Tuesday, December 28, 2010

God's Quality Control 3.21

Here I continue my review of the discussion guide published by the Prestonwood Christian Academy as a companion to the Hitchens-Dembski debate on November 18, 2010. In this video we'll cover the "Student Questions" section that is geared toward older students, presumably up to 17 or 18 years old. Today's honorary author will be Mr Bill Wendl, Principal of Prestonwood's Middle School. I invite you to share this video with Mr Wendl, on behalf of all those kids who are being deliberately misled for the sake of filling Mr Wendl's pockets. Please join me in telling these people that their predations on children are unacceptable.
  • p.29 "Are there limits to what science can “prove?”" If you guys are guided by the Supreme Being of all things, then how is it that you keep asking the same meaningless questions over and over? Science has never proved anything to be true. Science isn't about proving the truth of things. Science is about understanding how reality works. Evolutionary theory has never been, and never will be, proven. It could easily be proven false, in a million different ways. It has not been proven false, and every verifiable fact we've ever discovered agrees fully with it, so we provisionally assume that the theory is true and use it in making practical decisions, such as the decisions about where to look next for ways to fight disease. Damn, now I'm looking at the word "proven" and thinking that it doesn't look like a real word.
  • Also, as usual, you guys aren't thinking enough. Why do you even bother arguing with skeptics over whether your god exists, when no two of you can even agree on what your god is or what it wants from us? Why can't you understand that even if some entity presented itself to you personally and said, "I am Yahweh," you still would have no way of knowing whether it's telling the truth? Would you ask it to part the Red Sea? Would that convince you that it's really a god and not just some prankster ET with cool technology? Don't you see how arrogant it is for you to assume, simply because a being can do something you can't, that it's omnipotent? What makes you so great that something greater than you must be the Supreme Being of All Things?
  • p.29 Science can't "prove that God doesn’t exist." If your sky fairy is omniscient, then whey hasn't it explained to you that no one is attempting to use science to prove any such thing, that very few atheists firmly assert that there is no such thing as a god, and that those who do use logic and reason, not science, to support their claim?
  • p.29 The order we observe in the universe "points to the intelligent mind of a designer." You simply do not know this. You do not know whether intelligence is required for an orderly universe to exist.
  • p.30 "How do you think people might live differently if they believed that their actions have no eternal consequence?" Students, be suspicious when someone asks your opinion on a question that obviously has a factual answer. This is like someone asking you how many teeth you think you have, rather than just counting your teeth. Look around you. All around you are people who believe that their actions have no eternal consequence. How do they behave? Generally, quite well. Generally, far better than most of the people who do claim to believe in eternal consequences. The Hitchens-Dembski debate and this companion discussion guide are perfect examples of how believers in eternity tend to behave. Lie after lie after lie, followed by deliberate misrepresentations, faulty reasoning, willful ignorance, cynicism, greed, and hypocrisy. How the hell have you guys convinced yourself that you know something about righteousness?
  • p.30 Asuperstitionists tend to gratify themselves, while superstitionists tend to behave in light of a pending judgment. Wow, what an epiphany I just had. You guys tell us that we have no basis for our morality, but the truth is that you lack a basis. You make your so-called moral choices based on whether you'll get into trouble with Dad, not based on kindness, empathy, or human well being. Now I understand. Gay sex hurts no one, but you guys want to stop it because your god doesn't like it. It has nothing to do with whether gay sex is immoral. You have an utterly arbitrary pseudo-morality based entirely on the whims of a sad, pathetic, bigoted, poorly drawn cartoon character.
  • p.30 If there is no god, then "there is no concept of sin." Amen to that. Let's get rid of this stupid idea of sin and focus on making the world a better place. You guys pretend that we need a sin-based mentality in order to be good, but you can't seem to notice that there are an awful lot of people who are very good but who don't think in your outdated terms.
  • p.30 If evolution is true, then there is no concept of separation from God, no need for redemption, no need for Jesus, no need for humans to have a soul or a spiritual nature. Agreed. What's your point?
  • p.30 By way of implying that his superstition must be true, Mr Wendl asks, "Why would mankind create a religion that [promises harsh] judgment of all their words, thoughts and actions?" Another trick question. Mankind did not create this religion. Men created this religion. Men like Mr Wendl who wish to benefit from the gullibility of their fellow humans.
That's 3.21. Thanks for watching.

No comments:

Post a Comment