be the case, I’d need to defend myself. Since your God is unable or unwilling to do what should, for Him, be a simplistic task: defending Himself - one he’s done BEFORE, but that is apparently now beneath Him, it falls to you believers to defend your God.

Your argument is so weak, I don’t even need to make one of my own. It’s actually enough to simply point out that you don’t have one.

I’m not required to mount a defense (I’m going to anyway, so calm down) against something that doesn’t even have a leg to stand on. I know a lot of you reading this don’t understand that concept. Here’s how it works: If I say that I’ve seen a bear with wings, and you don’t believe me, it’s up to me to show you evidence that I really did. The onus (that means the responsibility of proving something) is ALWAYS on the person making the claim, NEVER on the skeptic. Often, believers will try to shift the burden of proof on to their skeptical counterparts through linguistics games, or faulty logic. This is known as Shifting The Burden Of Proof, and it is yet ANOTHER logical fallacy.   

Regardless, for the sake of the discussion here, I will accept the burden of proof that rightfully belongs to the opposition if, in doing so, I can get them all to shut the fuck up.

So for starters, lets look at the apologist’s favorite source of evidence - The Bible - and see what IT has to say on the issue.

(Genesis 2:25) “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Ok, now lets fast forward a bit. (Genesis 3:6-7) “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” Paradox time! God is now going to punish Adam and Eve for doing something that they couldn’t know they weren’t supposed to do until after they did it. If the Tree Of Knowledge of Good And Evil “opens their eyes” then their concept of Morality came from eating the fruit, not from God.  Want further confirmation of this concept? It’s right here! We see here, in this SAME account, that “knowledge” of evil seems to create evil. They had no problem being naked until they UNDERSTOOD what it meant to be naked in a different light, and then suddenly it was a problem. So being naked wasn’t “evil” until their perceptions were altered by the fruit. That seems to suggest there is no objective morality. Fancy that. We get further confirmation of this in verse 22 when God says: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” So the Biblical concept regarding morality is that it is a byproduct of perception. That altering your perception can alter your morality. That a difference in understanding can mean a difference in morality. Jolly good. Something the bible and I can agree on. It’s like the planets aligning. Doesn’t happen very often. One more quick tangent before we abandon the historical fiction reading in favor of more grown up evidences: CHRISTIAN ASSERTION: Morality comes from God. It’s objective and unchanging, just like God is unchanging. If something is wrong, it’s always wrong! ATHEIST RESPONSE: So then slavery is ok? Killing homosexuals is ok? Rape is ok if you pay the girl’s father? Killing babies is ok? *lists off dozens of scriptures supporting and/or condoning these and other horrific acts* ILLOGICAL CHRISTIAN RETORT: You need to look at that through the context of their culture. The time and place it was written. You can’t expect God to transcend time and geography concerning moral laws. Actually, I do. And if a god existed, they would. “Don’t Own Other People” and “Don’t Rape” would have been on the list of 10 commandments, rather than some Ego stroking bullshit about graven images and saying his name with a shitty attitude.

So now that we’ve dispensed with Harry Potter BC, let’s look at some evidence that ISN’T circular, anecdotal, unreliable, and generally fucking retarded:

The Veil Of Ignorance

The single most damning retort the religious idea of God-centric Morality, is that we simply don’t NEED God to be moral. There have been many arguments that have shown as much, but none so iron clad  as the "veil of ignorance", a method of determining morality proposed in 1971 by American philosopher John Rawls. 1971 46 years ago. So there’s no fucking excuse for you NOT to know about it - at least in concept if not in name -  if you’re making grand pronouncements about the definitive nature of the link between Morality and God. The basic concept is this: We have two people (let’s call them Steve and Jim) and Jim wants to kill Steve. Steve, upon finding out about this, blurts out “You can’t do that! It’s wrong!’ Well, how can Steve actually KNOW it’s wrong? And for that matter, how can he convince Jim? Enter the Veil of Ignorance. We remove Steve and Jim from the equation and simply state that two individuals will be involved in this scenario. One will be killing, and one will be killed. Behind the Veil, Steve and Jim don’t know which is which. Either of them could be the killer, or the victim. Now how do Steve and Jim feel about killing? Neither one of them WANT to be killed. So both are aware that - at least in this sense - killing is wrong. This concept works for ANYTHING. Try it out. Don’t think Homosexuals should be able to get married? Take a step behind the Veil of Ignorance. Now you, and a dozen individual are there - all ignorant to your gender. Your race. Your sexuality. Your religion. Everything. You’re nondescript person-blobs. One of you will have one of your fundamental rights denied because of a difference from the group. You don’t get to know what right. Perhaps all of the others are men, and you’re a woman. Perhaps they’re all Muslims, and you’re a christian. Perhaps you and 11 others are all white, and the outsider is black. You don’t get to know what the difference is, or who it falls to. Which side do you argue for? Exclusion based on a difference, or inclusion regardless of a difference? Suppose you argued for exclusion, and it turned out that the difference was that you were the only Christian. Would you be ok with that? The thought exercises you can do with the Veil are endless, and practically universally applicable. The core of the concept is that morality is an evolved response, and we as thinking humans know DAMN well when something is moral or immoral through basic logic. If you think the thing happening to or effecting someone else is actually happening to or effecting YOU, then you’re more likely to be honest about that.   It’s just that some of us like to pretend they don’t understand that basic concept, so they can suggest that we all collectively rely on an old book that’s open to various interpretations and has, at best, a shaky moral grounding.

So now, let’s sidetrack for a moment so I can talk about this video: If There’s No God, Murder Isn’t Wrong, because that’s what started this tirade. This video is moronic, and the arguments it puts forth somehow aren’t even consistent within the span of the 5 minuet video! I know, I was shocked too. And let’s not ignore the fact that there are refutations to the arguments ATTACHED TO THE VIDEO if you view it on Youtube (but why would a believer in the validity of the arguments look at contradictory evidence? I mean really. Look at two sides of an issue? That’s crazy talk!) both in the comments section, and in response videos. There’s also videos and articles that totally dismantle the faulty reasoning of the video that are available if you’re willing to undertake the apparently excruciating labor of doing a 45 second search for the name of the video on Google (this was the very first link that came up. Seriously, it didn’t even take 30 seconds. How busy are you people if you don’t even have time to do that?!?) But since I know that none of you are going to take the time to look at any of that evidence, or read any of the things that have been written about it  for the better part of a century (you can see the seeds of this sort of nonsense as far back as Thomas Aquinas in the mid 1200′s) let alone just what’s been written in the last dozen years, I’ll do the leg work for you. Let’s look at the transcript for this video, and I’ll explain to you why it’s absolute horseshit. The words of Dennis Prager, the author of the video, will be in bold, and my responses will be in normal font. 

There is no God, Murder is STILL (usually) Wrong.

Do you believe that good and evil exist? Let me stop you right there. You’re already being disingenuous, because you’re not defining your terms. Given that you’re arguing on behalf of God, and given that this isn't my first rodeo, I'm going to wager dollars to donuts (again) that at some point in this video you're going to attempt to confuse us with the ambiguity of your language. So lets nip that right in the fucking bud.

GOOD - To be desired, or approved of. That which is morally right. To be beneficial or advantageous to someone or something. Appropriate to a particular purpose. EVIL - Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Harmful, or tending to harm. (Of a force or spirit) Embodying or associated with the forces of the devil. Something that is harmful or undesirable.

Now, by these definitions, I do believe in the concepts of good and evil. I have a feeling that’s not AT ALL what you’re driving at. Let’s see...   

The answer to this question separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values. No, it doesn’t. Unless you can actually show that, you're lying. Not to give out spoilers, but I watched the rest of your video, and you are NOT able to show that. So stop lying.

Let me offer the clearest possible example: murder. Is murder wrong? Is it evil? Nearly everyone would answer yes. But now I’ll pose a much harder question: How do you know? I am sure that you think that murder is wrong. But how do you know? You actually asked three separate and distinct questions there. I can't help but notice that you tried to just lump the first two together - as if they’re the same thing - and plod on before anyone could notice that they aren't. Is murder wrong? The short answer is, “Not always.” Which you would think would be painfully obvious to you, given all of the murders committed by God in the Bible that you see NO issue with. What you're trying to do here, which is a common tactic when you're attempting to paint someone into a corner, is to couch the argument in black and white terms. Either it’s 100% wrong or it isn't wrong at all, ever. This is called a False Dichotomy, and it’s yet ANOTHER logical fallacy (sometimes called False Dilemma or Black and White Fallacy).

Is murder evil? Generally, if we use the definition given above, we could say that it is. It causes harm. There's really no way around that. I suppose that you could come up with a scenario where murder would not fit the definition of evil, but I can't think of one off my head. But is it “evil” in the spiritual, metaphysical sense? Because that seems to be what Mr. Prager is driving at. No. The only people who would accept THAT definition of evil are neck-deep in the kool-aid of religious terminology, and are fastidiously working their fingers to the bone in an attempt to make the language they’re arguing with ambiguous. It’s the only way they have any hope of winning the argument. 

If I asked you how you know that that the earth is round, you would show me photographs from outer space, or offer me measurable data. But what photographs could you show, what measurements could you provide, that prove that murder or rape or theft is wrong? And THIS is why we have flat-earth imbeciles infecting our collective consciousness like a goddamn virus. Because idiots think a photograph they can’t verify or a measurement they can't reproduce or replicate are suitable forms of proof. If you want to KNOW that the earth is round, you’re shit out of luck. You can’t. Not really. You can have a measure of certainty, especially with solid proofs like these. But you can’t be totally certain. Just ask René Descartes. Should that sliver of doubt sway us to accept that a flat earth is plausible? Fuck no! But (and the irony here is more than palpable) that same sliver of doubt is often the BEST evidence available for believers. What evidence can I show that murder, rape, or theft is wrong? Again, the short answer is “Better evidence than you can dredge up from your goddamn bible.”

The fact is...you can’t. There are scientific facts, but without God there are no moral facts. There aren't scientific facts. Not the way that you’re meaning, with black and white certainty. There are theories. Those theories evolve and change. There aren’t moral facts either. You just like to pretend there are because it makes you sleep better at night. You still haven’t provided a shred of evidence for them, but you keep clutching at your bible like Linus to his blue blanket. Show me the moral code you derive from the scriptures. Would it, perhaps, go something like: Sacrifice, rape, rape, kill, rape, kill, kill, kill, misogyny, don’t eat shellfish, don’t blend fabrics, don’t make statues, kill, rape, don’t work on Saturdays, don’t say God’s name bad, rape, kill, don’t desire things that other people have, sacrifice, where you stick your penis totally matters (it doesn't matter if you're consenting adults), kill, kill, rape, own slaves, kill the children, rape the children if you have money, beats the slaves if you don’t kill them, women are objects, kill, rape, kill, praise the invisible tyrant for the stellar example he’s setting with all the killing? With morals like that, we’d be in a much better place these days, eh? Or are you just going to cherry pick the parts that you like? Love thy neighbor, don’t steal, etc... and ignore the rest of it? You know, because at the end of the day, your moral code surpasses that of the Bible.     

In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion. But only opinions. Every atheist philosopher I have read or debated on this subject has acknowledged that if there is no God, there is no objective morality. There’s not objective morality WITH God. Your own Bible proves as much. God’s decree to Noah after the flood: “Whosoever sheds a man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. A doctrine of vengeance. God’s decree via Jesus: “Ye have heard it said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you that ye resist not evil. Whosoever smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also.” God’s moral law is overturned... by God. The reason those godless heathen atheists “acknowledged” that morality is subjective is because they’re not idiots. 

Judeo-Christian values are predicated on the existence of a God of morality. In other words, only if there is a God who says murder is wrong, is murder wrong. Otherwise, all morality is opinion. The entire Western world – what we call Western Civilization – is based on this understanding. Again, you haven’t even begun to crawl, and you’re trying to run. Start at the beginning.

Now, let me make two things clear. First, this doesn't mean that if you don't believe in God, you can’t be a good person. There are plenty of kind and moral individuals who don’t believe in God and Judeo-Christian values.  But the existence of these good people has nothing – nothing – to do with the question of whether good and evil really exist if there is no God. I’m with you so far... 

Second, there have been plenty of people who believed in God who were not good people; indeed, more than a few have been evil – and have even committed evil in God’s name. The existence of God doesn't ensure people will do good. I wish it did. The existence of God only ensures that good and evil objectively exist and are not merely opinions. And you lost me on the last sentence. It doesn't. You just think it does. You can't conclusively show that to be true. So what is happening here is both of us have opinions, and you are trying to claim a divine mandate for yours. A divine mandate that you can neither prove, or show to be in any way different from my opinion that you’ve asserted has no divine mandate. So remind me again why what you’re saying is anything beyond wishful thinking and speculation? Because I’m not seeing it. 

Without God, we therefore end up with what is known as moral relativism – meaning that morality is not absolute, but only relative to the individual or to the society. Without God, the words “good” and “evil” are just another way of saying “I like” and “I don’t like.” If there is no God, the statement “Murder is evil” is the same as the statement “I don't like murder.” Called it! No, those words have very REAL definitions. And, as I have already shown, the definitions for them are fine. We can understand the morality of an action (even murder) without your word games. In NO way is it simply saying “I like” or “I don’t like.” This is yet ANOTHER fallacy, in your apparent race to make sure that you hit ALL of them in a 5 minuet video. This one is known as a Strawman Argument.

Now, many will argue that you don't need moral absolutes; people won’t murder because they don't want to be murdered. But that argument is just wishful thinking. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn’t want to be murdered, but that hardly stopped them from murdering about a hundred million people. Wow. Barely got through the last fallacy, and you’re on to another one. That’s goddamn impressive. This one is the False Cause Fallacy. Essentially, you’re arguing that once a moral concept is understood, it can’t be ignored. Do you honestly think that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any other perpetrator of what we would consider as immoral acts thought what they were doing was justified? I mean in a moralistic sense. Obviously they thought the ends justified the means. Kind of like the priest that wants to get his dick sucked by an altar boy. Just because practitioners of your religion decide, on a regular basis (seriously, there are multiple news stories every fucking week) to molest children does not indicate on it’s own that religious morality is invalid. What we CAN prove is that there are cases where someone acted in a manner that we would generally describe as immoral, and justified the actions as Moral with the aid of religion. Here’s just one example (and I've seen more than a few dozen just like it) where a horrific act was committed BECAUSE of belief in a God, and justified by the perpetrator as moral.

It is not a coincidence that the rejection of Judeo-Christian values in the Western world – by Nazism and Communism – led to the murder of all these innocent people. I like that you actually included the ACTUAL reasons (Nazism and Communism) or at least the largest contributing factors, in your attempt to link these deaths to disbelief. See the False Cause Fallacy directly above, because you’re doing it again.

It is also not a coincidence that the first societies in the world to abolish slavery – an institution that existed in every known society in human history – were Western societies rooted in Judeo-Christian values. And so were the first societies to affirm universal human rights; to emancipate women; and to proclaim the value of liberty. Don’t you DARE try to take credit for the abolishment of slavery, and women’s rights! How fucking stupid do you think people are? The bible is overflowing with misogyny, inequality, and INSTRUCTIONS FOR SLAVE MASTERS. If God wants credit for abolishing slavery, he fucking should have said something about it in his own goddamn book. But he didn’t. Unless, of corse, you mean the parts where he endorsed it.

Today, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values and moral absolutes has led to a world of moral confusion. There's only one person I see here who’s confused, and he’s trying desperately to convince me that I need his imaginary friend to tell me not to stab someone in the face.

In the New York Times, in March 2015, a professor of philosophy confirmed this. He wrote: “What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun? Would you be surprised? I was.” First, this is anecdotal because your source isn’t named. Don’t worry, I looked it up for you. The article referenced is here, and the “philosopher” is Justin P. McBrayer, who IS an actual philosopher with an actual PHd. Thats kind of surprising, because most of the stuff i looked up on him read like something from Ken Ham. Regardless, this is a blatant Strawman Assertion (see above) and serves to do nothing but shock the reader into agreement. This is called an Appeal To Emotion Fallacy, or more specifically an Appeal to Fear (also called argumentum ad metum)  and is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by using deception and propaganda in attempts to increase fear or prejudice toward a competing idea. “If you don’t believe in God, children will learn to kill each other for fun.” This level of psychological fuckery would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

The professor then added: “The overwhelming majority of college freshmen view moral claims as mere opinions.” That’s a bit of an overstatement. And even if it wasn’t, what does that have to do with the validity of your assertions? Not a damn thing.

So, then, whatever you believe about God or religion, here is a fact: Without a God who is the source of morality, morality is just a matter of opinion. So, if you want a good world, the death of Judeo-Christian values should frighten you. Should it? And why exactly should it frighten me? Based on the complete lack of evidence you’ve offered? The crux of the assertion made here is no different than that of an adult man who, having grown up, left the comfort of his parents home, and began a life for himself laments, “But who will stop me from eating ice cream three meals a day? If no parental figure prevents me, then why shouldn’t I? And what of my friends and coworkers? What’s to stop THEM from eating ice cream three meals a day? Soon, the whole world will be obscenely overweight!” What frightens me is that people like you present fallacy after fallacy after motherfucking fallacy, and try to pass them off like carefully reasoned proofs. What frightens me is the neanderthal imbeciles that see no issue with anything you’ve said. What terrifies me is the notion that these same imbeciles want to suspend the rights of others and hold the scientific community hostage to appease the shallow, illogical, unproven, and wholly ridiculous concept that they have formed in their malfunctioning brains of exactly who or what God is. That’s far more frightening than your unfounded assertions.

So, seeing as how there wasn’t a drop of water in that well, lets look at some more evidence that morality has a very human origin.

Mirror Neurons 

A neuron is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals. These signals between neurons occur via specialized connections called synapses. Neurons can connect to each other to form neural networks. They are major components of the brain. 

A mirror neuron is one that fires both when an individual preforms an action AND when the individual observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the observed behavior, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate species.  You can click on the link above if you want more accurate information about them, or do one of those 45 second Google searches that require so much effort. I will give the “as I understand it, as a mostly scientifically illiterate layperson” version below. All of this is summarized from the wikipedia article.

In the 80s and 90s, neurophysiologists at the University of Parma placed electrodes in a monkey’s head to study neurons. They were looking at neurons associated with the control of hand and mouth actions, like picking something up or moving it. They had the monkey reach for bits of food, and recorded the movement of neurons in relation to what motions the monkey made. They found that some neurons responded when the monkey observed a person picking up a piece of food, and ALSO when the monkey itself picked up the food. Further study showed identical results corresponding to mouth actions and facial gestures. Still further experiments confirmed that about 10% of neurons in the parts of the brain they were studying have "mirror" properties and give similar responses to observed actions.

In 2002 it was discovered that this mirror system also responds to the sound of actions. Reports on mirror neurons have been widely published and confirmed, with mirror neurons found in both inferior frontal and inferior parietal regions of the brain. Recently, evidence from functional neuro-imaging strongly suggests that humans have similar mirror neurons systems: researchers have identified brain regions which respond during both action and observation of action. Furthermore, functional magnetic resonance imaging can examine the entire brain at once, and suggests that a much wider network of brain areas shows mirror properties in humans than previously thought. These additional areas include the somatosensory cortex and are thought to make the observer feel what it feels like to move in the observed way.

I sense some of you glazing over. So let’s look at what this means for our morals.

If you are struck in the face, and I observe this happening, these neurons mirror the sensation in my own brain. To some degree, I feel you getting slapped. The speculation is that this is why we’re able to feel empathy for one another. Furthermore, this explains a large part of our evolution of morality. Seeing someone else suffer, we’re motivated to help them because it’s really like helping ourselves. When paired with the veil of ignorance, I fail to see any reason that stands up to scrutiny why morality should come from a God, and I see no reason to doubt that morality is a byproduct of evolution and a correctly functioning brain.

The Moral Landscape

Philosopher, author, and neuroscientist Sam Harris made this assertion in his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: “Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see tht there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality.” And he’s right. We don’t see a morality that is based in a particular religious code that stands up to logical scrutiny. You don’t steal? So what? Neither do these individuals, and they come from a variety of different religions backgrounds - some of them entirely irreligious. The only time a particular code of morality can be specifically associated with a religion is when it comes into conflict with societal or generally accepted normalcy. You think gay men should be killed for offending God? Well, THAT belief is entirely religious and, not coincidentally, entirely illogical. According to Harris, our morality has peaks and valleys, high points and low points. We can make general distinctions between those high and low places, much like we can tell the difference between a mountain and a valley. He argues that we can still have a sort of moral objectivity, based entirely on science and reasoning, that does not in any was resemble the objective morality postulated by the religious. By the same token, it doesn’t resemble the version of purely subjective morality offered up by those who don’t understand the subtleties in play here, or those who would purposefully erect a strawman over them to bolster their own assertions.  “If our well-being depends upon the interaction between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some world views will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery.” In other words, we can objectively show the differences between the mountains and valleys in our moral landscape, without the aid of a sky wizard and his book of fables, but the differences between the various mountains are largely subjective, as are those between the valleys. Reading the book (which everyone should do) will flush this idea out in much greater detail, but I’m only concerned with the core concept here. I would strongly encourage you to check out the book for yourself.  

  A Logical Moral Code

So, let’s use these ideas to try and formulate a basic,logical moral code. Just as an example, we’ll use Killing, Murder, and Butchery. Let’s start with some quick definitions so we’re all on the same page. These are MY definitions from my own head, and have nothing to do with dictionary definitions or what have you. This is how I use these terms.

Killing - The taking of another life. Any other life. Man, woman, child, cat, dog, elephant, or whatever the hell Donald Trump is (sentient Cheetos powder?) for any reason.

Murder - Any killing that can’t be logically excused. An unlawful killing.

Butchery - Killing for sport, or for fun. Specifically, killing for no other purpose than the enjoyment of ending another’s life. 

Ok. So now, is killing wrong?  No. Period. We can’t possibly suggest that killing is wrong, as the bible does, (unless God says it’s ok... or rather commands it to be done) because there are times when killing someone would be the only justifiable action to take. Suppose that someone has broken into your home, and is holding your child at knifepoint. The only way to save the child is to kill the intruder. Is it justifiable to terminate the life of that individual? Of corse. No thinking person would advocate letting someone kill your child to save the life of an intruder.  But WHY?  Because God said so? I think not. It’s because we’ve evolved to look out for our own. We’ve developed an instinct to protect ourselves, our children, our family unit, our tribe, and so on. Because, to put it bluntly, the idiots who didn’t protect their children from danger didn’t get to have any grandkids. The idiots who didn’t protect their tribe got overtaken by another tribe that DID.  Suppose your friend is in a tremendous amount of pain, and begs you to end his life. For the sake of argument, there’s no medical help available and you won’t be legally responsible for your actions. What’s the better alternative? Allow him to suffer, or to do as he asks and end his suffering? The religious mindset here is usually to allow the suffering to continue, because they’re obsessed with their own illogical concept of “life.” It’s always better to have a suffering individual, yearning desperately for the relief of the grave, than to allow a thinking being to make their own decisions regarding their own life and death, right? Because what we think Jesus wants is more important than what you want. Because bible. Personally, I think anything less than honoring their wishes and sending them to a peaceful oblivion is horrific, monstrous, and morally abhorrent. The news would suggest that many believers disagree with me, and that somehow God’s universal, eternal, flawless laws have missed my heart yet again. Maybe he inscribed them on my liver, which would explain my love for gin. Who knows?  

We kill animals for food as well (even though this issue is regularly debated) because, as a collective, we’ve decided, for the time being, that since we’re omnivores and we’ve evolved to eat meat, that we shouldn’t feel guilty about killing a chicken or a cow for sustenance. That might change. There’s a vocal minority in the vegetarian/vegan community that is making some compelling arguments for us to stop killing other animals for food. Honestly, when it comes to this issue, I’m torn. On the one hand, it is causing the suffering and death of a sentient being for my own selfish reasons. On the other hand, I love bacon cheeseburgers and fried chicken. I’m willing to admit that I’m less than consistent on this issue, as I think MOST people would if they were honest with themselves. But murder is wrong, right? Yup. I think it’s safe to say that unlawful, or unjustifiable killing is “wrong.” When I say “wrong” I mean a compelling argument against it can be formed, such that the overwhelming majority of thinking people will agree that it’s immoral. Not objectively in a “Because God said so” way, but in a “we’ve all agreed that this makes logical sense” way. So yeah, it’s wrong.    But again, why? Because it’s not beneficial. And worse than that, it’s harmful to the group as a whole. Now, I can hear you saying, “Well, it’s beneficial to ME if I want to kill Tim.” Fair enough. In the same way eating 6 gallons of ice cream for dinner would be benificial to you if you have a weakness for ice cream. In the short term, the ice cream will taste great, and you’ll be happy. So why doesn’t everyone just eat ice cream all the time? Simple. Because they’re not imbeciles, and they don’t need someone to tell them that eating that much ice cream will eventually have consequences. It tastes great till they’re sawing off your diabetic feet, and replacing your heart for the 18th time. Just because you WANT to do something doesn’t make it beneficial. And if something has a greater propensity for harm than benefit, the collective decides against it. You still might personally want to do it (remember that example we used of the priest getting his knob gobbled by the alter boys?) but the group as a whole thinks it’s a bad idea. So you can still DO it if you want, but then you run the risk of being found out and moved to a NEW church to molest DIFFERENT boys. Because, religiously speaking, that’s how we deal with immoral behavior. Remember that time a science teacher raped a child and got sent to teach at a different school? Yeah, me neither.  But seriously, that’s why we have LAWS against murder, instead of just trusting that the God Jesus Bible Magic laws that are apparently inscribed on all our hearts will keep us safe. Because that would be stupid. It’s viewed as wrong because the collective has agreed that it isn’t beneficial, and actually harms the group as a whole. Not because your invisible sky wizard said so. Because again, that would be stupid. So what about Butchery? Glad you asked! Butchery is “wrong” also, but for different reasons than murder. Before you go trying to bring God up again, He has nothing to do with it, so settle down. Murder is a societal issue. If Tim and Bill want to kill each other while they’re alone, thousands of miles from civilization, where the law can’t touch them, then that’s entirely their business. I realize that some of you don't like that, and you need the feel-good bedtime story of a vengeful, judicious God sitting up in heaven, balancing the scales for every deed done on this planet in order to ensure fairness. Again, your wishful thinking has no place here. Unless you’ve come to the table with some hard evidence in your favor, you can just pack up that sack of nothing you’re trying to bargain with and fuck right off. Not interested. The problem with butchery is that it shows a fundamental flaw of logic and compassion. Remember those mirror neurons we talked about? Well, for someone to derive pleasure from the suffering of someone or something else shows that they’re not functioning properly. Try to follow me here, ok? If God made Albert Fish, and John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer, etc... (If you don’t know who the are already, only click on the links if you’re prepared to read some dark shit. Seriously, some of it is horrifying) and they got sexually aroused from killing people, necrophilia, blood, severed limbs, and the like, then  why did the laws He wrote on their heart backfire? I mean, we could look at the correlation between serial killers and head injuries (the first link to come up after another one of those excruciating 45 second Google searches) or physical/psychological abuse and clearly show that these individuals are malfunctioning. That they’ve been damaged, and are no longer functioning properly. But then that would remove the need for a mystical super being to swoop in and save the day, so lets just sweep that evidence under the rug, amiright?

So when we see or hear something like this, part of our brain reacts to it on an instinctual level. We suffer when a member of our group suffers. And we can flip that switch simply by removing the other individual from our group. For example, we feel compassion for the soldier being gunned down in WW2. Unless that soldier is a Nazi. Then he’s not on our team, and it’s not so difficult to watch him get blown to bits. Same thing works with everything from different religions (crusades, jihad) political parties, and even different sports teams. We’re hardwired by evolution to support our group, and fuck the opposition. We can apply this brand of logic, and construct a working moral code for ourselves, our families, and our community. We do already. We just don’t recognize that we’re doing it. Some of us don't care enough to think about it and float through life like unthinking zombies. Some of us ponder and philosophize and read in an effort to better understand our choices, and see if we can make better ones. And then some of us just lazily plug God into every gap that comes our way and call it a day. After all, what’s the point of evidence if it doesn’t point to Jesus?   

I might add more to this, I’m not sure. For now, I hope this has been at least somewhat educational to someone. Feel free to respond to it. I will reply to any and all legitimate criticisms.

Don't bother telling me that I shouldn't swear so much, or that I'm being unnecessarily hostile, or that I'm going to alienate people with my attitude. I don’t give a shit.

Thanks for reading! ~ Apostate Paul

[noanswersingenesis]

Josephus

4. Now Abram dwelt near the oak called Ogyges: the place belongs to Canaan, not far from the city of Hebron. But being uneasy at his wife’s barrenness, he intreated God to grant that he might have male issue: and God required of him to be of good courage, and said, that he would add to all the rest of the benefits that he had bestowed upon him, ever since he led him out of Mesopotamia, the gift of children. [About An. 1950] Accordingly Sarai, at God’s command, brought to his bed one of her hand-maidens, a woman of Egyptian descent, in order to obtain children by her: and when this handmaid was with child, she triumphed, and ventured to affront Sarai; as if the dominion were to come to a son to be born of her. But when Abram resigned her into the hands of Sarai, to punish her, she contrived to fly away; as not able to bear the instances of Sarai’s severity to her; and she intreated God to have compassion on her. Now a divine Angel met her, as she was going forward in the wilderness; and bid her return to her master and mistress; for if she would submit to that wise advice, she should live better hereafter: for that the reason of her being in such a miserable case was this, that she had been ungrateful and arrogant towards her mistress. He also told her, that if she disobeyed God, and went on still in her way, she should perish; but if she would return back, she should become the mother of a son, who should reign over that country. These admonitions she obeyed, and returned to her master and mistress, and obtained forgiveness. A little while afterwards, she bare Ismael; which may be interpreted Heard of God: because God had heard his mother’s prayer. 5. The forementioned son was born to Abram when he was eighty six years old. But when he was ninety nine, God appeared to him, and promised him, that he should have a son by Sarai; and commanded that his name should be Isaac: and shewed him that from this son should spring great nations and Kings; and that they should obtain all the land of Canaan by war, from Sidon to Egypt. But he charged him, in order to keep his posterity unmixt with others, that they should be circumcised in the flesh of their foreskin; and that this should be done on the eighth day after they were born. The reason of which circumcision I will explain in another place. And Abram enquiring also concerning Ismael, whether he should live or not; God signified to him, that he should live to be very old, and should be the father of great nations. Abram therefore gave thanks to God for these blessings; and then he, and all his family, and his son Ismael were circumcised immediately; the son being that day thirteen years of age, and he ninety nine.

[noanswersingenesis]

Pascal’s Wager

“We have to accept reality and accept the reaction of the libertine when he rejects arguments he is unable to counter. The conclusion is evident: if men believe or refuse to believe, it is not how some believers sometimes say and most unbelievers claim, because their own reason justifies the position they have adopted. Belief in God doesn't depend upon rational evidence, not matter which ones.”  To be put at the beginning of Pascal's planned book, the wager was meant to show that logical reasoning cannot support faith or lack thereof,

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

These 6 points of logic were devised by the 17th-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal, and are collectively known as Pascal’s Wager. It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and should seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss, whereas they stand to receive infinite gains and avoid infinite losses if God does not exist.

Pascal cites a number of distinct areas of uncertainty in human life:

In all Existence: This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet. In Man's purpose: For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. In reason: There is nothing so conformable to reason as this disavowal of reason. In science: There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. In religion: If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others. In skepticism: It is not certain that everything is uncertain.

The Pensées passage on Pascal's Wager is as follows:

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

Pascal addressed the difficulty that 'reason' and 'rationality' pose to genuine belief by proposing that "acting as if [one] believed" could "cure [one] of unbelief":

But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.

[noanswersingenesis]

Chapter 9&10: The destruction of the Sodomites by the Assyrian War, and how Abram fought with the Assyrians, overcame them, saved the Sodomite prisoners, and the Assyrian’s prey.

At this time, when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia, the people of Sodom were in a flourishing condition; both as to riches, and the number of their youth. There were five Kings that managed the affairs of this country: Ballas, Barsas, Senabar, and Sumobor, with the King of Bela; and each King led on his own troops. And the Assyrians made war upon them, and dividing their army into four parts, fought against them. Now every part of the army had its own commander: and when the battle was joined, the Assyrians were conquerors, and imposed a tribute upon the Kings of the Sodomites, who submitted to this slavery twelve years; and so long they continued to pay their tribute: but on the thirteenth year they rebelled; and then the army of the Assyrians came upon them, under their commanders, Amraphel, Arioch, Chodorlaomor, and Tidal. These Kings had laid waste all Syria, and overthrown the offspring of the Giants. Hold up! Giants again? From where now? Didn’t God kill everything with the flood? So where did THESE giants come from? And the Bible doesn’t even bother to mention them! And when they were come over against Sodom, they pitched their camp at the vale called the Slimepits: for at that time there were pits in that place: but now, upon the destruction of the city of Sodom, that vale became the Lake Asphaltites. So when God melted the city with fire, he also turned a valley of slime pits into a Lake? Why would he do that? God loves to destroy historical evidence so that unreliable historians can just make absurd claims! it’s his second favorite hobby, right after making people move apart from each other! Now when the Sodomites joined battel with the Assyrians, and the fight was very obstinate, many of them were killed; and the rest were carried captive: among which captives was Lot, who had come to assist the Sodomites. When Abram heard of their calamity, he was at once afraid for Lot, his kinsman; and pitied the Sodomites, his friends and neighbours; and thinking it proper to afford them assistance, he did not delay it, but marched hastily; and the fifth night fell upon the Assyrians, near Dan; for that is the name of the other spring of Jordan: and before they could arm themselves he slew some as they were in their beds, before they could suspect any harm; and others, who were not yet gone to sleep, but were so drunk they could not fight, ran away. He’s like a ninja assassin here. This story is much cooler than the one from the bible.

Abram pursued after them till, on the second day, he drove them in a body unto Hoba, a place belonging to Damascus: and thereby demonstrated that victory does not depend on multitude, and the number of hands; but the alacrity and courage of soldiers overcome the most numerous bodies of men: while he got the victory over so great an army with no more than three hundred and eighteen of his servants, and three of his friends. But all those that fled returned home ingloriously. Isn’t this basically the movie 300, but in this version, they’ve decide that the 300 soldiers should be slaves of a rich guy, and they should somehow overcome multiple armies by attacking them at night?

So Abram, when he had saved the captive Sodomites, who had been taken by the Assyrians, and Lot also, his kinsman, returned home in peace. Now the King of Sodom met him at a certain place, which they called The King’s dale, where Melchisedeck, King of the city Salem, received him. That name signifies, The righteous King: and such he was without dispute; insomuch that, on this account, he was made the Priest of God. However, they afterward called Salem Jerusalem. Now this Melchisedec supplied Abram’s army in an hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance: and as they were feasting, he began to praise him, and to bless God for subduing his enemies under him. And when Abram gave him the tenth part of his prey, he accepted of the gift. But the King of Sodom desired Abram to take the prey; but intreated that he might have those men restored to him whom Abram had saved from the Assyrians, because they belonged to him. This makes it seem like the king is asking Abram to return his citizens, and the biblical account seems to suggest that they’re talking more about captured enemies. That’s how I read them anyway. Only a slight difference in the story, and it might not even be significant, but they seem different to me in the language. But Abram would not do so; nor would make any other advantage of that prey, than what his servants had eaten: but still insisted that he should afford a part to his friends that had assisted him in the battel. The first of them was called Eschol, and then Enner, and Mambre. These three friends are also not mentioned in the Bible. Again, truth with anything added or omitted becomes a lie. You can’t just exclude information like this from an account of events. 

[noanswersingenesis]

A handful of people (just a few hundred years after God supposedly drowned everyone on earth) somehow invented bricks and mortar virtually overnight, and then collectively decided to build a tower over SIX TIMES the height of the tallest building on earth TODAY, so that they could get revenge on a metaphysical being. Then this metaphysical being, who is supposed to be all seeing, took an investigatory vacation to see the big tower for himself (which makes no sense), got freaked out by the people all working together, and used a mind control spell to make all the people talk funny. Then they all moved away to separate areas because they couldn't figure out how to communicate AT ALL without being able to use the same words. They still managed to keep domesticated animals and servants though. Because God. Later, one of the proginy of these men wrote down that God ISN'T the author of confusion, because his cognitive dissonance had grown to such a vast size that it was eating itself.

[noanswersingenesis]

How Do You Know?

Doctor, I don’t feel well.

I see. Well, according to these tests that’s because you have Asthma. The bronchial tubes in your lungs are inflamed, and you’re not getting enough oxygen.

Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s just the flu.

What?

Well, I read a pamphlet on flu symptoms. I’m just going to take some Nyquil and call it good.

No, I don’t think you understand. We’ve tested your airways, and you HAVE asthma.

How can you be sure?

Well, this machine measures the amount of air flow through your lungs. We’ve checked and observed your allergic reactions to things like dust, mold, and animal dandruff to look for triggers. We can hear the blockage in your lungs with a stethoscope, and actually without it thanks to all of that wheezing.

But how do you KNOW? That machine could be faulty. How can I trust those doctors? How do I know you’re not trying to trick me? How do I even know any of this is real?

I’m sorry…. What the hell are you talking about?

You can’t tell me I have Asthma. You don’t know. You don’t even know we exist. You can’t prove anything. But if I accept what’s in the pamphlet is true, and my symptoms match, then I can be sure I have the flu. Check mate doctor.

The inevitable conclusion of arguing with theists.

[noanswersingenesis]

Legends of the Flood Jan 30, 2014

Critics claim the Bible’s account borrows from earlier myths. But it’s the other way around.

Have you ever told a story only to have it come back to you after several tellings and it has become so altered as to be almost unrecognizable? That happened to Noah and his family. No, it didn’t.

The year-long Flood was a life-changing event. When the eight survivors walked off the Ark, they carried a common account. Japheth likely told his son, Gomer, the account, Gomer passed it down to Ash-ke-naz, and he to his son. Shem and Ham probably did the same. If the details changed, Noah was still alive to correct them and the account likely remained pretty much true to fact. Likely...probably...maybe...could be... These are not the words of someone looking for factual evidence. Again Ken, you seem to have this problem where you think that whatever you imagine in your soft soft head is true just because you thought of it.   A major exhibit on the numerous Flood legends will be showcased inside our full-sized Ark at the Ark Encounter. Well, that should be enlightening.

Then came the Tower of Babel, where God scrambled the common language, forcing men to spread out across the whole earth. Genesis 10 has men speaking different languages BEFORE the story of Babel. And the details of the story wouldn’t be so throughly changed just because of language. That’s an idiotic assertion.

The Flood account went with them, but without its original biblical figures on hand to correct errors, the details changed, and changed, and changed. The Ark became a canoe, or a mountain top. The length of the Flood became just a few days in some of the stories. So what you’re saying is, without DIRECT witnesses, we can’t trust a story that’s been passed down by word of mouth and copied by hand over and over? Good. I’m glad we agree on something.    Today, over 270 cultures retain distant memories of that “life-changing event.” The details have been lost, but most of the legends share common themes: Man became corrupt; the Flood was worldwide; eight people survived; representatives of all land animals were saved; a dove was released to seek dry land; the survivors came down from a mountain to re-populate the whole world, and so on. And the mythical account that all of these MYTHS seems to have been based on is The Epic of Gilgamesh, not the bible. It’s widely understood that they’re not factual.

Critics claim the Bible’s account borrows from earlier myths. But it’s the other way around. Lol. No. You can’t claim that something borrowed from something that didn’t exist when it was written.   We know the Bible is the only true account, and thus the reason the Flood stories use names similar to the Bible’s is because they are borrowing from God’s Word. That’s why Noah-like names such as Nu-u, Nu-Wah, Noh, Nos, and Nuh are preserved in so many of the Flood legends. Ah! Begging the question! False cause! Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy! Personal incredulity! Bravo Ken. A glut of logical fallacies. Let’s ALL start with our conclusions and work backwards, ignore data unless it supports our assertions, and make up illogical reasons for things we don’t understand. Such science. Utnapishtim, Zi-ud-sura, Dwyfan and Dwyfach, and many others don’t have a similar name either Ken. Just saying.  

[noanswersingenesis]

WHAT IS A MOONPOOL? Nov. 22, 2013

Anyone interested in the topic of Noah’s Ark sooner or later will encounter the term “moonpool.” Well, somehow I made it this far without hearing it. So what is it Ken?

Although the concept has been around a long time, it wasn’t used much until recently with the arrival of drill ships designed for oil exploration. Okaaaay… so then why are we talking about it in relation to a boat from practically the beginning of civilization?

What is a moonpool? Well, picture a ship with a hole in the bottom of the hull and a wall surrounding the hole all the way up through the top deck—in the Ark’s case, the roof. Water won’t enter the ship because it’s contained inside the moonpool’s walls, moving up and down like a piston as the ship rides the waves. And I suppose you’re going to suggest Noah put one of these in the Ark?

Why may Noah have put a hole in his ship on purpose? Well, there’s no evidence to suggest that he did. But go on.

There are several sound engineering reasons. First, a hole in the bottom of a long ship, as was the Ark, would help relieve hull stress as the vessel crested a wave. So, if the ark DIDN’T have this, it would be less likely to stay in tact? Got it. So the evidence that Noah used this thing on his make-believe boat is that it strengthens your belief? Wow.

Second, the rising and falling water within the moonpool could be used to draw in fresh air and also extract stale air. Third, recent research has shown that moonpools induce resistance to movement. For Noah’s ship, this may have dampened wave motion, making the voyage more tolerable for man and beast. So again... We’re just using our imagination, and pretending that’s evidence? I like that you’re using “recent research” as a reason for why someone might have done something thousands of years ago. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

Did Noah include a moonpool into the Ark’s design? We can’t be certain, but if the Ark is ever found (doubtful), it will tell us much about man’s engineering ability before the Flood and God’s provision for Noah, his family, and the animals. I’m amazed that the only thing you managed to get right AGAIN is that the ark will probably never be found. Because there isn’t one to find. 

Until then, you will be able to see a moonpool in action at the future Ark Encounter, south of Cincinnati. So you put one in your fake boat to show how the “real one” might have worked, based on nothing but your imagination?  Help us build a full-scale Noah’s Ark! AiG’s part in the Ark Encounter project is raising $24.5 million in donations for an all-wood Ark, the centerpiece and first phase of the whole multi-attraction complex! A finished Ark will be a great testimony to the historicity of the Bible and will proclaim the gospel. No, it just shows that you can waste millions of dollars building a giant replica of something that never existed, while ignoring people around the world that could use that money to... like... survive. To not die. But you’re gonna use it on a big fake boat. And ask me to help you. You really are a dense motherfucker. 

[noanswersingenesis]

Noah’s Laundromat? - April 25, 2013, Answers In Genesis

It’s likely that Noah planned ahead to include some kind of large washing machine inside the Ark. Is it? Tell me more! This should be good…

In a zoo—mucking out stalls, hauling bales of hay, and carrying feed sacks—you know how quickly you begin to acquire that certain … ahem … earthy aroma. It doesn’t take long for even the freshest clothes to become soiled and smelly. This much is true. Do go on!

Well, Noah and his family worked on a gigantic floating zoo with all the animals to tend to every single day for over a year. By the end of Noah’s work day, imagine how he might have been drenched in sweat and covered with stale hay, and everything else that hard zoo-keeping work entails. Yet when you see some pictures of the Ark and read the associated stories, Noah always seems to be wearing the same fresh wardrobe day after day after day.
 You do realize that those are artistic renderings and not photographs, right?
 Something about this picture doesn’t ring true. Guess not.

Did he, his wife, Shem, Japheth, and Ham, and their wives, each own a couple hundred outfits? Probably not! Isn’t it more likely that Noah planned ahead to include some kind of large washing machine someplace inside the Ark?
 Ummm…. I’m gonna go with no. But I can’t wait to hear your rational for why it makes sense! Lay it on me! 
 Puzzled? These eight people were not many generations removed from God’s “very good” original creation and the genius of the first people (and they lived 800 years or more). Could they not have built a simple but large washing machine? And if they had, what might it have looked like? Here you can indulge your own imagination a little because the Ark will probably never be found for explorers to probe its cavernous interior. You know, because it never existed. That’s why it will probably never be found. I get the feeling i’m being patronized by a christianized Barney the freaking purple dinosaur. “Isn’t using our imaginations fun kids?!?”    

We’re imagining if that industrial grade washing machine is found, it will be right next to—yes—an industrial grade bathtub! These are some of the questions we are exploring as AiG designs exhibits inside a full-size Noah’s Ark in northern Kentucky. There is no facepalm large enough… I’m actually embarrassed for you at this point. I just want to pat your soft soft head and give you a cookie.  

[noanswersingenesis]

The Purpose of the Flood by Simon Turpin on November 21, 2016

Earlier this year I attended a debate between a biblical creationist and a humanist; during the Q&A time, an atheist posed the question: “If God is good, how could He be so capricious as to wipe out all those innocent people in the Flood.” This is not an uncommon objection raised by people who do not believe in the God of the Bible. However, this objection does not take time to consider the biblical context of the Flood, or to think about one’s own presuppositions.  Actually, it does. As usual, the believer has adopted the position that anyone who disagrees with their belief simply doesn’t understand it. The fact that there’s not immediate blind acceptance to their asserted position is apparently evidence of deliberate cognitive dissonance. I, for one, have read the entire bible multiple times. I AM taking the story in context. And by the way, who exactly decided that their method of interpretation is best? Did humanity have a meeting where we unanimously agreed that reading everything in a broader context was more beneficial? Can you demonstrate how reading the bible in your preferred fashion is demonstrably MORE helpful in discerning truth from falsehood? Because I can assure you that ALL belief systems utilize this same method of what I call “selective readings” with their holy texts and dogmas. It is actually possible to prove ANY position you’d like if you read scriptures in this way. That fact alone should make it obvious that it isn’t beneficial.      

For example, atheists have no basis with which to question the character of God, given that they have no objective moral foundation on which to do so. Morality for an atheist is just a matter of opinion. Actually, morality for ALL people is just a matter of opinion. I defy you to prove otherwise. The difference here is that some of us are honest about it, while others prefer to be mollycoddled by comforting falsehoods. The moral framework within the scriptures (which you profess to believe are infallible) changes multiple times.  

It is also important to remember that, when atheists read the text of Scripture, they do not believe that God exists or that He reveals Himself to people. The people in the biblical narrative then are judged by the atheists as if God has not revealed Himself. Incorrect. It’s a simple concept called suspension of disbelief. You practice it every time you watch a film, or read a novel. You know these things aren’t LITERALLY occurring. There’s no actual danger to the ship’s crew in Jaws. No one is actually getting sliced up by Freddy Kruger. Nothing bad will happen to us if Frodo fails to destroy the ring of power. But we place ourselves within the story, and subject our imagination to the laws of the universe that is presented to us. So atheists can, and often do, approch the scripture from within the confines of the boundaries laid out in them. Unfortunately for the believer, the scriptures STILL don’t hold up to skeptical inquiry under these conditions. I realize that it’s EASIER for Mr. Turpin, and those like him, to believe that this is the case. It flies in the face of actual evidence, but that’s never stopped them believing anything before, so why start now?  

Ultimately, atheists are not critiquing what the Bible says, but rather they are critiquing a misrepresentation of the biblical event. No, we’re critiquing what the bible ACTUALLY says. The mere fact that you’re asserting otherwise doesn’t make it so. Funny how those “misrepresentations of biblical events” are never properly explained. By anyone. Even here, you have the floor to set the record straight, but you fall back on the age old theistic tactic of broad generalisations supported by exactly ZERO hard evidence. In fact, one could argue that your reading is one of MANY differing theistic versions. And wouldn’t it then follow that these are the real misrepresentations here? That would explain all of the various factions and denominations, would it not? The only way  guarantee a reading that isn’t a misrepresentation would be to read the text literally, exactly as it’s written, with nothing added or removed. You know, like atheists generally do. Regardless, all you’re actually doing here is mischaracterizing someone else’s beliefs based on your opinions. How about you stick to characterising YOUR position, and let others speak for themselves, ok?

As Christians we need to consider the account of the Flood (and other judgement passages) in light of what the Bible states about God and humanity: Again, this isn’t even remotely scientific. You’re filtering your data through a slew of preconceptions and a system of dogma that has been prematurely accepted as infallible. The only results you could possibly get from this are skewed in your favor.  

* God is the sovereign Creator and therefore has the right to do what He pleases (Psalm 135:6). * God is holy, just, righteous, gracious, merciful, compassionate, and loving (Isaiah 6:3; Genesis 18:25; Exodus 34:6–7; John 3:16). * God created a very good world (Genesis 1:31). * The world we now live in is a fallen, sin-cursed world (Genesis 3). * There are no truly good people (i.e., good by God’s standard) since we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:9–18, 23). * We do not deserve God’s mercy; we deserve God’s justice and wrath (Psalm 103:10, 130:3; Romans 6:23). All of these supposed points come from the bible. That’s it. So you’re using the word of God to prove these things about God. And how do we know it’s the word of God? Well, it says so. So there you have it. We’re using God’s words in the bible to prove that the bible can be trusted as a source to tell us about the validity of God’s words in the bible. Seems legit. Unless you’ve heard of something called circular reasoning. Then it might be a problem.  

The Reason for the Flood

In Genesis 6 God gives the reason for His judgement of the world in the days of Noah: Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . . The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. (Genesis 6:5, 11–12) The judgement at the time of the Flood was not a result of God’s supposed capriciousness; rather He had several reasons for His judgement: 1. The wickedness of man. 2. Every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually. 3. The earth was corrupt. 4. The earth was filled with violence. 5. All flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Despite man’s wickedness, God showed Himself to be gracious in that He patiently waited, presumably for people to repent, while the Ark was being prepared (1 Peter 3:20). Unfortunately, despite the testimony of Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5, Hebrews 11:7), the people went about their daily affairs, unconcerned and unsuspecting of the Flood that came and destroyed them (Matthew 24:39). You keep missing the forest for the trees here. You’re focused on the individual tenants of God’s “judgment” and missing the broader question: Is mass genocide through global flooding the BEST plan God can come up with? Can YOU think of a better plan than that? I’m sure you can. I’m sure ANYONE could. Besides this, all of the reasons you listed come from the supposed account of the perpetrator of this mass genocide. That’s like walking onto the scene of a mass murder and taking the word of the admitted murderer as absolute fact. That’s crazy.    

The Coming Judgement

We need to remember that just as God judged the whole world in the days of Noah, He has also promised to do so again (Matthew 24:37–39, 25:31–32; 2 Peter 3:3–7). The good news is that, just as God provided a means of salvation (the Ark) in the days of Noah, He has provided a means of salvation from the future judgement through the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, 17:30–31; Romans 10:9). God was patient in the days of Noah, and He is patient today. The fact that Jesus has not already returned means salvation is still available to people (2 Corinthians. 6:2; 2 Peter 3:15), which should be a reminder to us as Christians to make the most of every opportunity to witness about our Savior.God has promised a lot of things that haven’t come to pass. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the majority of the promises made by the biblical God are not fulfilled. There is no evidence of a “second coming” and almost as little for the first one! You’re working within the bible to prove the bible with the bible. Try stepping OUTSIDE the bible and looking at these assertions with a skeptical eye. They simply don’t hold up.  

[noanswersingenesis]

Apologpathetics

Greetings heathens! This is Apostate Paul from Godcast. As part of an effort to combat theistic bullshit and dime-store apologetics, I have set up this companion blog to Steve Jehovah's Newer Testament. I will be using it to post responses to theistic arguments. Articles, books, films, YouTube videos, etc... If you see something you want addressed, commented on, or burnt to the fucking ground send it to [email protected], or post it on our Facebook page at Godcast: The Newer Testement. I'll be posting some stuff from Answers In Genesis here shortly. Steve bless all of you!