Objection!
Intelligent Design is science!
Evolution deniers say:
“Intelligent Design / Creationism is a scientific theory just like evolution! So it should be taught in schools! Teach the controversy!”
“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates.
These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.”
— National Academy of Sciences
(thanks josephine & friendlyatheist)
ReBlogged from friendlyatheist
Getting an abortion hurts the foetus
Pro-lifers say:
“Having an abortion is cruel - it hurts the foetus!”
A new scientific study shows that human foetuses feel no pain before the 24 week limit for abortions (as the brain has not developed fully), and probably no pain after that (as the foetus is naturally sedated and unconscious in the womb).
If global warming is true, why is it so cold?
Climate change sceptics deniers say:
“If global warming is true, why is it so cold?”
Yes, it may have been a cold winter. The coldest on record in some places. But did you know that this did not apply for the whole globe, or even half the globe?
In fact, globally, January 2010 was the warmest January on record, and it is looking like this will be the warmest year.
Don’t let the snow fool you. It’s getting hot out there.
Morality comes from Religion
Religious people say:
“We get our morals from the Bible, from God. Without God, there would be no morals.”
FriendlyAtheist put this marvelously:
I would say that in fact morality does not come from religion at all. On the contrary, religion borrows its morality from society. For example notice how slavery, a system approved and promoted in the bible, is unthinkable to Christians today. Same thing with stoning adulterers, killing those who gather wood on the sabbath and many other such pronouncements. Religious morality changes. There is no question about it. Look at the doctrine of hell. It used to be a place of fire and brimstone, now theologians say it is just “separation” from god (whatever that means). Immoral doctrines (like eternal torture in fire) will be rejected or modified as the societal norms change.
Morals come from the same place all morals (religious or not) come from, evolution. We evolved morals as a survival technique. From birth we exhibit empathy, the building block of morality. We see proto-morality on other apes and animals as well. See here. Great article.
What would happen to a tribe where murdering other members is considered to be “moral”? That tribe would not exist. By sheer selective pressure only tribes that consider murder immoral (and take steps to prohibit and discourage it) will survive.
In summary morality comes from ourselves. It evolved and continues to do so. Religion is just one ancient way of codifying it. Thankfully, we don’t need it as such today.
On a related note, those that claim that morality comes from god have this problem to solve:
Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?
If God commands the good because it is good, then he bases his decision what to command on what is already morally good. Moral goodness, then, must exist before God issues any commands, otherwise he wouldn’t command anything*.
On the other hand if nothing is good until God commands it, then what God commands is completely morally arbitrary; God has no moral reason for commanding as he does; morally speaking, he could just as well have commanded anything else. Things like slavery, polygamy and the killing of infidels would be moral acts since God commands it.
Sadly some people, a lot of people, believe this to be true to the point of flying planes into buildings. The fact is that even if a God commands such things, they are still morally unacceptable.
Religion inspires people to do many kind acts with no need for thanks
Some religious people say;
“Even if religion weren’t true, you cannot deny that religion inspires people to do many kind acts, without ever asking for thanks.”
Yes, many religious people do kind acts of charity. But why? Too often the answer seems to fall into one of three categories, which turn out not to be altruistic at all:
- To use the recipient of aid as a pawn to bribe the helper’s way into heaven or avoid hell (or to achieve a higher reincarnation).
- To use kindness to convert more people to the helper’s religion, because religions cannot be sustained by evidence and thus need as many like-minded people as possible to prop them up and quash self-doubt.
- To attempt to maintain the credibility of their religion by covering up the embarrassingly poor job done by their god, by claiming they are agents of God.
(Source, also a great source for commentary about the problem of evil)
In addition to this, many atheists also give to charity, or help others in need. Not because they want to please God, but because they simply want to help another human being.
ReBlogged from cocknbull
Follow-up: Atheism requires as much faith as religion?
I had not realised until I looked at my website stats, but my post on Atheism and faith generated a large response from a forum site (5,600 posts and counting).
It is sad to say that many of the responders simply do not get it. They say things like:
“Atheists put their faith in reason. Before you start crunching data or making observations, you have to believe there is a point to it.”
Well I was just about to start writing a response when I see my job has been done; “Darwin’s Stepchild” made a fantastic retort:
Again, what you mean by “faith” (as you, a person of faith, interprets it) does not apply to the situation of reason. Why? Because reason has shown itself to be a productive, meaningful way of interpreting the world.
This is a case of applying inductive logic. To say that one has “faith” that the sun will rise tomorrow is a very different thing than to say one has “faith” in a god.
In the case of the sun rising, one has a huge base of experience to draw upon that the sun, so far, has risen every day in the past. To assume that it will tomorrow as well is hardly in the same class as religious faith.
Reliance in reason is in the same class as faith in the sun rising. That is, there is a huge base of experience showing that reason produces correct results. To claim otherwise to a denial of reality…which seems to be something fundamentalists are very good at.
What religious people infer on us as ‘faith’ could actually be called ‘curiosity’. Another commenter said this:
As a kid, I pushed a safety pin into an electrical wall outlet… blue fire! I did that out of curiosity.
The reason I never did it again was based on my observations of what happened the first time. Faith doesn’t enter into it at all
Atheists are immoral
Religious people say:
“Without God, there is no basis for morality — no absolute good and evil — therefore atheists cannot be moral. Anyone who denies that God is watching and judging them has no reason to be moral — what is stopping you from running around murdering people?”
Perhaps the best dismissal of this anti-atheist idiocy was written by PZ Myers:
I know evil when I see it. A priest taking advantage of his presumed moral authority to take young boys into the dark and private rooms of his church to rape them is evil, I think. Not because a god has whispered a rule into my head, but because I know that the successful relationships that build a cooperative network within the framework of my society are all formed on mutual trust, and that is a violation. We test these bonds of mutual support all the time, we rely on them, and we know from history that their loss contributes to social decay.
We also contain biological imperatives that strengthen those bonds. We know good when we see it, too: kindness, self-sacrifice, and charity move us, not because we are ordered to do so by an imaginary god, but because we can feel empathy for others, and yes, evolution has shaped individuals to respond with affirmation to actions that reinforce the community. That’s how we survive and succeed.
Of course, if there is no god then there is no-one to punish your evil deeds. This does not mean atheists are without morals; we do not have to be promised eternal life or threatened with an eternity of hell to keep us all in check. This may even show that atheists are more moral, as we behave properly with no carrot or stick.
As a final thought, if you actually read the Bible you will see that it contains many violent, immoral and unethical passages — I encourage you to read them.
Atheism requires as much faith as religion
Some religious people say:
“Being an atheist requires just as much faith as being religious. Science and evolution are just your beliefs, and are just as valid as my religious beliefs.”
This is just plain wrong.
If atheism is a religious belief, then ‘bald’ is a hair colour. Atheism is as much of a belief system as ‘non-stamp collecting’ is a hobby.
Atheists might say ‘I do not believe in Gods’. This is not a belief system. If it is, then saying ‘I do not believe in unicorns’ is also a belief system. How many belief systems do you believe in? Are you a-unicornist, a-toothfairyist and a-santaclausist? Clearly, the lack of belief in something is not based on faith but on lack of faith.
Science is faithless. The very definition of faith is:
“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
This is the opposite of science. Science relies on logical and empirical evidence, and is based only on the current state of competing theories. Science is always subject to change, and changes in light of new observations.
Some religious people may see this as a weakness, saying that “Science is wishy-washy—always changing it’s mind when it realises it has made a mistake! Because of this, how can you trust anything science has to say?”.
It is because of this that science is much more reliable than any religion. Religions are often based on old books or long-standing traditions, and to make a change is very difficult because beliefs are not backed up by evidence.
If suddenly Christians decided to change their mind about God and say actually she is female, you would be right in thinking that they just made that up, and there is no reason to believe it. The only change that can happen in religion are different interpretations of the source material (religious texts) and this causes bickering (and wars).
But when scientists discover a change in an established theory, the only way this can be true is if it is confirmed by evidence or logic, and if it matches all the current evidence and data. It will be peer-reviewed by other scientists—checked and double-checked—until finally becoming established theory.
There is no faith involved in science—no single doctrine or ‘sacred’ ideas that cannot be disproved. Only evidence, logic and reasoning.
The ontological argument proves God exists
There is an argument from reason that supposedly proves God exists. It goes as follows:
1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality
This one is simple to break down. All you have to do is replace ‘God’ with ‘cookies’.
1. Cookies are something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. Cookies may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in my stomach and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, Cookies are in my stomach
Unfortunately, no matter how hard I imagine cookies in my stomach it does not make them exist in reality.
An excellent run-down of this and other explanations can be found in this great video by Sherman Oaks.
Atheists cannot know everything, therefore God exists
A popular stance from a religious person goes as follows:
“You atheist claim to know everything. You claim that your reasoning is perfect, you are flawless and cannot be wrong. But humans are not perfect, and so your reasoning could be wrong. God is perfect and without flaw, therefore God exists”
It is true, we cannot possibly consider ourselves perfect, or that we know absolutely everything about a subject. Indeed, one of the principles of science is that we can never prove or disprove something with 100% certainty. This does not, however, mean we cannot prove something so much, and with so much evidence and repeatable experiments that it would be far more unlikely to be wrong than right.
For example, many religious people complain about evolution, saying that as we do not have a fossil of every single creature which ever lived (the ‘missing links’), and as we cannot travel back in time and observe what happened, then evolution is flawed and cannot be proven.
This is wrong. There is so much evidence for evolution that if a piece of evidence were to appear that (without any doubt) proved it wrong, scientists would have to rethink everything they know about biology, geology, natural history… everything. So far this has never happened - every discovery in the last 150 years since Darwin’s original work has been consistent with evolution through natural selection.
It is therefore far more likely that this mountain of evidence is true, and so although no humans are not perfect, this does not stop us being able to come to conclusions. Even if they cast into doubt the validity of your God.
Page 1 of 2
Apollo Justice and the Objection image are © Capcom.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
