Engineer, Philosopher, Writer, and host of
@RealAtheology
. Ardent realist about everything except Theism and The Self. In my view, God and I are the problem.
Suppose God exists. We act as we do because of how God created us. We cannot deserve punishment from God unless we can be ultimately responsible for how God created us. We cannot be ultimately responsible for how God created us, therefore, we cannot deserve punishment from God.
Nuclear engineer here,
I just want to remind everyone the half-life of Uranium is 4.5 billion years which is conveniently the same value the data from Earth and beyond has led to us to estimate the age of our planet.
The Earth is not 6000 years old.
Reminder:
The Church of Satan's monument at the Iowa capital is a political statement. Vandalizing it is not only a crime, it reminds us (1) "religious liberty" is a one-sided principle for Christian conservatives and (2) "courage" and "stupidity" are often indistinguishable.
@jordanbpeterson
@POTUS
If only there were an obvious counter example.
*checks notes*
We have the right to an attorney, and if we cannot afford such services, one will be provided to us.
I am once again reminding everyone that many (maybe most?) scientists conduct their experiments and present their results with little to no consideration of their underlying philosophical assumptions.
ngl, this kind of attitude bugs me a lot.
Scientists are absolutely the ones that understand science and the "evidential support it provides". That's the whole point.
Confused atheist claims:
Atheism is a lack of belief.
I have no beliefs.
Religious beliefs are delusional.
Claims are not evidence.
Reason and faith are incompatible.
Intuitions are not justification.
You cannot prove a negative.
Philosophy is dead.
There is no evidence for God.
My favorite part of this is how surprised a lot of Evangelicals are that Catholics are not Calvinists, and so believe those created in the image of God are fundamentally good rather than something totally depraved. Calvinism didn't correct Catholicism, it made Christianity worse.
@catholiccom
This same reasoning also implies chewing gum, wearing anti-perspirant, running on treadmills, and using earplugs are intrinsically disordered acts bc they “frustrate” our faculties of digestion, perspiration, locomotion, and hearing.
This isn’t a plausible ethic at all…
I’m not exactly sure why so many people are surprised/shocked that WLC has morally outrageous views regarding genocide and ethnic cleansing. The guy has been saying (for like 50 years!) that if God commands it, then it is moral. Socrates tried to warn y’all!
#TheEuthyphro
You cannot plausibly claim God is both like a perfectly loving father AND has no ethical obligations to us or our well-being. We harshly judge human fathers for not caring sufficiently about their children or their well-being, and God is not exempt from such ethical judgements.
As a nuclear engineer, I resent every second of time I spend with a Young Earth Creationist disagreeing about the age of the Earth. I imagine astronomers, geologists, and biologists feel something similar. YECs are pariahs across multiple fields for good reason too.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexual acts, and those who press the idea there is something intrinsically wrong with such acts actively contribute to bigotry and deserve scorn for it.
Why am I a naturalist?
Science
Why am I a humanist?
Ethics
Why am I a progressive?
Science & Ethics
It really is that simple for me, and should be for you too.
(1) Whatever has mass also has weight.
(2) The universe has mass.
Therefore,
(3) The universe also has weight.
“Weight” makes no sense when applied to the universe as a whole. Asking what “caused” the universe (eg the Kalam) might be like asking how much the universe weighs.
The arguments against using Wikipedia are almost totally without merit. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a greater human achievement than free, open access to our collective human knowledge (in our pockets!) that is also largely immune to market forces.
Apologists relish my critiques of toxic atheism, but many are not so thrilled when I do the same to toxic theism. If I have to cringe at New Atheism, anti-theism, and scientism in my camp, then apologists should have to cringe at Calvinism, Trad Catholics, and bigotry in theirs.
Three essential concepts in Christian theology are the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. It’s not clear these concepts are even coherent. Three people cannot be one and the same person, an eternal God cannot come into time and die, and no one can die for another’s sin.
Conservative Christians: Why do people think we are bigots?
Because you draw moral analogies between homosexuals and pedophiles. Because you think homosexuality is something to be overcome rather than accepted. Because you are the barrier to LGBT social equality and inclusion.
Why am I so critical of the New Atheist movement? At least three reasons:
(1) crude scientism and naive empiricism
(2) the disingenuous redefining of basic terms in the philosophy of religion eg atheist/agnostic
(3) the obviously false mantra that tHeRe iS nO eViDeNcE fOr tHeIsm
Here’s your yearly reminder that even though correlation does not entail causation; correlation *IS* evidence for causation. All causation is inferred, rather than deduced, from observed correlations. “Correlation is not causation” *IS NOT* the decisive objection you might think.
Morality is either grounded in reason or it’s not. There’s no third option, and I’m surprised some insist otherwise. These are the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma too. If morality is not grounded in reason, then it’s arbitrary. If it is grounded in reason, then God is unnecessary.
You cannot consistently make claims like this and insist you do not have a burden of justification because you merely "lack a belief there are any gods." This is very clearly a hypothesis, and if we want to convince others of its truth, then we must provide reasons to believe it.
YEC is strongly irrational bc its falsity is heavily overdetermined. Multiple lines of inquiry independently converge on the conclusion the earth’s age is measured in billions of years. The probability of all these lines of inquiry being systematically mistaken is extremely low.
Here's William Lane Craig conceding young earth creationism is not only empirically bankrupt, it's also intellectually embarassing to Christianity. It is a barrier rather than a means to the end of bringing people to Christ.
159* years ago today, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House effectively dissolving whatever remained of the Confederacy and bringing the American Civil War to an end. To all who celebrate,
Christians: God is eternal, became flesh, is one and the same being as Jesus, and died to save us from Hell which is God's punishment for sin.
Me: Christians believe an eternal God came into time and died to save us from himself.
Also Christians: That's not what we believe!😡😡
Atheism’s Definition
(A) Theism should be defined as the claim God exists
(B) Atheism should be defined in terms of theism
(C) The claim God exists isn’t the same as the lack of belief there is a God
Therefore
(D) Atheism shouldn’t be defined as the lack of belief God exists
I got three:
(1) Atheism should be defined as the belief there are no god(s).
(2) There is at least some evidence for theism.
(3) Theists can be rational people.
To head off the inevitable charges of being a theist:
(4) I’m an atheist.
Update:
My dad is done with chemo, nearly recovered from surgery, and the reports back from the doctors have been nothing but positive so far. Really proud of this guy’s attitude through it all too.
#CowboyBob
I love the philosophy of religion. Online atheism or “pop atheism” makes me embarrassed to be an atheist philosopher of religion. I feel like an evolutionary biologist trying to do serious research whilst surrounded by YEC peers. Do me a favor and tone down the cringe, please 🙏
Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural!
Are corrective lens and chewing gum immoral?
Homosexuality is not immoral because it is natural!
Are racism and rape also moral?
Ought =/= Is
Moral truths do not follow from purely non-moral premises.
#TheNaturalisticFallacy
Theists claim it's impossible for God to create our world:
(1) Without suffering
(2) Without significant freedom
(3) Greatest possible goods are realizable
Theists also claim about Heaven:
(4) No suffering
(5) No significant freedom
(6) Greatest possible goods are realizable
There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
#DanielDennett
Whoever is making a claim has the burden of justification. If an atheist claims that religious beliefs are a delusion, then that atheist has a burden of justification. If an atheist wants to convince someone they should be an atheist too, then they have a burden of justification.
The fossil record is evidence for evolution. Don’t buy his bullshit. In fact, multiple lines of evidence converge on the same explanation for the biological order we observe: Descent by modification via random mutations and non-random environmental pressures ie natural selection.
Proof that consciousness doesn't exist:
- An atom isn't conscious.
- Adding an atom to something that's not conscious doesn't make it conscious.
- Therefore nothing is conscious.
I've always found "taxation is theft" to be rather naive. Taxation is NOT someone nefariously stealing your property. Taxation is a COST we pay to not live in a state of nature. "Entitlement" is wanting to live in all the benefits of a society without incurring any of its costs.
In order to accept the fine-tuning argument, we must accept that a perfectly moral God cares to fine-tune the value of the cosmological constant or the strength of the weak nuclear force, but not to fine-tune the biological roles of pain and pleasure nor our religious faculties.
"Who created God?" is about as far from an insuperable challenge to a cosmological argument as "Why are there still monkeys?" is to the theory of evolution.
These questions betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts being used and the claims being made.
A common religious apologist claim is that morality is impossible without God. I think this claim is exactly backwards. Morality is impossible with God. I believe this because an external moral authority w/ an unqualified claim on our obedience would undermine our moral autonomy.
Richard Dawkins already did that when he said, "If you tell me that God created the universe, then I have the right to ask you, ‘Who created God?" Philosophy of religion effectively came to an end with this one simple question.
Conspiracy theories have low priors and poor explanatory power. Conspiracy theorists miss two epistemic red flags in that respect, so yea, aggressively gullible is apt.
@CosmicSkeptic
(A) If God exists, His power and goodness are infinite.
(B) An infinitely good God prevents all suffering He properly can.
(C) Biological evolution involves human and non-human animal suffering an infinitely powerful God can properly prevent.
Therefore,
(D) There is no God.
"Where to objective moral truths come from?"
Is the apologist equivalent of:
"Where did God come from?"
If "nowhere" is an acceptable answer to the latter question, then in principle, it could be a satisfactory answer to former.
This guy has become a hack. There is no widespread sentiment on the left that it's acceptable for Hamas to rape women, cut off the heads of babies, or murder masses of people. This guy is supposed to be a skeptic. He made this tweet knowing full well what he's saying is bullshit.
For those who support BLM, DEI & other progressive woke causes in which even microaggression words are violence for which safe spaces are needed, why is it acceptable for Hamas to rape women, cut off the heads of babies & murder masses of people? Is it because...they're Jewish?
The definition of atheism/theism and disagreements about who has the “burden of proof” largely distract from more interesting questions in the philosophy of religion.
Imagine you discover a child drowning in a shallow pond. Our strong moral intuition is we ought to save this child, and it would be seriously morally wrong to just let them drown. This is precisely how skeptics morally judge a God who let’s children suffer and die of bone cancer.
This is a win for the Church of Satan. Cassidy will be prosecuted, and his actions will magnify the Church's message:
Religious freedom is not an impartial principle for Christians.
Imaginary beings motivate Christians to violence.
Christian stupidity is hailed as courageous.
Want to know how to easily avoid this tension? It’s super easy, and you won’t look stupid either:
Use the term atheism as the claim there are no gods, and use the term non-theism as the lack of belief in theism.
If it's "wokism" on the one hand or "Christian nationalism" on the other, then I'm going with wokism every single time. This is not even remotely a difficult choice either.
Things that shouldn’t have to be said, but apparently do. The Christian must maintain there are no undeserved evils, so ipso facto they must maintain children with cancer either deserve it or are merely a means to some divine end. Both are deeply problematic for ethical reasons.
Original sin is "hereditary" in such a way that it "infects us all," but God's grace is not hereditary in such a way that it saves us all...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Apologists often complain about the bad faith of internet atheists, and to a significant extent, that is a justifiable complaint. However, in all fairness to the internet atheists, have you ever tried to dialogue in good faith with an apologist on the internet?