On Atheism    rev. 06.07.2009 Back to Lessons

06.07.2009: Here's a wonderful chat-up on Religions at YouTube.

02.11.2009: There are few better descriptions of the "benefits" of Religion than this one at Wimp.com ... Enjoy!

03.02.2008: I just came across this snippet in the Yahoo Groups. I think it might be one of the best refutations of religion and biblical teachings that can be made... I'll quote part of it here:

>> are the original comments
> are the replies

> > For instance, standardized tests like the ACT have reading comprehension sections. One's ability to read and properly comprehend is objectively tested all the time. Objective testing take place in reading just as it does in science.

> But it is NOT the same thing as the Bible!!! Your examples are irrelvant to the point of being ludicrous!
I claim that there are two things about the Bible that prevent us from determining the correct interpretation of the Bible:
1. There are many different interpretations
2. There is no objective test that can allow us to determine which interpretation is correct.
You offer examples such as a training manual. That is a ridiculous example because it fails in both areas.
First, training manuals do not have many different interpretations. In fact, they are specifically written to insure that they are not interpreted in different ways. Most such manuals are actually tested by people before they are distributed to the general public. If the test individuals fail to follow the steps outlined correctly, the manual is modified.
Second, training manuals can be objectively tested. If someone is trained on how to assemble a computer, for example, if they interpret the manual so that the computer works when it has been assembled, then their interpretation was correct. If the computer didn't work when it was assembled, then they misinterpreted the manual. So you were oh-for-two with that example.
Here you speak of standardized test. Such tests have an objective measure of how to judge interpretations. So with this example, you are one-for-two.
Still not good enough.

> > Interpretations of the Bible are objectively tested the same way. There are rules, there is accountability, there must be correspondence between the interpretation and the object studied, etc....
> Well, in that case, YOUR interpretation is false. That's because you are a creationist and your interpretation does not correspond to what we see in the natural world. In fact, there IS NO OBJECTIVE TEST!!! All you have is one person saying that the Bible says one thing arguing against another person claiming that if you go back to the original language and look at the fourth meaning for th fifth word in the third sentence the entire meaning of a passage changes. That's not objective.

> > Science is not literature. But, science depends on literature.
> But scientific hypotheses don't. They are testable.

> > Scientists are only able to engage in objective scientific testing because they acknowledge at practice that which you deny. Namely, objective interpretation of texts.
Einstein wrote in a scientific paper (a form of literature) that E = M*C**2. We know what 'C' is. We can measure mass. Therefore we can calculate how much energy to get out of an atomic reaction. If someone should (somehow) misinterpret that formula to think that E = M*C**3, an objective experiment would demonstrate that interpretation to be incorrect. This is yet another example where you are oh-for-two.
Surely you know that. You're just making stuff up now.

02.18.2008: Hooray for Bill Maher's new movie, "Religulous"!

11.02.2007: Hmmm... I may have to rent The Golden Compass....

06.24.2007: Thank the god you believe in that the Founders believed in the Separation of Church and State so that you could thank the god you believe in.

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence,
and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. —Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

First rev: 06.04.2007