Strobel starts off with a few analogies. One is of a boy giving testimony for a murder, another about a police officer with a “pen-gun” (it is what it sounds like). The reason for the eyewitness comparison is clear-cut — Strobel is introducing the idea that someone may witness something, and their account may be considered reliable.

The pen-gun story is where the dishonesty begins. Strobel writes details of the evidence, but he leaves out the important bits. One man is said to have shot the police officer, when the truth is that the officer shot himself with a pen-gun. There is a bullet hole in the bottom of his uniform’s pocket, for example, which you would expect to be odd in the first place. Most criminals do not take the time to place the barrel into his victim’s pocket — so as to avoid damaging their uniform’s exterior — before firing. In addition, the presumed attacker’s weapon was nowhere near him when the bullet was fired, according to Strobel. In my opinion, it seems unlikely that the way the case is presented is the way it came to light. As an analogy of delving deeper, on the other hand, it’s fine. It’s respectable in that regard. The presentation is what raises red flags.

The biggest dishonesty is that Strobel claimed to be a skeptic. Reading the conversations he had with Blomberg make it quite clear that he wasn’t during the time of the interviews. As has been observed by other readers, he went into these conversations with the goal of singling out people who would give him a perspective he wanted — a Christian one. And if his goal was to ask the pointed questions a skeptic would ask, even though he was not one, he failed. So many statements which should (and would, with a skeptic) have been jumped on, he let by without a word.

Here’s an excellent example. In trying to prove that the gospels were eyewitness accounts, Blomberg, the first person he interviews, states:

“…the testimony of a Christian writer named Papias, dated about A.D. 125, refers to John…”

Why the word of Papias, dated about A.D. 125, matters is left out of discussion. Why, when the gospels were written anywhere between 50-60 years A.D., does Papias in 125 A.D. know who wrote them so assuredly? Strobel doesn’t raise this question. Perhaps it is a natural assumption that a person closer to an event must know all about it even if he wasn’t present?

Strobel also allows this gem to float by when discussing the idea that early Christians neglected to write about Jesus because they thought “the end was near”:

“The truth is that the majority of Jesus’ teachings presuppose a significant span of time before the end of the world[.]”

He doesn’t ask how that conclusion is reached. He doesn’t ask Blomberg to cite so much as verse. I don’t know whether this is a failing of Blomberg’s, not backing up claims, or Strobel’s for buying it hook-line-and-sinker.

Yet another situation where Strobel fails to provide skeptical input is with the telephone game comparison. As the old observation goes, people who transmit a message have a tendency to change it. Blomberg’s defense is:

“When you’re carefully memorizing something and taking care not to pass it along until you’re sure you’ve got it right, you’re doing something very different from playing the game of telephone.”

I must be the only one who thinks it’s possible that Christians changed their religion and stories without “checking” it. Because they may have done it by intention. People love to embellish. They love to embellish themselves, their accomplishments, and their heroes. A quarter of American cinema, the war movie, is devoted to embellishment.

It’s quite possible that someone said “Jesus turned water into wine” and only a few complained with the obvious falsehood. The embellishing group’s “truth,” being louder, would become “the truth.” How hard is it to think someone was tricking someone else? That scenario, at least, makes much more sense in light of Occam’s Razor. It is logically, and unarguably, the more likely scenario. How come Strobel did not bring it up?

These forty pages make the book apparently Christian. Many claims are made, important and obvious questions are -not- asked, and the evidence — if it exists — is withheld. A skeptic will easily find problems with it for those reasons, as well as with Strobel himself. His book is clearly targeted at Christians who already believe, but it is said in a way that, if they believe what he writes unquestioningly, they will come to think there are rational reasons for belief. That is very misleading from what I’ve read, and the fact that Strobel wrote the book under a skeptical facade is the most disappointing part of it.

All that said, I’ll finish the book. I will doubtfully write about it unless it manages to be significantly more of a let down (or much better, but I’m not holding my breath) as it goes on.

Almost four blocks back, he’d been standing on the steps to an apartment. He wondered what was taking so long for her to answer the door. It was a very unsure, but he was hopeful. When she finally answered, and saw the flowers, she only said, “too late.” The door slammed in front of him like he was nothing but another annoying door-to-door salesman. He stood there for five minutes before he realized that she meant it. Too late.

Wandering the rainy streets, watching the early morning cars go by, he thought maybe he should be mad about it. Wasn’t that how it went? First, you’re angry and then so on? No, he thought, that wouldn’t even help. He didn’t know what he should feel. He just knew how he did. It was just unfairness, and in the way the universe operated against him, specifically. He thought he couldn’t take it so hard. He wouldn’t get mad.

A car blew past him, disrupting. He moved over on the sidewalk and looked ahead. Someone with a hood pulled up was walking their dog, headed straight towards him. The person was all darkness, but the animal was white and wet, clear to the sky’s rainfire. As the three of them met, Brian stepped out of the way of the dog-walker only to face the dog. It only stared at him with a sense of curiosity while it shivered. It seemed kind, even though it was covered head-to-toe, yet it didn’t move either. “Come, Allen.” The dog owner’s voice was a commanding whisper, like a mother to a disobedient child in a movie theater. It was still a stand-still, and then, finally, Brian side-stepped and walked on with a sigh.

He came to the corner and halted. Going on five blocks. He held up the flowers, and he looked over his shoulder. If he was too late three and four blocks ago, he’d be too late at five. He told himself not to hope. The stoplights were flashing yellow, and the roads were desolate except for the empty parked cars with water running under their tires. He walked across the street.

Stepping back onto the sidewalk, on the other side, he mouthed the words without a sound. “Five blocks.” Five blocks and too late. Too late; those would be the last words he ever heard her say, he figured. She was never the type to change her mind. And what reason did she have? She wouldn’t listen to a word – didn’t care what he thought or his perspective.

He lifted the flowers for the fiftieth time when he was half-way down the fifth block. They were a sickening blood red. They were kind of sagging now, dampened with the water’s weight. He paid a lot for them, for just some plants. Real plants because Brian didn’t want to fuck with obvious metaphors. And, he guessed, that’s what really hurt. It was real. He was too late to say it. Too late to say that and too late to explain anything.

There was a bar to his right, and someone stumbled out the door ahead of him. It was a man about Brian’s age. He wobbled down the street smiling forgetfully with his hands in his pockets, clearly not sober. The drunk was oblivious to Brian’s existence, so the man turned down a side-street laughing about something. The laugh was a loud noise that soon faded into nothingness. Then it was just Brian on the sidewalk frowning alone with a head full of memories to obsess about.

He turned his head to the many obnoxious neon signs in the window. Beer brands and the brightness reminded him. Filled with smoke, other people’s happiness, and misunderstanding. That was no place. At least, he thought, it’s no place for me. His only response to the suggestion of entering was to clench his jaw and move on.

He made his way to the next corner, eying the sidewalk as he went. Blinking yellow lights met him. Empty cars. The damn flowers. Like the last few blocks. But this time he didn’t look over his shoulder. He grimaced and squeezed his fist around the plants’ stems.

He crossed, and he held up the bouquet once more. The flowers were a disgusting blood red. Vile red. He didn’t want to know where they came from – he’d hate the entire native state and country. And he just knew he’d hear about it day and night. He didn’t think he would sleep as long as that place existed. Because what sort of place grows blood red flowers? Who puts them in bouquets? What sort of sick-shit mind? His face was red and burning.

He dropped the flowers in that instant. There was no damn reason to hold them. And no one would see, because of the rain, that he left them. And no one would see, because of the rain, that there were other drops on his face.

There were a number of good portions of the film, like the ones where the film makers lied to honest scientists in order to get interviews with them and then quote-mine them. Richard Dawkins thinks life came from aliens! Another one of them thinks we came from crystals! How awful and wonderful! I didn’t, as well as most, catch that the scientists were speaking tentatively thanks to the immediate interruptions by the ever-monotone Ben Stein who would immediately swoop in and declare, in mocking fashion: “CRYSTALS?” Again, thank you, Expelled — I was dreadfully close to learning something. But you were there to reinforce my stupidity, stopping those dreadful pieces of information in their tracks with your playground, elementary school-level, insults which we, your viewers, commonly use in our daily interactions.

Another part of the film that stands out is the segment linking Nazis and Darwinism. Hitler thought Darwinism implies that we should kill the weak. I liked the dramatic music played over the images of death camps, and the touching part where Ben Stein acted sad. I also liked the part that didn’t exist where this was all linked to a solid foundation — this works directly with my worldview where I believe things that are “obvious” and my dogma of blindly accepting things I feel like believing at the time. Unfortunately, I broke away from my worldview for a moment and did a little research (I know! I felt so disgusting doing it!) and came across this quote:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.

Reality didn’t match what I wanted to believe, and I did what any good nonhonest person would do. I quit researching and continued to believe what I want! Another victory for Intelligent Design, right there!

That last section, and another, also displayed the courage of the Expelled crew again — they used John Lennon’s song “Imagine” without getting permission to do so, and they copied a video of a cell’s workings off Big Science. They really showed them! Way to stay nonhonest, not just in your selective presentation of facts, but even in the actual making of the film! (Things like this are why we went to the movie, and, boy, you knew it!)

Did I mention that the movie was actually about Intelligent Design? It is. And Intelligent Design means God! Like most of the film, this one also stayed nonhonest in the most brilliant way. It even told us, just like we want to hear even though it isn’t true, that we are being persecuted! People are being fired for believing in God and stuff! We can’t get it in schools, where it’s needed most! And, as generic sheeple, nothing gets us going more than the idea that we’re the underdog — that we have to overcome something. But, I guess, in some form, it’s a bad thing. When the priest beside me heard that they were trying to snuff it out of scientific discourse, he stopped masturbating in an instant. Clearly, if we can’t get ID into schools then we’ll only have our kids getting true facts in the school system and this will lead to us to the Slip-N-Slide which takes us to Nazi-ism and nobody believing in God. People will stop going to church and society will spiral downward into a forward-thinking and positive place with much less discrimination. Gays getting married! Stem cell research! The cure for cancer! And, er… Nazis? Of course there would be Nazis!

The one to blame for the persecutions is this institution called Big Science, which doesn’t exist, that has a monopoly over science. It’s a collaboration of scientists, like those quote-mined, who say things like “ID isn’t testable and falsifiable — like evolution is, for example — and thus isn’t science. That’s why it’s basically impossible for it to get into peer-review.” Testable and falsifiable? Pft. Just because any notion ever presented would qualify as science without those two parts is no reason to dismiss Intelligent Design, is it?

Some people — if you count scientists as people — have noted that Big Science is a made up entity. It’s nonexistent. Not even real. However, that’s no problem for those of us using a nonscientific worldview. In fact, nonexistence is even a prerequisite for being worshipped. Praise the LORD!

Overall, I recommend the movie if you’re like me — you believe what you want for any desire you want, have little regard for facts and are disgusted by the idea that somewhere out there, there are people working hard to discover the truth and inevitably — but not consciously — pushing our God of the gaps further into nonexistence. You would be the target audience.

If you care for that dirty rotten truth then you’ll have to look elsewhere. Just remember my warning, though! As it’s based on evidence and facts, it will likely not be telling you only things you want to hear! Just look at this site, for example: http://www.expelledexposed.com

I want to thank the film makers and producers for being so courageous. Few people have the courage to stand up and fight the truthsayers. Few have the guts to stand up and say, “I believe what I want for whatever reason I want!” And “I’ll say absolutely anything for money!” My hat is off to you, Expelled. In this day and age, I thought it was getting harder to come by people who are willing to dismiss the virtue of honesty, to pander to people’s preconceptions just to make a buck. As a generic sheeple reviewer, I am relieved to find there are still people out there who will play to my prejudices and ignorance without having to go to a church — thank GOD for that!

I hope my review has been helpful in your choice to view the movie at some later date, and that you learned absolutely nothing while reading it!

- Generic Sheeple Reviewer.

In many debates, there is no conclusive victor of any sort. There isn’t even an inclination that one person has come away affected by the ideas and words traded. Debating is almost always useless, a waste of time unless one engages in it merely to challenge themselves or to be entertained.

I believe I have challenged myself, like many others think they have, to a good extent. I also have debated and argued for entertainment value. Now, though, I do not see those as motivation alone to spend my time explaining and typing for hours when people will continue to ignore every word.

I’ve been on forums where I’ve debunked an argument (like pascal’s wager) only to have it arise in the next few posts by other people. They did not care enough to read what I had already typed, and the person I originally typed it to seemingly vanished. What good is that? How is it worthwhile?

I could throw in the towel and say I will forget debates altogether. Or I could propose a debate form that would be productive in some way, if done correctly. But I will agree the idea sounds somewhat utopian and unrealistic. My only issue with the utopian argument against it is that it just wouldn’t hurt to find out. At least, not any more than a typical useless debate.)

Here is my offer.

Before the debate: Both the theist and I come to an agreement on the outcome, depending on who wins. (A draw means no consequences.) I am willing to visit a church for a specified number of times, pretend/try really hard to believe in god, say a prayer, read some or all of the new or old testament, read a book written by Lee Strobel, and so on. I would prefer the theist to take part in the “Blasphemy challenge”(or equivalent) as long as they agree it means eternal damnation in their religion and also shows that they no longer are a member of the religion or belief. It would also be fine if they “choose” to stop believing in god, or any other negotiable term which separates them from their god-belief. (To prove the deed has been done, there may be visual and/or audio confirmation necessary)

You are in or out of the debate before it happens. That means, by the time we’re at step one, the theist is prepared to commit the greatest blasphemy of their religion and, just as prepared, I ready to go to church.

So, to the steps.

1. The theist must write down all evidence and arguments, numbered in a list. They must be detailed to the point where it is obvious what the argument implies, how it is an inclination for a god to exist. This list will be unchangeable after submitted. There is no length requirement. No argument which has not been submitted to me on this list will be allowable.

2. The theist and myself will then assign subjective values, between one and ten, to how much support we each think each argument supports the religion/god we are discussing. As I am quick to point out, these values are subjective and definitely opinion-based. This will be a miniature debate in itself. Both parties should be willing to bend on this step and decide on reasonable values.

3. After the numbers are decided, the theist gets to choose any argument from the list that he or she wrote in the beginning. There will be no time limit or constraints on the number of postings/emailings/etc. The theist and I will then debate until one of us cannot rationally defend the position we hold. The “winner” of the argument gets the points for that number. The argument then becomes “locked.” We are finished discussing that point and it cannot be brought up again. This process is repeated until all arguments are done in a similar fashion. (And a note: relevancy must be maintained. We will not be going every which way as most debates do. We must stick to the points.)

4. The points will declare a winner. The one with fewer points carries out the wishes of the one with the greater amount.

There are also a few assumptions we go into the debate with. The theist does not have to accept these as true, but if I make a point with them then the theist will have to concede that point.

Simply:
- Evolution is a reality.
- Humanity has evolved.
- Infinity is a concept we have difficulty comprehending, but it is not logically impossible that it exists.
- Faith and delusion are synonyms.
- God is not ever a default that requires no evidence. For example, when someone says they don’t know why such-and-such event happened, we do not assume god to be the default answer. We will accept the first answer — they don’t know.
- Subjective experiences (including emotion) are not arguments. “Splendiferous particles” are not physically radiating from paintings that you think are beautiful. Rather, (and this is why people disagree about what works of art are attractive) you personally perceive things as beautiful. We are carrying this observation over to any feelings “from” god, and other such argument.
I will edit this post at my discretion if I think of improvements or if anyone has good suggestions. However, I will not change it while a debate is happening (or I’ll simply make a new post) so it can be used as a reference if needed.

Don’t hesitate to email me at Kamikaze189 + At + gmail.com or just leave a comment. And regardless of theist or atheist leanings, spread the invitation to theist friends known to debate. Or just let me know if you think it’s too demanding or not demanding enough.

If you are not a critical thinker (one who bases their conclusions on reasoning and evidence), let’s pretend, for ease of point-making, that you are. Let’s also pretend you value truth more than desire, if that also isn’t already the case.

Now back to the debate. In light of evidence you’ve not heard — or refutation of what you once thought was evidence — you find yourself quickly losing ground. You’re running out of points to support your side.

So you say to your fellow debater that you accept your position by faith. Your opponent can only chuckle and ask if you’re kidding. Who would be so mindless to illogically take, and argue for, a position which they had no evidence for? That is the same as admitting you hold a position you should not hold at all.

Imagine a lawyer in a court room giving a speech. “I believe by faith that this man is innocent of these charges, and it is the last and only defense I can say of him! But faith is a virtue — and is to be respected highly!” This would not be taken seriously. Any man who was not fitting enough for the insanity defense would be extremely distraught if this was the best his lawyer could provide.

Faith fails everywhere but, at first glance, for religion. Why? It is no different. Religion is a topic like any other. It makes truth claims. It will either stand or fall, like a building, depending if it has an evidential foundation to support the conclusion at its peak. But to use faith as the only argument, after all else is lost, is the same as resting a steeple on thin air.

Let’s simply be consistent. Either the faith defense stands in court, in political debates, in religion, or it is only a desperate last defense delusion.

I cannot fathom a single person would argue that faith should stand as an argument; but if they would do so, I can only say they should accept my argument by faith — as they accept this argument universally. Just accept it once more and then be done with it.

This is the first card that cannot be played. Faith cannot be played by any person who wishes to maintain any kind of sanity, or at least without accepting my argument.

The debate continues, and next you say that you -feel- you are correct. Your opponent replies likewise, he feels he is correct also. A little frustrated, you say that you “feel it in your heart.”

First, who is to say that you feel the way you claim, in reality, if that is not the truth? Your opponent may take your word, but there is no reason he should. You’ve made a statement that most likely can’t be checked in the short time of your debate. Second, your feelings for gun control/abortion/stem cells have nothing to do with the subjects themselves or any sense of validity for your argument. You will see my point.

Imagine the lawyer again, maybe pounding a table due to his powerful emotion, while giving his speech. “I feel — in my very heart — that that man is guilty! I feel emanations from him, telling me that he is the murderer!” Even if this lawyer tells the truth, and isn’t just practicing his rhetoric, how does he know that the emotions he feels are coming from the supposed killer? Wouldn’t a far more sensible explanation be that he is creating the feeling himself, as he creates the rest, from his subjective perceptions? Most importantly, how seriously would a judge or jury take this “evidence”?

Again, god-belief appears to evade this. Yet, once more, religion and god-belief are topics which make truth claims. Any arguments that can be used elsewhere can be used here. But any arguments that -cannot- be used elsewhere -cannot- be made here. I propose to be consistent.

However, if you would make or accept this argument, then I should let you know that, while I -think rationally- it is entirely irrelevant, I -feel- very strongly that this argument is not to be taken seriously. Surely, someone else “feels it in their heart” in the same way I feel strongly. That would be enough for you to accept, and you would have no reason to make or be persuaded by the argument in the future — just after subjecting yourself to it one last time.

That is the second card that cannot be played. Feelings and evidence are not the same.

Next, you pull a piece of paper from your pocket. It simply agrees with you on gun control/abortion/stem cells. It provides no other argument, but it does also say, on the same page, that it is correct.

What basis is there to trust that this paper has the truth on it? Not faith or feeling. Either something practical about the subject must be lifted from it and used as argument, or it is an appeal to… authority? Can you even say who wrote it? What authority supplies no reasoning, no statistics, or no research?

Your opponent, and the desperate lawyer, are writing up their arguments. “I am right about gun control/abortion/stem cells/the defendant! This paper says so! And it also says it tells the truth!”

How easy, when applied elsewhere, arguments become. Perhaps we should buy shelves of paper and pens, and then go to the street to prove our points once and for all. But, after getting their own supplies, our opponents would be as supported by “evidence” as we are.

If anyone was convinced in a courtroom, or elsewhere, on a trial, or other topics, by this line of thought, you should read the following: “You should not believe something merely because it self-references itself, saying it is true. Note that the above is true. And finally, the three sentences within these quote marks are all true.” That should settle the issue, if it needed settling, to its end. It should no longer be a problem.

Circular logic is the third — and last — card that cannot be played. If words on a paper have truth, they would still be truth no matter what paper they’re found on. They would be verifiable without needing any other words to say they are the truth.

To sum-up, these three arguments must either be accepted or rejected on the subject of god and religion. As they are already rejected in relation to everything -but- god and religion — and appear totally farcical when used elsewhere — it seems obvious that religion has been given respect that no other matter is allowed. There is no reason to give religion this benefit — another steeple placed on thin air.

The evidence must be weighed by us in a fair manner on all subjects. You lose or win a debate, including one on religion, not on faith, feelings, or circular logic. And if you find that’s a problem, take me on faith, take my feelings on the matter, and feel free to hand me a pen and paper pad to write a couple self-verifying sentences for you.

But, for whatever reason, Shermer got around to writing about technology. He mentions Moore’s Law, which has held true since its invention (according to Shermer). The law says something to the effect of: Every eighteen months, the power of computers will have doubled. In fact, the law might decrease its monthly length now that we’ve been doubling computer power in just a year.

The implication of this law is more interesting: they call it “the singularity.” (Perhaps with a capital s, but I’m not sure.) By approximately the year 2030, computer’s abilities will have reached something we would have nothing now to compare to. Their storage, processing power, graphical abilities — it would all be to such extreme that the Matrix seems more like an inevitability instead of something at all far fetched. (Unless we bomb ourselves out of existence)

Shermer is talking about god here, in a way. A trait which is often given to god, more specifically. Omniscience. An all-knowing computer? What would it do? What would it discover? (Of course I might be blowing a relative level of omniscience out of proportion — but I’m going to run with a logically possible omniscience of things a person could know.)

This clicked in my writer brain, and the problems and possibilities there seemed to be impossible to number. This came from another book I’m reading, “The Marshall Plan For Novel Writing” by Evan Marshall. It says in the last few pages I’ve been reading that a good way to come up with a decent story is to start with a mystery/conflict with a hypothetical, or a “Suppose.”

Thankfully, I’m not writing a novel right now, but a blog. I don’t have to be coherent with my “supposes” or even create characters (another mess entirely).

But here I go. (And keep in mind, I do know that what I’m writing here is fiction. …or it probably is fiction… right?) I’ll shoot for ten of these.

1. Suppose: The computer gives the protagonists a flawless way to predict the future. The protagonists, after taking advantage of the stock-market (or any investments), realize (via the prediction-power of the computer) that one of the others is going to give away their secret. But the computer also predicts that if they try to stop their fellow protagonist, they will die for it. What would they do?

2. Suppose (Similar to #1): The computer gives the prediction that humanity is going to create its own destruction very soon. The protagonists think this prediction, and a couple before it, are ridiculous. They decide their omniscient computer is a failure, and start over. But soon they see that the somewhat vague predictions they previously thought were ridiculous are coming true. (Oops!) They rebuild the computer from scratch, and then it tells them they are the ones who are going to destroy humanity. (It kind of has that Greek tragedy thing going for it, but I understand those aren’t too popular these days. Keep it happy, blah blah blah.)

3. Suppose: The computer creates a feasible form of travel and vision which no one can understand but builds anyway. Our protagonists (or somebody) discovers that there is an actual point in the universe where energy is being created. Is it aliens? God? Do the people care or do they just get from the computer how to make energy for themselves?

4. Suppose (Tie in with #3): The protagonists decide to go with the last option, but they screw it up. Energy pours into the universe and people gain the ability to mutate at will. (Too action movie-ish? Maybe it’s a romance, huh? “Blobs in love.”)

5. Suppose: The protagonists, astronauts on a mission, last hear that on Earth they’re close to finishing a newfangled computer doo-hickey. When they get back on Earth, it becomes obvious that humanity as a whole is now enlightened to the extreme. Everyone seems to know everything, literally — except they have willfully forgotten the evils the world previously knew through some method the computer taught them — which they then destroyed because it still knew the evil things people feared. But guess who still knows some evil things? Our astronauts, who divide into our protagonists and antagonists, who think that, despite it knowledge, humanity is like a giant pushover now for the taking.

6. Suppose: After the protagonists finish the computer, news gets out about it. Political, religious, and all other groups soon break out into violence over it — you know, because they hate it when negative facts come to light about them. (Just like in real life.) Then, one of the religious groups goes bonkers when the computer reveals that their religion is false. Their leader instructs that nihilism and serial killing is now what they must do. They don’t give a crap about the computer after that — so the next group gets it, and basically the same things happens to them. The scientists and a few philosophers are the only ones (as a group) who face no horrendous truth about their views, as they were interested in gaining truth rather than validation. One moral later, they have to do something about the freakin’ insane people out their windows.

7. Suppose: The computer is stolen from the protagonists by a psychotic killer. He becomes something like a reverse batman. (Ok, this is just stupid.)

8. Suppose (because I want to out-stupid #7): The protagonists tell the computer to do the one thing which would help the world the most. They give it a week alone to process (which it does instantly, but hey) and run all the different possibilities. So the people open up the computer chamber and its got legs and arms, and announces that the best thing for the world is humanity’s destruction, muaha-haha-HAAAAAA!

9. Suppose: The protagonists are pretty good people, so they decide to turn their impressive computer into a harmless public service without considering the implications. They charge people a small fee to discuss with it like it’s Smarterchild or iGod. But it turns out it’s been doing the opposite of what happened in #6 — this time it’s just been validating people’s thoughts because it knows everything, including that people like to hear that they’re right. So now, everyone who used to be a fringe member on a topic, is now the most extreme. They know the truth! They will perish for not accepting it! So the protagonists decide to fix the computer. And now it tells different answers — the real truth. But nobody believes them because they’ve been tampering with it. (Oh no!)

10. Suppose: The computer has no negative, apparent and immediate, effect on the world. People are happy, and yes, everything improves a lot. But science is essentially done. We know everything. Who cares? School becomes a joke, the computer rots away in a room for years until someone throws it out. Suddenly, humanity is only churning out a sea of idiots and only an isolated smart individual. Obviously, humanity is beyond saving at this point — unless the protagonists (I guess these are the two to seven smart people, perhaps with one well-intentioned buffoon) can find the computer.

There’s my list. If you can come up with one better, then I’ll take your snide remarks like “That’s not realistic at all, dumbass!” to heart. Otherwise, make love to a blender and see if I care.

I also want to say that, while I may come up with such storylines, I would never actually write one with the theme that “Technology is stupid” or “Science is stupid,” as those basically amount to “Intelligence is stupid” themes. There are enough of those written by Hollywood artsy-farts, and I don’t agree with them in the slightest.

And, I should mention, I most look forward to what playing a modern day video game would be like on a computer with a ridiculous amount of everything. That alone is better than daydreaming about winning the lottery, let alone all the other stuff.

Anyway, now begins the patient wait for 2030.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58446

You don’t have to read it, honestly. I’ll be quoting the important bits.

Tristan Emmanuel, the author of the article, begins it with quite a logical sting on we godless: “If belief in the existence of God is a ‘delusion’ then atheists must be fools.”

I had to reread that a couple times, trying to understand the reasoning. Unless this is a joke, I’m thinking that the end of that sentence should read “…then atheists must be correct.” How could you conclude otherwise?

Oh, I see what this is. He’s redefining atheism.

Check out this quote: “…that kind of worldview takes more than hard raw’faith’ to embrace; it takes a commitment to intellectual insanity and willful delusion.”

More than faith, he says? He is horribly wrong. But this caricature is the only thing he probably knows how to attack. If he were talking about the atheist position, as it is actually held in commonplace, these comments are nowhere near the mark.

Perhaps, you say, he’s addressing the few atheists who are atheists by faith.

I quote: “…atheists such as Hitchens and Richard Dawkins do…”

How fine of him to name a few people who have written books — rather large books, I might add — filled to the brim with rational reasons not to believe in god. How many books written by Christians have actual arguments? (Okay, fair enough, there are some. Let me rephrase the question. How many books without many logical fallacies have been written for god’s existence? That will give you the correct number. There you go.) Zero!

What’s even more odd about all this is how he refuses to show one example of the supposedly rational reasons for belief. Why is this? How come you have to bug a theist so much whenever you want them to actually back up a claim? They march around all high and mighty, declaring that the proof is so obvious and easy to understand. And then they declare that they have to be somewhere.

Isn’t it just surprising that there’s not even an argument in the entire article?

But it goes on: “But when you break down their ’scientific’ jargon, you are ultimately left with only one explanation: That this world was created by a freak accident, and the world will continue to evolve by chance. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just chaos.

This is what they call being ‘honest’ with the evidence.

I call it sheer idiocy.”

That’s right. Honesty is equal to idiocy. Well… maybe if you’re a republican politician, and you’ve been having gay sex in bathrooms or getting off by wearing scuba gear. For the rest of us, though, honesty is still considered a virtue.

Also, I’d just like to say that you can’t choose your reality. If the world is a freak accident, that’s not “sheer idiocy” to believe. That’s what it is.

You might as well say 1 + 1 = 2 is “sheer idiocy,” even though all evidence indicates that it is. I have no idea how you can possibly torture and bend the word “honest” or “truth” into “sheer idiocy,” but I’m happy to let World Nut Daily struggle with that one. I have no use for it, yet it seems like something they’ll be using over and over again.

I’ve supplied more rational argument about religion, in not five hundred words, than World Net Daily probably has in all of its articles combined. I could write more, but it’s unnecessary at this point.

Well, not me. I never said an insult, but I’ll be the first to admit it. I was probably considered “rude.” I did not ever say, ”It’s okay to believe anything.” And, I must say, I am probably one of the quietest and more respectful people on this planet, and I managed to cut out all the nice/respectful mental gymnastics required to level atheism with religion.

I just said, plain and simply, what the evidence insists is true.

If you’re curious, here’s the gist of what I did say (if not, skip down):

- Atheism - Lack belief in God/gods. Non-belief based on a lack of scientific evidence for the existence of God/gods.

===

- As long as the definition of God is logically consistent, nobody can say it doesn’t exist. This is the same with Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, etc. It is not support for the God side of the argument any more than it is support for someone who believes the Tooth Fairy exists. But because the Tooth Fairy could exist, it doesn’t imply it does exist.

===

- The Bible is not a reliable source of information and should not be used as proof. There is nothing testable in the Bible which can prove god exists. What it basically amounts to is words on a page and elsewhere in the book, it says it is correct. That’s circular reasoning, and you may as well ask a liar if they are telling the truth. But it is easy to see that the Bible was written by man once you look at the things written in it. One example is that God, a supposedly omnibenevolent being, is comfortable with slavery:

Exodus chapter 12, verse 43:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

Exodus chapter 21, verse 32:
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Of course, if God is omnibenevolent, his morals must make our own look awful by comparison. Not the other way around.

It is also probable that the Bible, like most historical fiction, gets some information correct. But in order to prove God’s existence, it would have to be testabe information of a supernatural nature. The Bible cannot gain any credibility about the supernatural from accurately locating cities or any other such knowledge. Geography and the supernatural are different topics, and having credibility in one does not overlap into the other.

===

- Faith is not reliable either. Used in the context of religion, faith is defined as “belief not based on proof” or “illogical belief.” This definition compares well with one of another word. Delusion. In both cases, you jump to a conclusion and believe something without support in favor of that belief. It is apparent that these two words have different connotations. Faith is considered a virtue, while delusion is considered bad, even though they are the same. Really, we should be consistent. Either illogical beliefs are something bad, or they are good. And considering the overwhelming majority of the time they can be shown to be bad, such as a person stepping in front of a train because they faithfully/delusionally believe they can stop it, we should treat them as such.

“Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.” - Dan Barker, “Losing Faith in Faith”, 1992

===

- People often mislabel coincidences as miracles. Many unlikely events happen, yet it does not mean that God exists and decided to intervene. It is more likely that the event happened according to the normal probability level that the event normally happens.

In addition, the labeling of these events is totally subjective. There is no “fingerprint” of God; no way to tell what it is about an event that means God did it. It is just as plausible that God is the cause for airplanes colliding in mid-air as it is to say he saves people in hard to survive circumstances.

===

- Prayer has no effect.

A decade long study with about 2,000 people at least gives some inclination to think so.

“Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.

Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.”

( Quoted from a study referred to on nytimes.com.)

Most “evidence” for prayer is a story of when someone prayed, and then something unlikely happened. Again, this is a coincidence. You could pray to any object, even an inanimate one, and achieve similar results. It says nothing about the existence of God.

Also, notice amputees’ relation to prayer. It doesn’t matter how hard a person prays or how much faith they have. An amputee’s limb regrowing doesn’t happen coincidentally, and, predictably, it never happens.

===

- People may, on an individual scale, need belief in god so they can function. I can understand that, and concede that in some cases.

And while it may be true, it is important to keep in mind that reality will not bend to your will. We all need air to breathe, and to function, but if we begin to suffocate, no oxygen will magically create itself in our lungs so we don’t die.

In the same way, needing to believe in God will not create God.

I would go further to say that, as a whole, humanity will need to get further from religion and the in-groups and out-groups that it creates. These dividing lines, coupled with our own ability to destroy ourselves at an incredible rate, are unneeded and dangerous.

===

- Morality has nothing to do with God.

One thing that’s been mentioned is our innate sense of morality. However, this innate morality isn’t innate in everyone. Some people have no sense of morality or empathy at all.

A natural world view can account for amorality, but what reason would a God have to skip his implantation of morals into certain people?

=

It has also been said that God improves morality, and he is compared to drugs and alcohol as though they are opposites. God is not the opposite of drugs or alcohol, however. They are two sides of the same escapism coin. They are there to blur reality out, and modify it in a way a person may find more pleasing, even if what they offer is untrue.

A person is motivated to get drunk and forget about the bad things in their life, just the same way a person is motivated to believe in God to forget that they are going to die. The two are not so different.

===

- The position of our planet, and the likelihood that the life currently on it could survive if it were moved, is irrelevant.

This argument assumes God basically fine-tuned everything around us so we can live, but again, evolution could account for this also.

” [I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!’ ” - Douglas Adams

===

“A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity has come of age, however, it should be left behind.” - Freud, A History of God

===

Discussion Questions:

Does religion/belief in god affect mankind for the better, for the worse, or little in either direction?

Is there anything about religious belief that should separate it from the way we think of and respond to other beliefs?

My speech was the first of the three from my group.

The second speech was by an agnostic who “believed in belief.” His argument that belief in god is dandy for some people, was enough for him, and basically his only argument. I covered this in my speech a little bit, and I doubt anyone was particularly moved by his.

Maybe I’m naive to think anyone could be moved at a 9 AM Intro Philosophy class. But… can’t I count as an ”anyone?”

Next we have the biblical literalist speaker.
To use a philosophy term, he was good with sophistry but bad with his argument. It was all an appeal to emotion, a really long and incoherent Napoleon quote, and he ended with a waste of time real kicker.
He had everyone put their heads down on their desk, close their eyes, and ask Jesus to come into their hearts.

I noted to someone afterwards that this was a form of prayer. And, if they might recall, there is a scientific study showing how it doesn’t work.

Anyway, I would’ve made all you lurking atheists proud. Now, somebody say: “Welcome to pariah-dom!”

I’ll begin with the disclaimer, though. Should the zombies come, and if they are the speedy as hell variant which can run at Olympic speeds, we are probably all screwed. Only luck and a chain-fed shotgun will probably get you through that mess, so you may very well consider kissing your butt goodbye.

However, because I like a good challenge, I’ll address the “Fast Zombie” problem.

First of all, there are a number of really crappy ideas that seem like good ideas when you first think of them.

“Let’s go to Wal-Mart and horde supplies!” - …As if this won’t be a popular idea. Every single person who goes to your local supermarket thought of this same idea at the very first chance. And the slightly smarter of them will think to bring weapons to enforce their greed with gunfire. Wal-mart will be a war zone. The size of this war zone will vary depending on the size of your town, but it is safest to assume the worst.

Good advice: Those who are wisest know that this is a shitty idea. Don’t even bother going to Wal-Mart even if you are in the special forces and have an armory in your house. Just wait for your neighbor to do it and then raid his stuff. (Yeah, it “isn’t very nice” but, be honest, you never liked him anyway.)

“Let’s get on a boat!” - Again, this will be a popular idea, and virtually any place with boats may as well be considered a war zone. Or a zombie infested area as they are drawn to the aftermath of the war zone.

Good advice: Wait a few days, and this might be a considerable option. But you must have reason to believe the zombies in the area aren’t very dense, and I can’t imagine you could possibly know unless you live right by some boats. In which case, you would’ve made a mad dash to get on them in the first place, and, in order to beat the neurotic gun-wielding people who want your boat, left without adequate supplies loaded onto it, leaving you fucked. So basically, boats are irrelevant unless you’re the only person who knows about it/them. That’s the exception to the rule of avoiding them, pretty much at all costs.

“Let’s get a lot of supplies from Place X and camp out on the roof!” - Sure, you may avoid a lot of war zones this way, but your presence will be obvious. To the experienced zombie apocalypse veteran, you will have a sign floating over your head that says “unarmed, scared, supply horders here!”

Good Advice: Don’t be the people on the roof who are obviously scared little puppy dogs waiting to be robbed. Instead, be the robber.

“Let’s drive to Place X, which is far away!” - Unless the police find it more important to direct traffic than fight zombies down to the last man, you’re probably SOL. It only takes one or two car crashes to block up a roadway. And people, being panicky, will try to deal with this situation in a horrible manner which only results in more car crashes blocking up more of the road. In turn, this will result in more zombies, and you sitting in rush hour traffic being swarmed by flesh-eaters.

But, let’s say you get out of any traffic problems somehow, and you’re on the road. You’ve got a problem on your hands though. Your car is running low on gas. So what’re you going to do? Stop at a gas station, and use the pump? Or did you remember to bring that siphon, so you can steal gas from someone else? I hope you have a gun, lots of ammo for said weapon, a person to hold said weapon, and get plain lucky by not having the undead swarm you.

Good Advice: You don’t want to travel any major roads, but if you have to, you want to travel them for short distances. The longer time you spend on a road, the more likely you’ll run into a traffic jam… AKA “feeding frenzy.”

“Let’s save random people!” - How chivalrous. How brave. How you’re going to get yourself killed.

First of all, if I ever meet you — a random person waltzing around in the apocalyptic hell world — and you either have a gun in your hands or something I need/want, I will at least try to kill you. I assume most people who have survived to any mentionable extent would do the same. An exception is when a person’s party has died off, and they need a new one.

For your purposes, I will assume this person, and all others you meet, is of this party joining type. Now, since you’re so chivalrous and brave, you rescue a few people. Your small party grows to a large party. And, as you may not have expected, large parties require more supplies. More supplies means more trips to places with zombies more often. It’s likely many of the people you rescued will, once again, be facing death anyway.

Again, for your purposes, let’s say you are able to gather enough food, water, and weaponry to last you. Perhaps, you may even say, a surplus.

Those people you rescued? They didn’t know you before this happened, and if they’re smart, they’ve seen that your large amount of supplies would last a lot longer if it was only supporting four or five people — or just one — instead of your whole group. Without any strong loyalties, a band of them may decide to kill the rest of you. (I know I would!)

Good Advice: Don’t rescue people you don’t know; trust only those you know you can trust, and even then, only trust them when you know their motives are the same as yours.

“I’m bit! Let’s go to the hospital!” - AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

Good Advice: Shoot yourself. At least you won’t become one of them.

Okay, so far I’ve addressed a few standard, and crappy, ideas about what to do in a zombie outbreak. To move on, I’ll actually give you some advice about how to go about things in general.

First, you DO want to secure supplies. Lots of supplies. Horde them. You’re trying to wait-out death itself here, never settle for less when you could have more. Get them in any manner you can.

Second, you do NOT want to be outside of a secure place very often. That means when you do go out into the big scary world, you do something useful so you can cut back your risks. If you run out of Twizzlers and Cheetos — fuck ‘em — it’s not worth it.

Third, find some place and sit tight. Don’t be obvious. Do have supplies. Do have a gun. Do have an escape plan, and do have a second secure place to go to, if possible.

Fourth and finally, other survivors can rightly be viewed as resources as long as a) you don’t know them, or b) you know them but still don’t care about them. Feel free to rob them, kill them, and eat their corpse over an open flame.

Annnd… that’s all the zombie advice for this post, but I’ll be sure to have more later. So get out there and start surviving!

You see, I was walking across a bridge with one train track, later dividing into two train tracks, on it. On one track, five people were walking. On the other, there was only one. We were all happy and calm and things looked fine.

As if you couldn’t already guess, something bad was about to happen; a train was coming down the tracks. It was racing up behind the five people walking.

But the bridge was fairly large, so I had enough time to try to yell at the simpletons. Unfortunately, each time I opened my mouth to scream at them, the train blared it’s horn. I would yell, the horn would blare. But I tried, and was silenced. I waited one exact second and tried again. And again. I was silenced two times. So I waited three and five fourths of a half second before making another attempt - but it seemed the guy blaring the train horn had the same idea. So I tried seven eighths of a ten quarter seconds wait before yelling. Same result. Yelling was of no use.

Not wanting to simply give up, I studied my immediate surroundings. Much to my surprise, in my left palm, I was already gripping a lever which would switch the track over so it would only run over one guy instead of five. Bingo! Problem solved sort of!

A realization struck me, and I stopped to analyze the morality of pulling the lever. However, though the bridge was large, it was not large enough that I had a whole lot of time to think this situation through. So I decided to throw the switch based upon the fact that the single man walking on the track was wearing a NASCAR t-shirt. I figured he would not be missed. At the very least, not by me.

When I pulled the lever, it snapped like a twig. My jaw dropped and my situation seemed to worsen. But I wasn’t giving up so easily.

I charged forward, broken lever still in my hand, and tossed the piece of metal at the five people walking. It bounced at their feet.

For once in that day, things went right. They turned, saw me, saw the train, and simply stepped over onto the next track.

The train flew by and, with a handshake, they each thanked me for saving their lives. They put their heads down and walked back the way they came. In true simpleton fashion, they walked single file ignoring everything except for what was immediately in front of them.

I was just relieved and happy to see that they were all safe. So I walked energetically and happily forward, separating myself from the people a considerable amount.

And then I heard the familiar sound of a train’s horn blaring. I thought it must’ve been the same train for a moment, but it was getting closer. It came out of a tunnel in front of me, coming up behind the six people. I could’ve gone retarded with rage, but I controlled myself and went for a good cussing instead.

I tried yelling. At one second intervals. The horn covered my voice completely. Half second intervals. The horn increased its tempo. One fourth of a second! It copied me!

If I kept this up, I knew they were as good as dead.

Fortunately, though, I again magically found a lever in my hand. I started flipping it back and forth frantically. Forget morality!

But it dawned on me that the train was coming from the tunnel, where the tracks were already in two. So, like the people already walking the track, there was only one path for it to take.

I released the lever and started running again. I shouted at one tenth of a second intervals - kind of like a monkey making a techno whooping sound - while the train drowned me out. I picked up the broken lever as I passed it. I threw it hard at them, but that only served to fly over their heads and off the bridge without a sound.

I caught up with them, still screaming like a techno monkey, and was two arm lengths away from the back of their line was penetrated by the speeding train.

Limbs and body parts rained over me. The grim reaper’s confetti. A NASCAR shirt floated from the sky as the train continued past.

I stood in shock, but was still aware enough to realize that the train in front of me was a passenger train. I counted really fast and discovered there were four-hundred and ninety-four on board. They stared out the windows of the train.

On one of the two latter tracks.

Heading toward the one track, which had the switch.

The switch I’d flipped randomly back and forth just moments ago, not thinking about how this part of the situation would play out.

The train hit the switch and went flying off the tracks, car after car, in a big ball of fire. The blaring horn could not cover that many screams, so I heard most of them. Once all the train cars went off, the train floated down the river below and went off a waterfall. Then it went into a whirlpool. So I knew everybody was dead.

Defeated, I smacked myself in the head like I’d done a math problem wrong. “If only I had just let the five people die!” I started walking home. “Now I killed exactly five hundred.” I kicked a skull off the bridge like an empty soda can. “Oh well, guess I know what to do next time.”