An Unjust Lawgiver

I was asked once in a comment to my blog why, if I somehow came to know that the Christian God exists, do I qualify that I would believe in him, but not worship him. Ray's most recent post Heaven or Hell? sheds some light on it (along with his previous God is not All-Loving).

I remember being a freshman or sophomore in high school and was taking World History. I am not sure where the subject of American Law came up, but it was in juxtaposition to other countries where laws are arbitrary, unwritten, or undisclosed. She commented that, in America, not knowing the law is not an excuse for violating it; in America, we have a justice system wherein all the laws are written down and available to the public (voluminous though they may be).

God has fashioned himself after America by also writing all his laws down in a book -- very just, right? Some of them, like slavery, subjugation of women, etc, have been repealed (due to secular modernity) but the law has not been updated to reflect this nor does it have an amendment process. But I digress.

He has written them down, being the just god that God is. He has, however, failed to make them available to all those who are subject to the laws (every person who has and ever will live). And if you fail to receive a copy of these laws, through no fault of your own, you are to be tortured for all eternity, regardless of whether or not you lived your life better than those who are getting into Heaven?

Some child in a miserable third world country and who never even heard the name Jesus Christ and never even knew that such a book of laws existed, starves to death -- literally starves to death -- then gets tortured for all eternity?

This... this is justice? This is how a just God behaves? Either we are to believe that a perfect being, who is perfectly just, would commit to his creations such atrocities, or we are to believe that the book has been corrupted and perverted over the MILLENIA (regardless of whether it was divinely inspired or not in the first place). What greater injustice could there be than to infinitely punish someone for a finite violation of a law that a Lawgiver never gave them?

I thought, for sure, all of the Christian commenters would attack Ray on his post. Some did, but some took a more peculiar approach:

Some have said, "Um, okay, no one's ever told me that before and I've been fine so far, so..."

I don't think any of us can say that we have absolute knowledge that anyone who has died and gone to Hell never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

Let's just avoid the hard questions altogether by pulling out the gem of absolute knowledge? Someone has listened to a bit too many Ray-tracts. There are several things wrong with this, but I will point out two problems with this statement:

Absolute knowledge of the antithesis

Your claim is that you know that no one has died without hearing the Gospel. Such a claim requires absolute knowledge. How dare you make such a claim! You are not omniscient jesusrulzme, only God is. Therefore, you don't really know... you are agnostic (ignorant).

Hypothetical question

This doesn't even require any evidence that there has ever been a case where no one has heard the Gospel (though I could make irrefutable arguments to such an end). It, like my third world country child, is taken as a purely hypothetical question:

A hypothetical question is one that is answered only in terms of validity, not soundness. Thus the question is designed to make a number of assumptions, and be answered as if those assumptions are true.

Based on the hypothetical question that a person died without ever hearing the Gospel, Ray (speaking for God) casts them into the fiery bowels of Hell.


Others on this topic
The Raytractors (Clostridiophile)
Flinging Dust

The Theist Test, Part I of VII

Have you taken a look at The Atheist Test which you can purchase for $12.00 to give to your atheist friends to convert them to theists (there are no arguments for Christianity)? I printed it out and took it and, I must say, I was spectacularly underwhelmed and must have passed the test as I am still an atheist (since it is a test for atheism).

In response to this, I thought I would create a new series of posts entitled The Theist Test. This will be a direct response to The Atheist Test and will use the same logic against theistic beliefs. A commenter on that page wrote that:

Thank you very much. It is logically laid out from The Word, identifying characteristic denials of fact to explain the world within which we live.

I wonder if others will find this series as "logically laid out" as it will use the same fallacious arguments and approaches. Do note that these are not necessarily arguments against God or creationism; these are arguments against Ray's faulty logic and false analogies.

I will cut this series into 7 parts, stopping after each "test."

The "theory" of creation of me, a human being.

Six to ten thousand years ago there opened a human being factory. The skin and internal meaty parts, including the organs, were made in a laboratory in the back where giant vats were filled to the brim with dust. On the first part of the manufacturing line, a plastic torso mold was lined with skin and filled with the meaty parts for the abdomen and torso. Once that solidified, it passed down to where the legs were bolted to my torso as well as the arms. The head was then fastened to the neck and the head meaty parts were filled in. Once it all solidified, my personality software was loaded in and out I came.

Of course, my "theory" is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if I were biologically produced, there must have been an biological process. If it is evolved, there must be an evolutionary process. The alternative, that it happened by magic, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The coconut -- the theist's nightmare.

Note (7-18-08): I have had it pointed out to me that the pineapple is actually a worse nightmare for theists than the coconut. To test this statement, I conducted an experiment wherein I found that the pineapple truly is the theist's worst nightmare. In that entry there is a scoring of both the pineapple and the coconut under these ten points where the pineapple clearly prevails.

Although the meat and water is pleasing to our taste buds, note that the coconut:

1. Is not shaped for human hand
2. When it has ripened, it doesn't detach for a few months, at which point the coconut water has become bitter. If you want coconut water, you have to get it while it's still unripened.
3. When it detaches, it falls from tall palms, injuring people.
4. Has no tab for removal of wrapper
5. Has no perforation on wrapper.
6. You have to whack it many times about its circumference with a tool.
7. It is not shaped for human mouth
8. Has no point at top for ease of entry
9. Removing the meat from the shell is a laborious process, even with a tool.
10. Is not curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the coconut was intelligently designed is even more unintelligent than to say that I was manufactured.

TEST ONE
The person who thinks that I was not produced through a biological process is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

COMMENTARY -- COKE CAN

The problems with the Coca-Cola analogy are numerous, but the ones I focused on were:

1) It is a caricature of evolution.
2) The Coca-Cola can is an inanimate, manufactured product. It is a false analogy to use that in conjunction with animate, biological organisms.

The can is a manufactured item that is the result of a manufacturing process. Only a fool would try to make an analogy to it by applying a biological process, as Ray has done.

Similarly, the human is a biological organism that is the result of a biological process (sexual reproduction). Only a fool would try to make an analogy to it by applying a manufacturing process, as I have done.

What biological aspect is Ray going to attack next? Sexual reproduction with Pepsi cans? I can see it now:

The Pepsi Can -- The Embryologist's Worst Nightmare

Decades ago, two Pepsi cans were in close proximity to one another. One's tab grew erect, perpendicular to its can, and penetrated the perforated opening to the second can. In the process, some of the first can's liquid shot through the small opening at the base of the tab into the opening of the second can. Nine months later a miniature Pepsi can was produced. Over time, it grew into a regular sized can and arrived in your hand.

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intelligence. Only a fool would believe in sexual reproduction if sexual reproduction doesn't work for Pepsi cans!

COMMENTARY -- BANANA ARGUMENT

I thought Ray had conceded this argument, yet he persists on using it. Why? Because he not only doesn't care about the truth, he also doesn't believe his followers will check his facts or the soundness of his arguments.

Firstly, the banana he describes is man made -- or at least those attractive features are. Take a moment and Google for the cultivation of the banana. To the right is a wild-type banana.

You can read more on the flaws of this argument in my entry "No, The Banana *Is* Proof."

The Death of an Atheist

I was over at Atheist Central today and read his Sad News for Some post. A comment he posts to it was really telling. He mentions in his post, though, asking if:

Have you ever noticed how a man may be a money-grabbing, lying, womanizer, who has been hated by almost everybody, but the moment he dies, the whole world says he was "a good man"--a generous person, and a loving husband?

Yes. The reaction to the death of Christian evangelical Jerry Falwell was the opposite of what I would have expected. This wicked man spewed racist and homophobic rhetoric any time he opened his mouth. Although he was a strong advocate for racial segregation, there were nothing but kind words and praises for the man on the news. Bill Maher was one of the few to give a proper eulogy.

What will the preacher say at your funeral?

As many of the atheists noted there, me included, there won't be a preacher at my funeral, unless they were a friend. I have no religious text which dictates that I be buried nor any dogma which mandates that I be buried as a necessary step to the afterlife. As such, my organs will, if possible, be donated to potential recipients in need and then my corpse will be donated to an accredited university through a willed body program where it will be used for medical research and study. Once done, the remains will be cremated and disposed of. This is because I will no longer exist and, as such, I do not need my body so I might as well let others benefit from it.

If there is any service for my family, it will be up to them how they would like it done. My only requests have been a financial restraint (explicitly no ceremonial coffin) and no religious services. I think a comment by Ray was exemplary of the reason I do not want any religious service:

You won't be there. What say I show up and charm your wife into letting me preach? Don't worry, I wouldn't even mention you (too late). I would simply preach the gospel to the living--your grieving friends and family. Who knows; she may let me do it as a payback for all the annoying habits you had . . . :)

I would not want someone like Ray Comfort taking advantage of my family in their weakest hour. What a horrible sentiment! Disrespecting the final wishes of the deceased just because they were an atheist? Would he be so quick to comment about disrespecting the final wishes of the deceased if they were a Christian?

I can't help but wonder if this is insight to why people like the Westboro Baptist Church can show up and desecrate funeral services by spouting their nonsense. I don't ask for decency for the sake of me, as I will no longer exist; however, I do ask it for my bereaved loved ones.


Others on this topic.
The Raytractors

Malicious Comments

A regular commentary I have read from Ray about his blog is how polite and respectful the Christian commenters are and how malicious and filthy the atheist commenters are. The Christian commenters try to reason with the atheist and have a civil discourse, but he has to continually delete atheist comments which are full of insults, profanity, and blasphemy.

I have been working on an entry about the atheist definition and was referring to some past comments and thought it's humorous the Christian comments on here. I'll take two commenters for example who are also regular commenters on Ray's blog...

"HBKS" Terry
I am sure every atheist blogger who regularly reads Ray's blog is familiar with this "gentleman." He has left two comments on my blog. In response to "Hard" Philosophy (concerning the necessity of a perfect, absolute standard):

'cut n paste' from Ray's blog does not show you are correct in your viewpoints, it only shows the people that you will fabricate any story to support your paranoia.

Hope you will open your mind to the reality of God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Our foundation is based on what the Holy Bible teaches us. Our salvation comes from the New Testament.

There is life after death, but without Jesus Christ as your Savior, you will go to Hell.

Its that simple! Secular reasoning will get you straight to Hell when you die. All men have sinned and fallen short! ITs only by grace we are saved. Praying for you!!!

http://hbks1.blogspot.com

I have embolden the part where he makes a baseless accusation (and completely irrelevant to the post) that I am fabricating stories to support my paranoia. He also threatens me with Hell. If he believes it to be true or not, he has still threatened me to either come to his point of view or suffer physically.

The second comment he posts to Why I Hate Vacations:

Your ingnorance is very Discomforting!

.. and may I say... your arrogance is astounding!

Repent while you still can fiend.

He posts that to a short entry on hating vacation because it causes my feeds and email inbox to back up. Again, he insults me without providing any supporting context. I'm ignorant, arrogant, and a fiend.

"In Christian Love" Brittany
Now, contrast this with my favorite Christian commenter Brittany. Not once does she insult me or fling baseless accusations. Here's an excerpt of a comment discussing Hell to the entry Bleeding Heart Prayers:

"I would be forced to suffer knowing that they were dealt a great injustice in this life, forced to live and die in miserable conditions, only to spend eternity in the next life burning in Hell."

Your comment makes me think of many of my un-saved family members. It makes me want to talk to them right now about their eternal life. But I have to
remember that everyone is given a choice. They get to choose to accept Christ or not. I cannot force them to accept Him.

If they do not accept Him, then I can only continually pray for them and show them Christ's love for them through my life.

I see where your coming from,,,because I don't think that any person would want anyone to suffer in hell....Therefore I hope you understand why so many Christians are adamant about telling the non-believers about Christ and all He has to offer them.

She's not coming out and saying "you're going to Hell." It's what she believes and she discusses it as such. (To give context, it is her and I going back and forth about perspectives on Heaven and Hell.) In contrast to Terry, she's always polite and is open to questions and poses questions of her own.

The Point
What's the point of this? There really is no point. I see many atheists' comments which are in poor taste and/or illogical. But just as often (actually more often as I read more atheist-friendly blogs) I see Christians posting horrible things. They'll post death threats, they use all kinds of profanity, the malign posters, and the such.

I receive mainly friendly and respectful atheist comments on my blog as mine is an atheist blog. Ray receives mainly friendly and respectful Christian comments on his blog as his is a Christian blog. He does not seem to realize it, though, and instead makes a hasty generalization about the behavior of atheists and Christians alike in all situations.


Others on this topic
Pharyngula

I'm a Fundamentalist Atheist

The fool has said in his heart, there is a God.

I'm an atheist. I'm a zealous, dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist.

I know there is no God, which is why I am an atheist. While I claim to know there is no God, at the same time I'm also pretending there is no God. Why? Because I have an agenda to accomplish; I have a laundry list of dirty acts that I want to accomplish. I want to lie, cheat, rape, murder, and steal without the fear of being punished after I die. I know there is a God, but if I claim there isn't, it removes the fear so that I can commit all the immoral actions that my heart desires. Sure, I know I will be sent to Hell, but as long as I claim I won't, it doesn't bother me.

Praise be to Charles Darwin, the holy prophet. While I know there is no God, claim to know there is no God, know there is a God, and pretend that there is no God -- all at the same time -- I also worship Charles Darwin. I consult his writings as a religious text by which to live my life. And he said unto His people:

Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods.

Behold, Linnaeus, the great taxonomist, and Cuvier, the great paleontologist, shalt be held as the two gods of this world. So it was written, so it shall be done. Just as other religious texts have contradictions, so does the atheist's:

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the 'Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants,' and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

You may think it is difficult to reconcile such contradictory passages from the man whom I worship, but alas, being an atheist requires an enormous amount of faith. I needn't reconcile these two passages, I will merely assert that it is a logical fallacy to argue that they are contradictory and be comfortable yet again in my faith.

When presented with such bulletproof arguments such as a banana, I have nightmares. What are the contents of said nightmares? The horrors of such nightmares are too unspeakable to visit them upon the mind of another. I will simply say that it involves a banana, an orangutan, and Kirk Cameron, and leave it at that. The fact that the banana used in the argument was specifically bred by humans to be like that gives me no comfort. When I think of the absurdity of Coke fizzing to the surface and evolving into a Coke can, my nightmares evolve into night terrors.

While tormented with nightmares of bananas, I am steadfast in my atheism, though, as my faith as an atheist is strong. I have faith there is no God, know there is no God, claim to know there is no God, pretend there is no God, know there is a God, and worship Charles Darwin as God. It may not make any sense to a rational theist such as yourself, but I am, by the virtue of being an atheist, irrational. I am also a fundamentalist atheist. While it may appear I have nothing to take as fundamental (you forget Darwin's texts), I am a fundamentalist atheist. Anything which doesn't mesh with my worldview gets tossed out as, anything which proves there is a God must be wrong. I have faith in my atheism.

While Charles Darwin is God, the New Atheists are sort of my New Testament. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are my apostles. I take what they say unquestioningly.

I have declared a War on Christianity. I have simply been making noise to have Christian symbols removed from government property. You would think, though, if I truly wanted to wage a War on Christianity so as to establish atheism as the state religion, why do I simply demand that Christian symbols be removed? Wouldn't it be much easier establishing atheism as the state religion if I had them replaced with atheist symbols? Shouldn't I demand "under God" removed from the Pledge and replaced with "under no God"?

You fool! You forget yourself: I am an irrational, illogical atheist. But that aside, anywhere void of religious symbols is a de facto monument to atheism. Therefore, having the symbols removed and leaving only secular content in government places is a monument to atheism.

Why do I need all this space that I gain from my War on Christianity? To make place for the new converts to prostrate Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I am also arrogant and egotistical, and such a vast space of atheist monuments is pleasing, and reassures me in my godlessness. This is why I viciously attack and commit hate crimes against Ray Comfort by commenting on his blog. This is because the Internet should be another atheist monument. I hate religion and am intolerant of it. When they claim they are merely exercising their right to free speech, I also claim to be exercising my right to free speech by speaking out against them. Of course, only one side can have the right to free speech, so clearly I cannot also have the right. But again, you forget yourself; I am an irrational, illogical, zealous, dogmatic, hateful, arrogant, fundamentalist, militant atheist.



Oh wait. I'm a caricature of an atheist.