Jeremy_the _Atheist

As some of you might know, I am going to give a presentation at a church in the city in which I live on atheism and secular humanism. I will give the presentation and then take questions from the audience. The pastor will then attempt to explain to the class why I am wrong.

Anyway, I completely an argument to present but it was kind of in the same vein as Micheal Martin's Atheism: a Philosphical Justification in the sense that was very structered, and maybe overly complex. I rehearsed for a friend of mine who then said something along the lines of "Man. If you go in there with that shit, your are going to lose them big time. They aren't going to know what the hell you are talking about. In the first five minutes they are going to forget that you are even an atheist. I have a degree in Math and I'm still having a hard time following that." He did say that they were very good arguments but most of the people that I am talking to probably don't a background in math, physics, logical and critical analysis, etc. So I started over.

I have some ideas but I still haven't decided on an exact approach. Two possible approaches I am considering is:

1. Start by asking everyone to assume that no one is of any religious persuasion and then asking what criteria and qualifications they would look for in "the one true path." I would then deconstruct religious beliefs, demonstrating that Christianity does not live up to it, but that science does in many many ways. This would not be to show that science was the one true religion, but instead to show that all religions are just really an attempt at science but without what makes science succesful. In other words, Science is not religion, instead religion is an attempt at science.

2. Another possible approach is the "assumed doubt" approach. With this approach, I point out that every one doubts it. How do I know? Because people don't go jumping off buildings, thinking that they can fly because they don�t doubt gravity. But they do choose to do things that their God disapproves of. Why would they do that if they really believed it as strongly as they believed in the validity of gravity? From there I tell them why they doubt and deconstruct their faith.

Anyway, I am asking for ideas on what approach might be best. I am also posting some of my notes and ask for comments and criticisms. This is open to theists and atheists alike. Thank you all in advance.

Assumed Doubt
I would like to see a show of hands of everyone here tonight who has believed a certain action to be displeasing to your god and have chosen to do it anyway. (wait for show of hands). Now, I would like the show of hands of everyone, since the age of say 7 or 8, that has jumped off their house, out of a very tree, or off a cliff in an attempt to fly unaided by any tool? (wait for show of hands).

If you believe that god is all-powerful and is perfect, whose will is never wrong, and who always has your best interest at heart, why would you ever consider doing anything other than what god says? why would you choose to do such a thing? If you really believe that an act of disobedience to your god has consequences that are so wide reaching that one man's onetime disobedience lead to world from being a perfect paradise to the state we have today, why would you ever consider following his example? If you really believe that the offense of such disobedience is so great that it can only be rectified with the offender spending eternity being tortured endlessly, why you ever disobey god?

The reason, quite simply, is because you doubt the validity of your beliefs in some way or another. Tonight we are going to explore why it is that you have doubt.

Indoctrination
The nature of how religions are proliferated is an indicator that they might be illegitimate. For starters, the religious convictions of the vast majority of people are a result of an accident of birth. It comes as no surprise that most people that are born in India grow up to be Hindi and that most people born in Pakistan grow up to be Muslims.

Most people are taught their respective religions when they are children, before they have learned to think critically. As they are taught their religion, they are also taught to not question their religion, lest they risk falling into the darkness.
If something is a truth, it should be able to stand up to skeptical analysis and scrutiny. It is a fact that trees exist and that gravity is real. And no one tries to persuade children to not question the existence of trees and no one tries to get children to accept gravity on faith. Instead, we show the child the tree and we drop a pencil and let it fall to the ground to demonstrate gravity.
We don't stop there either. We teach children about the different kinds cells in trees, we teach them about the life cycle of trees, and other such things. And we teach them about mathematics, geometry, physics and relativity so they may understand gravity. And we encourage and reward asking questions.

But when it comes to religion, no one shows the child a spirit, no one gives a clear definition of supernatural. Instead people discourage critical analysis as much as possible and answer questions with threats of an eternity of unimaginable torment.
Of course, just because religious 'knowledge' is handled in this way does not in and of itself make it false. For example if we treated knowledge of gravity the same way, it would still be a real fact of our universe. But it does caste suspicion onto religious claims. We don't handle knowledge of gravity this way because there is no need to, if a person suspects that gravity is not real, they can test it for themselves.

God�s existence is not obvious at all.
One thing that many theists claim is that no one has an excuse not to believe in god. They claim this taking their lead from Psalms 19:1 when it says,
�the heavens are telling of the glory of god; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.� (NAS)

Or from Romans 1:20 �For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse.

If a person denies the validity of gravity and attempts to fly by jumping off a tall building, we don�t say things like, �that person does not have a spirit of submission toward God or God�s law.� We don�t need to because we know that the person�s body is going to submit to the law of gravity whether the person agrees to it or not.
We don�t try to argue the point with people that deny the existence of gravity, instead we seek to have them committed, and rightly so lest they do jump off a tall building and, as a result, harm themselves or someone else.
Theists rarely claim the atheist to be insane. Instead they construct arguments in attempts to prove the existence of god.
When this fails, theists, often times attack the moral character of the atheist. Many of the claims

Nature of Universe does not point toward purpose

The sun puts gives off billions of times more heat than what is actually need to sustain the earth. The rest of that energy is just lost to the empty vacuum of space. The nearest star system is roughly

For all our talk of the miracle of life and how amazing it is, the universe itself almost completely lifeless. There are Five planets, four gas giants, various moons and thousands of asteroids orbiting our sun and, so far as we have found only our earth supports life. The earth makes up less than 0.000001% of the total space in our solar system. On the cosmic scale, we, as individuals, amount to very close to nothing at all.


And what of the life on our planet? The amount of suffering that occurs on the earth each year is unfathomable. While I am standing and speaking to you here tonight, thousands of animals all over this earth are being eaten alive by ravenous predators, thousands more are running for their lives from predators, thousands more are being slowly eaten alive from the inside by parasites, and still thousands more are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.
If ever there is a time of plenty, one species or another quickly over populates the given environment, depleting the area of its natural resources. The competition for food and other resources begins anew and the natural state of fear, starvation, misery and death is restored.
By an accident of birth, some lucky few are born smarter and stronger than the rest, while most are at the mercy of a world that is without it, and so get hurt. There is no rhyme, reason, justice, nor meaning in any of it. But instead unrelenting pitiless indifference.
At rock bottom we live in just the kind of universe we would expect to find if one just existed without design, meaning, or without any purpose at all.

(This is paraphrasing a paragraph from Out of Eden by Richard Dawkins.)

People often answer all this suffering by pointing to Adam's sin and how it cursed all creation. This explanation is problematic for several reasons. God did not have to curse all of creation for the sins of one man. Also, god did not have to allow the sin nature to be transmitted to his offspring.
I am quick to point that most of the creatures on this earth apparently fully unaware of god's existence and that most theologies don't even grant them the capacity to commit sin. I also point out that most live out their lives and suffer their deaths totally unobserved by humankind. And for humankind, we cannot hurt god, even if we wanted to.

Whenever I see a professional baseball player that gets paid millions of dollars a year giving god the credit for his success or when ever I see a sports team praying for god's blessing before the game, I think of in the destitute nations of the world such as Somalia or Central Africa where starving children and exhausted mothers cry out night and day to whatever god will listen for relief from the oppression and starvation that defines their lives. And I think to myself, at least god keeps things in perspective.

Religion functions like a virus.
Humans have an enormous propensity toward error, that is we are very talented in making mistakes.
Religious belief is not founded upon external investigation, but on faith. There is no safeguard to minimize human fallibility. In Religion there is no standard of evidence or verification and, therefore nothing to safeguard adherents from mistakes, deceit, wishful thinking.

Since faith does not require evidence, it is open to all kinds of human error, such as wishful,
Faith has no safe guards against human fallibility.

When I was a Christian, I was taught to seek the small, still quite voice of god in my player closet. But no method was given to distinguish the voice of God from my own wishful thinking.

Doctrine of Hell

Brutality of Doctrine of Hell
Imagine telling a 10 year old child that the supreme ruler of the universe deems him to be utterly worthless and that this being is so offended by the boy that the only punishment that will satisfy this being is for the offender to be thrown into a burning lake of fire, sulfur and lava where the boy will be eaten alive from inside by worms and will be tormented day and night forever and ever. There will be no breaks, no parole, the offender will never die, or be released from this punishment in any other way.

As a basis for Justice

Still working on this. Will posted as soon as I have completed my argument.

Misdirection

When a magician performs a magic trick, they use the art of misdirection. They deceive the audience by getting them to watch their right hand while they perform the trick with their left hand.

Many people would claim that the reason I do not believe in god is because I want to continue in my sinful ways and not feel guilty. The would claim that I choose to ignore the holy spirit convicting my spirit, but deep down, they claim that in my heart, I know that god is real. These kinds of statements use the same kind of misdirection that magicians use. The attempt here is to get someone to look at me in an unfavorable light and ignore my arguments, ignore the evidence, and not even check the evidence for themselves.
To address this head on, facts are facts and they do not depend on the character or intentions of the speaker to be true or false. If I say that 2+2=4, you might accept it, but it doesn�t matter if you don�t because you can verify this yourself. But you don�t try to evaluate the truth or untruth of this statement in light of my moral or ethical character as the truth of this statement is not dependent on such. If I was a lying, whoring, no-good, stinking, rotten scoundrel, it would make it no less true that 2+2=4. And if I am the most virtuous person in the world, it would still not make it true if I say that 2+2=5.
These statements are also to distract a person away from the fact that much religious language is lacking coherency and communicates nothing. For example, if you might say I can�t see the light of the bible because I don�t have Jesus in my heart or my �spirit� has not submitted to Jesus. What does this really mean, though?

When we use the word heart in this way, we are really just dressing up neurochemical reactions in the brain in poetic language. If it means something else, no one seems to be able to give a clear explanation of what that something is.

When people speak of spirits, we really don�t know at all what they are talking about.

What is a spirit?
For example, I find the concept of the undying spirit to be unintelligible. I�m both my body and my mind. And where the distinction between the two lies is quite unclear as my mind is contained within my brain and is the result of chemical reactions within my brain, which is a part of my body. I think in terms of the five senses of my body and symbolic thought, i.e. language, which is a human construct. My identity, who I am, in
When people suffer from brain damage and people that suffer from Alzheimer�s have memory loss as the result. This strong points toward memory being something that is contained solely in the brain and that it will be extinguished when I die. So what part of me will live on? And does it live on? And considering that my identity is based on my perception based on the five sense, combined with my memory, all of which seem to be a product of chemical reactions of the brain, how can it be said that this thing, this spirit, that has none of the five senses or that does not have a brain with chemicals in it to react to allow for a mind, is me?

Some might disagree with this but the evidence points pretty strongly that our mind and memory are contained within our brain and are a result of nothing more than chemical reactions. When someone has brain damage or gets Alzheimer�s, their memory is damaged. Identity is pretty difficult thing to pin down, even more so because when our memory is lost or damaged, or our brain chemistry is altered through controlled substances (be it illegal drugs like marijuana, or medications) it effects our personality, and thus has an effect on our identity.

Biblical Contraditions?


Salvation is not clear
Salvation is one the most important aspect of the Christian religion. But considering the severity of the punishment awaiting the unsaved, it is a shame that the bible is not more clear on how one is saved. For example, several different bible verses give conflicting accounts on how one is saved.

Here I will include the confusing scriptures in the bible. I will post term later on because they are in another document.

This is not the only contraction to be found in the bible.

I'm sure that someone will be more than happy to explain these contradictions. I am quick to point out that there are thousands of different Protestant denominations, most of which disagree with each other and all of which disagree with the Catholic Church. I have probably heard all of your answers to these contradictions before as I have heard and read hundreds explanations from various sources, all of which disagree with one another.
One of the most common ways people will answer these contradictions is to cite possible translation mistakes. The start off by saying �if you go back to original greek, Hebrew, Aramaic� or what language, �You�ll find that such and such word really means this.� I answer this by asking if I have to go and learn a foreign language to understand what the text says, then what is the point of the English translation?
If I understand my history right, then one of Martin Luther�s goals in the reformation was to give the bible to the common person. He regarded salvation to be a personal and individual thing, and that an intermediary in the form of priests was not needed, but instead every person came to God on their own.
Not everyone has the time or the resources to learn ancient Greek or Hebrew or to study in depth about the nuances of a long dead culture. So if learning foreign languages is the only way that a person can come to an understanding of the Bible, then only a few select people are going to be able to understand it and they will have to act as intermediaries for the rest of, telling us what the bible really says.
If we can�t rely on the theologians, historians and scholars who translated it to translate it properly, then how can we rely on the select few who learn the original Greek to translate it us properly?
Many Christians claim that the they trust the holy spirit to make sure
In the Jehovah�s Witness Bible, John reads �In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was a god."
If these people can


In I Corinthians, Paul wrote, "God is not the author of confusion" but never has any book brought more confusion to the world than the bible.

Jeremy_the _Atheist

Dishonest (if Christianity is the truth, why does it seem to breed so much dishonesty? More importantly, why do the dishonest get away with it a lot more in Christianity than within the scientific community?
Dishonestly of Creationism
Creationism is one of the biggest lies ever sold to the American Public. I know a lot of you are thinking something along the lines of "You call it a lie because you do not accept the bible as being the word of God." Whether or not the bible is the world of God is beside the point. Even if the bible is of natural origin as opposed to supernatural origin, whatever that means, the creation account might still have some truth to it. For example, Most Historians agree that King David, King Solomon, Nebekenezzar, the apostle Paul, as well as a number of other biblical figures really existed.

I reject creationism, not because because of my theology but because of the total lack of evidence supporting their claims and because of the dishonesty of their approach. Their methods and their prinicples are anathema to science and their goal seem to be to spread ignorance in the name of their dogma, and I am going to take a few minutes to expose this too you.

There are a number of creationist "research" institutes in America and Australia and most of them seem to not agree with each other on a number of different points. For example, one creationis
There is a number of things that all creationist organizations have in common. This should clue you in on to why I do not trust them and I encourage you to be skeptical as well:
1. No creationist institute has developed any new technology or medicine. All Creationist institutes are funded through donations and through selling literature.
Much scientific research is funded by private companies in hopes that discoveries can be patented and used to create new technology. No creationist organization has this going.

2. No creationist institutes has advanced a theory. Creationist "research" apparently consists of little, if anything, more than just looking for ways to debunk the evolutionary model. You can visit any creationist site on the web or look at any creationist literature in hard form and most of the time, all you will find is just page after page of various explanations of why evolution is incorrect. You will rarely find any information that actually does anything to advance our understanding of the natural world.



If evolution is false, then that does not automatically make true. There are other creation stories.
If Creationism is true, it must be shown to be true on it's own.
I say most of the time because one group has actually started working on advancing some 'theories.' We will take a look at one of these 'theories' in a minute.



3. No creationist institute has released any information that actually clearly explains the scientific method, the principle of falsifibility, or why the scientific method works like it does. The same scientific method is used in every scientific discipline.



To actually release this information would undermine their cause as a person that really read such literature, learned from it and applied it might apply it to the creationist literature as well. If a person does this, they quickly see how intellectually bankrupt creationism is.
4. All creationist institutes mispresent the theory of evolution, directing their arguments toward a straw man version instead of the real thing
5. No creationist website has a single link to a creditable scientific organization. Not NASA, no universities, no private industries researching science for the purposes of advancing medical technology, etc.

Just about anytime I get into a discussion with a creationist, I hear them ask a question that displays misunderstandings but no real working knowledge of evolution. Some of the most often asked questions are, "If evolution is true, why have no transitional fossils ever been found?" "What about the second law of thermodynamics?"
I'm not a biologist and I don't a have a lot of knowledge on this subject so I answer some of the more basic questions and then refer them to a book that explains it in better detail that I am equipped to do.
The theory of evolution that the creationists presents is ridiculous and you are right not to buy into it. But no real scientists buys into that version of evolution either. If evolution is the fraud that creationists claim that it is, then we should reject it and look for a better theory. But you will not convince anyone that with the arguments aldkfjladkfj. All you will convince people of as that you don't know anything about evolution.
Creationists have done this because they wish to keep people ignorant and keep them from making their own judgments.
For this reason, I strongly recommend that you look at some evolutionary literature as presented by evolutionists. Learn the theory as it really is, look at the evidence and learn why evolutionists say it supports the evolutionary model. All of this is open and available to the public. You can go to WT or any number of universities and libraries and museums around the USA to look at scientific journals. If you don't want to put that kind of work into, or you don't have the time, there are a number of popular explanations in print. Some of which are The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins,
If evolution is not true, then your witness can only be strengthened as now you are able to argue your point from a position of knowledge. If evolution is the truth, we should abandon and embrace the truth. The better that we understand our world, the better we can ...
The Creationist Organization that I will mainly be dealing with is Answers in Genesis, which hosts the Answers in Genesis (or AiG) website, and pu. The reason I have chosen this one is because it's considered to be one of the best and it pretends to be one of the more honest ones. For example it has a list of arguments that they advocate that creationists do not use.






Remember, it's no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
This paragraph should be a dead give away to the inherent dishonesty involved in so-called creation science. No one claims that you have to adhere to any specific world view, philosophy, or religion to understand gravity, or relativity, or thermodynamics, or electrodynamics, or any other of the long list of branches of science. And no one, other than creationists, claim that you have to adopt any specific world view to understand the theory of evolution, or to be convinced of it. Evolutionary Scientists merely point to the evidence.
If creationism is the truth, the evidence will speak for itself.

AiG teaches that 'facts' don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren't separate sets of 'evidences' for evolution and creation-we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible-the 'history book of the universe'-provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the 'evidence' confirms the biblical account.
First of all, facts do speak for themselves. Often times, we use math and other human contrivances to understand these facts but this does mean that it has to be interpreted in the same sense that AiG means it here.
To use the most basic example, 2+2=4. This a






Secondly, the account in Genesis is not an "eye-witness" account and is not presented is such. It is presented as a revelation as given to Moses by God.
Thirdly, on the website can be found a statement of faith that reads as follows:



The bottom line is that it�s not a matter of who has the better (or the most) �facts on their side.� We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts�all facts are interpreted. Thus, the next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Then, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed6 by real science.

So what is happening here is they are basing all their so-call 'scientific research' on the basis that Genesis is true, they even have a statement of faith that confirms that none of their 'research' will result in contradictions to Genesis, and then they claim that their work confirms Genesis. This is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, that is they are assuming what they wish to prove.
If Genesis is true, a statement of faith is not required and neither is a starting assumption that Genesis is true. If Genesis is true, if all boundaries are dropped, so long as the scientific method and critical scrutiny is observed, then free and honest investigation will result in scientific knowledge that matches up to Genesis.
If evolution is false, then that does not automatically make Creationism as described in Genesis true. If Creationism is true, it must be shown to be true on it's own.


Let's take a look at the result of what happens to Scientific investigation under these restrictions. The particular article that I was quoting from asks the same question that I first asked when I first started having some doubts about the bible. The question is: if the universe is only a few thousand years old, how can we see stars that are millions of light-years away? To find out the answer to this question, I first went to the library, and then to the classroom. I took several math classes and several physics classes. Years later I came across some of the conjectures presented in this article, but by that time, I knew enough about science, math and physics to recognize this for the tripe that it is.
The article starts off by exploring what is called the 'apparent age theory,' even though it's just a conjecture, not a real theory. The AAT basically states that God created the universe with light already hear. The problem with this idea is that if God can create the universe to look like it's billions of years old, but it's really only a six thousand years old, then God has deceived us. Also, AAT does not place limits on what can and can't be real and it's not falsifiable. To give you an example, if we say that God created the universe to appear billions of years old, then how do we know that it was really six thousand years ago? Why choose that date? We can just as easily say that God created the universe is only 5 minutes ago and created everyone complete with memories.
The article admits that if God did such a thing, it would be a strange deception. What strikes me as odd though is that, although they admit they flaws in this idea in relation to matters of astronomy, they ignore the same problem as it relates to Adam and Eve. That is, Adam would appear to be a grown man even though he was only seconds old. How this differs from the age of the universe, I don't know. Also, the article never mentions that this idea is not falsifiable and so is scientifically useless.
The article then goes on to mention another idea that was proposed but later abandoned, that is c decay, or the decay of the speed of light. (For those of you that are unfamiliar with physics, the speed of light is referred to as c and is equal to roughly 186,000 miles a second.)
Anyway, the article then proposes the AiG solution to the problem:
Dr Humphreys' new creationist cosmology literally 'falls out' of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge-that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.
This cosmological model has several problems with it already. First of all, the idea here seems to be the universe is just matter occupying a void. From what most physicist understand, now based on relativity, the universe is not just matter in a void, but that the space in which the matter is found is actually a part of the universe and is in and of itself something. When scientist speak of the expansion of the universe, they are not just talking about the galaxies moving away from one another, but that the space between the galaxies is expanding. Another problem is placing the earth at the center of the universe assumes such a thing as absolute space, which is a concept that disappears with relativity. Under the theory of relativity, there is no center of the universe. Instead of knowing the exact location of an object, the best we can do is know the location of the object in relationship to another object. Also, an objects don't move in relation to space but in relation to each to each other. For my sources, I site Physics for scientists and Engineers by Raymond A. Serway, Relativity: The special and General Theory by Albert Einstein, About Time by Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking's Universe by David Filken, and A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
The article continues:
This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular (big bang) cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries-no edge and no center.
First of all, whether or not something is common sense is mostly a matter of opinion, and really doesn't have anything to do with the correctness, or lack thereof, of a theory. Secondly,
But that asside, calling the big bang theory a secular theory is to forget about it's history. This theory was first developed 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Jesuit Priest and theoretical cosmologist. He was working at the Vatican at the time
Einstein, a hard-nosed atheist, had arbitrarily worked an extra force, called the "cosmological constant," into his equations under the assumption that the universe had always been.
Lemaitre met with Einstein
Einstein later lamented the addition of the aldkjf force and his missing the chance to predict the origin of the universe, calling it the biggest blunder of his career.
The Big Bang theory allowing for a beginning of time and possibly a creator disagreed with atheistic communist philosophies and so in 1963, two scientists working for the USSR, Evgenii Lifshitz and Isaac Khalatnikov, attempted to show the big bang was not a necessity but failed. In 1970, they withdrew their claims of this.
Another problem with here is the same problem I pointed out earlier. I already mention the problem of no center of the universe.
The article continues:



In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

Right now, the universe is expanding, as was known back in the 1920 from the hubble pictures. the current standing theory, which is heavily supported by the evidence, is that the universe will continue to expand, entropy will increase and will eventually the universe will die a heat death in the very distant future. So I have no idea where they are getting this idea.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say 'God's time' we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.)

Once again, the idea of a center of the universe is nonsense in light of the theory of relativity. Also, the net gravitational effect would not have a significant effect. The galaxies are too far apart to have to cause the time difference they are suggesting.

There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he �stretched out�11 (other verses say �spread out�) the heavens.

The universe is still expanding. There is evidence that the universe had a much more rabid expansion in the distant past, but it is still expanding.
If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a 'white hole'-a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).

Here, when the author is talking about white holes and black holes, (s)he is confusing an event horizon with a singularity.



As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink-eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way 'feel different.' 'Billions of years' would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.-while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and 'seen' the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c.

This paragraph has one of the most glaring mistakes. According to the theory of relativity, regardless of your velocity, c is always 186,000 miles per second. As an observer approaches the speed of light, his density increases and his time slows down. Regardless of the velocity of the observer, they will also perceive c to be 186,000 miles per second. So if an observer is moving at 80% the speed of light, from his perspective the time in the rest of the universe
Another problem with this is that an observer standing on the earth watching a star moving away from the earth, the earth appears to be at rest and the star in motion away from the earth. But from the perspective of an observer standing on the star, the star is at rest while the earth is motion, moving away from the star. Both observers will still perceive c to be 186,000 miles per second.

The article continues:



There is more detail of this new cosmology, at layman�s level, in the book by Dr Humphreys, Starlight and Time, which also includes reprints of his technical papers showing the equations.

I have not read the book and if this article is any indication of the level of scholarship that is in the book, I will pass.



It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem.

This should be a strong clue that what these people are doing is not science. Whenever a scientist or team of scientists have a theory, the submit is to a board where it undergoes scrutiny. If the theory still appears to be sound, they assign independent teams to conduct experiments to either confirm or falsify the theory. These different teams work without having knowledge of who else is working on it, and they are not told the theological beliefs of the scientists whose theories they have been assigned to test.

The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no �massaging��the results �fall out� so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called �what the experts don�t tell you about the �big bang��).

First of all, this isn't based upon Einsteinian relativity but a weird distortion of it.
Secondly, just because it is accepted by all cosmologists does not in and of it self make it true.
Thirdly, they are appealing to authority. This has several problems with it. Appealing to authority has no place in scientific investigation and the formulation of hypothesis. If a scientist bases his hypothesis on a currently accepted theory, it is because there is a lot of evidence to confirm the validity of that theory, not because so many people accept it. Secondly the are appealing to the same science they are attempting to undermine. They want you to believe they are credible because they claim to agree to many of the currently held theories of physicist, but throughout this entire article they have been attempting to tear down the work of these very people.



In one breath, they are saying, that all biologists have been brain washed and then they are turning around and saying all cosmologists and physicists in general accept it so it must be true.

The article continues:




Caution
While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries.

This is very true. Humankind is fallible and has demonstrated a very strong propensity toward error. That is why the scientific method and the principle of falsifbility is indispensable. be

What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

First of all the cosmology they are proposing isn't plausible because it ignores the mechanics of the very theory it is claimed to have been constructed upon. Secondly, notice, it just states that the mechanism has been demonstrated with considerable observation, but no mention is given to what experiments were carried out to test this mechanic, and no mention was given to how this mechanic could possibly be falsified. Finally, what theoretical support?

What if no one had ever thought of the possibility of gravitational time dilation? Many might have felt forced to agree with those scientists (including some Christians) that there was no possible solution �the vast ages are fact, and the Bible must be �reinterpreted� (massaged) or increasingly rejected. Many have in fact been urging Christians to abandon the Bible�s clear teaching of a recent creation [see Q&A: Genesis] because of these �undeniable facts.� This reinterpretation also means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Fall/restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible.

If a book proposing something about the physical universe that turns out to be false, then it is resemble to reject that book as an authority. Going back to my analogy, if a book on music theory claims that Bach never concluded a phrase with a perfect authentic cadence but in the course of analyzing a piece of music by Bach we find a phrase being concluded with a perfect authentic cadence, then it is safe to conclude the book is mistaken.

If the bible really is the word of God, then we don�t need to appeal to the authority of the bible to conduct scientific investigation. Instead, we find that the universe just so happens to coincide with what is spoken of in the bible.
Also, if the bible is not the word of God, then basing our scientific investigation on the bible and throwing out what ever doesn�t match up to the bible will only retard scientific advancement.

It is up to the nature universe to confirm what is in the bible. It is not up to the bible to confirm the universe. If the findings science conflict with what is found in the
If God exists, the universe is His piece of art and studying the universe will reveal more than

However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind�s �scientific� proposals.

Again, I point out tha
If we come up with a hypothesis that contradicts the bible, when we conduct experiments, the hypothesis will be falsified.

One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was �fact� is no longer so.



This to me suggests that the author doesn�t quite understand the nature of facts. If something is true, it�s a fact no matter how we view it.
Of course we often learn something and what was once held to the best theory is overturned in favor of the new.
As far as the bible is concerned,

This is worth remembering when dealing with those other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain.



If there is substantial evidence to support that Genesis is an accurate account of our origins, I would like to see. But I don�t trust this group to provide it because they will provide whether it exists or not.

Only God possesses infinite knowledge.

If God exists, sure. But we don�t, and we are fallible. That is why we need a tool like the scientific method.

By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality.

In Science, we only make the basic assumption that external reality actually exists and that our senses give us a somewhat accurate view of reality. We accept these two assumptions because we have no way of actually proving them. Everything else has to be supported with data, lest we make a wrong .
If you believe in God, why not start with the assumption that since he created the universe, then scientific inquiry is the best way to go?

Jeremy_the _Atheist

Morality: Humanism vs. Secular morality.
Religious Morality is problematic.
I�m not strictly against saying that an absolute morality exits. There just might be a moral code that, once discovered and the flaws are fully worked out if, we can say with
I am against claiming that we already have that absolute morality.

Assuming that an absolute morality exists is useless if you don�t know exactly the terms of what that morality is.

An assumed absolute morality is not subject to change, even when it has nothing to do with human welfare. Even if there is a god, humans are still fallible and that is why we need a moral and ethical code that can be adjusted should we discover that it actually hinders our progress instead of fosters it.

It has been argued that if there is no absolute morality, then we cannot say with any certainty that Hitler�s actions were wrong.
I point out that whether or not an absolute morality exists seems to have made no difference at all. Hitler, Pol Pott, and others of their ilk went ahead and committed their atrocities regardless.

Humanistic morality is based has it�s foundation on human welfare and human happiness.

Many theist claim that without god, there is no basis for morality. I point out that no theist actually wishes to convince atheists of this, at least not until after they start believing in god. Otherwise the world would quickly become a lot more dangerous place to live than what it already is.

Jeremy_the _Atheist

I am still working on this so if it seems a little rough, please don't be too harsh. I was looking back through and noticed a ton of mistakes.

Anyway, I am just looking for basic opinions like "keep this, forget that, develop that better than I will tell you." sort of thing. Also pointing out mistakes would be good to.

thank you all
Jeremy

rlogan

Jeremy - I don't know how much time you have, but first I would suggest strategy before tactics.

Generally for an audience it is best to build a bullet-proof defense around a few strategic objectives.

I would write down just a few simple strategic points that you are going to get across to them, and then build up the tactical machinery around them.

As I look at what you have so far I think you have the following very solid strategic considerations:

1) Science, and Evolution in particular blows away the fairy tales of creation, adam and eve, and the flood.

and even were that not so:

2) The inconsistencies in the Bible are too unnerving and too numerous to accept it as the unerring word of God.

Then I would suggest the following consideration for a rational audience:

3) Therefore what view should we take of this document called the Bible, written thousands of years prior to our current state of knowledge

It's the best a bunch of superstitious generally illiterate near-savage pre-industrial people could come up with. Who the hell are they to be telling us how the biota developed? Would we have them do brain surgery or fix our space shuttle too?


Keep reminding them of the simple strategic points you are making throughout your presentation. You've got to take the strategic objectives, even if a few of the tactical battles are lost.

The last thing is the argument on why secular humanism is superior to this particular religion. That point is not so well developed yet as I see it - and this gets into ethics. You could talk about Christians killing everyone who disagrees with them, for example...

Gawen

I would definately NOT point the finger. This comes across as an attack. Find a way to circumvent this....more subtle.
Now you have attacked their parents and grandparents blah blah blah, by saying that they and their forbears are not critical thinkers and by this, some may equate Critical thinking' as intelligence and that you've just called everyone in the congregation stupid. Of course, I agree with you, but some will undoubtedly become upset.
What happened here? There's a huge gap between the magician and the next paragraph. Totally threw me here at first. I would cut out the former and just go with the analogy in the second para.

How you got invited to speak in a church is beyond me. They must be somewhat open-minded.
But...
Remember that you are on their turf. Expect the Minister/Pastor (whatever) to sling a lot of scripture. Expect him to be charismatic to a degree and ruthless at the same time. Expect to be heckled. Your job is made more difficult in that you are to speak first. I assume there is no rebuttal? At any rate, the audience will mostly be made up of believers and the Minister will have the last word, which will cover yours, make them forgotten and he will undoubtedly reassure his flock rendering your entire speach useless.
Work the audience. Smile a great deal. Be passionate and sincere as any other minister would do. And if you can possibly do it, have the Minister speak first. After all, it's up to him to provide the evidence for the claim. Not you.

seebs

I would probably punt the evolution/creation stuff; it's a very large issue, worthy of its own debates, and trying to shoehorn it in is vulnerable to sound bites, and works against your position. If you want to cover it at all, just point out the really egregious lies that even AiG repudiates.

One thing that's not clear; what's your goal? Is your goal to make them want to be atheists? To make them understand atheists? There are things which might persuade a few people to deconvert, but which might leave other people angry at "atheism". There are other things which would help all the people there be more tolerant of atheism in particular, and differing religious belief in general.

Jeremy_the _Atheist

Thank you to everyone for your replies so far

I have several goals. The first is to give people a better understanding of atheism. For example, many people believe that if atheists would just read the bible, they'd see it's perfection and convert on the spot. As any critical thinking person knows, the truth is just the opposite.

One goal is to expose the unintelligible nature of religion. Religious people can carry on conversations for ours, using words like spirit and heart, and never communicate a single thing clearly. They quite realize this because most never stop to think about the fact that no one has even the slightest idea of a what a spirit actually is.

Maybe a goal is to expose the fallacy of faith. I don't have 'faith' because faith makes me moe suseptable to error. Part of this goal is to expose critical thinking to my audience.

I want people to understand that atheists do not "hate god" or "hate Jeus," or any such nonsense. And I don't hate christians. The reason that many atheists attack religion is often because we are concerned for the people that religion has infected. I see religious thought as being a kind of mind virus, or mematic virus.

I want to clear up the lie being told that atheists are somehow lacking something that christians have. Having been on both sides of the fence, I know this for the lie that it is. I'm actually world's happier as an atheist than I ever was a christian. I have no god shaped hole in my heart and anyone that knows me and knows that I am an atheist can attest to that even if that there certainly isn't any evidence for that line with my life.

One goal is I know that there is probably at least one person in the audience that is harboring doubt, that wants to believe but they are seeing through the holes. They don't want to. They see this as a weakness or something bad. That one person, I want to say to them, "you know what? You don't need this. This isn't for you (it's not for anyone really but especially not for you). It's okay to walk away from this because it's better to face an unpleasant truth than to live a pleasant lie. And it takes courage."

After reading over this post, I am thinking I need to narrow down my goals.

Jeremy_the _Atheist

After thinking about this a little, I am thinking that maybe the best approach is to start off by telling them that I already understand quite well that the cards are stacked against me and that I can't hope to realistically "deconvert" anyone. So instead just give a general overview of atheism and atheistic thought from the POV of a former christian.

I would point out things that would never work on a critical thinking atheist. For example, don't assume the person never a real christian if they are a former theist. I personally feel that I took my beliefs a lot more serious than most christians, otherwise they would have already thought of the very questions I had been asking and would have already found the answers (if there were any).


I would also present some of the atheistic arguments but caution the audience that if they think that countering these arguments as I have presented them will not be enough because this is just the surface level and to go into depth on each argument would require more time that what is available on that particular night.

I was thinking dropping the creation/evolution debate but now I am thinking I will go ahead and mention it. The reason is because christian like to try to poke holes in evolutionary theory and I know it's going to come up even I don't address it directly so I might as well. The approach I would take is not to present evidence for evolutionary claims, but to point out to the audience that if they wish to discuss evolution with people, they need to actually do some reading and actually understand how the theory works. And learn about it from the evolutionists point of view. I will tell them that the truth that is that the "evolutionary theory" as presented by so-called Creation Science is not how evolution actually works but a straw man, and if they try to start arguing against the straw man, all they will accomplish is for the person they are talking to think that they are ignorant. At this point I will quote what St. Augustine said about Christians should actually learn this stuff lest they make Christianity appear to be a thing for the weak and feeble minded.

So what do you all think?

Jeremy_the _Atheist

Oh, and also I would present to the room the Dan Barker Easter Challenge.