Why I debate theists on Twitter

The Let's just get this out of the way—I debate theists on Twitter a lot. A LOT. Anyone that follows me on Twitter (@Atheist_Eh) knows this. Not just theists though, I've debated atheists on subjects before too, which I always enjoy. Point is, I debate on Twitter a lot.

With that said, I often get commended by both atheists & theists for the way I conduct myself during these debates. I try to remain calm & polite, even in the face of absurdities, insults & obvious trolls. I don't always succeed, but obviously I don't fail often enough for it to affect people's opinion of me. 

I admit that I take some measure of pride in the way I go about being a "Twitter atheist".

None of this answers why I debate theists though, not sure why I mentioned it, other than setting the stage perhaps. Ah well, here's the meat of this post:

Many probably assume I'm trying to "convert" the person I'm debating to atheism. This is not the case at all. I don't suffer from any grand delusion that I am likely to convince my debate opponent to suddenly see my side & instantly declare themselves atheist. I'd actually be dumbfounded if that ever happened. I do hold some hope that they might go away with a few things to think about—that I may have successfully planted a couple "thought seeds" that might, over time, grow & develop.

Still, this small hope of planting "thought seeds" in my debate opponent is by no means the main reason behind my prolific debating habits. My true target is the audience; especially any theists that might read my debates. While a person is actively involved in a debate, it's difficult to truly absorb the other persons points as they are typically focused on how to counter the last point (or at least how to dodge, deflect or avoid a point).  This isn't the case with the audience. They are detached from the heat of the debate and in a better position to consider the more nuanced aspects of the points being made by both sides. It is far easier to plant "thought seeds" in the audiences minds because of this & so there is a greater chance of them going away with a modified point of view or some new ideas to research & think on. 

The audience is also an important reason I strive to remain calm, polite & rational. To me, when I watch a debate & I see someone responding angrily, or abusivly, they instantly lose some credibility with me. This is doubly so when their opponent responds with calmnes. I'm more inclined to listen to a calm person than an angry one & so I try not to be the angry one.

I'm aware of the "different strokes for different folks" philosophy that says no one debate tactic will reach every audience member, so I'm not trying to claim my style is the best style, only that it is the style I prefer because it resonates with me; based on the number of compliments I get, it seems to resonate with a lot of the audience too.

This means that a actually like it when my debate opponent starts getting irrational & presents crazy assertions. It makes my job easier since it ends up contrasting so sharply with what I try to make a calm, polite response. In those cases, I like to think that I appear to be the saner & more rational one & thus viewed as more credible with my arguments more worthy of deeper consideration. 

The last reason I debate a lot is simple—I just flat out enjoy it. I find it mentally stimulating & the subject of religion fascinates me. It's such a free-for-all subject where literally any assertion can be made, so you have to be ready for some odd assertions at times, which keeps you on your logical toes.

Some people spend their spare time watching "Honey Boo Boo", I spend mine debating people about subjects that I feel have some actual meaning in our world.

So what do I hope to achieve? What's my end game? There's s few.

1) I do hope I can help theists break the yoke of religious dogma. I honestly feel that society would be better off if Religion died a natural death by Education. While it won't solve all of humanity's problems, it will remove one reason for people to hate each other. There are also some unique atrocities that require Religious motivation, such as blasphemy laws, killing "demon possessed" people, killing apostates & child indoctrination to name a few. With that said, I will fight against any calls to ban religion. Thought policing is impossible & immoral.

I'm aware some find great comfort in religion much like, in my opinion, a child does from their Special blankie or teddy bear. I am NOT looking to rob anyone of their Religious security blanket or emotional crutch. Sounds harsh to describe it that way, but that's ultimately how I see religion. As such, I generally do not seek out theists on Twitter just as I don't seek them out in real life to debate. However, if a theist is re-tweeted into my Timeline, tweets me first or if they tweet about atheism, I have no qualms engaging with them.  The same is true if people in real life choose to bring up religion—I will tell them my honest thoughts.

2) I hope to be a good ambassador for atheism to help support #1 by showing theists that their stereotypes are wrong & you can be good without God.  

3) Related to #2, I also wish to be a good role model for other atheists, especially the younger ones. Civility seems to be underrated in today's cyber-society.

4) I hope to teach other atheists some of the compelling reasons why I feel the gods don't exist. Perhaps change a few "lack of belief" atheists into full on "Creationist" Atheists.

Answers to "Questions for atheists" by Matt Slick

I came across this blog entry by Matt Slick, posing 31 questions to atheists. I thought I'd take a shot at answering them.

1) How would you define atheism?

Answer:

2) Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?

Answer: Of course I act like there is no god. Please note the question is poorly formed as it strongly implies all atheists believe god doesn't exist. Most simply don't believe the god claim.

3) Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?

Answer: Not at all. It's really the various fan clubs of the gods that atheists are working against by showing god doesn't exist.  

4) How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

Answer: Very. Nothing logical or empirical to support theism, lots of logical & empirical to support atheism. The probability of atheism being true is so much higher than theism it seems like a safe bet. Like betting the Yankees will beat a Little League team.

5) How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

Answer: See #4.

6) How would you define what truth is?

Answer: 

7) Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?

Answer: See # 4

8) Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?

Answer: First I'd suggest using citations from outside your own website:

Materialism

Physicalism

To answer, these positions are so similar & are often used interchangeably. I currently hold to both positions but if convincing evidence were provided to show them to be false, I would change my mind without issue.

9) Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?

Answer: Deny. Atheism is a view on one subject only…gods existence. While my atheism does affect my worldview, it is not, in itself, a worldview.

10) Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

Answer: The antagonistic ones are typically also anti-theists. Don't conflate the 2 positions. 

In my experience, they/we are antagonistic in response to what they/we see as hypocritical & harmful behaviour from Religious people (it's not just Christians).  It's like asking why a Civil Rights protestor is antagonistic to a racist.

11) If you were at one times a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

Answer: I was raised in a Christian home, but I'd be hard-pressed to ever say I was a Christian. From the age of reason onward I have questioned the validity of Christianity.  At best, I was once a deist, or perhaps the catch all, new-agey "Spiritual, not Religious" view that I now see as just a "moving the goal posts fallacy.

12) Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

Answer: In general yes. Would the world be perfect? No. Humans, as a race, are assholes & have many reasons beyond religion to kill each other over.  Removing Religion would however, remove one of the biggest reasons.  No, I don't support banning religion.

13) Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

Answer: See # 12.

14) Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

Answer: No. Although many are indoctrinated or brainwashed to believe & that is a form of mental disorder. 

15) Must God be known through the scientific method?

Answer: The scientific method is currently the best method we have for validating a hypothesis & "god" is just another hypothesis in my opinion. 

See also If religion were science experiment

16) If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

Answer: I don't see this as a mistake. See # 8. There is no reason to believe anything immaterial exists beyond the claims of theists.

17) Do we have any purpose as human beings?

Answer: Your purpose is what you make of it. 

18) If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

Answer: My purpose has been different at various points of my life. Currently it is trying to raise my 4 amazing children to be good people with or without a god in their lives. It'll be their choice, especially since their mom, my fantastic wife, is Catholic. 

19) Where does morality come from?

Answer: Empathy & social evolution.

20) Are there moral absolutes?

Answer: Yes

21) If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

Answer:

• Don't cause suffering.
• Reduce suffering whenever possible

Some specifics:

• Don't murder.
• Don't rape.
• Humans are not possessions (No slavery)

22) Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?

Answer: Not in the supernatural sense but in the poetic. Murder, rape, slavery, for example, are "evil". Intentionally causing suffering for malicious reasons.

23) If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

Answer: The god of the OT doesn't exist. The fictional character of Yahweh, described in the OT is "morally bad". See # 22; Yahweh does not object to slavery & is exceptionally soft on rape. Genocide seems acceptable to him as well (See the Great Flood, plus commandments to kill all men, women & children of rival tribes.

24) What would it take for you to believe in God?

Answer: Evidence. I still wouldn't worship if it turned out to be Yahweh/Allah.

See also http://atheisteh.blogspot.com/2014/08/threshold-of-proof.html

25) What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

Answer: 

• Perhaps if he'd stamped his name on our DNA like humans did when we created artificial DNA. 
• Clear, undeniable & well documented miracles.
• Show himself.
• If the Aztecs had been found to have essentially the same beliefs as the Judeo-Christian's it would have gone a long way in proving Yahweh. Why wouldn't he reveal himself to more than one small tribe in the Middle East?

26) Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?

Answer: Yes. Why would I believe irrational, non testable, non falsifiable evidence? There's a word for that…faith.

27) Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?

Answer: Atheists come in all types, good & bad, as it's not a worldview (See #6), so a society run by Secular Humanist atheists would be best.  We've seen what societies run by Christians look like, I think it's worth seeing if Secular Humanists could do a better job.

28) Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion). 

Answer: I believe we have, as a minimum, the illusion of free will. Whether we actually do, is a debatable subject.

29) If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

Answer: This is exactly why freewill is a debatable topic.

30) If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not? 

Answer: It's impossible to predict where evolution will take humanity. However, since we've never seen anything be free of the physical or temporal, there is no reason to think humans will ever evolve past them. 

31) If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exist?

Answer: I didn't answer yes, but let's pretend I did for the sake of argument. Simply being free of the physical & temporal would not make us deities, just different than we are now.

Even still, admitting that some kind of deity may exist, does not automatically mean that the Judeo-Christian god exists or might possibly exist. The Judeo-Christian god has very specific properties, attributes, character traits & stories attributed to it in the bible which can be used to show exactly why the Judeo-Christian god does not exist. 

Too many theists have tried to adopt the arguments of a Deist & it just doesn't work.

Disproving Yahweh

I was asked on Twitter to provide the proof behind my positive assertion that "God", that being the biblical Judeo-Christian god Yahweh, doesn't exist. A blog post seemed the only viable way to present this if I wanted to avoid sending 50 tweets to do so (there were 5 people tagged into the twitter conversation as well).

Let me state upfront that No, I won't link to the mountains of scientific evidence supporting my claims. Google is your friend, use it.

I do however link to Wikipedia articles. If you don't trust Wikipedia, I urge you to follow the references & links provided in the articles. But first, maybe read this:

http://m.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

So here we go:

The history of Yahweh

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

 

When reading the history of Yahweh, it should become very clear that Yahweh is just another man made deity. There is nothing special about his history that stands him apart from any other god claim. Explain how you know Zeus, Thor, Gilgamesh, Horus, etc. don't exist & you'll understand how I know Yahweh doesn't exist. This is probably the single biggest reason I am comfortable saying Yahweh does not exist. It really is that simple.

Further to this, certain events in the Bible that are each cornerstones to the overall narrative have been disproven.

Disproving Adam & Eve

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_alive_at_the_same_time_as_.22Adam.22

This is THE cornerstone story of the bible. Disprove Adam & Eve & you lose original sin. Lose original sin & Jesus becomes pointless. A pointless Jesus means the entire Christian religion crumbles. This doesn't even get into the debate on whether Jesus was an actual person or if he had divine powers. I'll get into this below.

The Exodus never happened

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

No Exodus? Can we trust that Moses was even a real person? How about those 10 Commandments that Christians love to flaunt? Without the Exodus, there are no 10 Commandments from God. Can they all get pulled from those courthouses now?

The Great Flood Myth 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

The Great Flood, as told in Genesis, has no scientific backing. Geology has put this so firmly into the myth column it boggles my mind anyone might dispute it. Those that do, rely on pseudoscience, lies, misrepresentations or just outright denial of the scientific evidence. 

Since the Great Flood narrative has humanity reset to begin again with one family, the genetic argument used to disprove Adam & Eve also works here.

Jesus' Divinity

Was Jesus a historical figure? Most scholars agree he was, but a growing number are beginning to openly question this now that Christianity is beginning to lose it's grip on power. I personally don't have an opinion on if he was a real person but I will generally give the benefit of the doubt that he was, at least until such a time that convincing evidence is found to show he wasn't. 

The Divinity of Christ is really the key question to me. & Simply put, there is NO evidence outside the bible, which is the claim so cannot also be the evidence, to support a divine Jesus Christ. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Research the history of early Christians & you'll discover that the divinity of Jesus was a disputed aspect of early Christians. The lack of evidence to support this claim would probably be the root cause of this strife. 

Besides which, I've already shown why Jesus is pointless.

What? No link? I can't spoon feed you everything. Go browse through the various historical articles on Christianity within Wikipedia & other sources. Rather than swallow Christian apologetics whole, do some research on your own.

So there it is in a nutshell; there really is WAY more to it, but I'm not up to providing every reason why I believe/know Yahweh doesn't exist. Yes, I'm aware many of you will not agree or accept my stance. To this, I say read this:

http://atheisteh.blogspot.ca/2014/08/threshold-of-proof.html?m=1

I've given what I consider solid reasons for my belief that Yahweh doesn't exist; all Reasons based in evidence. If you disagree, I invite you to provide your evidence based reasons for why Yahweh DOES exist. 

No, I won't accept the bible as evidence since, as mentioned above, it is the claim & therefore cannot also be the proof of itself.

I also don't accept "personal experience" as evidence. Your personal experience with Jesus is no more valid than a Hindu's personal experience with their god(s).

Good luck.

My Memes

Just a collection of memes I've created using my own words (usually originated as a tweet). Some see this as arrogant, to them I say, "I don't give a fuck."

Threshold of Proof

Different people obviously have different thresholds for what they consider "proof"; let's call that our "Threshold of Proof" or ToP because I'm lazy & don't want to type it over & over. To me, Evidence is what leads to proof.  Some people require multiple pieces of evidence to consider something proven while others require little to no evidence to claim proof.

Where am I going with this? Stick with me.

Now let's presume God is real…just for the sake of argument.

Now if, as is claimed, God made us as we are, then God instilled in each of us a different ToP.  He also, as is claimed, is omniscient, which means he knows exactly what each persons ToP is, but it also makes sense that since He instilled that ToP in us, he should know what it is.

Then let's point out that, as is claimed, God is Omnipotent. Meaning he is fully capable of doing anything…including providing the evidence needed to satisfy each persons ToP.

Last, lets note that God is, as is claimed, Omni-benevolent or All-Loving. One would presume then, he has no desire for anyone to go to hell and, as is claimed, the way to avoid hell is to believe in & love God (For now, let's ignore the contradiction of an All-Loving God setting conditions for his love). This leads one to assume God would have a desire to provide the evidence required to satisfy each persons ToP.

Let's summarize all that:

• He instilled in each of us an individual ToP.

• He knows what will satisfy everyone's ToP.

• He is capable of satisfying everyone's ToP.

• He wants to satisfy everyone's ToP.

So, supposing God is real, He has obviously provided enough evidence to satisfy some people's ToP since they believe God exists.  To others, this evidence is not convincing & doesn't meet their ToP so they don't believe God exists.

This then forces the question…Why does God not provide the evidence needed to satisfy everyone's ToP? Why does he only provide what is needed to satisfy those with the weakest ToP? Somehow those people are then expected to convince the people with a deep ToP (instilled in them by God, remember) that God does in fact exist.

Conclusion:

1) God isn't Omniscient, or

2) God isn't Onnipotent, or

3) God isn't Omni-benevent, or

4) All of the Above, or

5) God works in mysterious ways…don't question Him, or

6) God doesn't exist

I go with # 6, but then, I have a different Threshold of Proof than some of you.

The root cause of my atheism

Here is a collection of tweets I sent out today. I wanted to collect them because I thought they were pretty good & so did others.

•••

The sheer number & variety of religious claims, all with equally devout believers, was the root cause of my #atheism.

As I learned more & more about the various faiths, I always had more questions than they had answers.

It quickly became apparent that all religions were inventions of the fragile human psyche trying to make sense of a senseless world.

Thanks to @CordieMendoza for the meme

 My expectations are that an omnipotent deity would be able to provide a consistent message to the various tribes of early humans.

Instead, we have fractured myths that always match the local customs, values & moral stance. All which change over time.

Gods almost always look like their creators (Hindu & Egyptian gods are notable exceptions) & they always act like their creators.

Then you dive into the fractured sects of a single religion and the fact can't even agree amongst themselves. Wow!

There is definitely evidence for a creator…a creator of religions & that creators name is Mankind. No, not the Pro-wrestler.

Notice I haven't even touched on science yet? You don't need science to disbelieve in gods.

However, understanding a few basic scientific facts, to me, makes the case against gods pretty air tight.

You ask me why I don't believe in your god? I ask you why you don't believe in that other persons god? I'm only 0.03% more atheist than most

I know it's cliche in the #atheist community now, there is a reason this "atheist trope" gets used so much.

It's a valid point that can be made in a civil manner & applies to any & every theist. 

Fin. (Maybe)

Nope…I had more…

Magic/supernatural explanations have never, ever, let me repeat that louder, NEVER, EVER replaced a scientific one.

On the flip side, how many times has science disproven a magical or supernatural explanation. I've lost count.

Wisdom spent did today.

Did Jesus really get rid of the OT laws?

A common argument I hear made by Christians is that the Old Testament (OT) no longer applies, that Jesus Christ (JC) "fulfilled" them.  This is usually based off Matthew 5:17:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Since "fulfill" seems to be the word Christians focus on, let's clarify the definition of the word:

(I have used googles basic definition)

Clearly Christians use the 1st definition "bring to completion", but I'm going to use a trick Christians use often & say they are not using the correct context to figure out the intended definition of "fulfill".  

Context is the idea of using surrounding words & phrases to ascertain the intended meaning of a word that has multiple definitions. If you have the right meaning of the word, the definition should almost be able to replace the word & still make sense.

So in the case of Matt. 5:17, you need to look at the rest of the verse to help figure out the context. JC says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them…". In considering the whole verse, it's obvious JC did not intend to use the "bring to completion" definition since he clearly says he was not abolishing them & you can't complete them & not abolish them at the same time; unless Christians want to admit to yet another contradiction in the Bible.

This brings you to the remaining portion of definition #1, "bring to reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted)." This fits much better into the context, but it's still a bit awkward. So let's look at definition #2, "carry out (a task, duty, or role) as required, pledged, or expected." Let's fit this definition into Matt5:17 instead of the word "Fulfill":

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to carry out as required, pledged, or expected."

It fits perfectly, so it would seem we've found the intended definition, which clearly indicates JC wanted the OT Laws to stand. He was like a cop on patrol, not looking to abolish robbery laws, but to fulfill those Laws.

However, to really cement this in, let's look at the rest of that section just to make certain that we haven't missed something. 

Matt.5:18;

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

It's discussing that not a word is to be removed from they Law, so the chosen context still fits.

19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Here JC says that anyone that does relax them won't be exalted in heaven, so it seems like the chosen context is still applicable.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Finally, JC takes a classic shot at the Pharisees, indicating you need to live the laws better than the Pharisees do if you want to get into heaven. These passages are the ones that make me like JC because he wasn't afraid to take on the powerful religious leaders of his time; reminds me of modern day atheists.

There are passages in the bible where it appears JC is relaxing the OT Laws himself. In most of these cases though, he is using it as a reminder to the Pharisees that they are being hypocrites because he took every opportunity he could to take a shot at them. No, I'm not going to pull all these verses or this post will be a short novel, in which case I should publish it & sell it instead. 

If you wish to quote some to me in the comments below or on twitter (@Atheist_Eh), feel free & we can discuss how or if they might change the context above. 

Note: All bible verses quoted are from the English Standard Version (ESV), mainly because I have that version on my phone & it's a good app to copy/paste from. The fact I have to state which version of the "Perfect Word of God" is another matter for another post.

On the side, here is one of my favourite attacks JC made against the Pharisees found in Matt.23:1-7:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,

3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,

6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues

7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.

Perhaps I'll do another post someday relating this attack to modern day Pharisees such as Joyce Meyer, John Hagee, Joel Osteen & others, but that's another subject.