Does Morality require God? Conversation with Christopher Colegrove.

I received this comment in the thread under my post Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been. I am answering it here in a new post because that comment stream is getting long and the topic deserves its own thread. The post consists of five questions:

1 – Is there an absolute truth, absolute morals? Is it wrong, what happens in school or mass shootings? Was Hitler wrong to practice genocide? Is stealing wrong?

Of course truth is “absolute” in the sense that A is A and not “not A”. But that’s trivial. The word “absolute” doesn’t add any meaning as far as I can tell. What is the difference between “truth” and “absolute truth”?

Truth is, of course, relative to context. For example, it is absolutely true that 1 + 1 = 2 in the infinite field of Natural Numbers N, but that same equation is absolutely false in the finite prime field of order 2, GF(2). You can read all about it here.

As you can see, the word “absolute” adds nothing to the concept of truth. The statement “A is A” is absolute no matter what “A” may represent.

Likewise, the word “absolute” adds nothing to the meaning of morality. What is the difference between something that is actually wrong vs. absolutely wrong?

Your question indicates that you have never really thought about the philosophy of morality at all. Things are right or wrong depending on how they affect self and others. It has absolutely nothing to do with any god, real or imagined. Your question is like asking if arithmetic would become false if there were not a god. I explain my position in this article Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig’s Moral Argument for God. Read More »

Posted in Moral Theory | 7 Responses

An invitation to Andrew to explain why he believes in Biblical Numerology and Intelligent Design

I received this comment from Andrew under my post Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been.

…….So…. I have a lot to say after reading your debunked page/adventure testimony. Unfortunately, if i get started in this comment box I will quickly run out of room.

That being said, I wish to simply share that I have had my own “life adventure”. I have spent the past 8 years scouring through physics and metaphysics looking for some confirmation in the legitimacy of faith.

Long story short, I found what I was looking for. My questions were answered and my faith confirmed.

My physical proof was found in the mathematical functions of Pi and Golden Ratio. 2 different formulas expressing similar function. Later I discovered that they are only 2 examples of an infinite variety of that Function. (I would be willing to expand on that if you choose to ask.)

My Metaphysical proof was found “in the wind” so to speak. I experienced something a few years back which led me to the confirmation that the complexities and flawless mechanical nature of the natural universe could not have spontaneously come into existence. I know what I saw and the Truth is the Natural Universe was expertly designed by Intelligence. (again I would love to elaborate if you were curious enough to ask me.) Although, I do admittedly choose for myself to place my faith in that that designer was the Hebrew God and His Son the Christ.

Well, I better leave it there, like I said, if I go into anymore detail I would end up writing you a book. (yes i have been putting a book together over the last 3+ years.)

I simply wanted to thank you for putting this all together and sharing your story and to share back with you some things I went through that allowed me to relate to your story.


Posted in Gematria | 54 Responses

Is there “something bigger” to the Bible Wheel?

I recently received this comment in response to my post Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion.

Hello Richard,

I would like to say that your Bible Wheel creation undertakings was a brilliant example of intellect and hard work at its core and for me personally, an example of something which could only have been created by someone who had the capacity to perform as a calling for a higher purpose.

I believe that you are connected to something which cannot be conceptually explained in words and that your mathematical prowess was utilized as a substitute to deliver the messages which religion cannot make sense. of.

I am grateful to who you are as a person and as a higher being. I do hope you understand who I am and implore you to consider your Bible Wheel creation as something bigger than just its interpretation to you.

Hey there Glenn,

Thanks for the good words. I appreciate your suggestion but it’s rather difficult to know which aspects of the Bible Wheel could be seen as a manifestation of “something bigger” and which are just meaningless coincidence. For example, at first glance it seems amazing that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible could fit on the traditional Hebrew circle of 22 Hebrew letters, but if that’s not a “mere coincidence” then what are we to make of the fact that we can do the same thing with the 72 books of the Roman Catholic Bible using the 24 Greek letters? And that case is even better than the Protestant Bible Wheel in that it “seals the word” from Alpha to Omega in direct correspondence to the Greek text of Revelation where Jesus Christ (The Word) declares that he is the “Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.” Some people try to rationalize this by saying that God designed both Bibles! But what then is the value of all this symbolism if it doesn’t even distinguish between the two competing canons? And what about the Muslims who see divine design in the Quran based on the Number 19? They base this on a mystical verse in the Quran that says “Over it are nineteen” and then goes on to say that those “19” are put there to convince unbelievers and “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) of the truth of the Quran. Here are the verses (Quran 74:31):

Over it are Nineteen. And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, “What symbol doth Allah intend by this?” Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind.

Muslims have developed a mystical lore about the number 19 over a span of centuries, just like Christians with the number 666. It’s easy to see why Muslim numerologists would be impressed to find that the Quran consists of 114 = 6 x 19 surahs (chapters) and that the number 19 is a centered hexagonal number so the number 114 can be arranged in a perfectly symmetrical hexagonal pattern of six hexagons:

Muslim numerologists use this pattern to analyse the phrase “Bismillah ir-rahman ir-rahim” (In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). This phrase occurs exactly 114 times in the Quran and is composed of 19 Arabic letters which can be laid out in a hexagonal form as in this screenshot from this video which “proves” the “miraculous divine design” of the Quran based on the number 19:

So, given that the Bible Wheel is based on the same kind of “pattern finding” that is used by all believers in all religions to justify their irrational beliefs, it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to find the “something bigger” in the Bible Wheel. I am, of course, open to any suggestions or insights you may have. I do not take this question lightly. Rose and I spent about three years after quitting Christianity exploring possible “explanations” for the Bible Wheel because we were still convinced that the evidence was valid. It wasn’t until I was finally able to review my claims objectively (without the bias of wanting them to be true) that I was able to see my errors. I explain the process in this series of posts:

Great chatting!

Posted in Bible Wheel, Debunking Myself, Gematria | 390 Responses

Did Prophetic Geniuses Hide Numerical Patterns in the Bible?

I want to thank you for publishing your research and being brave enough to follow your conscience.

Independently of you, I began noticing numerical patterns in the psalms. Unlike you, I would not claim this is “divine providence” but rather evidence of mystery schools, or fraternal organizations just like the ones who built cathedrals like Chartes. There is no denying that the ancient world had the knowledge to incorporate number into architecture and literature in a meaningful but hidden way. They used methods that required later students to think in a new way to uncover these patterns.

It seems to me that you feel you have refuted your original thesis precisely because your original premise rested on the crude, fundamentalist approach to religion. I would agree that fundamentalism, biblical literalism is wrong, I left the mainstream church long ago and had some of the same questions you bring up. However, I am convinced now that whoever wrote the bible understood that God is a being that influences by rejecting all earthly force and power. This idea allowed a number of prophetic geniuses to gather in the ancient land called Israel and produce a work of literature on par with the gothic cathedrals. One does not need to accept the modern teachings of the church to see evidence of that.

Hey there Jay,

I’m very glad you have taken the time to share your point of view. Let me begin by correcting a false impression. I did not begin with any premise that could be described as a “crude, fundamentalist approach to religion.” On the contrary, I began with an extremely broad mystical view based on the Kabbalah, Tarot, Astrology, Numerology, I Ching, Jungian Psychology and similar esoteric studies. As explained in the article you commented on, I was not a Christian when I began my studies. I was on a quest to discover the unity underlying all religions. As my studies progressed, I was continuously drawn towards the Bible because it is at the center of the Western esoteric tradition.  I abhorred the fundamentalist approach to religion and actually had a conscious fear of becoming “like Jerry Falwell” if I got too involved with the Bible. Unfortunately, that fear was realized to a significant degree.

How then did I fall into the fundamentalist belief that the Bible was the very “Word of God”? That was inevitable given the kinds of patterns I was seeing. It seemed impossible that such patterns could have been deliberately designed by any group of humans, regardless of their “prophetic genius,” because the patterns required both foreknowledge and the ability to go back in time to design the specific content of books written hundreds of years earlier. Here is how I presented this argument when I was a believer:

  1. The Jews established the content of the Protestant OT but with a different order.
  2. The Catholics established the order of the Protestant OT following the LXX which included the Apocrypha.
  3. The Reformers established the complete pattern of 66 books by simply removing the Apocrypha.

I concluded that the resulting pattern – the Bible Wheel – could not be attributed to any deliberate design by the Jews, the Catholics, or the Reformers. Who then designed it? The only possibility was an agent who transcends space and time. God was the obvious choice.

The question of Who Designed the Bible Wheel? was not so easy to answer after I quit Christianity and rejected theism in early 2011. I was still convinced the patterns were valid and was still mystically inclined so one of my first approaches was to interpret the Bible Wheel as a Cosmic Mandala of Archetypal Wholeness (June 2011). But I soon lost interest in that approach because it contained a little too much “woo factor” for my freshly awakened sense of skepticism. I knew such an “explanation” was little more than a story that could not be justified in any meaningful way. It seemed better better to just leave it unanswered.

I explored the possibility you are suggesting in my article Did Early Christians Knowingly Design The Bible Wheel?  (Sept 2011). I concluded with these words:

There is absolutely no way in the world that they can be explained as the work of any human or group of humans. … The evidence of some sort of “supernatural design” seems as solid and incontrovertible to me now as it did when I was a Christian. And as far as I know, I am looking at the Bible Wheel with the same critical eye by which I judged the Bible itself to full of errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God.”

My final attempt was to explore the possibility of An Evolutionary Explanation of the Bible Wheel (November 2011).

As you can see, I remained convinced that the patterns were real and in need of explanation. But I also was exercising my skeptical reasoning abilities on a daily basis as readers would challenge my reasons for quitting the faith. And that’s what ultimately (after two more years) led to my freedom from my own delusions about the Bible. The turning point came when I began to familiarize myself with the psychology of belief and used it in my refutation of Christian arguments. Rationalization is the handmaiden of delusion. It is how people maintain their false beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. This was the topic of my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (October  2012) about a year after I quit Christianity. Here is the opening paragraph:

Rationalization, commonly known as “making excuses” or “self-justification” is a psychological defense mechanism triggered by conflicting desires, feelings, or beliefs which evoke a painful state of mind called cognitive dissonance. No one is exempt. If there is one guarantee in life, it is that our amazing and complex world will repeatedly contradict our personal desires, limited knowledge, and cherished beliefs. But this is not a bad thing. On the contrary, the pain of cognitive dissonance is the pain of birth, of growing, of moving into the light of reality. It is the pain that shows the way to break free from the prison of our ignorance and selfishness.

I went on to explain how cognitive dissonance “is to the mind as pain is to the body. Without it, our minds would quickly fall into delusion and disintegrate like the bodies of children born with congenital insensitivity to pain who repeatedly injure themselves.” After a detailed analysis of the errors in Rich Deem’s arguments, I ended with these words:

This topic is of keen interest to me because I was a fundamentalist Christian for about 15 years. I explain the cognitive dissonance that drove me out of the faith in my article called Why I Quit Christianity. I have left a very long trail spanning more than a decade on this site and many posts in other forums defending my work on the Bible Wheel. My next project is to apply the insights I gained by writing this article to myself. Most arguments raised against my work claimed that the Bible Wheel had no objective validity and that all my evidence was nothing but the product of cognitive biases like cherry picking, confirmation bias, pareidolia, and so forth. So now I will review those arguments and put my old responses to them through the same fire I have used to test Rich Deem’s arguments. It should prove enlightening.

The fulfillment of that project was realized in a series of articles written in October and November of 2014:

It has indeed been enlightening!

Now getting back to your work:

Not having read your entire work, I don’t know if you have covered this or not. But years ago I realized that the first 22 psalms are a complete set, and that psalm 23 is a recapitulation of the first psalm, but expressed from a more inner point of view. The form and content of both psalms are the same; they focus on being rooted in the midst of the transitory. Psalm 45 expresses the joy that comes from this inner sense of being rooted. I began finding other psalms that I could tie together, one being an outer expression and the other an inner expression of the same idea. This lead me to look for different themes within the psalms. I do not want to go on and on about what I have found, but just to say that I have found enough to convince me there was a plan behind the psalms that focused on a few key themes being repeated on certain numerical intervals. While I appreciate all of the thought you have put into this, I must point out that your “refutation” of the idea that the bible is tied together in a meaningful way seems to rely on refuting the premise that the whole book is literal truth written by divine inspiration.

Your methods and insights seem similar to mine when I was a Christian. I was constantly looking for connections between the Psalms that differed by multiples of  22. (1, 23, 45, etc). I was in the habit of taking every book in the Bible and laying its chapters out on a circular grid of 22 spokes and as many cycles as necessary to fit all the books. I called these “Inner Wheels.” I have hundreds of pages devoted to this topic (see here).

I also was deeply impressed by the sense of “completion” in Psalm 22 since it corresponds to Tav (the 22nd and final Hebrew letter) which I took as symbolizing the cross upon which Christ was crucified and said “It is finished.” But there is a problem. In the Septuagint, that Psalm is indexed by the number 21 because Psalm 9 and 10 are combined. This appears to be a remnant of the original Hebrew form in which the two were a single acrostic psalm (source). This creates a problem of consistency because the Christian order of books follows the Septuagint contra the Tanakh while the indexes of the Psalms follows the Tanakh contra the Septuagint.

The larger problem, of course, is the method itself. It is subjective. Anyone can find themes that “tie together” pretty much any arbitrary set of chapters in the Psalms. I know, because I spent many years trying to justify my assertion that they were designed on the same repeating pattern of the number 22 that you use. I failed to find any objective standard, though I did succeed in deluding myself by cherry picking the most “amazing coincidences” while disregarding the overwhelming number of connections that didn’t fit the pattern I was looking for. That is the essence of the error in that method. There is no objective standard to discern between real and imagined patterns, and most of the evidence (which doesn’t fit the pattern) is ignored.

Looking at the first verse of Genesis we see a clear expression that the beginning of things is polarity, heaven and earth, higher and lower. This theme is developed in the first book, with polar forces being represented in stories of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Leah and Rachel, Ephraim and Mannassah…The second verse is the division of the waters, the separation of higher and lower within. The second book is Moses, the dual citizen dividing the waters, and separating the people from Egypt. The third verse is the appearance of dry land, the third book, the journey to the promised land….I could go on but I may be repeating things you have already said. It is clear that a conscious pattern is present in the biblical mythology, regardless of whether one believes it was all divinely inspired. The themes within the bible are clearly recapitulated in a conscious way and these same themes can be found in other cultures and mystical traditions as well. So although you may have been overly eager to analyze the uses of words and letters to prove the bible was written by god, you were still on to something.

Again, your methods are essentially identical to mine. I wrote a lot about the connections between the second day, the dividing of the waters, the second seal (with the sword that divides), etc., etc., etc. I did that for all the ordered lists in the Bible, even including book and chapter indexes. Given such a large data set, it would be surprising if a person could not find many hits. But again, we are merely cherry picking. We focus only on the hits and ignore the ten thousand misses. And that’s how we create illusions of design.

Now don’t get me wrong, I agree that there are many “themes within the bible are clearly recapitulated in a conscious way.” There’s no doubt about that! A couple excellent expositions on that theme are The Great Code: The Bible and Literature by Northrop Frye and The Book of God: A Response to the Bible by Gabriel Josipovici. But that’s a far, far cry from your claim that the actual structure of the books and chapter indexes were deliberately designed to encode some sort of mystical knowledge.

Thanks for considering another point of view. Best Wishes.

My pleasure! Thanks again for taking time to share your point of view. I hope the conversation continues.

All the best,


Posted in Bible Wheel, Biblical Issues, Debunking Myself | 10 Responses

Conversation with James about God, the Big Bang, and the Foundation of Science (Part 2)

This is a continuation of the long conversation with with Christian creationist James McKenzie. I am answering his post found in the previous thread here. James begins:

It seems that we are near reaching an impasse on our “science/ foundations/ philosophical/ beginning of the world argument. You seem bent to tell me that a mathematical consequence is all I should need to trust the theories and field equations. I am trying to tell you that a field equation that works on paper does not dictate or prove what happens in real life. While I admit I do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards, your inability or lack of agreeing to explaining them to me further does not help me.

Hey there James,

The problem is not that you “do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards” – the problem is that you don’t understand them at all. You don’t even understand the concept of experimental verification which is the very foundation of science. The equations do not merely “work on paper!” I’ve explained this to you a billion times, and you still do not understand. The equations have been TESTED by comparing their predictions with OBSERVATIONS. This is how science works. E.g. the field equations explain the real world measurements of the perihelion of mercury, the real world measurements of the gravitational bending of light around (first confirmed in eclipse of 1919), the real world measurements of time dilation (confirmed a trillion times a day by the GPS system), etc., etc., etc. Your ignorance of such basic facts makes conversation with you impossible. It’s like trying to talk to a freaking rock. You are thick as a brick.

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that you understand them enough to understand the weight of your own justified or not justified argument and position. It is one thing to say that I know long division and I know that x/y=Z, the long division proves it. But just as a teacher would want a student to demonstrate that he/she actually “knows” the math and would expect the student to show his work, I also am curious if you could show “the work.” Instead of just copying and pasting some graphic of an equation, can you demonstrate and explain how the real life values are inserted into the equation and how the values correspond to the big bang theory at large (time and starting point).

James, those graphs and links to the experimental tests are the very proof you asked for. You have not written a word challenging any of the evidence I presented. You just keep repeating the ludicrous assertion that the scientific evidence derived from real life measurements does not count as “real life evidence”. Nothing could be more absurd. I have presented the evidence and you have not shown any understanding, let alone refutation, of it.

Bottom line, I want you to see your double standard, Richard. You start off that the theory is right unless I or someone else can prove or demonstrate that it is wrong.

Not true. I have never begun with any such assumption. Ironically, you describe your own position with perfect clarity since you have nothing but blind faith in your ignorant superstitions inherited from primitive pre-scientific men.

You also say that your acceptance of the big bang theory is based on science, but you and I know both know the actual good science used as evidence for the big bang do not require or proof a big bang. There is no proof for the big bang, only circumstantial evidence.

I never said there was any “proof” in an absolutely sense. That’s not how science works. I said the Big Bang is the best fit to the evidence (which is much more than mere “circumstantial evidence” as you would know if you understood the science).

But at the same time, you say that the Bible is wrong and God should not be taken to likely exist unless there is demonstrated evidence.

I say exactly the same thing about the Big Bang. We use evidence (logic and facts) to discern between truth and error. If you think you have a better way, please let me know what it is.

I have no concrete evidence that the God of the Bible is real and that His Word is true, I have basis for that evidence.

You have nothing but philosophical arguments based on metaphysical speculations and religious dogmas inherited from ignorant primitive men. You have not shown me any evidence, let alone any “basis”  for any evidence.

But your starting position for God is that He is not real unless there is reliable evidence or proof.

A more accurate statement would be that I start with the idea that everyone should demand evidence before believing in any of the gods and/or metaphysical speculations invented by humans, including but not limited to Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Karma, Astrology, Cosmic Consciousness, the philosophers’ “Pure Being”, Tarot Cards, the Tooth Fairy and the Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I really don’t understand how you could continue to misconstrue my position given  the thousands of words I have written explaining it (especially since it seems so simple and common-sensical).

You make fun of creation because it does not sound scientific even though endless energy from no where and with no cause is about as scientific as God did it. When it comes to the actual mechanics of how and why they work and do what they do, no one really knows.

The fact that science is not omniscient does not make it equal to your ignorance.

I mock creationism because of its gross absurdity and blatant dishonesty. You are a poster boy of all that is wrong with creationism. You reject vast domains of science such as Evolution and General Relativity when in fact you understand none of it. You have been deceived by utterly corrupt creationist conmen. There is no excuse. They are not merely ignorant. They are deliberately deceiving simple minded gullible Christians, filling their heads with lies.

Why are you so easily accepting of the big bang theory without any real concrete evidence but not God?

I am not “so easily accepting of the big bang theory”. It’s just the best fit to the data, as I’ve explained to you approximately 2.3 trillion times now.

You might ask me the same thing. This is the normal rebuttal of an atheist. It goes like this: why am I so accepting of God and not the big bang? But there is a problem with your rebuttal. Your starting and accepted position is pushed that yours is of science and mine is of faith. But in reality, your position is of faith as well. You require an element of faith to accept the big bang theory.

Your false assertion is based on an equivocation of the word “faith.” This is a matter of epistemology (the study of knowledge). One of the better definitions of knowledge is “justified true belief.” So yes, true knowledge and your religious fantasies share a comment element called “belief” or “faith.” But that’s as far as the equivalence goes. You cannot justify your dogmas and many of them have been proven false. Therefore, you religion is by definition “not true” whereas science is by definition “true” inasmuch as it has met the burden of justifying the truth of its beliefs.

Your rebuttal would have so much more significance to me if you admitted we are debating one acceptance, assumption, faith versus another.

Nothing could be more absurd. You are equating blind belief in Allah/Yahweh/Zeus with science!

Nobody knows how the first stars formed, nobody knows where biological life came from, nobody knows how planets formed around stars without colliding into each other and into the star. Nobody knows why there is something rather than nothing.

The fact that nobody knows some things means that you don’t know those things either, so they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot prove the truth of your fairy tales by appealing to ignorance. But this is what you must do because there is no place for you god in the real world.

You cannot just mock a Christian for using a catchall phrase like “God just created it.” When you say, it just evolved, it just naturally selected that way, it just… It is a double standard.

There is no double standard. Your comment is an absurd caricature. Evolutionary scientists do not say idiotic things like “it just naturally selected that way.” It is painfully obvious you have never read any scientific literature about evolution.

Now, if you were to admit that your theory has an element of faith required, then we can debate which position sounds more logical, congruent, is more consistent with itself etc.

I’ve already admitted that. The epistemological definition of knowledge as “justified true belief” shares one element with your blind, ignorant, and unjustified superstitions – namely, “belief.” That’s it. You cannot justify your ignorance by appealing to more ignorance about where everything came from! You need to understand this fact.

And if you think the big bang is more consistent and logical, I can say, okay for you. But if you try to tell me that you reject the Bible because I cannot prove it is true it is not scientific at points but your entire theory is, I say bologna. I am calling your bluff out.

Don’t be absurd. You have done nothing but reveal the emptiness of your own hand. You have nothing but bluff, bluster, and blatant creationist bullshit. You don’t even understand the elementary terms of the sciences that you reject in favor of the ignorant superstitions you inherited from primitive men.

So please understand, you can hold to any position you want to and realize that you are blindly accepting something by faith. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Bible because it requires faith and accept science saying that it does not require faith.

Say what? You are now claiming that modern science – based fundamentally on experiment, observation and replication – is “blind” like your religion? Seriously? Wow. Religion and the damage done.

The heavens “do” declare the glory of God and the earth shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1

It seems more accurate to say that the “heavens” – via General Relativity and the age of the universe – have conclusively declared the absurdity of your fundamentalist creationism.

You can believe that a being created it all and has out smarted everyone. Or you can believe that hydrogen and helium somehow came into existence from energy and took over from there, out smarting everyone today observing all that has been formed, for no reason.


Yes, everyone is free to believe what they want concerning things for which there is no evidence. But that seems pretty inconsequential since no one has any way to know anything about that God, if he/she/it/they actually exist.



Posted in Christianity, Debunking Bullshit, Losing My Religion, Why Christianity is False | 233 Responses

Conversation with James about God, the Big Bang, and the Foundation of Science

I received this comment from James in the thread under my post called Context Rules: The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible Confirmed.

I wonder if you are still there Richard.

Hey there James,

I was out of town for a full week. I had to fly to Ohio to handle a family emergency. I’m happy to report that everything worked out very well.

I also wonder what is your foundation for performing science. Based on a worldview of our universe coming from a big bang and from consequently unguided natural causes, what is your basis for assuming science works at all? You observe the laws of science, yes. But your understanding of the big bang does not allow you the right to assume there to be laws and order in our universe.

Many Christians think the Big Bang is how God created, so there is no necessary connection between it and “unguided natural causes.” But even if there were, it would not give me reason to doubt that “science works” since that is a demonstrable fact. The only question is one of philosophic justification which is interesting but ultimately irrelevant given that science works.

The Big Bang is a consequence of General Relativity coupled with observed facts like the microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe. It is a scientific theory based on logic and facts. As such, it has nothing more to do with the unsolved philosophical problems relating to the foundation of science than any other theory. Read More »

Posted in Christianity, Philosophy | 150 Responses

Is Equality Anti-Biblical?

I received this very strange response to my article Context Rules: The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible Confirmed by someone using the handle “primitive futurist”. He began by dismissing equality as “over-rated”:

Big deal. Equality is so over-rated. Bible has it right, moderns have it wrong. Get over it.

I responded:

Actually, it is a very big deal. Equality is the foundation of justice and morality. The Bible is wrong on this point. We moderns are beginning to get it right, after thousands of years of error. As Dr. Martin Luther King said “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

I referenced the “moral arc” because it is the title of Michael Shermer’s recent book The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom. It explains morality from an atheist perspective. Steven Pinker referred to it as a “sequel” to his book The Better Angels of Our Nature saying it “explores all our spheres of moral progress, not just the decline of violence.” Here is a snippet of his review found on (link):

Shermer has engaged the full mantle of moral progress and considered how far we have come and how much farther that arc can be bent toward truth, justice, and freedom. The Moral Arc is a thrilling book, one which could change your view of human history and human destiny. Through copious data and compelling examples Shermer shows how the arc of the moral universe, seen from a historical vantage point, bends toward civil rights and civil liberties, the spread of liberal democracy and market economies, and the expansion of women’s rights, gay rights, and even animal rights. Never in history has such a large percentage of the world’s population enjoyed so much freedom, autonomy, and prosperity.

Moral progress driven by the advancement of science and reason was my main point, but there were other ramifications echoing from that rich phrase. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would never have had to fight, let alone die, for equality if it were something that was effectively taught in the Bible. There is no way a whole nation of Bible believing Christians could have instituted slavery and racism if it were not somehow endorsed, or at a least allowed, in their “holy book.” The moral arc of the Bible is “justice” in the form of retribution rather than reconciliation. The narrative is a bloodbath orchestrated by God himself from Genesis to Revelation, where he finally finds satisfaction by watching his enemies tormented forever in the Lake of Fire:

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. … And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:12, 15)

Getting back to our interlocutor’s comments, he responded by ignoring everything I wrote except the reference to Dr. King:

Dr King would be the first to reject your anti-biblical so-called justice.

I responded:

So you say that Dr. King would reject equality as the foundation of justice and morality? Seriously?

It appears your devotion to the Bible has blinded you to the nature of justice and morality. If equality is “anti-biblical” then the Bible is fundamentally immoral.

This apparently encouraged him to tell us what he really thinks about anyone who doesn’t posit the existence of some sort of god, whether it be Allah, Yahweh, or Zeus doesn’t appear to matter. If you don’t posit a supernatural whatsit, you are lost in a world consisting of nothing but atoms colliding in the void with no meaning or morality possible. Here is how he explained his view:

Blah blah blah. White middle class first-world dilettante posturing. Go down to Mexico and have this discussion with the cocaine cartels who will machine gun a family without thinking twice. There’s your atheism.

First he rejects equality as “anti-biblical” and now he is casting my reference to Dr. King’s call for equal rights as a “white middle class first-world dilettante posturing”? What’s he trying to say? That middle class first-world Caucasians cannot authentically promote equality? That would rather ironic in light of our primary gift to the world being freedom and equality and justice for all. Whether we fall short matters not; it is what America is all about! They are our highest ideals.

His leap to atheism is equally absurd and non sequitur. Indiscriminate killing is a common feature of ignorant, primitive  humanity driven by fears and superstitions, such as we find in the Bible. Theirs were the tormented minds that created the God of eternal punishment we see in the Abrahamic religions.

And this brings us to his most densely packed sequence of non sequiturs, unjustified assertions, and ignorant caricatures of what atheism entails:

There’s your evolution. Survival of the fittest is the only law in the jungle. Shit happens as Richard Dawkins says. Get over it. The gazelle doesn’t whine and whinge about equality when the lion takes it down. Eat or be eaten. Might is right. The rest, if you are an atheist, is just posturing. There is no equality. DNA doesn’t care.

Beginning at the top: Survival of the fittest, or natural selection, is simply a fact that is abundantly confirmed. It would be true whether or not there is a god. It does not imply that “might is right.” That would a category error that contradicts what we mean by the word “right”.

A gazelle does not “whine and whinge about equality when the lion takes it down” because gazelles do not possess the faculty of language and reason, which are prerequisites to moral philosophy. This error probably has its roots in the arguments of William Lane Craig, as I explained in my article Why Most Animals are not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig’s Moral Argument for God. The fact that Craig has been repeating these elementary errors for many years shows that he is truly incorrigible, and is a corrupting influence on the mind of believers who repeat his errors without thinking.

Now we come to his central assertion: “The rest, if you are an atheist, is just posturing. There is no equality. DNA doesn’t care.” The fact that DNA “doesn’t care” is no more relevant than saying that the software that made his comments possible “doesn’t care.” We are not our DNA simpliciter. Our DNA is a critical part of us, but we are much more. We have form, and our form is involved in a dynamic biological process that makes us what we are. His assertion is no less fallacious than saying that a pile of bricks is identical to a building. It is the fallacy of composition.

His main error is to assume that atheism implies materialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism entails nothing but the absence of theism. An atheist could be as “spiritual” or “mystical” as anyone. But all of that is irrelevant, because morality and meaning is based on what we are and has nothing to do with any god. The God On/God Off game makes this pretty clear. Clap your hands, there is no God. Clap your hands, there is a God. Did you notice the difference? Me neither. There is nothing about any god that would make an otherwise meaningless universe meaningful. If a future life makes this life meaningful, what makes the future life meaningful? If not another future-future life, then it must be an end in itself. If the future life could be an end in itself, why not this life?

Throw out the bible, and all you have left is Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law. Everything else is just trendy fashionable this-year’s-model. Women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights. What about the rights of the tuberculosis bacteria? When are you going to stand up for its equality? The only morality outside the Bible is self-justifying attempts to placate the conscience, but if evolution is all there is, your conscience is nothing but illusion. Get over it, head down to Mexico, and start making a killing. What have you got to lose? Your eternal soul? Ha Ha. Not if it doesn’t exist.

The assertion that the Bible creates meaning is quite absurd, given that it says countless people will be tormented forever in hell. What would be the meaning of their lives? Unfortunately, Christians have an answer for that. They say those suffering in hell have meaning because they are glorifying God by showing his “justice.” And so we reach the bottom of the abyss of Christian apologetics where “divine justice” is revealed to entail an eternal evil of infinite injustice.

And now we come to the crowing incoherence of the Christian dogma that there would be no morality without the God of the Bible. If that were true there would be no morality, for they are saying that nothing is actually right or wrong, but only because their God said so. This error has been understood for about 2400 years since Plato wrote Euthyphro. Dr. Craig’s attempts to avoid it by positing “God’s nature” as the definition of “fair, good, and just” is utterly ludicrous, because it would imply that the meaning of those words does not depend on objective reality. I explain this in my  article Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig’s Moral Argument for God.

Posted in Biblical Issues, Losing My Religion, Why Christianity is False | 34 Responses

Context Rules: The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible Confirmed

I received this interesting challenge to my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible. I will respond line by line:

I missed your point in your article. You make the assertion and give support for why the Bible is sexist against women. What was your point? Was there a point? If not, it is okay. If you were just trying to enlighten people who maybe previously had no idea, then that is fine, but I may challenge it.

I stated my point in the first sentence. Here it is again: “The Bible is an ancient book written by primitive men with primitive morals, chief amongst them being a thoroughly sexist view of women.” The implication, of course, being that the Bible is not the “Word of God” in any meaningful sense of the word. It is the product of primitive men with primitive morals and should be understood as such. It should never be used as a “moral guide” or interpreted as the “Word of God.”

How do you define sexism or being sexist (and in your context against/ towards women)? If you compare standards found in Bible times compared to today’s standards of how we are told to treat women, anyone could make the argument that the Bible is sexist toward women. But if you compare the Bible’s standard toward women against the cultural background of the time that the Bible was written in, do you get the same results?

Sexism is discrimination based on sex. I don’t see how it would be relevant if the “standards” in the Bible happened to be better than other primitive societies of that time and local. It’s still primitive and therefore not the “inspired Word” of any God.  Riane Eisler in The Chalice and the Blade argues that egalitarian societies once flourished until they were destroyed by the tribes of warrior barbarians not dissimilar to the description of the Hebrews in the Bible. In any case, there is no sign of any divine guidance in the Bible. The modern social progress for the liberation of blacks, women, and gays is driven primarily by the evolution of secular morality, and typically opposed by Christians. Remember, the fight for abolition was fought against the ruling Christians.

You say early on that there is an order of hierarchy in the Bible. Male: God, Male: Christ, Male: man, and woman: is the subject. I would first challenge the notion that God is male. While the male pronoun like He is often used to refer to God, that does not make God male. The male pronoun is the main, default pronoun to use if no gender is known or is not important to context. Only more recently with feminine movements and people being over sensitive have people been more careful to say his or her (for instance) when writing. God is also called our heavenly father. This is more a comparison of God’s role in our lives in relation to us. It is not to assign God gender. This is arguable I am sure. Moving on…

While I agree that Scripture may not define God as “male” per se, he is definitely modeled on the concept of masculinity. He is a warrior, a king, a priest, a husband. He is called “Father” by Jesus throughout the NT. There are only a few tangential references that could be construed as feminine, and they are notable for their rarity. Far and away, the “God” of the Bible is masculine through and through.

As for the use of male pronouns – if God wanted to present himself as female, what was stopping him? The closest we see is the feminine “Wisdom” of the OT, but that is best identified with the literally male “son” of the NT, so that doesn’t work. And even the Spirit, which is a feminine noun in both Hebrew and Greek, is referred to with the masculine noun parakletos (comforter) and pronoun ho (he) (John 15:26).

As for God’s role, that is decidedly masculine, as many commentators have elaborated. The church is “feminine” (passive) and God is masculine (active)

You also quote Ephesians 5 where it says that women are to submit to their husbands. I may add that you lack balance in quoting from the Bible. You missed the verse Ephesians 5:21 “submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God”

I didn’t miss that verse at all. It is referring to Christian men submitting to other Christian men. This is made explicit in context. It is not teaching that Christian women should submit to Christian men other than their husbands and certainly not that any Christian men should submit to any Christian women. That would be quite absurd. Here is what is says. It begins with a general admonition to Christian men to submit themselves to one another, and then immediately clarifies that the women should not submit themselves to other men, but to their own husbands only. I highlight the admonition to men in italics:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;  20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;  21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.  22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Ephesians 5:19-25)

Note the strong distinction. “Wives” are spoken to directly, as distinct from the general discourse that preceded. Would it make any sense to admonish everyone to submit themselves to each other, and then immediately follow that with an admonition to the wives to specifically submit themselves to their own husbands? And then to repeat that the man is the head and the woman the subject? Is there anything in that passage that would have been read by a first century Jew as teaching that men should submit themselves to their wives? Is there any other verse in the entire Bible that would support such an interpretation?

You quote the Bible and select passages like the Bible is teaching that man can use women like doormats or as objects. Correct me if I am wrong to infer this from you. I do not think one can read Ephesians chapter 5 and can properly infer that from the context of Ephesians 5.

I did not draw that specific conclusion from Ephesians 5. It is implied most strongly in this passage from the OT in which Yahweh tells soldiers that they can take a captured woman, have sex with her, and dispose her like a filthy rag if he finds no “delight” in her:

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:14)

In the OT, the term “humbled” (anah) in this context means he “screwed” her.

In Luke’s gospel account, he tells more stories of Jesus taking His time to help women and children showing Jesus’ human, compassionate nature and how Jesus cared for what society called “the least of these.” At the very least, Jesus spent time trying to teach His disciples what is true greatness. He said being a servant is what makes you great. So, think about that as you may. Women, who were often treated as the least, these are the ones who Jesus said would be the greatest. Again, think about it some more.

I agree that the third Gospel has that character. I wrote a lot about it. I even wrote a section of my Bible Wheel book called Luke: The Gospel of Women. So I know what you are talking about. And that is a very good thing. But it does not undo the sexism found throughout the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, it shows how inconsistent the book really is.

When the men dragged the woman sinner (prostitute) to Jesus to condemn her, Jesus didn’t get in on the bandwagon and slap the “good ol’ boys on the back.” No, He saw the sin in the hearts of the men, and He saw the heart of the woman who was “caught in sin.” He said who is without sin, cast the first stone. One by one, the accusers walked away. Jesus forgave the woman and told her to sin no more.

And where was the man? The text says that they were “caught in the very act.” Why didn’t Jesus point out their hypocrisy in condemning the woman but not the man? In any case, I don’t see how his kindness to this sinner was any different than any other, or now it contradicts anything in my article. To reflect your question to me, what is your point?

The Pericope de Adultera in John 8 is a very strange passage. It is not found in the earliest manuscripts and it is found misplaced in later manuscripts, such as at various places near the end of Luke.

I think you have stumbled on an interesting topic in the Bible that many fundamentals do not bring up for the sake of becoming uncomfortable. How do men who revere the Bible teach such passages that do not look at women as favorably as men? Is the Bible wrong? Is today’s society wrong? Is everybody wrong? Are we all nut jobs seeking to make our position look better than everybody else’ position?

I don’t think we are all nutjobs. If we are open to correction and reality and other points of view, who knows what we will learn. My main point is that taking the Bible as the “Word of God” is obviously wrong.

I would be careful about quoting passages from 1 Corinthians and Timothy that assert certain women protocol and behaviors. 1 Corinthians was written to a church in a context that had multiple problems. Back then, women who didn’t wear head coverings were considered to be not properly dressed. It would be like women showing up in church dressed like a hooker. Cultural times do not let us catch these things as easily. Civil laws change over time. Think about how that passage might have been written if to today’s church. Moving on… And when it says that women should not have authority over the man and should not speak out, we have to look at the problem of the original context. Church services were getting out of hand. There was no order. The famous line of “let the women keep silence in the church” comes from a context that did not seek out to degrade women. It is in the context of keeping an orderly service. It would be no different than for me to say that this meeting is only so long, we will only have so much time for questions and comments, so I would ask that only the leaders ask questions. This is not to degrade against everyone who is not a leader. It is just a needed solution to the chaos that was erupting in the church services back then. Back then, the leaders of the home were the “men.” The context is not implying that the women do not matter as much or are not important. The context is just establishing a rule of conduct.

Yes, context is exceedingly important. So let’s look once again at the context, as explained in my original article. The creation myth blames the woman for all the sin in the world and says God himself placed two curses upon her: 1) the pain of childbirth and 2) male domination:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

This verse cannot be explained away because its plain meaning is confirmed and applied in the New Testament where it is used as a justification for why women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in Christian churches:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Tim 2:11-15)

Women are not allowed to teach because 1) males have primacy because Adam was created first and 2) women are not reliable teachers because they are easily deceived, like Eve. And it completes the picture of the creation myth when it says “woman will be saved through childbearing” (which is the only value they had according to some church fathers, see below). That women must be silent and in submission to men is confirmed and explained as being “in the law” in 1 Corinthians:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

As far as I  know, you did not deal with any of this contextual information that makes Paul’s intent quite clear, or so it seems to me.

I hope this is making sense. It is important to quote within context.

Indeed. Context is Queen.


Posted in Biblical Issues, Losing My Religion | 270 Responses

Ping Pong with a Bible Believer

As most readers of this blog have noticed, there is a user who goes by the names “bibelverse” and/or “Gnade” who is not interested in rational discourse, but rather robotically repeating Bible verses and dogmatically asserting the truth of his personal beliefs without the support of reason. Most of his comments have nothing to do with the thread in which they are found so I am creating this thread so he and his primary adversary Michael Free can freely carry on without interrupting the other conversations.

Posted in Bible Wheel | 120 Responses

Flipping Fundamentalism Off

Is there such a thing as a “former fundamentalist” or do fundamentalists simply switch sides? Is fundamentalism more about the psychology of belief than its content? Can the “fundamentalism bit” be flipped off? Former Conservatives become radical Liberals. Former alcoholics become strict teetotalers who oppose all drinking. Have I fallen into that trap? I don’t think so, but apparently some do, or perhaps they just think it is an easy way to attack my conclusions without addressing my arguments. I received this critique in the thread under my article Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been. I will respond to James line by line:

You claim that, because of limited understanding or information, you were once certain that those things you once believed were air-tight, but now are wrong- and WHY? Because you claim you later re-thought and re-examined your former conclusions with a new insight which brought you to a different and unbiased conclusion.

That’s not what I claim at all. It appears you did not read my article before commenting on it. The certainty I felt did not come from a “limited understanding or information.” It came from years of magical thinking (taking coincidences as evidence) reinforced by cognitive biases like confirmation bias and selection bias (cherry picking). In effect, I hypnotized myself by fixating my attention on the pattern of the Bible Wheel for many years. That was the basis of my illusion of certainty, as explained at length in the article you are supposedly responding to.

My point is, you may still be lacking in information (no one has all knowledge) that may yet prove that your present conclusions, which you now seem to be certain are air-tight, may equally be just as flawed. If, as you seem to be offering here, the opportunity for someone to introduce logic, reason, or information to the contrary, then would you be objective enough to accept it? If so, then I assume you would equally be objective enough and willing to change your present conclusions, right?

I have always been open to new information. My fundamentalism was not based on closing my eyes to evidence (like creationists who deny evolution and the age of the earth), but rather focusing on The Pattern I thought “trumped” all the contrary evidence. I freely admitted that there were problems in the Bible I could not explain, but felt they were nothing compared to the evidence of the Bible Wheel. My confidence was amplified by the lack of qualified critics. Almost all the criticism I received consisted of nothing but empty assertions and mindless mockery. I rarely met anyone who even tried to rationally challenge my claims. And so I had to fulfill the old saying, “If you want a job done right, do it yourself.” I recorded the process in this series of articles:

Contrary to your assertion, I did not reject my old beliefs because of “new information” but rather because of blatant cognitive errors and biases as explained in those articles.

Also, if you are equally admitting that it IS possible that such new information may be out there somewhere to cause you to change your present conclusions, then why the insults hurled at a God that may yet be proven to exist?

I’m not “hurling insults” at a God I don’t believe exists. I am exposing the absurdities and moral abominations attributed to him in the Bible, and how the attempt to justify them tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers (as explained in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem). If we begin by assuming that any real God must be rational and just then what is there to fear? I am confident that a real God would be big enough to handle the misdirected insults of one of his puny little creatures, and sufficiently intelligent to understand that my disdain for the behavior attributed to him in the Bible is fully justified. The Bible says he commanded genocide, established sexism, instituted slavery, and treated people with great cruelty, irrationality, and injustice. If you want to challenge these assertions a good place to start would be The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible and the “Art of Rationalization” linked above.

IF, however, you are CERTAIN that such logic, facts or reason cannot possibly exist, then is that not also supremely irrational?

Why do you write “CERTAIN” in all caps? Rational people know the limits of certainty, that it’s always a matter of probability based on logic, facts, experience, intuition,interaction with others, etc. Very few things are “certain” in a way implied by all caps, and certainly not any claim about the existence of an undetectable god invented by primitive superstitious men. You appear to be asserting an extreme form of skepticism that says it would be “supremely irrational” to be “CERTAIN” about anything. Do you really believe that Allah is as likely as Yahweh? Or that the Tooth Fairy could be the True God? If not, is your certainty on those questions “supremely irrational?”

Why even continue your threads of discussion here, to be so elitist in your thinking as to believe that no one could possibly produce such facts or information? Wasn’t that also your position long ago when you were so certain the facts behind your Bible-Wheel were indisputable?

Elitist? Where did that come from? If it is “elitist” to base arguments on logic and facts, then I guess I am that.

Your comment is an empty generalization. There is nothing for me to answer. If you think you have some evidence, then please present it. If you think I have failed to adequately answer any “facts or information” supporting Christianity, then please expose my error. Empty assertions mean nothing.

Why continue discussion? Because I find it fascinating. Because I value criticism and enjoy a challenge. I learn a lot and it helps keep my mind sharp.  Because I spent nearly two decades on this topic, and so it is a part of me. Because I want to help other people find freedom from the bondage of self-delusion. Because I am trying to help clean up a mess I helped create. Many people think that the Bible Wheel confirms their religious delusions.

Your complaint seems to be that I am an “elitist” because religious people can’t support their assertions with logic and facts.

It seems, however, that your conclusions are an admission that you now think you have enough knowledge and have finally “ARRIVED” so that NO new facts or information could EVER be produced by anyone to bring you to a change of mind.

I think no such thing. Your entire argument is based on a ludicrous straw man caricature of my position. Not one word you wrote relates to anything in my articles about why I reject my former beliefs. Not. One. Word. You are simply asserting that any certainty is “closed minded.” By your logic, you must believe that Allah is as likely as Yahweh or the Tooth Fairy. Fine logic you got there James.

I fear for you. If you are so certain that nothing can be presented to change your mind, then what is the purpose of these discussions? Is it to prove to your readers, or to yourself, that there aren’t any facts left out there to change your mind? Who, really, are you trying to convince? Are you trying to convince people that the Bible is flawed, or are you really trying to convince everyone that YOU have the FINAL ANSWERS??? Your logic, to me, is illogical. Yes, it is ILLOGICAL to think that you can possibly know all things in this life to the point of absolute certainty about anything – and, if that is true, then there is reason enough never to stop investigating! Not everyone who believes in the existence of God is ignorant of the facts, and there are enough respected scientists and critical thinkers out there who have come to just the opposite conclusion than you came to, for they conclude that there IS a God, and that there HAS TO BE a Creator, and that it is the One we read about in the Bible!

Well there you go. The Full Monty Straw Man. I have never claimed to “know all things.” It is not illogical to have a measure of certainty based on logic and facts. If you want to challenge my arguments, then challenge my arguments! Don’t just spew out generalities with no content. I dare ya.

It is particularly ironic that you end your attack on certainty with an all caps assertion that there are some “respected scientists and critical thinkers” who claim “there HAS TO BE a Creator.” How could you fail to see that the all caps “HAS TO BE” represents a “CERTAINTY” that is, by your logic, “supremely irrational?”

And of course, your fallacious appeal to the authority of “respected scientists and critical thinkers” adds nothing to your argument. There are plenty of nutty professors out there. Here are a few examples:

If you want to actually challenge something I’ve actually written, you know where to start.

Posted in Bible Wheel, Debunking Bullshit, Losing My Religion, Why Christianity is False | 5 Responses