#FreeAmosYee

So, I might be a bit late jumping on the wagon here, but let's take a look at some interesting things.  Let me first prop one of my favorite youtubers, Logicked.


Give it a watch, it's well worth your time.  Logicked is one of my favorite youtubers.  Watch the video, seriously.

Free speech should never be impeded.  Whether I agree with him or not is not the issue.  He should not be imprisoned for his words.  Speak in defense of free speech, and speak in defense of Amos Yee!

Response to Secular Sunday School, Part 2

As Jonathan is rather in a hurry for me to mop up the supposed questions he has posed on his blog, and would like to ignore my counterpoints, I shall waste no time further in heeding his request.

@acce245 You have offered no evidence for your rebuttals, so there's nothing to rebut. Historians have evidence. Mythicists have analogies

— Jonathan Tweet (@JonathanMTweet) May 30, 2016

Jonathan is absolute in his conviction that he has provided definite evidence that the claims of the biblical Jesus are true.  Let's take a look at his site.  I'm going to quote long bits of text here as it's appropriate, so be aware that all quotes in this article (indented paragraphs) are his work, which I'm quoting.  Hopefully these answers will suffice, and he shall give me a few days respite before ignoring what I've typed and claiming I've not written (two articles, now, actually) discussing the points on his blog.

To maintain continuity, text from the same page will be identified with the same color.  New Testament Plot Fixes will be red, for example.

 Let's start by taking a look at his New Testament Plot Fixes page.  What sort of evidence can we find in the following paragraph?

We modern people are sophisticated consumers of media. In our commercially oriented lives, we have heard more sales pitches than people in any other time or place in history. We hear and evaluate propaganda from our political and societal leaders. We are better educated, savvier, and harder to fool than ever. Today we find it easy to read between the lines and guess at an author’s motives. The Christian gospels were written for a less sophisticated audience, so it’s easy for us to see through them.

How very interesting.  Not terribly sophisticated.  We get it.  So, about that evidence?

The gospels were written generations after Jesus’ ministry, and all four of them plus Paul’s letters include “elaborations”.

So basically, what you're saying is, it's probably a fictional tale recorded some time after the originator of the tale created it?  That's some odd evidence to post against your own conviction that Jesus was literally a real person.  Remember this line, from your Am I a Fake Atheist page?

For example, saying that there’s no evidence for a historical Jesus is a flat-out error.

Let me get this straight.  A bunch of guys, decades after the supposed events, made up stuff about a person (I'm glad you put "elaborations" in quotation marks so we know you meant "lies" or "fabrications"), but you're claiming the person in question literally existed and did the things attributed to him?

Well, that matters not.  Let's go back to the paragraph at hand.

With our modern eye for shams, we can see the authors struggling to make the historical elements fit their mythic Christ figure.

So wait, is he a mythical figure, or was he literally the person described, since saying he's mythical in any sense is a flat-out error?

In particular, many parts of the New Testament read like answers to skeptical questions that 1st-century Christians may have heard from their dubious neighbors.

Hey, this sounds familiar.  Some guy compiles answers to questions he's heard people present to him, skeptical of his claim.  Oh, you're borrowing their gambit!  I get it now, it's a self-referential thing.

Here is a list of hypothetical skeptical questions and the Bible verses that look like early Christian responses to them. 

Oh good, you are are able to answer questions directly.  Now, about my last blog post, will you answer those questions as well, or am I just having a monologue here?

Scriptural Sources

Responses to each question are in chronological order, as found in the following works.

  Q, a lost compilation of Jesus’ sayings, written by c 50

  Paul’s letters about theology and conduct, written c 60

  Mark’s gospel, about how Jesus had secretly been the Messiah, written c 70

  Matthew’s gospel, which is Mark + Q + extras, edited for a Jewish audience, written c 80

  Luke’s gospel, which is Mark + Q + extras, edited for a gentile audience, written c 90

  John’s gospel, a bold retelling with an all-divine, not-at-all-secret Jesus, written c 100

Neat.  So, to point this out early, literally the only sources you've given here are from within the bible.  Even then, you're not addressing the points, you're simply engaging in revisionist history.  Let's take a look at a few of these 'questions.' For the sake of not taking up too much time, I'm going to leave his bible responses aside, and actually answer these SkepticalQuestions he's put forth, one at a time.

Skeptical Question: If Jesus was the Son of David, why was he from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem? 

He wasn't.  He didn't exist.  This is too easy.

Alright, a serious answer.  You've provided no evidence that Jesus existed. Saying that 'the bible says Jesus was real' is exactly the same thing as saying that 'Spider Man is real because Marvel says so." Lots of fans of comics will ask why there are inconsistencies within the stories.  For example, Spider-Man has two different origin stories. One involves him being bitten by a spider, and one a bit more recently (though shorter than the span of time between when Jesus supposedly walked and when he was written about) wherein his powers are merely technology.  The question you're asking is no different than asking "If Spiderman was bitten by a spider, why does he need high tech stuff to make web?"

It's because they're two different versions of the same fictional character.  Even if Peter Parker's personality, mannerisms, physicality and so on were based on a real person, it doesn't make Spider Man a real person.  Without evidence that comes from another source, you cannot make any assertions about the validity of the historicity of the person in question.  This is called a Fallacy of False Premise, and it's a fundamental error in logic.  You're assuming that, because a story was written about someone, that story must be true.  It's exactly like saying that Harry Potter was, without question, a real person, because he appears in a book.

However, your main concern was that I answer your questions.  I shall not tarry here further.

@acce245 When you promote the fringe idea of Jesus mythicism, it makes us atheists look misinformed and biased. Maybe stop, please?

— Jonathan Tweet (@JonathanMTweet) May 30, 2016

I needed to include this here.  You do not speak for all atheists.  I do not speak for all atheists. 'Us atheists' isn't a group that exists.  The only thing Atheists share in common is that we do not believe in a god.  Period.  It's that simple.  Some think that Jesus was a literal real person, as you claim, and some like me are on the opposite side, and believe the entire bible is fiction with regard to its supernatural claims and so on.

@acce245 Are you really saying that you're not familiar w evidence that historians cite when they say the Gospels based on real guy? Really?

— Jonathan Tweet (@JonathanMTweet) May 28, 2016

It doesn't matter what evidence I'm familiar with. It matters only if you can provide it, as you are making the positive claim.

 SQ: If angels or wise men came to herald Jesus’ birth, why didn’t Jesus’ neighbors know he was special?

Because it didn't happen.  Again, you need that evidence you keep harping on about so.  If you can provide it, I will be required to change my opinion.  In the mean time, again, you've only given us a story that was written only by people who definitely were not there.  A fictional account of a fictional person, it would seem.  Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, it only takes a few clicks to provide it.

SQ: John the Baptist preached about a great apocalyptic figure to come, but he never named Jesus as that figure. Why didn’t John recognize him?

Well, for one, even within the bible, the apocalypse and second coming haven't happened yet.  Second, he wrote that story, one hundred years later, or so, according to your own numbers.  Can you honestly not see how you are being revisionist in exactly the same way you claim they were?  If John could make stuff up to fit his own narrative, and you're pointing out that he did, then why should I presume you aren't doing exactly the same thing?  Then again, when you get us that evidence, maybe we'll change our minds.  With that in mind, another tweet.

@acce245 People without evidence love analogies. You have no evidence that Epic of Gilgamesh and Gospel of Mark were written the same way.

— Jonathan Tweet (@JonathanMTweet) May 27, 2016

You're absolutely right, I don't have evidence, because I don't need evidence for a negative claim.  I don't need evidence in exactly the same way that I don't need it to claim that Uncle Sam, the Krampus, Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins, nor Bugs Bunny are real.  There is absolutely no evidence that any of these are historical characters, and that's why it's a negative claim.  If someone found the grave of Bugs Bunny tomorrow, and found the cartoon corpse of an anthropomorphic bunny, then my claim would become a positive one.  Unless it was the corpse of Roger Rabbit, of course.

SQ: If the Holy Spirit came to Jesus the instant he was baptized, why didn’t John recognize him then?

Again, by your own admission, the stories were decades old before these authors recorded them.  This is because they likely never happened.  Sure, it's entirely possible that baptisms were common, but that's not the question here.  The question here is specifically why John didn't recognize the Holy Spirit.  It's because the holy spirit was never there.  We don't need to analyze four old pieces of paper, because they're all retelling the same fictional story.

This is exactly like Cinderella.  Cinderella was an oral tradition for hundreds of years, and as a result, it's told in many different ways.  It's fundamentally about Cinderella, but it doesn't mean that Cinderella was an actual real person who received a visit from a fairy godmother, got magical shoes, or even ever went dancing.  The sole purpose of the story of Cinderella is to instill certain virtues within children via memetic device.  The Cinderella story isn't told over and over again because it was about a real person, it's told over and over again to drive home the morals held within.  Similarly, unless you can prove otherwise, it's exactly the same kind of claim as the one concerning Jesus.  So far, you've only demonstrated flaws in the story, but you claim to have some evidence.  With that in mind, let's keep moving right along.

SQ: But why did Jesus get baptized anyway? If he was the perfect Son of God, then why did he need baptism for the remission of sins? Was he a follower of John’s? 

When you've got a fictional story, rewriting it isn't hard. See Cinderella again.

SQ: If Jesus was the Son of God, why didn’t he tell people? 

I don't think anyone who has ever read the bible would ask this question.  Also, where's that evidence he existed at?

SQ: Jesus said that we in this generation wouldn’t get a sign, but if he had given people signs, wouldn’t more people have believed and get saved? Wouldn’t mighty signs have brought more people to your church? 

 That's a pretty good question.  I suppose it's probably for the same reason that Google Maps has never accidentally gotten a picture of the actual Bat Symbol, though Bruce Wayne should easily be able to send one up if he were real.

SQ: What did Jesus mean when he said that the hungry were the ones with God’s blessing? Going without food is a curse, not a blessing. And how can the poor be blessed? Wealth is a blessing, not poverty. Was he crazy, like his family thought?

Another good question, but what does it have to do with proving a god exists, or a mythical Jesus figure?

SQ: I talked with some other disciples, and they never said anything about Moses and Elijah showing up to give Jesus their endorsement.  

What do these questions have to do with proving Jesus existed?  Absolutely nothing!  So naturally, let's keep talking about superfluous nonsense.

SQ: While Jesus was alive, even Peter, James, and John didn’t say anything about Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah. 

Oral traditions of fictional accounts are a pain, aren't they?  What's it got to do with Jesus being real again?  Are you saying people couldn't possibly have made up a story?

SQ: If Jesus was the anointed king of the Jews and their savior, why did they reject him? If the Jews didn’t accept him, why should gentiles?  

If I claimed to be the son of god right now, do you think people would take me very seriously?  Even if I were?  Let's list a few example of people who claimed to be divine:

• Jim Jones
• Arnold Potter
• Charles Manson
• Krishna Venta
• David Koresh
• John Smith
• Kim Jong Il
• Every King and Queen of England

All of these people claimed to be god, or god appointed, and had people who believed they were god.  Do you accept their claim equally with that of your supposed historical Jesus or not?  If not, why not?  Is it because you'd like to have some outside evidence other than them simply saying it's true?  Is it something else?

 SQ: If Jesus was God’s Son and everything, why were the Romans able to nail him up on a cross like a runaway slave? 

Again, another wonderful question founded on a false premise.  There's no evidence it ever happened.

 SQ: If Jesus taught the disciples that he was going to die and then rise from the dead, why were they surprised when he was killed and when he rose from the dead? 

If I said exactly the same thing, right now, would it surprise you if it happened later?  These questions are utterly weak.

 SQ: If the crucifixion was all in God’s plan, why did Jesus cry out in despair as he was dying on the cross?

Because God is a Sadist.

SQ: So if the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified, does that mean Jesus was an enemy of Rome? 

You mean, if I claimed to be god, and declared that I should rule over America (Or the entire world)< do you think the response would be different?  It wasn't terribly different at Jonestown, after all.

 SQ: Bodies of crucified criminals are thrown to the dogs. How was there a tomb for Mary Magdalene to visit? 

Again, what has this got to do with proving Jesus existed?  You claimed these were questions for "Mythicists" but really, these sound much more like questions believers argue over in seminary.

SQ: You say Jesus supposedly “appeared” to a couple followers after his death. So what? Sometimes people see things. 

Good point.  Someone could have just made up a story or something.

SQ: Now that Jesus is dead, you Christians are claiming that he taught stuff that no one has heard before.

Apparently you're not even reading your own questions.  Jesus isn't actually dead, he rose from the dead and came back to life, in canon.  Then he ascended to heaven among the clouds.

SQ: Jesus never said that the disciples had any of his authority or set any of them up as a leader.

Good for him.  What does this have to do with whether or not he was a real person?  I mean, Superman once said that being a racist is anti-American.  Does that mean Superman was real?

“@ZaidJilani: Vintage Superman anti-racist poster pic.twitter.com/SM02JIoNSY” @MuslimARC

— Haroon Manjlai (@hmanjlai) March 22, 2015

SQ: Jesus never baptized anyone. Why are you Christians baptizing people? That was John the Baptist’s thing.

Another excellent point which has no bearing on whether or not the story is real.

SQ: I get having a meal in Jesus’ honor, but where does all this sacrificial blood imagery come from? 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but can you guess what I say next? What has this got to do with whether or not Jesus is real? Are you saying people can't form religions around things that aren't real?  Platonic Solids must exist because Plato existed?

SQ: When Jesus was alive, his sect was strictly Jewish. Now that he’s not around running things, gentiles are joining his sect, and they don’t have to convert to Judaism any more. 

This question is terrible for many reasons, not the least of which is that it has absolutely nothing to do with showing evidence of Jesus having existed.

I realize this has stretched on quite long enough, so I'm going to continue this in Part 3, where I'll deal with the page entitled Historical Jesus beats Mythical Jesus.  This may in fact have been the set of questions he'd liked me to have dealt with, but the link he originally sent me linked to the one I've just torn apart today.  However, I'll close by responding to this bit one more time, for clarity sake.  Also, since Jonathan likes repeating that I haven't answered him all the time, I'll be doubly sure to answer every single quandary he could possibly posit via that page.

Today I was the guest speaker at Sunday Assembly Seattle. Sunday Assembly is a secular “church,” a celebration of life with singing and community. They asked me to talk on the topic of why atheists can act like jerks sometimes, based on my September 28th blog post. 

Repeatedly telling people they haven't answered your question, and being impatient.  Do those sound like things you've been working on, at all?  Do you not consider it kinda jerky to shrug off opinions you're not comfortable with in leiu of actually addressing rebuttals to your preconceived notions? Is it just me?  Odd.

Also, you're acting as though you speak for all atheists, when clearly you do not.  You do not speak for the general population of atheists any more than I do.  Begging the question (a fallacy no less) that atheists are just seen as jerks is a two-part problem.  The first problem is that it implies that belief in a deity is what makes a person not act like a jerk; the second is that most people in general, atheists included, are not jerks.  There's a third, more subtle point here, in that being offended is partially on the end of the recipient, and not necessarily at all on the part of the giver.  If I've offended you, it doesn't mean I've been offensive, merely that you've been offended.  Same thing with theism.  If a person believes in god, or that a mythical character is real, and someone tells them it's probably not the case, that doesn't make the person questioning the belief a jerk, nor offensive.  Perhaps some people are merely too easy to offend.

Today I’m addressing the topic in a less confrontational way and suggesting that atheists ought to achieve greater degrees of self-awareness, niceness, and humility. 

Again, atheism isn't a religion.  It's simply a lack of belief in a god.  That's it. Buddhists are atheist, as are a great many religious folk.  Followers of Astrology, for example, can very easily be atheist.  Most deists are, in fact, theist, because deism doesn't presuppose a god.  Similarly, you're begging the question again that somehow, being a theist fundamentally makes a person more self-aware, nice and humble, by virtue of the corollary: the absence of theism makes people less self-aware, nice and humble (through some unexplained mechanism).

I don't really care if you respond to my rebuttals, but I'm far from done.  I have tried to be nice and take everything in due time, but you've forced me to be perhaps less charitable to your arguments than perhaps I would have been.

Also, blindly repeating "You've not answered my questions" isn't an argument.

See you all next time.

Response to Secular Sunday School

I did this video yesterday, in response to the twitter comments mentioned.  I haven't yet directly addressed the questions posted by the author, because I need first to break down the premises given.  It would be folly for me to simply jump right in and start dissecting the arguments which are based, it seems, on a few key fallacies, a couple of which are kinda subtle.

Let me today go one step further than the video, and create a list of simple responses, of which I will cover much more greatly in future videos.  Again, if you're interested in listening to me break down these kinds of arguments, by all means subscribe to my channel. It's the simplest way to keep up with what I'm doing.

I will direct your attention now to this page, but do be warned, the blog does have some apparent scripting issues which may bog down your browser (although probably not intentionally).  I'm simply going to go casually through here and hit a few main points, in no particular order.
Be warned, the site loads funny for me, and it might do for you also.

We are better educated, savvier, and harder to fool than ever. Today we find it easy to read between the lines and guess at an author’s motives. The Christian gospels were written for a less sophisticated audience, so it’s easy for us to see through them. The gospels were written generations after Jesus’ ministry, and all four of them plus Paul’s letters include “elaborations”. With our modern eye for shams, we can see the authors struggling to make the historical elements fit their mythic Christ figure.  

"New Testament Plot Fixes" 

 Here we have, one should think, the basic crux of the entire argument.  One could be forgiven for thinking that "this is a website with the aim of promoting evolution and agnostic atheism!"  Indeed, I might have thought such a thing myself, were it not for a line from another page, as referenced in the video above:

Online and at atheist gatherings, I’m likely to challenge atheists when their criticisms of religion are unfair. For example, saying that there’s no evidence for a historical Jesus is a flat-out error.

"Am I a Fake Atheist?"

It would seem that these two ideas are at odds with one another, and I should imagine that they are.  There's a special sort of cognitive dissonance at work here.  As Jonathan is quick to point out,

We atheists pride ourselves on being evidence-driven. 

"Am I a Fake Atheist?"

However, if we turn our attention to this section, we can clearly see the contrast.  Evidence isn't necessary when there's a preconceived notion to introduce bias:

 [In response to the anecdotes he gives to how the bible explains various things] 

All these cover stories point back to a historical Jesus.

"New Testament Plot Fixes" 

Just to retain the context and address one last point, I present to you this, in the same context as the last.

If there hadn’t been a historical Jesus doing things like getting baptized, the reasoning goes, then there would be no need for these layers of justification.

"New Testament Plot Fixes" 

This is clearly a fallacy of false dichotomy, as well as false cause.  It's a false dichotomy/false cause fallacy for two reasons:

1. The author would have us believe that, since there are stories about Jesus, Jesus must've existed.
1. The author neglects to address many simple, and many more complex, reasons why these stories might exist.  Such examples are as follow:
1. Why is the false premise engaged that anything for which there are stories must be true?
1. Does the author also presuppose that Uncle Sam was a real person, because there are stories about him?
2. What about Heracles, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and so on?
1. Would the author really have us believe that the only reason there can be such complex stories about these individuals is the fact that the individuals existed?
2. The second false premise engaged is that the stories must fundamentally be true because they exist.
1. By that logic, Bilbo and Gandalf exist because they have extravagant backstories.
2. Similarly, Santa Clause, the Krampus, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Bigfoot, Brownie Monsters, the Loch Ness Monster, Peter Cottontail, the Cadbury Bunny, and Nigel Tufnel also meet these criteria.
3. The author presumes, falsely, that the only reason a story needs layers of justification is if it is true.
1. This point is the simplest to address, and I like it least.
2. Lies.  This describes lies.
1. I don't need to justify gravity when I can simply demonstrate gravity.
2. In the same way, I don't need to justify the Bible if I could simply show it was historically accurate.
3. Einstein dropped his cosmological constant from his equation that describes relativity, for exactly this reason.
1. It required too much justification and didn't appear to actually exist.

I'm not going to go any further today, except to posit this:

Since the story of Odysseus is so long and drawn out, and has so many justifications for the actions within it, does the author accept that Odysseus was a historical figure on par with any other?  Or would the author like a bit more evidence that he actually lived, let alone blinded a cyclops?

In fact, let me walk through this in a piecework, backward fashion.  Imagine that tomorrow, I decide to claim that Romeo Montague was a real historical figure.  I mean, we know that he has a particular sort of past, and he did things that might need many layers of justification.  We also know that Shakespeare probably wrote about him after reading about someone else writing about him (although we unfairly called it 'plagiarism' by comparison).  Would the author accept, therefore, that Romeo must certainly have been based explicitly on some actual figure, who lived perhaps a few decades before Shakespeare actually wrote about him?  Or would Jonathan require a bit more evidence of this supposed 'historical figure?'  If I were to claim that it's an outright lie to say that Romeo was not a real person, would Jonathan accept this explanation and contrarian justification?

I should think that Jonathan would be a bit more skeptical.  Especially considering that he seems to have a very solid grasp of evolution in general, and the general (though far from specific, and sometimes quite off-the-mark) ideas about atheism, to which he simultaneous claims to be party:

All these factors give me hope, and I’ll keep expecting reasonableness from my fellow atheists.

"Am I a Fake Atheist?"

and yet somehow claims he can be removed from by people who aren't like him, in literally the next sentence:

At least until they take my atheist card away and kick me out of the tribe for real.   

"Am I a Fake Atheist?"

With that in mind, my final parting thought is this: if you're actually an atheist (and I am actually a card-carrying one, though that's only in America, mind: It's not actually a religion, but it is here for equal protection purposes), how exactly would you posit that other (but somehow different?) atheists would not let you be one?

Perhaps Jonathan is merely misguided in this respect, or perhaps he's swinging hard from the Atheism+ stuff that others have done recently, but I don't think either of those is the case.  Also, a last word from Penn Jillette, so we don't keep making the Atheism=Agnostic mistake:

This has been Rev. J.R.

Signing off.

Life, updates, and a rebuttal!

Life has been keeping me rather busy the past few weeks, especially now that I've started making Youtube videos.

I think I'm getting better at editing and stuff.  These rebuttals I do are tedious sometimes, but they're also quite a lot of fun.  It's really rewarding to see something neat come together, when you've made it yourself.

If there's anything you'd like to see me do a teardown, rebuttal, response, or whatever to, let me know in the comments!

I've also noticed that I'm getting a surprisingly consistent 21 hits per day here, and I wonder if it's bots.  If you're actually checking my blog every day, please let me know, and I'll try to write more often!  I also notice a significant spike in views when I do post something here, so it could just be various feed aggregate systems creating those hits.  I don't want to leave you all hanging for a week at a time if you want to read my words more often than that!

I may come back to doing the rebuttals and such here, but I rather like the format I can lay out on a video.

For now, let's pick up with a rebuttal in text form!

Today, I'll be addressing the same audio clip as this blog.  The Pink Blog basically just quoted highlights of it, so now I'll have the fun task of listening to it also, and providing rebuttal to the stuff that will surely melt my eardrums.  All the quotes are words from her.

So, in our nation, one of the things that, you know, I think we pray for, is that some of this craziness would settle down.  

You know, I agree with the sentiment of that statement.  I think religious fundamentalists need to settle down and address actual problems, but I have a feeling that wouldn't get them airtime on this sort of radio station.

[the previous quote] and our defiance of god would, um, that we would be deeply repentant, and humbled

Well, what of it?

so that our nation, which seems to be shaking it's fist in god's face

Just because you don't like what's going on, doesn't mean it's wrong.  Appeal to nature / appeal to god fallacy

and seems to be telling him to get out of our politics, get out of our schools, out of our businesses, get out of the marketplace, get off the streets,

If it were any other god, you'd be doing exactly the same thing.  You don't care about religious freedom, Anne.  You only care about forcing your beliefs on other people.

you know, just, uh, it's just stunning to me,

Given your inability to form decent sentences on the fly, I'm gonna let that stand.  I believe lots of things are just stunning to you.

the way we are, uh, basically abandoning god as a culture and as a nation.

No, Anne.  We're telling you that we think your god isn't real.  Until such a time as you provide reasonable evidence to the contrary, we will continue to think it so.

 Because when we do that then we're abandoning god.  The bible says god abandons us and he backs away and takes his [unintelligible] blessing, um, his hand of protection away from us, um, and he abandons us.  \

Well, which one is it this?  Are we abandoning god, or is he abandoning us?  It can't go both ways.  My cat can't abandon me if I kick it outside for the night, and I can't abandon my cat if it runs away from home.

So the hope is that when we cry out to him, in deep repentance and humility and asking him just saying god, "we're sorry," you know we're asking you to come back, would you return to us, would you once again bless us?

This run-on sentence is the worst so far.  Learn to think for a few seconds, lady.  Seriously though, he's god.  We can follow him until the cows come home, and he can still just send everyone to hell for the lulz.  You have a fallacy from ignorance, in that you can't understand that the god you describe could LITERALLY do anything, including lie to you about all this.

Also, you've not shown such a god exists, so the point is moot. However, I like to speak in context, so I'm not debunking god here, only the argument being made on this one's behalf.

Then I think there will be peace in, peace on our streets, and there would be, um, better leadership and caring about what's best for the nation.

I warned you, this was gonna be audio detritus.   That's right, if YHWH existed, he certainly would've stopped the flood of Noah when the people cried out as they were drowning.

People: We repent, please don't kill us in the flood!

God: LOL ok let's make sure it's peaceful.

People: God, we're drowning!

God: LOL it's gonna be peaceful for the next 40 days.

Yet some people still believe the god of the bible is going to forgive anyone, if he's real (spoiler alert: he does not appear to be.)

I've had enough of this audio.  I don't need to hear the rest.  This stuff is tripe, and I'm done with it.

Tune in later for more neat things!  Also check out my youtube channel, video at the top, and subscribe if you like my style!

YOUTUBE AND YOU

If you're not aware, I've started putting my creativity to use on Youtube.

Here's a recent video I made.

Come join me there as I have a lot of fun.  I've not been doing as much blogging because I'm really enjoying making videos.  I do hope to start writing again, but for now please stay tuned to my Youtube channel for more of the same kinds of things I was doing here.

Let me know what you think!

Rebuttals and Update!

Just an update, it's been a while since I've written anything here.

I'm going to finish the rebuttals on my youtube channel.  Please feel free to join me there.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn2ru16PLF0mpL-G3DPWWbQ/featured

If you enjoy reading my words here, fret not!  I will return with more interesting things later.

I've merely found that I really enjoy making youtube videos.

I look forward to seeing you there!

125 Rebuttals, 26 to 30

This is a post in a series of responses to this forum post.

Let's dive right back into it.

26: The Proof of Astounding New Complex Genes

The basic premise of this argument can be found in the first part of point four, which reads as such:

4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers

 The author then extrapolates in point five, as follows:

5. The level of coordination of such genetic complexity is almost beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.

Importantly, the operative word here is 'almost.' It's not beyond our comprehension, otherwise the previous three points which preceded it would not be there.  Literally, if we couldn't understand it, we certainly couldn't write about it.

If you don't believe me, just try this simple experiment for yourself.  Take a piece of paper, and perhaps a pencil.  Start writing about something that's literally incomprehensible.  Not merely something which astounds you, but that you literally cannot comprehend.  It's quite impossible to think of something you can't think of, now isn't it?

6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.

 This is such a waffle of a sentence, but let's try to keep it simple.  Basically, the argument is that it's so complex that it can't be designed, therefore something designed it.  It's so incomprehensible that it can still be comprehended by the author to make this point.  It escapes human understanding, but somehow this guy understands it well enough to know that.  Need I continue?

7. God exists.

That doesn't follow from the last point.  Literally, there are hundreds of other options which could (and at least one that does) explain it, which are devoid of any god, including his.  This point is tired, and maybe I'll start skipping it.

Also, if all men call it god, does that mean that anyone who doesn't call his imaginary friend 'god' isn't man?  I digress.  Let's move to the next argument which doesn't argue anything.

27: The Argument from the DNA's Molecular Motor

Based upon the phrasing of this one, I'm guessing that the author doesn't understand what those last two words mean.  Maybe this one will have a coherent point that isn't just copypasta.

Unfortunately, the first three points are.  Which brings us to this set. Please note that all red text is my annotations, not part of the original text of the argument.

5. Even viruses, [as though that's all that matters] which are not even alive by the scientific definition of being able to reproduce independently [which includes things like fire, salt crystals, quartz crystals, and lots of things], show incredible design [no, they don't].

6. If [and you've shown no evidence that it's the case] design is what we observe [we do not], then there must be a designer.

Well, sure. Similarly, if we do not observe design, then the corollary is that there must not be one?  Ergo, having noticed no design (in the sense he means it), we can conclude, by his own logic, that no god is observed.  Next point.

I found some raccoon prints on a log by the river.
Embiggen to see them!

28: Basically the same thing as 27. Seriously, go check it out.

The basic premise of this argument is that, since things move, and humans created things that move, only a god can create things that move.  Similarly, that everything which moves is created by god.  It's a terrible argument, and I'll pick it up here.  Let's try some more of that nifty red text stuff.

7. Machines found in cells are absolutely extraordinary [it's true! The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell] in their characteristics, inspiring the creativity of the most advanced researchers [also correct. scientists routinely use cellular stuff to make things nowadays]. However, the cell machines although almost identical in form but different in size are superior in efficiency to the mechanical devices that the best engineers design for everyday life [which is because cells are amazingly efficient, because they had to evolve to be that way].
8. This indicates that the biomachines found in cells require a level of intelligent design [although it actually doesn't, because point seven clearly illustrates that we're borrowing ideas from the cells, not the other way around] f, jpg, jpeg, png, gif, pdf, zip etc…
ar greater than what man has accomplished [well, arguably, if we're able to use them to our advantage, we're multiplying their abilities, but either way, this point doesn't follow].

I hope you can see the logical inconsistencies present herein.   I sh26 to [{an't tarry longer, as we've more redundant posts to cover!  Let me know if you like the red text stuff!

29: Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.

So we have more copypasta, which tells us that we've got a code that we use to represent specific sequences of nucleotides.  This is in fact a code which does exist, which is a sort of shorthand for the various bits of stuff that exist in DNA, etc.  We are then presented with this dubiously-worded sentence as point three:

3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic code are both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.

Taken on it's own, this isn't a terrible thing.  However, it's dubiousness comes full circle in point five:

5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.

Basically, it's saying that because we developed a code to explain DNA, that the DNA itself must also be such a designed code.  This isn't true, and it's a category error.  It's exactly the same as saying that, because we have a system for naming trees, they must have been designed to receive those names.  An 'Elm' isn't simply an 'Elm' just because it's the name we gave it, but because god designed it specifically to be an 'Elm.'  We did indeed invent the code which describes trees, exactly as we did with DNA.  However, there's absolutely no indication that Elm trees were designed to be Elm trees just so we could give them that name, or so that they could occupy elm-shaped voids in the atmosphere where they happen to reside.  This is similarly the kind of symmetry that exists in DNA, such that a tree occupies space which would otherwise be filled with air in its absence.  Labeling it does not mean it was designed to be labeled, or to signify anything in the code we gave it.

30: The argument of the double function of the genetic code. 

For disclosure, the article from which the information was pulled is titled "The Hidden Codes that Shaped Protein Evolution." The author is literally using an article on evolution to cherry-pick bits of information to argue against evolution.  I don't have access to the full article, but I can surmise what the actual points being made are, given the information in this argument.

Point four seems to be the first bit not directly from the article, based on the writing style.

4. According to the research [which is nowhere to be found in your absent citations], natural selection constrains or eliminates change [sometimes, and other times it favors change] (purifying selection) [I'm not sure of this term in context] is not helpful for creating new organs or functions [except when it is, of course]. 

Our intrepid forum user shows great disdain over his inability to understand evolution, and even more to understand that evolution can exist in a designed universe.  Any argument which lays its fundamental groundwork on the idea that evolution cannot exist within a designed universe is flawed, because it could.  A designer could easily design such an algorithm, it's how chatbots learn things.  I leave the Google search for 'Microsoft Tay' as an exercise for the viewer.

5. Thus, for Darwinists [citation needed] to explain unguided physical processes [evolution is guided by multiple things, but none of them is a designer] is already impossible [citation needed] and with this new discovery [it would be the first new thing in 30 arguments] they are even in bigger trouble [I dunno, I think the biggest trouble is the grammatical inconsistency of this argument].

As we can see, this is just a terrible projection.  This is a person who doesn't understand science, who doesn't understand that being wrong can be the most exciting thing in science.  

6. The words: information, architecture, optimized, and function are not always and not only referring to a person with thinking feeling and willing. Other proposed agents [like the god you speak of] cannot on their own give information [can god show himself?], design [what designed god, again?], optimize [can god remove junk DNA, or cancer?] or execute [any joke here would be in bad taste] tasks. This has never been shown.

Basically, the entire premise is that a signifying gene can act in more than one way, and this could never happen in nature.  We all know quite well that one thing cannot serve two purposes depending on context, in nature.  Actually, that's bollocks, so let's end it there for now.  Again, if you like what I'm doing here, feel free to let me know!  I'm on twitter @acce245 and I'm on youtube.  Look me up, check my stuff out, and if you really enjoy reading my words, follow me on patreon!

Best regards to all of you, and have a great day!