Conservapedia And An Absent Holy Spirit

One thing you might expect from a spirit of truth would be truth.

I’m going to argue that the editors at Conservapedia demonstrably do not have truth, and, therefore, do not have the spirit of truth.

Let’s begin with an interesting entry on “atheism and obesity“.

Obesity rates among atheists

Obesity rates have skyrocketed since the Supreme Court effectively made public school atheistic with the Engel v. Vitale case banning classroom prayer in 1962. Today more than 3 out of every 10 Americans is obese, while among atheists the numbers appear to be closer to 11 out of 17 or about 65%!

Below I’ll be pointing out the logical fallacies found in this short excerpt above.

• ---

  Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Y happened after X, therefore X is the cause of Y.)
  

  ---

  Here is a brief list of other things that have also been “increasing since 1962″ when the ban on school prayer was enacted.

The Spirit of Truth?

The following is a recent statement made by a university educated christian.

If I believed evolution to be true, then I’d have to agree that some method of eliminating or sterilizing the less evolved would be best for humanity.

Christians claim to have the “Spirit of Truth” guiding them in their lives. But where is this spirit? The same christians who claim to have this guiding “Spirit of Truth” spout statements as the one you’ve read above, seemingly without embarrassment or any recognition of their irrationality.

Proverbs 26:4-5 says the following.

The Lack Of Belief In Gods

An excellent clarification of “atheism” “faith” and “belief“.

Assessing God Claims

---

The following is a portion of a comment response to a Christian commenter (commenting on this post) who suggested that there is no real contradiction between the methods of science and those of faith, and that there was necessarily too much inherent subjectivity and unsubstantiated assumptions for the scientifically minded to appropriately assess god claims.

---

Here are some basic steps to follow when assessing the existence of any god.

1. Determine which god is being posited.
2. Determine whether the god being posited is logically coherent.
   • Does the god posited claim to be loving and “slow to anger”, then become so impatiently wrathful upon the very first offense of humans that he damns then to eternal torture?
   • Does the god posited claim that a 3-day death of his “son” pays the price of eternal torture for the offender?
   • Does the god posited make the personal acceptance of his son a requirement for salvation, then let much of the world die without knowledge of this fact?
   • Does the god posited claim to offer an absolute morality, then suddenly decide that slavery, polygamy, genocide and men taking women as booty of war to be suddenly immoral after years of complicity in these actions?
   • Does the god posited claim to be omnipotent, then find himself impotent against chariot of iron?
   • Does the god in question claim the bible to be inerrant, then have one of the “inspired” writers take another writer completely out of context?
     (Matthew 2:15 -> Hosea 11;1)
   • Does the god posited suggest that believing MORE upon LESS evidence is “blessed”?

   If the answer is yes to even one of the questions above, the god posited is as illogical as a square triangle, and deserves no further consideration.

3. Determine whether the god being posited can be distinguished from an imaginary god.
   • Does the god posited make any promises that can be tested?
   • Can the god posited affect the material causal chain in a way that can be tested?

Apologist Illogic On Occam’s Razor

I‘m going to suggest that, if there is indeed a biblical holy spirit, he’ll be found nowhere near illogic. And christian apologists say as much in their affirmation that logic itself can only have its source in their version of a god.

Then why is it that illogic abounds in christian arguments? And why is it that, even when some theists refrain from employing the clearly illogical arguments common among their fellows, they sit silent as their fellows propagate absurdities?

One common example is the introduction of scriptural verses as evidence of the divine inspiration of scriptural verses. Pastors cite 2 Timothy 3:16 from the pulpit knowing that those in the pews less logically inclined will not detect the circularity of such citations and categorize this verse as evidence for the divine inspiration of verses. When pressed, these pastors will admit they know that it might seem circular, but that they cited the verse merely as “encouragement” and “edification” with no intent to introduce circularity (I was actually told this recently). I’ll leave it to you to assess the honesty in this.

Dark Days For Apologists

I just finished listening to a christian apologist show. Ten minutes in, both hosts agreed that, before someone can criticize the christian world view, they’ll need to introduce a coherent world view of their own. Really.

Here is the link: http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2010/06/rd-extra-jeremy-on-don-johnson-radio.html

Here are the actual quotes.

“You’ve rejected Christianity. But for what? You’ve got to have something better.”

“They get that they hate Christianity, but they don’t get what they think is better, and if you can’t answer that, then what’s the point? I mean, no matter what you think your problem with Christianity, if you’ve got nothing else, we’ve got no discussion. It’s not really a starter anymore. You’ve got nothing to say.”

What does it say about the logical acumen of the average christian when popular podcast apologists are exhibiting such illogic, apparently without blushing?

Science has not yet been able to fully explain the mechanism behind the phenomenon of lightning. Do you or I need to have a better explanation before we criticize someone’s positing of Thor as that mechanism?

It’s no wonder that so many young people are now defecting from a christianity that rests upon this form of illogic. It’s just surprising to see it so shamelessly affirmed.

Jehovah’s Linguistic Land Grab

Is your god patient?

Not if he’s the god of the bible. According to the theology of most Evangelicals, Jehovah’s wrath is so intense over the first offense of any human that he immediately deems the offender deserving of eternal torture. No joke. One offense by any offender is sufficient to incur a divine wrath so terrible that “there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth” for eternity awaiting that offender when they die.

“Can’t god do what he wants?” you may ask.

Sure. There is nothing illogical about a malicious god. God can be as mean-spirited as he wants to be. But in addition to being malicious, the god of the bible is then also a liar since he claims to love the very humans he damns to hell-fire over a single offense. This god of the bible unequivocally claims in 1 Corinthians 13:4 that love (agape) is patient. If god loses his temper over the first offense, and deems eternal torture the only thing that will appease his anger, just how much space is left over for patience?

Normally when we think about patience and impatience we think of 2 extremes with a soft delineation somewhere in the middle such as is shown in the following image.